It's less than 2 years since the Tories had a 50% to 25% lead in the opinion polls. How did they get from there to here?
The Conservatives chose to posture rather than do proper preparation with attention to detail.
Also they tried to have an honest debate about paying for social care, which upset a lot of people. (Politicians will probably lie about it in future).
Maybe we will one day have a social care system where all assets are treated equally.
Why should someone who lives in a £3 million house and has £22,000 of savings and lives on a state pension get free home care.
But someone who rents a council flat and inherits £40,000 in cash from a friend and also lives on a state pension have to pay the full cost of their home care - despite the fact they own barely 1% of the assets of the former.
All so the 65 year old kids of the former can get a bigger inheritance - while the kids of the latter inherit next to nothing?!
Maybe when we care more about our elderly people with dementia than we do about inheriting their expensive houses perhaps social care in this country might improve for the better - and we can have a sensible debate on how to fund it!
Social care is a necessity. Enforcing means tests at the moment it is required is as wrong as a means test for some needing urgent cancer care or rescue from a heart attack.
Social care should be free at the point of need, funded from general taxation where the rich contribute more.
Furthermore Dementia is devastating to families, but random in nature. The burden should fall on society as a whole not Individuals or families. Underlining the need for NHS/compulsory social insurance.
Taking subsidies from the state so that you can protect your inheritance is just wrong. It’s a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.
Well quite.
Regarding IHT, I've always regarded it as one of the most harmless taxes. The state needs a lot of money from somewhere to fulfil its obligations, and where better to cream it off than the estates of the dead? The deceased persons don't suffer from the loss, and in this country in particular such a large proportion of our total wealth is locked in property, i.e. sat inert, doing no useful work, that recycling it back through tax and spending (rather than beating the crap out of the incomes of working people, including the poor, so that wealthy heirs can inherit 100%) seems to me to be wholly unobjectionable.
I don't advocate confiscation, but on the other hand nor do I see what's wrong with heirs getting a fat nest egg rather than absolutely everything.
Taking subsidies from the state so that you can protect your inheritance is just wrong. It’s a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.
Well quite.
Regarding IHT, I've always regarded it as one of the most harmless taxes. The state needs a lot of money from somewhere to fulfil its obligations, and where better to cream it off than the estates of the dead? The deceased persons don't suffer from the loss, and in this country in particular such a large proportion of our total wealth is locked in property, i.e. sat inert, doing no useful work, that recycling it back through tax and spending (rather than beating the crap out of the incomes of working people, including the poor, so that wealthy heirs can inherit 100%) seems to me to be wholly unobjectionable.
I don't advocate confiscation, but on the other hand nor do I see what's wrong with heirs getting a fat nest egg rather than absolutely everything.
+1
If you have to pay tax, I'd rather pay it when dead than alive.
And, bigger picture, it is progressive and directs towards a fairer society.
Oh wow. When cornered, Mogg starts having a go at the BBC in a Trump style load of crap.
I remember when Eton's patriarchs were interested in the country and the wider good.
Wow, you have a good memory. The place should be burned to the ground, for the good of the country.
Cultural vandalism - there are some beautiful buildings there
(People often make a category error though. Eton’s “patriarchs’”interest in the country and the wider good derived from who and what they were, not the fact that they were OEs. Not all OEs have the same sense of duty that the “patriarchs” do)
Oh wow. When cornered, Mogg starts having a go at the BBC in a Trump style load of crap.
I remember when Eton's patriarchs were interested in the country and the wider good.
Wow, you have a good memory. The place should be burned to the ground, for the good of the country.
Cultural vandalism - there are some beautiful buildings there
(People often make a category error though. Eton’s “patriarchs’”interest in the country and the wider good derived from who and what they were, not the fact that they were OEs. Not all OEs have the same sense of duty that the “patriarchs” do)
Taking subsidies from the state so that you can protect your inheritance is just wrong. It’s a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.
Well quite.
Regarding IHT, I've always regarded it as one of the most harmless taxes. The state needs a lot of money from somewhere to fulfil its obligations, and where better to cream it off than the estates of the dead? The deceased persons don't suffer from the loss, and in this country in particular such a large proportion of our total wealth is locked in property, i.e. sat inert, doing no useful work, that recycling it back through tax and spending (rather than beating the crap out of the incomes of working people, including the poor, so that wealthy heirs can inherit 100%) seems to me to be wholly unobjectionable.
I don't advocate confiscation, but on the other hand nor do I see what's wrong with heirs getting a fat nest egg rather than absolutely everything.
+1
If you have to pay tax, I'd rather pay it when dead than alive.
And, bigger picture, it is progressive and directs towards a fairer society.
One issue is that, aside from the last few years, what we think of as 'inherited wealth', especially in 'things' is largely due to inflation.
Taking subsidies from the state so that you can protect your inheritance is just wrong. It’s a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.
Well quite.
Regarding IHT, I've always regarded it as one of the most harmless taxes. The state needs a lot of money from somewhere to fulfil its obligations, and where better to cream it off than the estates of the dead? The deceased persons don't suffer from the loss, and in this country in particular such a large proportion of our total wealth is locked in property, i.e. sat inert, doing no useful work, that recycling it back through tax and spending (rather than beating the crap out of the incomes of working people, including the poor, so that wealthy heirs can inherit 100%) seems to me to be wholly unobjectionable.
I don't advocate confiscation, but on the other hand nor do I see what's wrong with heirs getting a fat nest egg rather than absolutely everything.
Agreed, although you do need exemptions to ensure that assets that are worth more as a whole are not forced to be sold.
For example you should be able to retain a business in private ownership rather than to force a sale. Similarly breaking up farms in a net negative because economies of scale make a real difference
Now MPs must do two things. They must not vote to support May, but ensure that her deal is buried once and for all at the Westminster crossroads, garlic in mouth, stake through heart. Already the dark riders of the Tory backwoodsmen have done their treacherous deed. So apparently has the DUP.
Then finally Clarke/Corbyn/Boles must conquer the sunny uplands of indicativity, with a clear Commons mandate for a customs union. That could then be rushed to Brussels by the deputy prime minister, David Lidington, or any other proxy for a reluctant May. We know it would be well received.
Alongside a customs union, the other most favoured option on Wednesday was Margaret Beckett’s, for a second referendum – not to rerun the first but to confirm whatever deal is reached with Brussels. The choice would be either to approve parliament’s departure plan or to stay in. After the blood and thunder of the past two years, such a confirming referendum would be cleansing, reasonable and calming.
These two ways forward are quite separate. The one is a Brexit mandate, the other a Brexit process. They are simply the sensible compromise to the national debate of the past two years. May’s deal has poisoned politics for long enough. Parliament has hinted at a willingness to “take back control”. Now it must do so.
Oh wow. When cornered, Mogg starts having a go at the BBC in a Trump style load of crap.
I remember when Eton's patriarchs were interested in the country and the wider good.
Wow, you have a good memory. The place should be burned to the ground, for the good of the country.
Cultural vandalism - there are some beautiful buildings there
(People often make a category error though. Eton’s “patriarchs’”interest in the country and the wider good derived from who and what they were, not the fact that they were OEs. Not all OEs have the same sense of duty that the “patriarchs” do)
Well turn it into a Comprehensive then. To be honest, that would probably upset JRM more than the arson option anyway.
What I still don’t get is why today’s vote might pass when the others have not. The issue for the ERG loons and the DUP was always the WA, wasn’t it? The PD was neither here nor there. What am I missing?
I think Cummings has a point when he says that those assuming the EU would be the central issue in a second referendum could be very wrong.
Also wrong about Brexit being the central issue in a snap general election if Jeremy Corbyn's trip to Morecambe and PMQs about buses are to be taken seriously.
Oh wow. When cornered, Mogg starts having a go at the BBC in a Trump style load of crap.
I remember when Eton's patriarchs were interested in the country and the wider good.
Wow, you have a good memory. The place should be burned to the ground, for the good of the country.
Cultural vandalism - there are some beautiful buildings there
(People often make a category error though. Eton’s “patriarchs’”interest in the country and the wider good derived from who and what they were, not the fact that they were OEs. Not all OEs have the same sense of duty that the “patriarchs” do)
Well turn it into a Comprehensive then. To be honest, that would probably upset JRM more than the arson option anyway.
Confiscating the property from the foundation that owns it? Presumably you don’t plan to pay compensation?
What I still don’t get is why today’s vote might pass when the others have not. The issue for the ERG loons and the DUP was always the WA, wasn’t it? The PD was neither here nor there. What am I missing?
It’s a figleaf. The Tory ultras getting worried about losing Brexit altogether.
Oh wow. When cornered, Mogg starts having a go at the BBC in a Trump style load of crap.
I remember when Eton's patriarchs were interested in the country and the wider good.
Wow, you have a good memory. The place should be burned to the ground, for the good of the country.
Cultural vandalism - there are some beautiful buildings there
(People often make a category error though. Eton’s “patriarchs’”interest in the country and the wider good derived from who and what they were, not the fact that they were OEs. Not all OEs have the same sense of duty that the “patriarchs” do)
Well turn it into a Comprehensive then. To be honest, that would probably upset JRM more than the arson option anyway.
Confiscating the property from the foundation that owns it? Presumably you don’t plan to pay compensation?
Eton paying the nation compensation is a good idea. Well done Charles.
What I still don’t get is why today’s vote might pass when the others have not. The issue for the ERG loons and the DUP was always the WA, wasn’t it? The PD was neither here nor there. What am I missing?
It’s a figleaf. The Tory ultras getting worried about losing Brexit altogether.
What I still don’t get is why today’s vote might pass when the others have not. The issue for the ERG loons and the DUP was always the WA, wasn’t it? The PD was neither here nor there. What am I missing?
It’s a figleaf. The Tory ultras getting worried about losing Brexit altogether.
A figleaf for what, though?
The leadership election to come. What happens now is all about who gets to be PM.
On IT generally, scrap it and simply treat as income. However the beneficiary should be allowed to add it to their pension pot.
IT is extremely unpopular. Surprisingly, at all income levels.
Most people find the idea of having to sell the family home to pay the taxman objectionable, and the fact they come looking for the money when you’re grieving reprehensible.
What I still don’t get is why today’s vote might pass when the others have not. The issue for the ERG loons and the DUP was always the WA, wasn’t it? The PD was neither here nor there. What am I missing?
It’s a figleaf. The Tory ultras getting worried about losing Brexit altogether.
Oh wow. When cornered, Mogg starts having a go at the BBC in a Trump style load of crap.
I remember when Eton's patriarchs were interested in the country and the wider good.
Wow, you have a good memory. The place should be burned to the ground, for the good of the country.
Cultural vandalism - there are some beautiful buildings there
(People often make a category error though. Eton’s “patriarchs’”interest in the country and the wider good derived from who and what they were, not the fact that they were OEs. Not all OEs have the same sense of duty that the “patriarchs” do)
Well turn it into a Comprehensive then. To be honest, that would probably upset JRM more than the arson option anyway.
Confiscating the property from the foundation that owns it? Presumably you don’t plan to pay compensation?
I'd be happy to pay them the value of the property net of the NPV of the £40bn a year that Brexit has shaved off the value of GDP.
What I still don’t get is why today’s vote might pass when the others have not. The issue for the ERG loons and the DUP was always the WA, wasn’t it? The PD was neither here nor there. What am I missing?
It’s a figleaf. The Tory ultras getting worried about losing Brexit altogether.
A figleaf for what, though?
The leadership election to come. What happens now is all about who gets to be PM.
Against expectations Boris switched back to the deal without waiting for Raab.
Now Raab is suggesting an exchange of letters would be enough for him (the opposite of what he's said before), suggesting he is looking for a ladder - but who is going to think him so important as to be exchanging letters with the EU this morning? (unless he knows May already has letters and is going to produce them)
Social care is a necessity. Enforcing means tests at the moment it is required is as wrong as a means test for some needing urgent cancer care or rescue from a heart attack.
Social care should be free at the point of need, funded from general taxation where the rich contribute more.
Furthermore Dementia is devastating to families, but random in nature. The burden should fall on society as a whole not Individuals or families. Underlining the need for NHS/compulsory social insurance.
Increasing the burden on working people is a poor idea. It's the young paying for the old, again.
Social care is a necessity. Enforcing means tests at the moment it is required is as wrong as a means test for some needing urgent cancer care or rescue from a heart attack.
Social care should be free at the point of need, funded from general taxation where the rich contribute more.
Furthermore Dementia is devastating to families, but random in nature. The burden should fall on society as a whole not Individuals or families. Underlining the need for NHS/compulsory social insurance.
Increasing the burden on working people is a poor idea. It's the young paying for the old, again.
Young people get old too. One generation looks after the other in the same way that the older generation pays for education of the next.
Q1. On a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 means 'I completely support Scotland becoming independent' and 10 means 'I completely support Scotland staying part of the UK'
2014 Voted YES / NO to Independence
0-2 (i.e top 3 Indy): 58 / 5 10-8 (i.e. top 3 stay UK): 25 / 80
What I still don’t get is why today’s vote might pass when the others have not. The issue for the ERG loons and the DUP was always the WA, wasn’t it? The PD was neither here nor there. What am I missing?
The government doesn't even want to explore the possibility of a permanent customs union or to consider elections to the European parliament to enable a longer extension to Article 50, or to revoke Article 50, which are the three possible ways out of the impasse. So they are stuck with Plan A.
Social care is a necessity. Enforcing means tests at the moment it is required is as wrong as a means test for some needing urgent cancer care or rescue from a heart attack.
Social care should be free at the point of need, funded from general taxation where the rich contribute more.
Furthermore Dementia is devastating to families, but random in nature. The burden should fall on society as a whole not Individuals or families. Underlining the need for NHS/compulsory social insurance.
Increasing the burden on working people is a poor idea. It's the young paying for the old, again.
Young people get old too. One generation looks after the other in the same way that the older generation pays for education of the next.
Except it's my generation that is paying for both, previous ones never did. It's time for retirees to pay NI. That closes the funding gap for care costs without working age people taking yet another hit.
Rumour that Labour is preparing a combined CU plus PV option for Monday. Good news if true.
Fantastic news if true - but not exactly in line with what they have been saying so far.
Far too sensible to actually happen.
It is the way things seem to be going. Although "Labour is preparing.." is of course part of the problem. It would be better if the various parties who backed the various CU propositions and the PV one were working up a joint proposal.
So the ultras have no escape from the backstop, other than bankrupting the country?
I’m defence of the ultras, May committed two massive blunders (see Varafoukis upthread) in exercising A50 and agreeing to the sequencing.
It was strategic incompetence at a grand scale.
Some posters may have noted this at the time.
May didn't have any real choice on either Article 50 or the sequencing, once the EU had decided their demands. The terms of our future relationship with the EU were always going to be set by them, and not to our advantage. She could have been more honest with the public about the compromises that Brexit forces on us and tried to get a consensus around those compromises.
Social care is a necessity. Enforcing means tests at the moment it is required is as wrong as a means test for some needing urgent cancer care or rescue from a heart attack.
Social care should be free at the point of need, funded from general taxation where the rich contribute more.
Furthermore Dementia is devastating to families, but random in nature. The burden should fall on society as a whole not Individuals or families. Underlining the need for NHS/compulsory social insurance.
Increasing the burden on working people is a poor idea. It's the young paying for the old, again.
Young people get old too. One generation looks after the other in the same way that the older generation pays for education of the next.
Except it's my generation that is paying for both, previous ones never did. It's time for retirees to pay NI. That closes the funding gap for care costs without working age people taking yet another hit.
There are certainly problems we need to fix, but the principle that one generation supports the other is the only way to go. It has always happened within families, but needs to play out in society as a whole if we are to spread the risk/burden of dementia care.
So the ultras have no escape from the backstop, other than bankrupting the country?
This is actually a nonsensical position.
Firstly it implies that the EU only engages in pursuing trade deals for the sake of it, not because there might actually be some benefit to their members in doing so. Secondly, once we have actually left what is the backstop actually a backstop to? Under the WA a trade agreement is supposed to replace the need for a backstop, it has no value in a No deal situation. And thirdly, just because trade talks are opened, it doesn't mean they have to result in anything - payment of money could just as easily be made a condition of any agreement being signed off (of course, without a transition period, the bill isn't £39b, as that included payment for maintaining access to the Single Market for a couple of years).
Agreement of reciprocal citizens rights, fair enough - that could be made an upfront priority.
So the ultras have no escape from the backstop, other than bankrupting the country?
I’m defence of the ultras, May committed two massive blunders (see Varafoukis upthread) in exercising A50 and agreeing to the sequencing.
It was strategic incompetence at a grand scale.
Some posters may have noted this at the time.
May didn't have any real choice on either Article 50 or the sequencing, once the EU had decided their demands. The terms of our future relationship with the EU were always going to be set by them, and not to our advantage. She could have been more honest with the public about the compromises that Brexit forces on us and tried to get a consensus around those compromises.
Triggering Article 50 before we had a plan or even a destination in mind was a epic balls-up by Theresa May. Even if it is true (and it was never tested) that the EU would not concede on its rules for sequencing the negotiations, there was no point in even starting before we had decided what we wanted, what we were negotiating for.
So the ultras have no escape from the backstop, other than bankrupting the country?
I’m defence of the ultras, May committed two massive blunders (see Varafoukis upthread) in exercising A50 and agreeing to the sequencing.
It was strategic incompetence at a grand scale.
Some posters may have noted this at the time.
May didn't have any real choice on either Article 50 or the sequencing, once the EU had decided their demands. The terms of our future relationship with the EU were always going to be set by them, and not to our advantage. She could have been more honest with the public about the compromises that Brexit forces on us and tried to get a consensus around those compromises.
Triggering Article 50 before we had a plan or even a destination in mind was a epic balls-up by Theresa May. Even if it is true (and it was never tested) that the EU would not concede on its rules for sequencing the negotiations, there was no point in even starting before we had decided what we wanted, what we were negotiating for.
What do you expect when country is led by inbred halfwits supported by the thick as mince plebs. The UK is well and truly F****ed, stupid thickos at the top and the bottom.
So the ultras have no escape from the backstop, other than bankrupting the country?
I’m defence of the ultras, May committed two massive blunders (see Varafoukis upthread) in exercising A50 and agreeing to the sequencing.
It was strategic incompetence at a grand scale.
Some posters may have noted this at the time.
May didn't have any real choice on either Article 50 or the sequencing, once the EU had decided their demands. The terms of our future relationship with the EU were always going to be set by them, and not to our advantage. She could have been more honest with the public about the compromises that Brexit forces on us and tried to get a consensus around those compromises.
Triggering Article 50 before we had a plan or even a destination in mind was a epic balls-up by Theresa May. Even if it is true (and it was never tested) that the EU would not concede on its rules for sequencing the negotiations, there was no point in even starting before we had decided what we wanted, what we were negotiating for.
Great in theory - i suspect had there been greater consultation with MPs it would have resulted in a negotiating position based on unicorns, which we would have had to compromise on, which MPs would then have voted down complaining that their (contradictory and conflicting) red lines hadn't been respected.
Ultimately, the big problem was the EU's absolute insistence that they wouldn't negotiate any pre-conditions in advance of article 50 being triggered. I'm sure that the article 50 period was always envisioned (to the extent it was thought about) as the transition period to a new trading arrangement, in which the bulk of the new trading arrangement was negotiated. It wasn't intended to be a period to argue about the terms of a transition period.
Papers like the mail are making out it’s all very meaningful.
At least MV 2.5 will be interesting to see how many Spartans are still standing, how many grand wizards are still with them, and how many Labour are huddled in there with them.
Or maybe that won’t be... wait for it... indicative at all if it cannot really be a meaningful vote that properly passes the WA?
Has the motion been published yet? AG was saying it’s all very water tight and legal to cut the worm in half and only vote on the pink wriggling half, but is he right?
Surely the EU Withdrawal Act (s13(1)) explicitly requires the WA and PD to be voted on together to be a goal, otherwise it’s all as meaningless as one of those balls in the onion sack that don’t count because of offside flag?
Keen to hear your opinion. But it looks clear cut, you can’t cut it in half and achieve anything meaningful voting on just half of it.
If AG is wrong how legally sound this is, surely he and Leader of the House should both resign for this misleading shambles? The Daily Mail at the very least would have been made into complete mugs with their front page? If not legally sound as a MV is this the most gratuitous attempt in history to mislead parliament
It will satisfy the EU for an extension to 22nd May (perhaps although that might be legally dodgy) but what it does not allow is for Parliament to ratify the WA. There would still need to be a meaningful vote to allow that as per S13(1) of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
In her rambling explanation moving it lead of house seem to claim passing this means government can then ratify the WA without a further vote on it. Certainly newspapers build it up as meaningful. Either she is legally right, or it’s an illegal deception to imply this? Heyhoe Something we imagine to be categorically cleared up in the first minutes of the debate. What times the actual vote?
Just put my Mother in Law's bungalow up for sale to fund her move into a Nursing Home. She does have mild dementia, but mostly it is physical frailty. She cannot manage even with maximum domestic support.
I have no problem with this at all, after all she saved for a rainy day and now it is pissing down.
So the ultras have no escape from the backstop, other than bankrupting the country?
I’m defence of the ultras, May committed two massive blunders (see Varafoukis upthread) in exercising A50 and agreeing to the sequencing.
It was strategic incompetence at a grand scale.
Some posters may have noted this at the time.
May didn't have any real choice on either Article 50 or the sequencing, once the EU had decided their demands. The terms of our future relationship with the EU were always going to be set by them, and not to our advantage. She could have been more honest with the public about the compromises that Brexit forces on us and tried to get a consensus around those compromises.
Triggering Article 50 before we had a plan or even a destination in mind was a epic balls-up by Theresa May. Even if it is true (and it was never tested) that the EU would not concede on its rules for sequencing the negotiations, there was no point in even starting before we had decided what we wanted, what we were negotiating for.
I don’t believe we should have exercised A50 without a plan, nor that we should have conceded sequencing.
I think Cummings has a point when he says that those assuming the EU would be the central issue in a second referendum could be very wrong.
Also wrong about Brexit being the central issue in a snap general election if Jeremy Corbyn's trip to Morecambe and PMQs about buses are to be taken seriously.
Rumour that Labour is preparing a combined CU plus PV option for Monday. Good news if true.
Fantastic news if true - but not exactly in line with what they have been saying so far.
Far too sensible to actually happen.
It is the way things seem to be going. Although "Labour is preparing.." is of course part of the problem. It would be better if the various parties who backed the various CU propositions and the PV one were working up a joint proposal.
Rotten politics by TMay (again). It's been obvious for months that we're heading towards a Customs Union. Either she proposes it herself and puts Labour on the spot, or she lets them set the agenda and has to deal with them throwing a referendum into the mix as well. So obviously she'll do the latter.
Just put my Mother in Law's bungalow up for sale to fund her move into a Nursing Home. She does have mild dementia, but mostly it is physical frailty. She cannot manage even with maximum domestic support.
I have no problem with this at all, after all she saved for a rainy day and now it is pissing down.
My mother-in-law moved in with us in January. She can no longer look after herself and would very quickly fade away in a home. It has been incredibly stressful for my wife and continues to be, but ultimately we are fortunate enough to have the luxury of choice. So many others don’t. That cannot be right.
So the ultras have no escape from the backstop, other than bankrupting the country?
I’m defence of the ultras, May committed two massive blunders (see Varafoukis upthread) in exercising A50 and agreeing to the sequencing.
It was strategic incompetence at a grand scale.
Some posters may have noted this at the time.
May didn't have any real choice on either Article 50 or the sequencing, once the EU had decided their demands. The terms of our future relationship with the EU were always going to be set by them, and not to our advantage. She could have been more honest with the public about the compromises that Brexit forces on us and tried to get a consensus around those compromises.
Triggering Article 50 before we had a plan or even a destination in mind was a epic balls-up by Theresa May. Even if it is true (and it was never tested) that the EU would not concede on its rules for sequencing the negotiations, there was no point in even starting before we had decided what we wanted, what we were negotiating for.
Great in theory - i suspect had there been greater consultation with MPs it would have resulted in a negotiating position based on unicorns, which we would have had to compromise on, which MPs would then have voted down complaining that their (contradictory and conflicting) red lines hadn't been respected.
A negotiating position based on red lines plucked from thin air by the Prime Minister after she prematurely triggered Article 50 has not proved very successful; not even at slaying unicorns.
SCons tweeting beforehand that it was a two horse race between them and SLab. If you can have two horse races for second, that's certainly those lads' foreseeable future.
We're sovereign but can't ever leave the/a customs union/single market.
Mm, pooled sovereignty.
We can of course always leave CU and SM. We are Sovereign.
What we cannot do is to leave them without either economic cost, or damage to the unity of the United Kingdom. It is failure to address these costs, and to push the costs onto those who never supported Brexit, that is at the heart of the mess that we are in.
So the ultras have no escape from the backstop, other than bankrupting the country?
I’m defence of the ultras, May committed two massive blunders (see Varafoukis upthread) in exercising A50 and agreeing to the sequencing.
It was strategic incompetence at a grand scale.
Some posters may have noted this at the time.
May didn't have any real choice on either Article 50 or the sequencing, once the EU had decided their demands. The terms of our future relationship with the EU were always going to be set by them, and not to our advantage. She could have been more honest with the public about the compromises that Brexit forces on us and tried to get a consensus around those compromises.
Triggering Article 50 before we had a plan or even a destination in mind was a epic balls-up by Theresa May. Even if it is true (and it was never tested) that the EU would not concede on its rules for sequencing the negotiations, there was no point in even starting before we had decided what we wanted, what we were negotiating for.
Great in theory - i suspect had there been greater consultation with MPs it would have resulted in a negotiating position based on unicorns, which we would have had to compromise on, which MPs would then have voted down complaining that their (contradictory and conflicting) red lines hadn't been respected.
A negotiating position based on red lines plucked from thin air by the Prime Minister after she prematurely triggered Article 50 has not proved very successful; not even at slaying unicorns.
Point being that it would have made no difference. Classic case of assuming that just because a course of action wasn't a sterling success, another route might have been. The trouble was always going to be the lack of support for Brexit in the Commons, and the expectations allegedly built up about what it would deliver.
Papers like the mail are making out it’s all very meaningful.
At least MV 2.5 will be interesting to see how many Spartans are still standing, how many grand wizards are still with them, and how many Labour are huddled in there with them.
Or maybe that won’t be... wait for it... indicative at all if it cannot really be a meaningful vote that properly passes the WA?
Has the motion been published yet? AG was saying it’s all very water tight and legal to cut the worm in half and only vote on the pink wriggling half, but is he right?
Surely the EU Withdrawal Act (s13(1)) explicitly requires the WA and PD to be voted on together to be a goal, otherwise it’s all as meaningless as one of those balls in the onion sack that don’t count because of offside flag?
Keen to hear your opinion. But it looks clear cut, you can’t cut it in half and achieve anything meaningful voting on just half of it.
If AG is wrong how legally sound this is, surely he and Leader of the House should both resign for this misleading shambles? The Daily Mail at the very least would have been made into complete mugs with their front page? If not legally sound as a MV is this the most gratuitous attempt in history to mislead parliament
It will satisfy the EU for an extension to 22nd May (perhaps although that might be legally dodgy) but what it does not allow is for Parliament to ratify the WA. There would still need to be a meaningful vote to allow that as per S13(1) of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
In her rambling explanation moving it lead of house seem to claim passing this means government can then ratify the WA without a further vote on it. Certainly newspapers build it up as meaningful. Either she is legally right, or it’s an illegal deception to imply this? Heyhoe Something we imagine to be categorically cleared up in the first minutes of the debate. What times the actual vote?
I can't see why this vote is going ahead. Unless, when it gets voted down, it gives May cover to resign, allowing the Interim PM to go for a lengthy extension for a replacement and start the ball rolling on EU elections - which I doubt she wants to approve.
Gove to be Interim PM as he rules himself out for standing for the job full time?
Just put my Mother in Law's bungalow up for sale to fund her move into a Nursing Home. She does have mild dementia, but mostly it is physical frailty. She cannot manage even with maximum domestic support.
I have no problem with this at all, after all she saved for a rainy day and now it is pissing down.
My mother-in-law moved in with us in January. She can no longer look after herself and would very quickly fade away in a home. It has been incredibly stressful for my wife and continues to be, but ultimately we are fortunate enough to have the luxury of choice. So many others don’t. That cannot be right.
Mrs Foxy has been nursing her mum at her bungalow for most of the last few months, but now her mum needs even more care. I suspect that she will only last a few more months. It is a very nice Nursing Home that they have found. Somethings matter more than inheritance.
We're sovereign but can't ever leave the/a customs union/single market.
Mm, pooled sovereignty.
We can of course always leave CU and SM. We are Sovereign.
What we cannot do is to leave them without either economic cost, or damage to the unity of the United Kingdom. It is failure to address these costs, and to push the costs onto those who never supported Brexit, that is at the heart of the mess that we are in.
Exactly. It’s pretty basic stuff. Our fate is entirely in our hands. But there are costs involved in departure.
So the ultras have no escape from the backstop, other than bankrupting the country?
I’m defence of the ultras, May committed two massive blunders (see Varafoukis upthread) in exercising A50 and agreeing to the sequencing.
It was strategic incompetence at a grand scale.
Some posters may have noted this at the time.
May didn't have any real choice on either Article 50 or the sequencing, once the EU had decided their demands. The terms of our future relationship with the EU were always going to be set by them, and not to our advantage. She could have been more honest with the public about the compromises that Brexit forces on us and tried to get a consensus around those compromises.
Triggering Article 50 before we had a plan or even a destination in mind was a epic balls-up by Theresa May. Even if it is true (and it was never tested) that the EU would not concede on its rules for sequencing the negotiations, there was no point in even starting before we had decided what we wanted, what we were negotiating for.
Agreed. However the plan wasn't something clever civil servants could cobble together in a couple of weeks. Brexit entails severe compromises with a lot of potential damage to be mitigated. The need was to get parties on board with the compromises.
Dr. Foxy, if reports are accurate the EU, should we leave with no deal, would refuse to even negotiate unless we endorsed the backstop, which includes entering a customs union. That's entirely unreasonable, given the backstop is apparently a short term stopgap measure until a long term alternative can be found.
My sympathies on your mother-in-law's situation.
Edited extra bit: and to Mr. Observer on his, of course.
We're sovereign but can't ever leave the/a customs union/single market.
Mm, pooled sovereignty.
We can of course always leave CU and SM. We are Sovereign.
What we cannot do is to leave them without either economic cost, or damage to the unity of the United Kingdom. It is failure to address these costs, and to push the costs onto those who never supported Brexit, that is at the heart of the mess that we are in.
Exactly. It’s pretty basic stuff. Our fate is entirely in our hands. But there are costs involved in departure.
If sovereignty is held to mean “do anything you like without any consequences” then no country of person has ever held sovereignty.
Just put my Mother in Law's bungalow up for sale to fund her move into a Nursing Home. She does have mild dementia, but mostly it is physical frailty. She cannot manage even with maximum domestic support.
I have no problem with this at all, after all she saved for a rainy day and now it is pissing down.
My mother-in-law moved in with us in January. She can no longer look after herself and would very quickly fade away in a home. It has been incredibly stressful for my wife and continues to be, but ultimately we are fortunate enough to have the luxury of choice. So many others don’t. That cannot be right.
Mrs Foxy has been nursing her mum at her bungalow for most of the last few months, but now her mum needs even more care. I suspect that she will only last a few more months. It is a very nice Nursing Home that they have found. Somethings matter more than inheritance.
Yep. At the moment we (more specifically my wife) can do most of the caring, but there will be a point when that is no longer possible. Seeing Alzheimer’s up close is awful - for a child to see a parent go through it is just heartbreaking. It changes so many foundations of your self as the entire parent/child relationship switches.
I’m defence of the ultras, May committed two massive blunders (see Varafoukis upthread) in exercising A50 and agreeing to the sequencing.
It was strategic incompetence at a grand scale.
Some posters may have noted this at the time.
May didn't have any real choice on either Article 50 or the sequencing, once the EU had decided their demands. The terms of our future relationship with the EU were always going to be set by them, and not to our advantage. She could have been more honest with the public about the compromises that Brexit forces on us and tried to get a consensus around those compromises.
Triggering Article 50 before we had a plan or even a destination in mind was a epic balls-up by Theresa May. Even if it is true (and it was never tested) that the EU would not concede on its rules for sequencing the negotiations, there was no point in even starting before we had decided what we wanted, what we were negotiating for.
Great in theory - i suspect had there been greater consultation with MPs it would have resulted in a negotiating position based on unicorns, which we would have had to compromise on, which MPs would then have voted down complaining that their (contradictory and conflicting) red lines hadn't been respected.
A negotiating position based on red lines plucked from thin air by the Prime Minister after she prematurely triggered Article 50 has not proved very successful; not even at slaying unicorns.
Point being that it would have made no difference. Classic case of assuming that just because a course of action wasn't a sterling success, another route might have been. The trouble was always going to be the lack of support for Brexit in the Commons, and the expectations allegedly built up about what it would deliver.
I was merely addressing your point that wider consultation would have produced red lines and unicorns. We did have contradictory red lines and unicorns anyway but dreamt up in Number 10.
Theresa May should, before triggering Article 50, have established what sort of Brexit we wanted. David Cameron should have done the same before the referendum. The best way to do this would be some sort of commission packed with Brexiteers. (As a side effect, it might even have united the ERG around a plausible goal.)
It was the height of folly to proceed without this and as we can see today, on what should have been Brexit Day, it has not even worked at any level, as some predicted two years ago.
Rumour that Labour is preparing a combined CU plus PV option for Monday. Good news if true.
Fantastic news if true - but not exactly in line with what they have been saying so far.
Far too sensible to actually happen.
It is the way things seem to be going. Although "Labour is preparing.." is of course part of the problem. It would be better if the various parties who backed the various CU propositions and the PV one were working up a joint proposal.
Rotten politics by TMay (again). It's been obvious for months that we're heading towards a Customs Union. Either she proposes it herself and puts Labour on the spot, or she lets them set the agenda and has to deal with them throwing a referendum into the mix as well. So obviously she'll do the latter.
TM is not in a position to dictate as the mps, not Corbyn , have taken back control
I reject the idea TM was entirely responsible for triggering A50. Corbyn announced he would have done it straight away and it was only after the Gina Miller ruling that A50 was put before the HOC
498 mps voted for the triggering of A50 and default no deal and though TM has many faults, suggesting TM serving of A50 bestows far too much power to her in the process, and of course is used against her by those who are in an opposite political camp
I expect todays WDA will fall by a smaller margin but it will be interesting to hear Boris, IDS, JRM and other ERG members talking in favour of the WDA today in direct conflict with the ultras.
The debate will move to monday where a CU of some sort is likely to receive a high degree of support.
However, no deal remains a high possibility and so does an extension requiring our involvement in the EU elections from 12th April
One thing is certain, 14 days from today something positive has to be agreed or it is no deal
Rumour that Labour is preparing a combined CU plus PV option for Monday. Good news if true.
I'd rather one or the other frankly. If they're happy with the former no need to ask the people, and if they want us to remain just PV on the WA as is.
Comments
Social care should be free at the point of need, funded from general taxation where the rich contribute more.
Furthermore Dementia is devastating to families, but random in nature. The burden should fall on society as a whole not Individuals or families. Underlining the need for NHS/compulsory social insurance.
Betfair has also suspended its market on which happens first: we leave the EU or Theresa May resigns as Prime Minister.
And on whether Article 50 will be revoked.
Regarding IHT, I've always regarded it as one of the most harmless taxes. The state needs a lot of money from somewhere to fulfil its obligations, and where better to cream it off than the estates of the dead? The deceased persons don't suffer from the loss, and in this country in particular such a large proportion of our total wealth is locked in property, i.e. sat inert, doing no useful work, that recycling it back through tax and spending (rather than beating the crap out of the incomes of working people, including the poor, so that wealthy heirs can inherit 100%) seems to me to be wholly unobjectionable.
I don't advocate confiscation, but on the other hand nor do I see what's wrong with heirs getting a fat nest egg rather than absolutely everything.
If you have to pay tax, I'd rather pay it when dead than alive.
And, bigger picture, it is progressive and directs towards a fairer society.
(People often make a category error though. Eton’s “patriarchs’”interest in the country and the wider good derived from who and what they were, not the fact that they were OEs. Not all OEs have the same sense of duty that the “patriarchs” do)
https://twitter.com/CorbynASAP/status/1111407269944549376
For example you should be able to retain a business in private ownership rather than to force a sale. Similarly breaking up farms in a net negative because economies of scale make a real difference
Now MPs must do two things. They must not vote to support May, but ensure that her deal is buried once and for all at the Westminster crossroads, garlic in mouth, stake through heart. Already the dark riders of the Tory backwoodsmen have done their treacherous deed. So apparently has the DUP.
Then finally Clarke/Corbyn/Boles must conquer the sunny uplands of indicativity, with a clear Commons mandate for a customs union. That could then be rushed to Brussels by the deputy prime minister, David Lidington, or any other proxy for a reluctant May. We know it would be well received.
Alongside a customs union, the other most favoured option on Wednesday was Margaret Beckett’s, for a second referendum – not to rerun the first but to confirm whatever deal is reached with Brussels. The choice would be either to approve parliament’s departure plan or to stay in. After the blood and thunder of the past two years, such a confirming referendum would be cleansing, reasonable and calming.
These two ways forward are quite separate. The one is a Brexit mandate, the other a Brexit process. They are simply the sensible compromise to the national debate of the past two years. May’s deal has poisoned politics for long enough. Parliament has hinted at a willingness to “take back control”. Now it must do so.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/29/parliament-brexit-indicative-votes
https://twitter.com/SunApology/status/1111521858954973184
Looking forward to giving this a listen when I have the time (and have woken up sufficiently).
Most people find the idea of having to sell the family home to pay the taxman objectionable, and the fact they come looking for the money when you’re grieving reprehensible.
It was strategic incompetence at a grand scale.
Some posters may have noted this at the time.
https://www.melaniephillips.com/a-remainers-mind-is-changed-we-must-leave-come-hell-or-high-water/
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1111416215484817408?s=19
Now Raab is suggesting an exchange of letters would be enough for him (the opposite of what he's said before), suggesting he is looking for a ladder - but who is going to think him so important as to be exchanging letters with the EU this morning? (unless he knows May already has letters and is going to produce them)
deleted
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/banksy-artwork-depicting-mps-as-chimps-put-on-display-to-mark-brexit-day/ar-BBVm8yD?ocid=spartanntp
Only transfers of note was Cons to Lab
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1111418274560925697?s=19
surely voter's not voters?
Something has to give.
And its not as though Labour didn't try....
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1111521339976962048
Firstly it implies that the EU only engages in pursuing trade deals for the sake of it, not because there might actually be some benefit to their members in doing so. Secondly, once we have actually left what is the backstop actually a backstop to? Under the WA a trade agreement is supposed to replace the need for a backstop, it has no value in a No deal situation. And thirdly, just because trade talks are opened, it doesn't mean they have to result in anything - payment of money could just as easily be made a condition of any agreement being signed off (of course, without a transition period, the bill isn't £39b, as that included payment for maintaining access to the Single Market for a couple of years).
Agreement of reciprocal citizens rights, fair enough - that could be made an upfront priority.
The factors driving the WA will also drive the final deal. Customs Union and Single Market alignment.
Let 29 March 2019 be our Independence Day from Brexshit!
Ultimately, the big problem was the EU's absolute insistence that they wouldn't negotiate any pre-conditions in advance of article 50 being triggered. I'm sure that the article 50 period was always envisioned (to the extent it was thought about) as the transition period to a new trading arrangement, in which the bulk of the new trading arrangement was negotiated. It wasn't intended to be a period to argue about the terms of a transition period.
Heyhoe Something we imagine to be categorically cleared up in the first minutes of the debate. What times the actual vote?
I have no problem with this at all, after all she saved for a rainy day and now it is pissing down.
May is to utterly to blame.
We're sovereign but can't ever leave the/a customs union/single market.
Mm, pooled sovereignty.
What we cannot do is to leave them without either economic cost, or damage to the unity of the United Kingdom. It is failure to address these costs, and to push the costs onto those who never supported Brexit, that is at the heart of the mess that we are in.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1111533409359269888
Gove to be Interim PM as he rules himself out for standing for the job full time?
My sympathies on your mother-in-law's situation.
Edited extra bit: and to Mr. Observer on his, of course.
Theresa May should, before triggering Article 50, have established what sort of Brexit we wanted. David Cameron should have done the same before the referendum. The best way to do this would be some sort of commission packed with Brexiteers. (As a side effect, it might even have united the ERG around a plausible goal.)
It was the height of folly to proceed without this and as we can see today, on what should have been Brexit Day, it has not even worked at any level, as some predicted two years ago.
I reject the idea TM was entirely responsible for triggering A50. Corbyn announced he would have done it straight away and it was only after the Gina Miller ruling that A50 was put before the HOC
498 mps voted for the triggering of A50 and default no deal and though TM has many faults, suggesting TM serving of A50 bestows far too much power to her in the process, and of course is used against her by those who are in an opposite political camp
I expect todays WDA will fall by a smaller margin but it will be interesting to hear Boris, IDS, JRM and other ERG members talking in favour of the WDA today in direct conflict with the ultras.
The debate will move to monday where a CU of some sort is likely to receive a high degree of support.
However, no deal remains a high possibility and so does an extension requiring our involvement in the EU elections from 12th April
One thing is certain, 14 days from today something positive has to be agreed or it is no deal