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.
I think the EU has reopened avenues other than Deal/NoDeal which appeared to have been closed off yesterday. They are unlikely to be delivered by TMay, but if the HoC was minded to kick her out, I think a delegation proposing X over the next 9 months would get a warm welcome.
Fact check: James Naughtie on Today just said the two main parties are in "the low 60s" in the opinion polls. In fact in most polls they're in the low 70s.
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 +
Sky have just said tuesday for MV3 but might change
On the assumption Bercow allows it but I'm sure he will. The point is it has to come forward now for one final time - there'll be no MV4. If it falls, I can't see how the Prime Minister survives.
Do you think she should resign if the WA is defeated for a third time in the Commons?
48% voted for the FOM status quo, while a sizeable minority of Leavers (Tyndallites) also support FOM. So you could infer that the voters “want” FOM.
But, inferring anything other than a vote to Leave is a fool’s errand. There wasn’t absolutely nothing about FOM on the ballot, so Norway+ respects the referendum result and strikes a sensible compromise.
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.
Good post and I agree but not sure TM will resign if MV3 falls as that helps no one. However, at that point she becomes a figurehead and the HOC will decide and she impliments the decisions
Geography. Part of its western province is west of the River Ural and hence in Europe.
But that's not why they switched to UEFA. I wonder if they regret doing so given the expansion of World Cup to 48 teams is very much to benefit of everyone but UEFA?
Fact check: James Naughtie on Today just said the two main parties are in "the low 60s" in the opinion polls. In fact in most polls they're in the low 70s.
Today programme pumping up the TIGs again? Colour me shocked.....
Sky have just said tuesday for MV3 but might change
On the assumption Bercow allows it but I'm sure he will. The point is it has to come forward now for one final time - there'll be no MV4. If it falls, I can't see how the Prime Minister survives.
Do you think she should resign if the WA is defeated for a third time in the Commons?
I have just answered your previous post and I expect her to continue as the time scales are so short it serves no useful purpose for her to go. However, she will virtually become a spokesperson for the decisions made by the HOC and oversee the legislation
Fact check: James Naughtie on Today just said the two main parties are in "the low 60s" in the opinion polls. In fact in most polls they're in the low 70s.
If you love Indian restaurants but loathe Chinese restaurant, and your wife loves Chinese restaurants but loathes Indian restaurants, insisting on one Asian cuisine or the other is unlikely to lead to enjoyable nights out.
Better to compromise on French or Italian food, which is neither partner’s first choice. More compromise, happier couple, healthier sex life.
Fact check: James Naughtie on Today just said the two main parties are in "the low 60s" in the opinion polls. In fact in most polls they're in the low 70s.
If you love Indian restaurants but loathe Chinese restaurant, and your wife loves Chinese restaurants but loathes Indian restaurants, insisting on one Asian cuisine or the other is unlikely to lead to enjoyable nights out.
Better to compromise on French or Italian food, which is neither partner’s first choice. More compromise, happier couple, healthier sex life.
In a logical world with logical people indeed.
But these are MPs and Politicians. Everything we have seen is less about logic, and more about tribalism and 'the game' than both sides.
Fact check: James Naughtie on Today just said the two main parties are in "the low 60s" in the opinion polls. In fact in most polls they're in the low 70s.
When has a journalist and facts mattered
It does to lots of them/us, Big G (though my news editor days are largely behind me). Don't judge everyone by the standards of the increasingly sensationalist, clickbaity BBC News.
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.
I think the EU has reopened avenues other than Deal/NoDeal which appeared to have been closed off yesterday. They are unlikely to be delivered by TMay, but if the HoC was minded to kick her out, I think a delegation proposing X over the next 9 months would get a warm welcome.
I'm still not sure where a majority for Norway is coming from. Remainers want to cancel Brexit, most Leavers want a harder Brexit.
And if we imagine TMay or whoever says "OK, let's do Norway" and goes off and negotiates it, does anyone believe that when she comes back Corbyn will say "that's exactly what we asked for, we'll vote for it"? Obviously he'll say "this is a total sell-out, this isn't proper Norway at all". And most of the Tories will be against it too because it won't be brexitty enough. It'll get about four votes, tops.
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.
Yes, that would be a better system. The Aussies have abandoned their own conference in Oceania already, as I understand it, because the opposition is too weak and it offers a more complicated route to World Cup qualification. Pretty sure they compete in the Asian conference these days?
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.
I think the EU has reopened avenues other than Deal/NoDeal which appeared to have been closed off yesterday. They are unlikely to be delivered by TMay, but if the HoC was minded to kick her out, I think a delegation proposing X over the next 9 months would get a warm welcome.
You ignore the fact we are not going to see the legislation to enable UK participation in the EU pass into law by 12th April so it cannot happen as it nullifies the EU elections and the next EU Parliament
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
Monday's debate on the deal will presumably be a neutral programme motion noting the deal, giving MPs the chance to put their amendments. If Letwin passes, May would be wise to recognise that MV3 has been overtaken by events. As I understand it Letwin earmarks Wednesday for the indicative vote process.
Fact check: James Naughtie on Today just said the two main parties are in "the low 60s" in the opinion polls. In fact in most polls they're in the low 70s.
When has a journalist and facts mattered
It does to lots of them/us, Big G (though my news editor days are largely behind me). Don't judge everyone by the standards of the increasingly sensationalist, clickbaity BBC News.
Its now Womens BBC website, it pervades everything.
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.
How would you define it, if not using the Urals as a watershed?
I'm still not sure where a majority for Norway is coming from. Remainers want to cancel Brexit, most Leavers want a harder Brexit.
Thats the problem, it's going to have to have one of the parties effective siding with the other.
Corbyns aim is clear. Labour in power, him as PM. Thats his first objective. Not Brexit, not remain, not avoiding hard brexit. Everything else is secondary to dmaging the tories.
either May has to accept a breakdown of her position, which she won't, becuase she would resign first, and it would also shatter the tories.
Until someone acts for the interest of the country OVER party interest, both leaders are still locked in a death grip.
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.
I don't think that's the reason Kazakhstan is included, any more than I think that Australia is included in the Eurovision Song contest on tectonic principles.
I'm still not sure where a majority for Norway is coming from. Remainers want to cancel Brexit, most Leavers want a harder Brexit.
Also i’m waiting for the logical argument that says that all it needs for the Withdrawal Agreement to pass, is for a change to be made to the non legally binding political declaration...
I'm still not sure where a majority for Norway is coming from. Remainers want to cancel Brexit, most Leavers want a harder Brexit.
And if we imagine TMay or whoever says "OK, let's do Norway" and goes off and negotiates it, does anyone believe that when she comes back Corbyn will say "that's exactly what we asked for, we'll vote for it"? Obviously he'll say "this is a total sell-out, this isn't proper Norway at all". And most of the Tories will be against it too because it won't be brexitty enough. It'll get about four votes, tops.
The idea of the indicative vote process is that MPs are free to vote for all the options they would be prepared to support - not just their favourite - and the pressure to vote against second favourite in order to get to your favourite is much reduced. If we get to such a scenario I'd expect something around Norway/CM2 to get a reasonable level of support.
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.
Fact check: James Naughtie on Today just said the two main parties are in "the low 60s" in the opinion polls. In fact in most polls they're in the low 70s.
Depends on whether DKs are excluded or not
Don't Knows are almost always excluded when discussing British opinion polls. The fact is the combined Con/Lab vote was higher at the election two years than at any time since 1992, so Naughtie's basic point, that support for both main parties is very low, was wrong.
If MV3 turns out to be as disappointing as most sequels (Godfather, Toy Story and MIB being exceptions that prove the rule) then it seems to me that the most likely outcome is that we will leave without a deal on 11th April. What I would anticipate is that the intervening period will be used to bridge the gap so far as possible between the WA and no deal with as many mini deals as possible. I also suspect, despite the ravings of the ERG, that the UK government will undertake to pay the monies it has promised to pay under the WA anyway for the very good reason that we have agreed that we owe it.
What are the consequences of "no deal" that are problematic?
1. Clearly, there is a major issue in NI. Without any transitional agreement border checks are going to be required for goods entering and leaving the SM. Both sides might well turn a blind eye for a time but I don't see how out.
2. The useless incompetence of Fox means that we would lose the benefit of EU trade deals. Hardly anyone has yet agreed to bring in an equivalent. We will be scrabbling to catch up.
3.Both sides are likely to make unilateral decisions (in the EU on a country by country basis) to protect existing rights of citizens currently resident here but it is truly incredible how little has been done about this. Something like 4m people would need documentation. Again, I suspect in reality we are going to turn a blind eye to continued freedom of movement for at least a while because it is just too difficult given the lack of preparation.
4.The WA does not grant equivalence of regulation for financial services etc anyway but getting that into place is perhaps going to be more difficult.
5. Going forward, negotiations about our trade relationship with the EU are likely to be more difficult but much will depend on how much of the WA the UK government implements even without it being signed, especially in respect of payments, citizens' rights and the NI border.
So, not ideal, especially on 2, but not exactly the end of times either. In reality I suspect it will be little different from the transitional period disappointing both the ERG and those who are claiming this is going to be a calamity.
You overlooked the destruction of UK agriculture.
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.
You are proposing the EU breaks international law to help the UK. Why would it do that? How could it do that?
You lodge the agreement as a short form trade treaty
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.
I don't think that's the reason Kazakhstan is included, any more than I think that Australia is included in the Eurovision Song contest on tectonic principles.
You don't have to be in Europe to be a member of the European Broadcasting Union - hence Egypt and others.
Norman Davis in his great book observes that Europe isn't strictly a continent, but a peninsular at the western end of Eurasia. As such the Urals is generally accepted as a boundary, being pretty much the only significant higher ground interrupting the Great European Plain between between the Atlantic and Siberia.
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.
I don't think that's the reason Kazakhstan is included, any more than I think that Australia is included in the Eurovision Song contest on tectonic principles.
UEFA needs access to the lucrative bank looting (BTA, look it up) and money laundering market?
Mr. Anazina, perhaps that every country to the east of Cyprus (excepting, of course, any African nations, I'd guess Madagascar might otherwise fit the bill) is in Asia.
We will not be partaking of the European Elections and we will not be leaving the European Union without a Transition Period. I hold these truths to be self-evident.
It follows that we will be leaving the EU on 22 May having done the one thing that is both necessary and sufficient to bring this about - ratified the Withdrawal Agreement. The Political Declaration will not be ratified because (i) there is not the time to agree and make substantial changes to it and (ii) it does not need to be ratified in order for us to leave.
The PD will be put on ice pending a new political direction for the UK being agreed upon. This will involve May stepping down, the Tories choosing a new leader, then a General Election to decide (inter alia) who will run with the Trade Talks and to what desired end state.
Of course, getting to Norway probably leaves the requirement to vote for the MV, which is higly unlikey...so how will it happen?
There is a far more serious question than that to be resolved. If we end up with Norway + then who wins my bet with Richard N? If we join EFTA but also have a Customs Union (is that even possible?) then we will need a PB ruling on who wins the £100.
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'."
If MV3 turns out to be as disappointing as most sequels (Godfather, Toy Story and MIB being exceptions that prove the rule) then it seems to me that the most likely outcome is that we will leave without a deal on 11th April. What I would anticipate is that the intervening period will be used to bridge the gap so far as possible
1. Clearly, there is a major issue in NI. Without any transitional agreement border checks are going to be required for goods entering and leaving the SM. Both sides might well turn a blind eye for a time but I don't see how we avoid this. I suspect we will in fact agree, as part of the mini deals, that tariffs are set at zero between the UK and the EU but even without that there are going to be regulatory issues.
2. The useless incompetence of Fox means that we would lose the benefit of EU trade deals. Hardly anyone Agreed to bring in an equivalent. We will be scrabbling to catch up.
3.Both sides are likely to make unilateral decisions (in the EU on a country by country basis) to protect existing rights of citizens currently resident here but it is truly incredible how little has been done about this. Something like 4m people would need documentation. Again, I suspect in reality we are going to turn a blind eye to continued freedom of movement for at least a while because it is just too difficult given the lack of preparation.
4.The WA does not grant equivalence of regulation for financial services etc anyway but getting that into place is perhaps going to be more difficult.
5. Going forward, negotiations about our trade relationship with the EU are likely to be more difficult but much will depend on how much of the WA the UK government implements even without it being signed, especially in respect of payments, citizens' rights and the NI border.
So, not ideal, especially on 2, but not exactly the end of times either. In reality I suspect it will be little different from the transitional period disappointing both the ERG and those who are claiming this is going to be a calamity.
You overlooked the destruction of UK agriculture.
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.
We have some of the most efficient farms in Europe
Fact check: James Naughtie on Today just said the two main parties are in "the low 60s" in the opinion polls. In fact in most polls they're in the low 70s.
When has a journalist and facts mattered
It does to lots of them/us, Big G (though my news editor days are largely behind me). Don't judge everyone by the standards of the increasingly sensationalist, clickbaity BBC News.
Mr. Anazina, perhaps that every country to the east of Cyprus (excepting, of course, any African nations, I'd guess Madagascar might otherwise fit the bill) is in Asia.
We will not be partaking of the European Elections and we will not be leaving the European Union without a Transition Period. I hold these truths to be self-evident.
It follows that we will be leaving the EU on 22 May having done the one thing that is both necessary and sufficient to bring this about - ratified the Withdrawal Agreement. The Political Declaration will not be ratified because (i) there is not the time to agree and make substantial changes to it and (ii) it does not need to be ratified in order for us to leave.
The PD will be put on ice pending a new political direction for the UK being agreed upon. This will involve May stepping down, the Tories choosing a new leader, then a General Election to decide (inter alia) who will run with the Trade Talks and to what desired end state.
48% voted for the FOM status quo, while a sizeable minority of Leavers (Tyndallites) also support FOM. So you could infer that the voters “want” FOM.
But, inferring anything other than a vote to Leave is a fool’s errand. There wasn’t absolutely nothing about FOM on the ballot, so Norway+ respects the referendum result and strikes a sensible compromise.
Good luck selling continued FoM as 'leaving the EU'.
Fact check: James Naughtie on Today just said the two main parties are in "the low 60s" in the opinion polls. In fact in most polls they're in the low 70s.
Depends on whether DKs are excluded or not
Don't Knows are almost always excluded when discussing British opinion polls. The fact is the combined Con/Lab vote was higher at the election two years than at any time since 1992, so Naughtie's basic point, that support for both main parties is very low, was wrong.
I didn't hear the statement. But if you are quoting the level of support amongst the adult population as a whole, it isn't unreasonable to include people who don't make a choice.
48% voted for the FOM status quo, while a sizeable minority of Leavers (Tyndallites) also support FOM. So you could infer that the voters “want” FOM.
But, inferring anything other than a vote to Leave is a fool’s errand. There wasn’t absolutely nothing about FOM on the ballot, so Norway+ respects the referendum result and strikes a sensible compromise.
Good luck selling continued FoM as 'leaving the EU'.
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
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....
There's going to be a reckoning at some point.
The only measure that really matters now is whether it is better than leaving in a couple of weeks with no deal and no significant planning. Very, very few Labour voters would want a No Deal Brexit.
Many of the anti-FOM leavers will have noticed by now that as EU immigration is falling, non-EU immigration is rising and I am not at all sure that is what they had in mind
I'm still not sure where a majority for Norway is coming from. Remainers want to cancel Brexit, most Leavers want a harder Brexit.
And if we imagine TMay or whoever says "OK, let's do Norway" and goes off and negotiates it, does anyone believe that when she comes back Corbyn will say "that's exactly what we asked for, we'll vote for it"? Obviously he'll say "this is a total sell-out, this isn't proper Norway at all". And most of the Tories will be against it too because it won't be brexitty enough. It'll get about four votes, tops.
The idea of the indicative vote process is that MPs are free to vote for all the options they would be prepared to support - not just their favourite - and the pressure to vote against second favourite in order to get to your favourite is much reduced. If we get to such a scenario I'd expect something around Norway/CM2 to get a reasonable level of support.
48% voted for the FOM status quo, while a sizeable minority of Leavers (Tyndallites) also support FOM. So you could infer that the voters “want” FOM.
But, inferring anything other than a vote to Leave is a fool’s errand. There wasn’t absolutely nothing about FOM on the ballot, so Norway+ respects the referendum result and strikes a sensible compromise.
Good luck selling continued FoM as 'leaving the EU'.
We are at the stage where any Brexiter with sense (OK, I know) should take whatever Brexit they can get. They aren't going to have the luxury of picking and choosing for much longer.
I'm still not sure where a majority for Norway is coming from. Remainers want to cancel Brexit, most Leavers want a harder Brexit.
Also i’m waiting for the logical argument that says that all it needs for the Withdrawal Agreement to pass, is for a change to be made to the non legally binding political declaration...
While some on this board might think that but most will be better informed. MPs on the other hand.....
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....
There's going to be a reckoning at some point.
The only measure that really matters now is whether it is better than leaving in a couple of weeks with no deal and no significant planning. Very, very few Labour voters would want a No Deal Brexit.
Many of the anti-FOM leavers will have noticed by now that as EU immigration is falling, non-EU immigration is rising and I am not at all sure that is what they had in mind
To be fair, it is what the Leave campaign itself promised. Although strangely it was a promise made only to Asian voters.
48% voted for the FOM status quo, while a sizeable minority of Leavers (Tyndallites) also support FOM. So you could infer that the voters “want” FOM.
But, inferring anything other than a vote to Leave is a fool’s errand. There wasn’t absolutely nothing about FOM on the ballot, so Norway+ respects the referendum result and strikes a sensible compromise.
Good luck selling continued FoM as 'leaving the EU'.
We are at the stage where any Brexiter with sense (OK, I know) should take whatever Brexit they can get. They aren't going to have the luxury of picking and choosing for much longer.
Have they struck you as a group with an innate predisposition to compromise so far?
Geography. Part of its western province is west of the River Ural and hence in Europe.
History, as one of the successor nations to the USSR.
Though Israel plays in Europe too, doesn’t it?
Thats for rather sensible reasons. I don't think a Israel/Iran qualifier would be a friendly affair,,
If England can play Scotland and France in sports then Iran v Israel will be fine.
What's thoroughly disgraceful is that UEFA continues to indulge members who refuse to play each other. If Russia can't play Georgia/Ukraine and if Armenia can't play Azerbaijan, then they should be expelled.
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
Assuming none go the other way.....
May's bad faith around Lidlington's promise, the longer extension, and her TV broadcast, should see it through this time, I'd have thought. Particularly as the EU deal is crafted to allow it to happen.
Geography. Part of its western province is west of the River Ural and hence in Europe.
History, as one of the successor nations to the USSR.
Though Israel plays in Europe too, doesn’t it?
Thats for rather sensible reasons. I don't think a Israel/Iran qualifier would be a friendly affair,,
If England can play Scotland and France in sports then Iran v Israel will be fine.
What's thoroughly disgraceful is that UEFA continues to indulge members who refuse to play each other. If Russia can't play Georgia/Ukraine and if Armenia can't play Azerbaijan, then they should be expelled.
48% voted for the FOM status quo, while a sizeable minority of Leavers (Tyndallites) also support FOM. So you could infer that the voters “want” FOM.
But, inferring anything other than a vote to Leave is a fool’s errand. There wasn’t absolutely nothing about FOM on the ballot, so Norway+ respects the referendum result and strikes a sensible compromise.
Good luck selling continued FoM as 'leaving the EU'.
We are at the stage where any Brexiter with sense (OK, I know) should take whatever Brexit they can get. They aren't going to have the luxury of picking and choosing for much longer.
Which would be the Deal - the EU Deal. The government has been spectacularly poor at selling stuff. All Corbyn has to do is take "May's Deal" to Brussels, rearrange a few sentences without changing a whit of meaning and bring it back in triumph as "The EU Jobs First Deal" and see its popularity soar.
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.
It also helps that they are insulated from democratic pressure
Foreign affairs is both less important to their domestic voters and they can claim it’s and EU position.
Mr. 86, I wouldn't have non-European countries in a European category. If they want to rejiggify the system, that's a different kettle of fish, but pretending Israel is geographically in Europe is daft.
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....
There's going to be a reckoning at some point.
The only measure that really matters now is whether it is better than leaving in a couple of weeks with no deal and no significant planning. Very, very few Labour voters would want a No Deal Brexit.
Many of the anti-FOM leavers will have noticed by now that as EU immigration is falling, non-EU immigration is rising and I am not at all sure that is what they had in mind
Which is irrelevant in terms of Brexit as Brexit could only ever cut EU immigration, non-EU immigration could be cut even if we cancel Brexit completely and stay in the EU
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
Assuming none go the other way.....
Highly unlikely, no hard Brexiteers voted for Letwin Benn before
I'm still not sure where a majority for Norway is coming from. Remainers want to cancel Brexit, most Leavers want a harder Brexit.
And if we imagine TMay or whoever says "OK, let's do Norway" and goes off and negotiates it, does anyone believe that when she comes back Corbyn will say "that's exactly what we asked for, we'll vote for it"? Obviously he'll say "this is a total sell-out, this isn't proper Norway at all". And most of the Tories will be against it too because it won't be brexitty enough. It'll get about four votes, tops.
The idea of the indicative vote process is that MPs are free to vote for all the options they would be prepared to support - not just their favourite - and the pressure to vote against second favourite in order to get to your favourite is much reduced. If we get to such a scenario I'd expect something around Norway/CM2 to get a reasonable level of support.
Sure, that's all fine up to that point. But the problem is, then some unlucky Prime Minister has to go off and negotiate for the thing they voted for. This will inevitably involve lots of compromises so they'll bring it back and it'll be shit, because all versions of Brexit are shit. So then the Prime Minister will say, "I need you to vote for this shit thing", to which MPs will obviously reply, "I'm not voting for that because it's shit", and we're back where we started.
I mean, don't get me wrong, brexit is a terrible idea so it's a good thing to postpone it for two years while you have pointless negotiations, but let's not kid ourselves about what's going on here.
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....
There's going to be a reckoning at some point.
The only measure that really matters now is whether it is better than leaving in a couple of weeks with no deal and no significant planning. Very, very few Labour voters would want a No Deal Brexit.
Many of the anti-FOM leavers will have noticed by now that as EU immigration is falling, non-EU immigration is rising and I am not at all sure that is what they had in mind
Which is irrelevant in terms of Brexit as Brexit could only ever cut EU immigration, non-EU immigration could be cut even if we cancel Brexit completely and stay in the EU
My point is that the government seems to have little intention of cutting immigration per se so they will be replacing one sort with another. I am pretty sure that most leavers that voted primarily on the immigration issue actually had substantially reducing immigration in mind.
I appreciate that once out of the EU we can "control" all immigration but if that is not what we are actually going to do we will have sacrificed a hell of a lot to be exactly where we were but with different faces.
It is now time for May to choose. She needs to ditch the ERG and accept Benn's offer to vote for her deal with a referendum. It is the only way she can act in the national interest.
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
Monday's debate on the deal will presumably be a neutral programme motion noting the deal, giving MPs the chance to put their amendments. If Letwin passes, May would be wise to recognise that MV3 has been overtaken by events. As I understand it Letwin earmarks Wednesday for the indicative vote process.
By Wednesday the Commons May well have voted for Norway Plus, May has said she will allow Parliament to decide if MV3 fails so will tell the ERG it is WA as stands or WA leading to Norway Plus
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....
There's going to be a reckoning at some point.
The only measure that really matters now is whether it is better than leaving in a couple of weeks with no deal and no significant planning. Very, very few Labour voters would want a No Deal Brexit.
Many of the anti-FOM leavers will have noticed by now that as EU immigration is falling, non-EU immigration is rising and I am not at all sure that is what they had in mind
Which is irrelevant in terms of Brexit as Brexit could only ever cut EU immigration, non-EU immigration could be cut even if we cancel Brexit completely and stay in the EU
My point is that the government seems to have little intention of cutting immigration per se so they will be replacing one sort with another. I am pretty sure that most leavers that voted primarily on the immigration issue actually had substantially reducing immigration in mind.
I appreciate that once out of the EU we can "control" all immigration but if that is not what we are actually going to do we will have sacrificed a hell of a lot to be exactly where we were but with different faces.
EU immigration has fallen, that would not have happened without the Leave vote
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
Monday's debate on the deal will presumably be a neutral programme motion noting the deal, giving MPs the chance to put their amendments. If Letwin passes, May would be wise to recognise that MV3 has been overtaken by events. As I understand it Letwin earmarks Wednesday for the indicative vote process.
By Wednesday the Commons May well have voted for Norway Plus, May has said she will allow Parliament to decide if MV3 fails so will tell the ERG it is WA as stands or WA leading to Norway Plus
My take is that MV3 is probably now Tuesday, or not at all (May's deal remains of course one of the potential choices within the indicative vote process)
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.
I think the EU has reopened avenues other than Deal/NoDeal which appeared to have been closed off yesterday. They are unlikely to be delivered by TMay, but if the HoC was minded to kick her out, I think a delegation proposing X over the next 9 months would get a warm welcome.
Except on the doorstep.
I am never sure that "the doorstep" is a very good indicator. Having done a fair amount of canvassing myself I would say that in many areas the majority don't come to the door for the reason that they don't want to engage. They generally hide if they see anyone with a rosette, unless they are the type that like to engage in politics, or want to have a rant. Therefore those with strong Brexit views will have a disproportionate opinion expressed versus the pragmatic majority, let alone the "don't care" contingent.
Sure, that's all fine up to that point. But the problem is, then some unlucky Prime Minister has to go off and negotiate for the thing they voted for. This will inevitably involve lots of compromises so they'll bring it back and it'll be shit, because all versions of Brexit are shit. So then the Prime Minister will say, "I need you to vote for this shit thing", to which MPs will obviously reply, "I'm not voting for that because it's shit", and we're back where we started.
I mean, don't get me wrong, brexit is a terrible idea so it's a good thing to postpone it for two years while you have pointless negotiations, but let's not kid ourselves about what's going on here.
If MPs want anything other than the May Deal or No Deal they will have to replace her as PM with somebody else. Otherwise it is just virtue signalling and faffing around.
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....
There's going to be a reckoning at some point.
The only measure that really matters now is whether it is better than leaving in a couple of weeks with no deal and no significant planning. Very, very few Labour voters would want a No Deal Brexit.
Many of the anti-FOM leavers will have noticed by now that as EU immigration is falling, non-EU immigration is rising and I am not at all sure that is what they had in mind
To be fair, it is what the Leave campaign itself promised. Although strangely it was a promise made only to Asian voters.
Actually no it was widely publicised. I've always been a fan of migration and free movement but actually when I stopped to think about it, this was something that encouraged me to switch from Remain to Leave. I grew up in Australia and my Australian friends find it harder to come to the UK than someone from Poland or Romania etc - I didn't and still don't think that is appropriate.
If we make the controls universal then that is fairer on everyone.
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.
It also helps that they are insulated from democratic pressure
Foreign affairs is both less important to their domestic voters and they can claim it’s and EU position.
Most of our senior politicians are personally isolated from political pressure, sitting in their safe seats. OK, their parties are exposed, but then there's a lot of political pressure within PR systems; it just works in different ways. Critically, it encourages politicians to find compromises across political divisions.
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.
I think the EU has reopened avenues other than Deal/NoDeal which appeared to have been closed off yesterday. They are unlikely to be delivered by TMay, but if the HoC was minded to kick her out, I think a delegation proposing X over the next 9 months would get a warm welcome.
Except on the doorstep.
I am never sure that "the doorstep" is a very good indicator. Having done a fair amount of canvassing myself I would say that in many areas the majority don't come to the door for the reason that they don't want to engage. They generally hide if they see anyone with a rosette, unless they are the type that like to engage in politics, or want to have a rant. Therefore those with strong Brexit views will have a disproportionate opinion expressed versus the pragmatic majority, let alone the "don't care" contingent.
The doorstep is the single most accurate way of determing voting intention of an area and the pulse of your supporters.
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....
There's going to be a reckoning at some point.
The only measure that really matters now is whether it is better than leaving in a couple of weeks with no deal and no significant planning. Very, very few Labour voters would want a No Deal Brexit.
Many of the anti-FOM leavers will have noticed by now that as EU immigration is falling, non-EU immigration is rising and I am not at all sure that is what they had in mind
To be fair, it is what the Leave campaign itself promised. Although strangely it was a promise made only to Asian voters.
Actually no it was widely publicised. I've always been a fan of migration and free movement but actually when I stopped to think about it, this was something that encouraged me to switch from Remain to Leave. I grew up in Australia and my Australian friends find it harder to come to the UK than someone from Poland or Romania etc - I didn't and still don't think that is appropriate.
If we make the controls universal then that is fairer on everyone.
It is now time for May to choose. She needs to ditch the ERG and accept Benn's offer to vote for her deal with a referendum. It is the only way she can act in the national interest.
Problem is we've run out of time for a referendum. Unless we go for a 'long' extention.
It is now time for May to choose. She needs to ditch the ERG and accept Benn's offer to vote for her deal with a referendum. It is the only way she can act in the national interest.
That has gone with yesterdays 12th April deadline. No referendum now possible
It is now time for May to choose. She needs to ditch the ERG and accept Benn's offer to vote for her deal with a referendum. It is the only way she can act in the national interest.
That has gone with yesterdays 12th April deadline. No referendum now possible
Make a plan for a referendum and get a longer extension.
Comments
Do you think she should resign if the WA is defeated for a third time in the Commons?
“Ignore what the voters want?” What do they want?
48% voted for the FOM status quo, while a sizeable minority of Leavers (Tyndallites) also support FOM. So you could infer that the voters “want” FOM.
But, inferring anything other than a vote to Leave is a fool’s errand. There wasn’t absolutely nothing about FOM on the ballot, so Norway+ respects the referendum result and strikes a sensible compromise.
https://twitter.com/SKZCartoons/status/1109011092750127105
How many people do think will be there at the end of your long march?
At least 20 Million in spirit!
Lazy fuckers, those spirits.
The fortnight VICTORY is a betrayal btw.
If you love Indian restaurants but loathe Chinese restaurant, and your wife loves Chinese restaurants but loathes Indian restaurants, insisting on one Asian cuisine or the other is unlikely to lead to enjoyable nights out.
Better to compromise on French or Italian food, which is neither partner’s first choice. More compromise, happier couple, healthier sex life.
But these are MPs and Politicians. Everything we have seen is less about logic, and more about tribalism and 'the game' than both sides.
How would you define it, if not using the Urals as a watershed?
Corbyns aim is clear. Labour in power, him as PM. Thats his first objective. Not Brexit, not remain, not avoiding hard brexit. Everything else is secondary to dmaging the tories.
either May has to accept a breakdown of her position, which she won't, becuase she would resign first, and it would also shatter the tories.
Until someone acts for the interest of the country OVER party interest, both leaders are still locked in a death grip.
Norman Davis in his great book observes that Europe isn't strictly a continent, but a peninsular at the western end of Eurasia. As such the Urals is generally accepted as a boundary, being pretty much the only significant higher ground interrupting the Great European Plain between between the Atlantic and Siberia.
We will not be partaking of the European Elections and we will not be leaving the European Union without a Transition Period. I hold these truths to be self-evident.
It follows that we will be leaving the EU on 22 May having done the one thing that is both necessary and sufficient to bring this about - ratified the Withdrawal Agreement. The Political Declaration will not be ratified because (i) there is not the time to agree and make substantial changes to it and (ii) it does not need to be ratified in order for us to leave.
The PD will be put on ice pending a new political direction for the UK being agreed upon. This will involve May stepping down, the Tories choosing a new leader, then a General Election to decide (inter alia) who will run with the Trade Talks and to what desired end state.
Though Israel plays in Europe too, doesn’t it?
And I am sure it does matter to you to be honest
But we have to live in the world of the possible.
Many of the anti-FOM leavers will have noticed by now that as EU immigration is falling, non-EU immigration is rising and I am not at all sure that is what they had in mind
The only bright spot being good service sector numbers from Germany albeit countered by dreadful German manufacturing numbers.
While some on this board might think that but most will be better informed. MPs on the other hand.....
https://www.markiteconomics.com/Public/Home/PressRelease/c7da750032b744afbfcbffb282647196
That might have electoral effects.
Foreign affairs is both less important to their domestic voters and they can claim it’s and EU position.
Not as daft as pretending Kazakhstan is, mind.
I mean, don't get me wrong, brexit is a terrible idea so it's a good thing to postpone it for two years while you have pointless negotiations, but let's not kid ourselves about what's going on here.
I appreciate that once out of the EU we can "control" all immigration but if that is not what we are actually going to do we will have sacrificed a hell of a lot to be exactly where we were but with different faces.
If we make the controls universal then that is fairer on everyone.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/going-down-wire-eating-time-second-stage-brexit
Revoke is their last chance to stay in