Gove and Johnson, two journalists who never believed we'd be here, made up any old rubbish for the purposes of the campaign, fairly confident that it would be never be tested in the harsh light of reality. What they did have is the sense of bombastic national entitlement, and cheerfully vacuous provocation, that Britain's press promotes.
It's as much an indictment of Britain's media culture as its political one.
On topic. And of course everyone posts and reads posts here through the prism of their own prejudices. But even a remainer can say: What a bitter piece of remainery from Eagles today. But sadly not nearly incisive enough. A meandering argument that doesn’t deliver enough killer facts to support it, the PS alone built on so many assumptions and misconceptions to actually count up and challenge this shortest day of the year.
Okay dots what is more incisive and worthwhile?
Explore what would be the difference between a hard brexit dressed up in a deal, and a no deal decoupling.
There is difference, a deal you could pass off as brexit you argue mitigates some worst aspects of leaving making the whole thing easier to swallow. You could argue it’s merely some good bits of a future trade deal come early. But at the same time the truth is, Mays particular arrangement is not actual brexit. And at that point yes, being fair to Eagles, we would acknowledge how all the spin and rhetoric has smothered the conversation, what actually is for real under it?
Two examples.
If you mention another ref option all Tories and express and mail scream: PEOPLES VOTE CHEATING REMAINER SCUM. well, no actually. A further ref doesn’t even have to have remain on it. Just one disputed leave agreement for the people’s input or between two leave options to build on and refine the original decision.
Meanwhile say the phrase No Deal Brexit and people will exclaim: Christ man you cannot be serious! A hole will open in the fabric of hyperspace and we’ll all die! Well, no, actually.
It’s absolutely clear to me what has gone wrong here to create impasse. The politicians have brainwashed themselves and us with their spin!
What I think is real?
May and her followers cling to her narrow CU less deal not for the country but because it’s a compromise that prevents existential civil war breaking out in the Conservative party.
And, sadly you all need to join me in this sooner or later, there is one thing far more disasterous for UK than no deal brexit and that is no brexit at all, because in that scenario a line is not drawn under this, we don’t move on.
I don't see how No Deal gets through given 170 MPs only back it and the Commons has consistently voted against it. More likely the Commons votes to stay in a Customs Union or Single Market and Customs Union tomorrow and we renegotiate the PD with the EU and contest the European elections on that basis. That may need the May Government to fall and be replaced by either a Corbyn, LD, SNP and DUP Governmemt if May loses a VONC without a general election or a Corbyn and SNP Governmemt after a general election but to be honest that is more likely now than May shifting from her Deal to BINO given most of her party's opposition or a sustained No Deal which really requires a hard Brexiteer like Boris or Raab to do the Tory leadership and an overall majority on a platform of No Deal and try for a FTA given the current Commons has made clear it will never allow a No Deal Brexit
I think perhaps you have just illustrated how No Deal "gets through", considering that to avoid it happening in 12 days' time we need to convince the European Council that there is a consensus in the UK for a clear way forward.
Which may well come if staying in a CU plus May's Deal or Common Market 2.0 wins the Commons vote tomorrow and beats May's Deal when she pitches her Deal against it and the Commons votes to contest the European elections later in the week, that would thus meet the EU's criteria for a lengthy extension
These TIG/BXP polls are interesting but all entirely hypothetical until such time its clear they're actually standing candidates in a wide range of constituencies.
Might as well stay in the EU if those who support a CU want that.
CU on its own is not a viable end state. It is a holding position that provides a measure of stability while we decide in the fullness of time whether to align properly (e.g. CM2.0) or to diverge properly (e.g. Canada).
It is essentially the same as May's deal, since the Backstop does the same job in the same way. It is also essentially the same as Corbyn's proposed deal. That too, shorn of its unicorn element, does the same job in the same way.
For some reason having Ken Clarke's name on a Brexit plan unlocks support from people who condemn the same plan when it is seen as belonging to either Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn. I wonder why that is?
A lot of politics is sadly like that. Hence Labour not supporting proposals for the SNP we know they agree with, etc.
I know 2 Conservative MPs. Neither campaigned at all in their own constituency in 2017. Like many Conservative activists they were dispatched to 'vulnerable' Labour held seats which turned out to be safe Labour holds. One of those MPs nearly lost their seat and the other saw their majority greatly reduced. Neither will set foot outside their constituency in the forthcoming GE.
The Conservative party machine (such as it is) will be in full defence mode. Conservative gains are going to be incredibly few and far between, as there is almost no 'offensive' capability to deploy.
Conservative voters like Conservative activists are overwhelmingly Leave voters and break overwhelmingly for No deal over other options. Conservative MPs looking to hold seats would have to be incredibly 'courageous ' in the Sir Humphrey sense to opt for anything other than no deal if they want to hold their seats. Hence the 170 already declared for it.
We are going to have GE one way or the other very soon. For what's it's worth I reckon we are close to Conservative MPs being willing to vote no confidence to trigger one if necessary.
Not convinced about the last para. Corbyn would have to win a VONC for that. Cleverleyhas said today the Tories are not preparing for a GE, no Tory wants an election with May still in charge, and preferably with the long overdue boundary changes.
The boundary changes are almost certainly dead now. Difficult to see the Tory TIGGERS supporting them.
The remainer establishment owns any forms of leaving at present. For your dream to become reality, you need power to be handed to the leading brexiteers, with the rest of the political class somehow failing to prevent them from enacting their will, and then for the outcomes flowing from that departure to be profoundly negative. The second condition seems particularly unlikely to be satisfied.
A good encapsulation of the Leaver 'Operation Scapegoat' now in full flow.
interesting that you characterise it that way but don't fault the logic.
I don't recognise any logic in your assessment.
See my 2.59pm comment.
I did. You overlook the fact that Gove, Fox, Johnson, Davis, Raab, Leadsom, Javid, Mordaunt, Barclay, Truss have all been in the cabinet during the period of negotiations.
No. I mentioned Davis and Raab. It appears the others have had even less influence than them. May took personal control of the negotiations. Javid supported remain fwiw.
Can you see that from a Remainer perspective I do not buy the idea that Brexit being a heap of shite is all the fault of Remainers?
Breixt was going to be easy we were told (by Leavers). They lied.
I can see that perspective clearly, but your perspective is irrelevant to the OP's posts about how leave voters would react to a no deal.
So the question is whether they would make the assumption you go on to make (leave proponents lied) or whether they would be nearer to my thinking (they exaggerated no doubt, but that was clear at the outset, and remainers have maintained control and responsibility for botched negotiations).
In voting leave, I had assumed a fairly efficient establishment stitch up for a soft brexit (while preferring no deal) so I certainly don't feel misled into voting leave, but perhaps naively did not anticipate the extent to which a large portion of remain mps would oppose any brexit (both a minority of tory remainers and those voting along party political lines).
Just wondering, if we do have a GE and an overtly Remainer Hoc results, whether we'll still have the right bitching about the 'will of the people'.
Depends if Brexit happens before any GE. Your statement implies not. Not being in the HoC has never stopped the odious Farage. I suspect most Leavers would follow the exemplary example of Remainers after the referendum result - and continue to bitch about it for all they are worth. With less bitching and blame-gaming we might not be where we are - but MPs, like leopards, don’t change their spots.
I know 2 Conservative MPs. Neither campaigned at all in their own constituency in 2017. Like many Conservative activists they were dispatched to 'vulnerable' Labour held seats which turned out to be safe Labour holds. One of those MPs nearly lost their seat and the other saw their majority greatly reduced. Neither will set foot outside their constituency in the forthcoming GE.
The Conservative party machine (such as it is) will be in full defence mode. Conservative gains are going to be incredibly few and far between, as there is almost no 'offensive' capability to deploy.
Conservative voters like Conservative activists are overwhelmingly Leave voters and break overwhelmingly for No deal over other options. Conservative MPs looking to hold seats would have to be incredibly 'courageous ' in the Sir Humphrey sense to opt for anything other than no deal if they want to hold their seats. Hence the 170 already declared for it.
We are going to have GE one way or the other very soon. For what's it's worth I reckon we are close to Conservative MPs being willing to vote no confidence to trigger one if necessary.
Not convinced about the last para. Corbyn would have to win a VONC for that. Cleverleyhas said today the Tories are not preparing for a GE, no Tory wants an election with May still in charge, and preferably with the long overdue boundary changes.
Given the timetable the locals will happen first (and maybe even then the Euros). After the Tories see those results they won't want a GE.
The remainer establishment owns any forms of leaving at present. For your dream to become reality, you need power to be handed to the leading brexiteers, with the rest of the political class somehow failing to prevent them from enacting their will, and then for the outcomes flowing from that departure to be profoundly negative. The second condition seems particularly unlikely to be satisfied.
A good encapsulation of the Leaver 'Operation Scapegoat' now in full flow.
interesting that you characterise it that way but don't fault the logic.
I don't recognise any logic in your assessment.
See my 2.59pm comment.
I did. You overlook the fact that Gove, Fox, Johnson, Davis, Raab, Leadsom, Javid, Mordaunt, Barclay, Truss have all been in the cabinet during the period of negotiations.
No. I mentioned Davis and Raab. It appears the others have had even less influence than them. May took personal control of the negotiations. Javid supported remain fwiw.
Can you see that from a Remainer perspective I do not buy the idea that Brexit being a heap of shite is all the fault of Remainers?
Breixt was going to be easy we were told (by Leavers). They lied.
I can see that perspective clearly, but your perspective is irrelevant to the OP's posts about how leave voters would react to a no deal.
So the question is whether they would make the assumption you go on to make (leave proponents lied) or whether they would be nearer to my thinking (they exaggerated no doubt, but that was clear at the outset, and remainers have maintained control and responsibility for botched negotiations).
In voting leave, I had assumed a fairly efficient establishment stitch up for a soft brexit (while preferring no deal) so I certainly don't feel misled into voting leave, but perhaps naively did not anticipate the extent to which a large portion of remain mps would oppose any brexit (both a minority of tory remainers and those voting along party political lines).
But there hasn't been an establishment stitch-up on Brexit. There's been a total internal Tory failure to agree on anything, followed by parliament attempting to agree on something. David Davis's enemy when he went into a meeting with one sheet where his opposite number had a file wasn't the establishment, it was over-confident confusion about what he was doing.
Might as well stay in the EU if those who support a CU want that.
CU on its own is not a viable end state. It is a holding position that provides a measure of stability while we decide in the fullness of time whether to align properly (e.g. CM2.0) or to diverge properly (e.g. Canada).
It is essentially the same as May's deal, since the Backstop does the same job in the same way. It is also essentially the same as Corbyn's proposed deal. That too, shorn of its unicorn element, does the same job in the same way.
For some reason having Ken Clarke's name on a Brexit plan unlocks support from people who condemn the same plan when it is seen as belonging to either Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn. I wonder why that is?
Agreed. Canada was the only sensible way forward after the referendum. After that was spurned and after the GE when May lost her majority it was always going to be No Deal, No Brexit or Norway (which is effectively where My’s WA plus the political declaration, takes you.
The remainer establishment owns any forms of leaving at present. For your dream to become reality, you need power to be handed to the leading brexiteers, with the rest of the political class somehow failing to prevent them from enacting their will, and then for the outcomes flowing from that departure to be profoundly negative. The second condition seems particularly unlikely to be satisfied.
I think we have just found today's winner of the wishful thinking prize. It makes no sense whatever
I know 2 Conservative MPs. Neither campaigned at all in their own constituency in 2017. Like many Conservative activists they were dispatched to 'vulnerable' Labour held seats which turned out to be safe Labour holds. One of those MPs nearly lost their seat and the other saw their majority greatly reduced. Neither will set foot outside their constituency in the forthcoming GE.
The Conservative party machine (such as it is) will be in full defence mode. Conservative gains are going to be incredibly few and far between, as there is almost no 'offensive' capability to deploy.
Conservative voters like Conservative activists are overwhelmingly Leave voters and break overwhelmingly for No deal over other options. Conservative MPs looking to hold seats would have to be incredibly 'courageous ' in the Sir Humphrey sense to opt for anything other than no deal if they want to hold their seats. Hence the 170 already declared for it.
We are going to have GE one way or the other very soon. For what's it's worth I reckon we are close to Conservative MPs being willing to vote no confidence to trigger one if necessary.
Not convinced about the last para. Corbyn would have to win a VONC for that. Cleverleyhas said today the Tories are not preparing for a GE, no Tory wants an election with May still in charge, and preferably with the long overdue boundary changes.
Given the timetable the locals will happen first (and maybe even then the Euros). After the Tories see those results they won't want a GE.
Those with a brain don’t want one now. All this talk of a GE is just May trying to coerce her MPs to support her deal. No wonder her authority is shot.
No. I mentioned Davis and Raab. It appears the others have had even less influence than them. May took personal control of the negotiations. Javid supported remain fwiw.
After years of negotiation with the EU the agreed terms of exit are viewed by true Brexit believers as being Not Brexit. One of 2 things can be concluded from this -
(i) Because the divorce terms would have been materially the same regardless of who was running it from the UK end (given the red lines of no CU/SM) it follows that Not Brexit was inevitable, i.e. Brexit was undeliverable.
But this is understandably impossible for a Brexit true believer to swallow. It is saying that the dream was always just that, except with 'pipe' in the front.
Therefore they must - they simply must - reach for the alternative conclusion.
(ii) If only the UK negotiating team had been led by true believers the divorce terms for an exit with no CU/SM would have been far less onerous and would have represented a Brexit truly worthy of the name.
I fear you are dealing with fanatics, so your carefully nuanced reasoning is akin to arguing with slugs about relativity. To simplify, let's talk about fairness.
Had Remain won 52 - 48, these people wouldn't be talking of another referendum, they'd be exulting. Cameron wins again, the people have spoken. No doubt, some diehard Leavers would carry on the argument, but they'd be howled down.
Let's talk about referendums. Had the Scots won 52 - 48 in their bid for independence, the UK Parliament would have farted around and made political points, hoping to ameliorate some of the more extreme views, but they'd have finally given in with much less fuss. The Scots have spoken.
Mrs May understands that revocation or continual delays is an affront to democracy. I'm sure the Labour party and some Remainers also understand the potential backlash, but they either really, really want it, and don't care about the backlash, or see it as a political opportunity too tempting to pass up. And some see it as both.
I'm not really concerned now about the result any longer. Let's either leave and deal with it, or remain and accept the consequences of a divided nation for the foreseeable future.
This stupid Labour policy has been designed to avoid discussing the elephant in the room which is freedom of movement .
It’s much better to stay in the single market and out of the CU . That way you have your own trade policy which at least assuages Leavers . Just call it Norway with restrictions on freedom of movement and this would get big support in the country . The restrictions are in the EEA Treaty , the UK could also add a migration impact fund , registration system etc .
Given non EU immigration is rocketing and EU falling rapidly why on earth must this May red line be allowed to trash a good compromise .
But there hasn't been an establishment stitch-up on Brexit. There's been a total internal Tory failure to agree on anything, followed by parliament attempting to agree on something. David Davis's enemy when he went into a meeting with one sheet where his opposite number had a file wasn't the establishment, it was over-confident confusion about what he was doing.
You're right in as much as the establishment has failed to coalesce around one form of stitch up (yet) and the civil service/pm lacked the confidence davis had in his chosen negotiating approach.
My assumption that the stitch up would be fairly efficient was evidently wrong.
This stupid Labour policy has been designed to avoid discussing the elephant in the room which is freedom of movement .
It’s much better to stay in the single market and out of the CU . That way you have your own trade policy which at least assuages Leavers .
Why is it okay not to have our own regulatory policy?
Because you normally align your rules with your biggest market . Most of those rules are international ones anyway.
Canada and the USA have close alignment because the former needs to do that to access its biggest market .
Size matters. Something Leavers seem unable to understand . The EU single market is the biggest in the world , the UK is the smaller partner . That’s a fact and no amount of wishful thinking can change that .
I suspect a lot of those would also apply to the Labour Party/ leftwing 'liberals' etc: How many words are now socially unacceptable/ have changed meanings from what they used to be? brexiteers a probably more conservative in keeping the traditional meanings of said words.
A lot of them would apply to any mass political movement.
Somewhat out of context, i.e. words selectively extracted by someone who wants to smear one party. How typical of UK politics.
He seems to have said:
'...Furthermore, in any other workplace except parliament their work would be covered by a colleague or they would be provided with the necessary means to do a task remotely. Parliament could do this but chooses not to.
Sheffield Hallam constituents had contacted The Star questioning Mr O’Mara’s failure to vote but the MP, who did vote in the third vote on Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement on Friday, called for MPs to be able to vote without actually attending the Houses of Parliament.'
On his case for MPs being allowed to vote remotely in certain circumstances, I agree. In the 21st.C, why not?
There's a distinction between those who favour no deal, about 25% of the voters, and those who will accept it in preference to EU membership or a long delay to Brexit (40% +).
Agreed. Canada was the only sensible way forward after the referendum. After that was spurned and after the GE when May lost her majority it was always going to be No Deal, No Brexit or Norway (which is effectively where My’s WA plus the political declaration, takes you.
Canada would probably have happened were it not for the DUP. And the DUP only happened because of GE17. The election was May's biggest mistake. Not her failure to 'reach out', not her insistence on 'red lines', not her 'tin ear'. All of that is true but minor in the grand scheme of things. It was the election.
Somewhat out of context, i.e. words selectively extracted by someone who wants to smear one party. How typical of UK politics.
He seems to have said:
'...Furthermore, in any other workplace except parliament their work would be covered by a colleague or they would be provided with the necessary means to do a task remotely. Parliament could do this but chooses not to.
Sheffield Hallam constituents had contacted The Star questioning Mr O’Mara’s failure to vote but the MP, who did vote in the third vote on Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement on Friday, called for MPs to be able to vote without actually attending the Houses of Parliament.'
On his case for MPs being allowed to vote remotely in certain circumstances, I agree. In the 21st.C, why not?
One would hope they would at least turn up to participate in debates.
I fear you are dealing with fanatics, so your carefully nuanced reasoning is akin to arguing with slugs about relativity. To simplify, let's talk about fairness.
Had Remain won 52 - 48, these people wouldn't be talking of another referendum, they'd be exulting. Cameron wins again, the people have spoken. No doubt, some diehard Leavers would carry on the argument, but they'd be howled down.
Let's talk about referendums. Had the Scots won 52 - 48 in their bid for independence, the UK Parliament would have farted around and made political points, hoping to ameliorate some of the more extreme views, but they'd have finally given in with much less fuss. The Scots have spoken.
Mrs May understands that revocation or continual delays is an affront to democracy. I'm sure the Labour party and some Remainers also understand the potential backlash, but they either really, really want it, and don't care about the backlash, or see it as a political opportunity too tempting to pass up. And some see it as both.
I'm not really concerned now about the result any longer. Let's either leave and deal with it, or remain and accept the consequences of a divided nation for the foreseeable future.
Actually I expect Osborne would have dealt with the Scottish government in much the same way Barnier has dealt with the UK government had Scotland voted for independence, he would have tried to ensure Scotland did not get full access to the rUK market without staying tied close to the UK, helped by the fact the UK would still have been in the EU
I presume Labour will be feeling bullish about contesting EU elections should that be required; a chance to hammer the Tories.
Labour don't do especially well in EU elections, now that they are conducted under PR.
I expect that they and the Conservatives would poll in the range 20-25%.
Yes, I think both main parties would be in for a sorry Euros, whereas the Locals look like being bad news mostly for the Tories, particularly given how many they have to defend.
No. I mentioned Davis and Raab. It appears the others have had even less influence than them. May took personal control of the negotiations. Javid supported remain fwiw.
After years of negotiation with the EU the agreed terms of exit are viewed by true Brexit believers as being Not Brexit. One of 2 things can be concluded from this -
(i) Because the divorce terms would have been materially the same regardless of who was running it from the UK end (given the red lines of no CU/SM) it follows that Not Brexit was inevitable, i.e. Brexit was undeliverable.
But this is understandably impossible for a Brexit true believer to swallow. It is saying that the dream was always just that, except with 'pipe' in the front.
Therefore they must - they simply must - reach for the alternative conclusion.
(ii) If only the UK negotiating team had been led by true believers the divorce terms for an exit with no CU/SM would have been far less onerous and would have represented a Brexit truly worthy of the name.
As I say, I understand.
I think:
1) The willingness to seriously contemplate no deal influences the possibility of gaining less onerous terms since the EU is clearly averse to a no deal outcome;
2) Who negotiates is important in the sense of who enjoys responsibility (relevant to the claim in the OP). In theory a remainer might be able to convincingly negotiate a hard brexit and a leaver a soft one if viewing the negotiation as an intellectual exercise rather than an opportunity to argue for their personal preference (and particularly so where negotiating on behalf of others rather than as the boss). However, it has not appeared that the remainers in charge were willing to seriously contemplate no deal as per 1).
Canada would probably have happened were it not for the DUP. And the DUP only happened because of GE17. The election was May's biggest mistake. Not her failure to 'reach out', not her insistence on 'red lines', not her 'tin ear'. All of that is true but minor in the grand scheme of things. It was the election.
We probably won't know until May's memoirs are published but I suspect this is wrong. May made a big play of the "precious union" stuff well before the election, and made a point of saying there should be no new barriers within the UK, so she must have known exactly where her red lines would hit the wall.
Black Wednesday happened nearly 5 YEARS before the 1997 election. It was NOT the only reason Major lost in '97.
Wanna bet?
Well, OK, there was various bits of corruption, the Maastrich rebels, Major resigning as leader and being re-elected, and the unfortunate death of Stephen Milligan. But none of these things resulted in people coming to work crying. Knocking interest rates up to 12%, then 15%, even if only briefly, scared people. A lot of people could not have afforded their mortgages. No matter how Ken Clarke managed the economy (and he did very well), that was not forgotten.
Somewhat out of context, i.e. words selectively extracted by someone who wants to smear one party. How typical of UK politics.
He seems to have said:
'...Furthermore, in any other workplace except parliament their work would be covered by a colleague or they would be provided with the necessary means to do a task remotely. Parliament could do this but chooses not to.
Sheffield Hallam constituents had contacted The Star questioning Mr O’Mara’s failure to vote but the MP, who did vote in the third vote on Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement on Friday, called for MPs to be able to vote without actually attending the Houses of Parliament.'
On his case for MPs being allowed to vote remotely in certain circumstances, I agree. In the 21st.C, why not?
Well, he's wrong. Many tasks cannot be done remotely. Changing the way MPs vote should be done with extreme care, to ensure that we don't further bork the system.
Besides, I don't expect someone like O'Mara who, to be frank, is not the brightest (or nicest) person in there, and who has been there for such a short period (and could not be arsed to turn up a lot of the time) to know how parliament works, or why it is the way it is.
I think that those wanting to make the seal "softer" by committing to a CU may win a tactical victory but will stoke up a political disaster. Anything softer than May's deal makes no sense at all as will become apparent. A solution that delivers all or nearly all the disadvantages of the EU (as perceived by Brexiteers) but crucially has no political representation for the UK is manifestly worse than remain to anyone who understands it. It has to be Deal as it is now versus Remain or crash out versus Remain (or all three) in a second referendum .
Black Wednesday happened nearly 5 YEARS before the 1997 election. It was NOT the only reason Major lost in '97.
Wanna bet?
Well, OK, there was various bits of corruption, the Maastrich rebels, Major resigning as leader and being re-elected, and the unfortunate death of Stephen Milligan. But none of these things resulted in people coming to work crying. Knocking interest rates up to 12%, then 15%, even if only briefly, scared people. A lot of people could not have afforded their mortgages. No matter how Ken Clarke managed the economy (and he did very well), that was not forgotten.
Yep, their ratings fell off a cliff at that point and never recovered.
Somewhat out of context, i.e. words selectively extracted by someone who wants to smear one party. How typical of UK politics.
He seems to have said:
'...Furthermore, in any other workplace except parliament their work would be covered by a colleague or they would be provided with the necessary means to do a task remotely. Parliament could do this but chooses not to.
Sheffield Hallam constituents had contacted The Star questioning Mr O’Mara’s failure to vote but the MP, who did vote in the third vote on Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement on Friday, called for MPs to be able to vote without actually attending the Houses of Parliament.'
On his case for MPs being allowed to vote remotely in certain circumstances, I agree. In the 21st.C, why not?
I presume Labour will be feeling bullish about contesting EU elections should that be required; a chance to hammer the Tories.
Labour don't do especially well in EU elections, now that they are conducted under PR.
I expect that they and the Conservatives would poll in the range 20-25%.
Low turn out has benefitted UKIP in the past. This time I'd expect most of the 6 million to get off their butts and vote LD.
There's also TIG (but I expect they'd have a joint slate with the Lib Dems) Greens, SNP, Plaid, in addition to Labour.
Lib Dems and TIG would likely win close to 20% between them, which would give them representation in every region except the North East and Northern Ireland. If the Lib Dems and TIG didn't have a joint slate, they might both end up with very little.
I think that those wanting to make the seal "softer" by committing to a CU may win a tactical victory but will stoke up a political disaster. Anything softer than May's deal makes no sense at all as will become apparent. A solution that delivers all or nearly all the disadvantages of the EU (as perceived by Brexiteers) but crucially has no political representation for the UK is manifestly worse than remain to anyone who understands it. It has to be Deal as it is now versus Remain or crash out versus Remain (or all three) in a second referendum .
Not what the polls show, Deltapoll today has 40% for Common Market 2.0 35% against, 36% for Deal plus Customs Union 29% opposed so both have more in favour than opposed.
By contrast Revoke is split 41% for 40% opposed, EUref2 is split 40% for 38% opposed and No Deal has 45% opposed to 38% for
I presume Labour will be feeling bullish about contesting EU elections should that be required; a chance to hammer the Tories.
Labour don't do especially well in EU elections, now that they are conducted under PR.
I expect that they and the Conservatives would poll in the range 20-25%.
Yes, I think both main parties would be in for a sorry Euros, whereas the Locals look like being bad news mostly for the Tories, particularly given how many they have to defend.
They're mostly defending seats won in a good year, whereas I'd expect them to be roughly level-pegging with Labour this time.
I presume Labour will be feeling bullish about contesting EU elections should that be required; a chance to hammer the Tories.
Labour don't do especially well in EU elections, now that they are conducted under PR.
I expect that they and the Conservatives would poll in the range 20-25%.
Low turn out has benefitted UKIP in the past. This time I'd expect most of the 6 million to get off their butts and vote LD.
There's also TIG (but I expect they'd have a joint slate with the Lib Dems) Greens, SNP, Plaid, in addition to Labour.
Lib Dems and TIG would likely win close to 20% between them, which would give them representation in every region except the North East and Northern Ireland. If the Lib Dems and TIG didn't have a joint slate, they might both end up with very little.
I should have thought that 20% and a Lib candidate in Berwick would give them that seat in the NE.
I presume Labour will be feeling bullish about contesting EU elections should that be required; a chance to hammer the Tories.
Labour don't do especially well in EU elections, now that they are conducted under PR.
I expect that they and the Conservatives would poll in the range 20-25%.
Low turn out has benefitted UKIP in the past. This time I'd expect most of the 6 million to get off their butts and vote LD.
There's also TIG (but I expect they'd have a joint slate with the Lib Dems) Greens, SNP, Plaid, in addition to Labour.
Lib Dems and TIG would likely win close to 20% between them, which would give them representation in every region except the North East and Northern Ireland. If the Lib Dems and TIG didn't have a joint slate, they might both end up with very little.
I should have thought that 20% and a Lib candidate in Berwick would give them that seat in the NE.
There are only three seats in the NE region, so they'd need to win about 25% to get one.
Somewhat out of context, i.e. words selectively extracted by someone who wants to smear one party. How typical of UK politics.
He seems to have said:
'...Furthermore, in any other workplace except parliament their work would be covered by a colleague or they would be provided with the necessary means to do a task remotely. Parliament could do this but chooses not to.
Sheffield Hallam constituents had contacted The Star questioning Mr O’Mara’s failure to vote but the MP, who did vote in the third vote on Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement on Friday, called for MPs to be able to vote without actually attending the Houses of Parliament.'
On his case for MPs being allowed to vote remotely in certain circumstances, I agree. In the 21st.C, why not?
How many parliaments allow 'remote' voting?
I have absolutely no idea but Estonia has online general elections and the G.Party has online voting for candidates in its internal elections. Easier to make the process acceptably secure with 650 MPs than with the membership of an entire political party.
I also said *in certain circumstances* so I'm not suggesting it for all MPs as a means to avoid attending the HoC.
Actually I expect Osborne would have dealt with the Scottish government in much the same way Barnier has dealt with the UK government had Scotland voted for independence, he would have tried to ensure Scotland did not get full access to the rUK market without staying tied close to the UK, helped by the fact the UK would still have been in the EU
Assuming Scotland had voted for independence in 2014 and there had been a GE in 2015, how would you have reacted had Scottish MPs been elected to Westminster at that election? Scotland would still have been part of the UK while the negotiations to achieve independence would have been ongoing between London and Edinburgh.
As part of the UK at that time, Scotland would have been obliged to participate in that election and send MPs to Westminster.
As a counter-factual and hypothetical, how would you, as a Conservative, have reacted had those Scottish MPs joined with Labour to put Ed Miliband into 10 Downing Street?
Work thorough that and you begin to understand the EU's attitude to our participation in the next round of EU Parliamentary elections.
I presume Labour will be feeling bullish about contesting EU elections should that be required; a chance to hammer the Tories.
Labour don't do especially well in EU elections, now that they are conducted under PR.
I expect that they and the Conservatives would poll in the range 20-25%.
Low turn out has benefitted UKIP in the past. This time I'd expect most of the 6 million to get off their butts and vote LD.
There's also TIG (but I expect they'd have a joint slate with the Lib Dems) Greens, SNP, Plaid, in addition to Labour.
Lib Dems and TIG would likely win close to 20% between them, which would give them representation in every region except the North East and Northern Ireland. If the Lib Dems and TIG didn't have a joint slate, they might both end up with very little.
I should have thought that 20% and a Lib candidate in Berwick would give them that seat in the NE.
There are only three seats in the NE region, so they'd need to win about 25% to get one.
1) The willingness to seriously contemplate no deal influences the possibility of gaining less onerous terms since the EU is clearly averse to a no deal outcome;
2) Who negotiates is important in the sense of who enjoys responsibility (relevant to the claim in the OP). In theory a remainer might be able to convincingly negotiate a hard brexit and a leaver a soft one if viewing the negotiation as an intellectual exercise rather than an opportunity to argue for their personal preference (and particularly so where negotiating on behalf of others rather than as the boss). However, it has not appeared that the remainers in charge were willing to seriously contemplate no deal as per 1).
We will never know what would have happened if we had approached the negotiations with a more hard ball attitude. In my view it would have made little difference (could even have made things worse) because it would not have altered the stark reality of the imbalance in size, power, and negotiating expertise between the UK and the European Union. My main point, though, was to demonstrate that people of your persuasion really have no choice but to believe that Daniel could have felled Goliath not only in the bible but in Brussels.
I think that those wanting to make the seal "softer" by committing to a CU may win a tactical victory but will stoke up a political disaster. Anything softer than May's deal makes no sense at all as will become apparent. A solution that delivers all or nearly all the disadvantages of the EU (as perceived by Brexiteers) but crucially has no political representation for the UK is manifestly worse than remain to anyone who understands it. It has to be Deal as it is now versus Remain or crash out versus Remain (or all three) in a second referendum .
Not what the polls show, Deltapoll today has 40% for Common Market 2.0 35% against, 36% for Deal plus Customs Union 29% opposed so both have more in favour than opposed.
By contrast Revoke is split 41% for 40% opposed, EUref2 is split 40% for 38% opposed and No Deal has 45% opposed to 38% for
A fair point but my view is that when it is fully understood it will be unpopular and it will not be a stable position if it actually gets implemented. What I hope for and what I think would be the best way forward is a second referendum but it would be wrong to have remain versus BINO. The softest Brexit that is not BINO looks a lot like the Deal.
Remainers need to get off their arses and vote in any EU election . They need to make sure the Brexit Party and UKIP are beaten .
I don't know whether the Brexit Party will eclipse UKIP, or if they'll both poll reasonably well. Potentially, the have the same problem as TIG? Lib Dems. Separate slates may result in them getting few candidates elected.
At this stage, if they went ahead, I would expect something like Lab 24%, Con 22%, Lib Dem/TIG 18%, Brexit 14%, UKIP 10%, Green 6%, Others 6%.
We probably won't know until May's memoirs are published but I suspect this is wrong. May made a big play of the "precious union" stuff well before the election, and made a point of saying there should be no new barriers within the UK, so she must have known exactly where her red lines would hit the wall.
True, she did. And we are of course guessing. But one thing we can say at the very least is that she could probably have got something through the Parliament as it was constituted before the 2017 election.
Remainers need to get off their arses and vote in any EU election . They need to make sure the Brexit Party and UKIP are beaten .
I don't know whether the Brexit Party will eclipse UKIP, or if they'll both poll reasonably well. Potentially, the have the same problem as TIG? Lib Dems. Separate slates may result in them getting few candidates elected.
At this stage, if they went ahead, I would expect something like Lab 24%, Con 22%, Lib Dem/TIG 18%, Brexit 14%, UKIP 10%, Green 6%, Others 6%.
Does it really matter who gets elected? I see these Euro elections as just a big opinion poll on Brexit. If pro Brexit or anti get a huge vote that isnt represented in seats, it doesnt really matter
Remainers need to get off their arses and vote in any EU election . They need to make sure the Brexit Party and UKIP are beaten .
I think they will. I expect the LDs to a little better but Labour to clean up - they may have been officially for Leave for a lot of this period, but it's clear where they are headed and their position means they are best poised to pick up from a Tory collapse.
Actually I expect Osborne would have dealt with the Scottish government in much the same way Barnier has dealt with the UK government had Scotland voted for independence, he would have tried to ensure Scotland did not get full access to the rUK market without staying tied close to the UK, helped by the fact the UK would still have been in the EU
Assuming Scotland had voted for independence in 2014 and there had been a GE in 2015, how would you have reacted had Scottish MPs been elected to Westminster at that election? Scotland would still have been part of the UK while the negotiations to achieve independence would have been ongoing between London and Edinburgh.
As part of the UK at that time, Scotland would have been obliged to participate in that election and send MPs to Westminster.
As a counter-factual and hypothetical, how would you, as a Conservative, have reacted had those Scottish MPs joined with Labour to put Ed Miliband into 10 Downing Street?
Work thorough that and you begin to understand the EU's attitude to our participation in the next round of EU Parliamentary elections.
I would have been very happy if Scotland was still sending MPs to Westminster as my aim as a Unionist would have been to try and reverse the Scottish independence vote if possible or at least keep close rUK Scotland ties as I assume the EU's aim is to try and reverse Brexit or at least keep close UK EU ties.
I would also have preferred an Ed Miliband government even with SNP support to Scottish independence, the former would have been more likely to be short lived than the latter
I think that those wanting to make the seal "softer" by committing to a CU may win a tactical victory but will stoke up a political disaster. Anything softer than May's deal makes no sense at all as will become apparent. A solution that delivers all or nearly all the disadvantages of the EU (as perceived by Brexiteers) but crucially has no political representation for the UK is manifestly worse than remain to anyone who understands it. It has to be Deal as it is now versus Remain or crash out versus Remain (or all three) in a second referendum .
Not what the polls show, Deltapoll today has 40% for Common Market 2.0 35% against, 36% for Deal plus Customs Union 29% opposed so both have more in favour than opposed.
By contrast Revoke is split 41% for 40% opposed, EUref2 is split 40% for 38% opposed and No Deal has 45% opposed to 38% for
A fair point but my view is that when it is fully understood it will be unpopular and it will not be a stable position if it actually gets implemented. What I hope for and what I think would be the best way forward is a second referendum but it would be wrong to have remain versus BINO. The softest Brexit that is not BINO looks a lot like the Deal.
At the end of the day the middle ground is to avoid the 2 extremes of Revoke or No Deal both of which will infuriate the other side, BINO or the Deal are not most peoples' first choice but most people can at least live with them
This stupid Labour policy has been designed to avoid discussing the elephant in the room which is freedom of movement .
It’s much better to stay in the single market and out of the CU . That way you have your own trade policy which at least assuages Leavers . Just call it Norway with restrictions on freedom of movement and this would get big support in the country . The restrictions are in the EEA Treaty , the UK could also add a migration impact fund , registration system etc .
Given non EU immigration is rocketing and EU falling rapidly why on earth must this May red line be allowed to trash a good compromise .
The CU in conjunction with regulatory alignment gets rid of border checks, which is the sticking point in Ireland and also affects Channel ports and anyone relying on just in time frictionless trade. Being in the customs union also helps facilitate third country trade, compared what not being in it. These are concrete big wins when up against a symbolic "independent trade policy". Trade is totally uninterested in symbols.
On his case for MPs being allowed to vote remotely in certain circumstances, I agree. In the 21st.C, why not?
Depends on the circumstances and how exceptional it should be. Is it really unreasonable for MPs to be expected to be present? While we know they barely listen to one another they are supposed to be at least willign to take part in debate with one another and you need to be present for that to be done properly. What reasonable accomodation can be made for those for whom the nature of the House is a big issue?
For me it is one of those issues where it is far too simplistic to pull the old 'It's the 21st century, so why can't we do x?' sort of argument, as though it is purely a technological or procedural issue preventing something that is obviously an improvement, when I am not sure it is such an obvious move. What actual benefit except for a very few individuals would such a move bring, and are there intended consequences to doing so.
People talk the same way about electronic voting generally, and there remain plenty of issues with that as well it often seeming like a solution looking for a problem.
It's also why the idea of speeding up voting in the House is a bit of a non starter for me. I'm not opposed in principle, even though the design of the building is literally for the voting to be done the way it is, but given how many votes there are taking 10-15 minutes for them is really not a problem, so the actual gain is not as transformative as proponents suggest.
Remainers need to get off their arses and vote in any EU election . They need to make sure the Brexit Party and UKIP are beaten .
I don't know whether the Brexit Party will eclipse UKIP, or if they'll both poll reasonably well. Potentially, the have the same problem as TIG? Lib Dems. Separate slates may result in them getting few candidates elected.
At this stage, if they went ahead, I would expect something like Lab 24%, Con 22%, Lib Dem/TIG 18%, Brexit 14%, UKIP 10%, Green 6%, Others 6%.
Does it really matter who gets elected? I see these Euro elections as just a big opinion poll on Brexit. If pro Brexit or anti get a huge vote that isnt represented in seats, it doesnt really matter
It matters if you're getting an MEP's salary.
FWIW, my percentages would work at about Con 19, Lab 19, Lib Dem/TIG 12, Brexit Party 9, UKIP 6, Green 2, SNP 2, Plaid 1, Northern Ireland 3.
How on earth do countries outside of the EU manage?
Because they got where they are today progressively over decades and centuries. Not being part of the EU in the first place is easy. Being part of the EU and then suddenly not being is somewhere on the spectrum between very, very difficult and completely impossible.
So to make sure i have this right we're expecting MPs' 'take control' votes Monday and Wednesday? Is there hope that a majority view gets formed which the gov will have to decide how to respond to this week? When is the dead deal dead even for May and co?
This has generated quite the thread on Twitter, though I am not sure that anything has actually happened that is out of the ordinary. At least not yet.
Surprisingly Deltapoll has Tory voters backing Deal plus Customs Union by 42% to 27% which is actually more than the percentage of Labour voters who back it which is 35% to 31% opposed.
In fact the poll has permanent Customs Union the only Brexit option other than No Deal Brexit more Tory voters support than oppose
How on earth do countries outside of the EU manage?
Because they got where they are today progressively over decades and centuries. Not being part of the EU in the first place is easy. Being part of the EU and then suddenly not being is somewhere on the spectrum between very, very difficult and completely impossible.
This has generated quite the thread on Twitter, though I am not sure that anything has actually happened that is out of the ordinary. At least not yet.
Another one that has allowed UKIP members to sign up eh?
How on earth do countries outside of the EU manage?
They spend money on negotiating deals with other countries and spend the money that they feel necessary to defend their borders to the level of security that they feel comfortable with. They don't waste time by pretending that deals do not help trade and that their only land border doesn't exist.
How on earth do countries outside of the EU manage?
Because they got where they are today progressively over decades and centuries. Not being part of the EU in the first place is easy. Being part of the EU and then suddenly not being is somewhere on the spectrum between very, very difficult and completely impossible.
Surprisingly Deltapoll has Tory voters backing Deal plus Customs Union by 40% to 27% which is actually more than the percentage of Labour voters who back it which is 35% to 31% opposed.
In fact the poll has permanent Customs Union the only Brexit option other than No Deal Brexit more Tory voters support than oppose
I'm not convinced polling on various options is of more than middling use and as a general indicator of strength of feeling. I'm a political obsessive and even I struggle to remember all the fine detail of various options.
I think if the Tory MPs were finely balanced then a poll showing certain options were broadly acceptable to their supporters even if blatantly against obvious referendum concerns, would have an impact.
But in a world where so many Tory MPs are no deal backers? I don't think things are finely balanced enough.
This has generated quite the thread on Twitter, though I am not sure that anything has actually happened that is out of the ordinary. At least not yet.
That 10% threshold looks way too low given the size of many associations. These aren't Labour constituency parties, 10% is not a high number to reach!
How on earth do countries outside of the EU manage?
Usually by not being part of Europe.
Yet they still manage to trade with Europe without being a member of the EU.
It isn't that easy you know. I literally help them do so as part of my job. Non-tariff barriers are a real thing. But trade is trade and if it is profitable you find a way to make it work. (I particularly like those ways that involve me getting to write an invoice.) But I think Ivan was talking about other important stuff.
Surprisingly Deltapoll has Tory voters backing Deal plus Customs Union by 40% to 27% which is actually more than the percentage of Labour voters who back it which is 35% to 31% opposed.
In fact the poll has permanent Customs Union the only Brexit option other than No Deal Brexit more Tory voters support than oppose
I'm not convinced polling on various options is of more than middling use and as a general indicator of strength of feeling. I'm a political obsessive and even I struggle to remember all the fine detail of various options.
I think if the Tory MPs were finely balanced then a poll showing certain options were broadly acceptable to their supporters even if blatantly against obvious referendum concerns, would have an impact.
But in a world where so many Tory MPs are no deal backers? I don't think things are finely balanced enough.
Maybe not but it could be enough to get a Commons majority, Deal plus Customs Union is the only thing more Tory and Labour voters support than oppose. Tory voters back No Deal but Labour voters oppose No Deal, Labour voters back Revoke, EUref2 or EEA and Common Market 2.0 but Tory voters oppose Revoke, EUref2, EEA and Common Market 2 according to Deltapoll
This has generated quite the thread on Twitter, though I am not sure that anything has actually happened that is out of the ordinary. At least not yet.
That 10% threshold looks way too low given the size of many associations. These aren't Labour constituency parties, 10% is not a high number to reach!
First they came for Boles, but I was not a Common Market 2.0-er, so I did nothing. Then they came for Grieves, but I did not believe Parliament should need to approve the Withdrawal Agreement, so I did nothing...
Surprisingly Deltapoll has Tory voters backing Deal plus Customs Union by 40% to 27% which is actually more than the percentage of Labour voters who back it which is 35% to 31% opposed.
In fact the poll has permanent Customs Union the only Brexit option other than No Deal Brexit more Tory voters support than oppose
I'm not convinced polling on various options is of more than middling use and as a general indicator of strength of feeling. I'm a political obsessive and even I struggle to remember all the fine detail of various options.
I think if the Tory MPs were finely balanced then a poll showing certain options were broadly acceptable to their supporters even if blatantly against obvious referendum concerns, would have an impact.
But in a world where so many Tory MPs are no deal backers? I don't think things are finely balanced enough.
Maybe not but it could be enough to get a Commons majority, Deal plus Customs Union is the only think more Tory and Labour voters support than oppose.
Except, aren't Labour now saying anything they agree must be put to a referendum(to enable remain)? Presumably that might hit support for a CU a bit.
From my point of view it came the closest to winning last time, albeit with abstentions, and at this point the least unpopular option would be acceptable. I'd hope that would not be a GE, but I'm pessimistic about that - CU is one of those options that seems like it would definitely lead to one.
Comments
It's as much an indictment of Britain's media culture as its political one.
Okay dots what is more incisive and worthwhile?
Explore what would be the difference between a hard brexit dressed up in a deal, and a no deal decoupling.
There is difference, a deal you could pass off as brexit you argue mitigates some worst aspects of leaving making the whole thing easier to swallow. You could argue it’s merely some good bits of a future trade deal come early. But at the same time the truth is, Mays particular arrangement is not actual brexit. And at that point yes, being fair to Eagles, we would acknowledge how all the spin and rhetoric has smothered the conversation, what actually is for real under it?
Two examples.
If you mention another ref option all Tories and express and mail scream: PEOPLES VOTE CHEATING REMAINER SCUM.
well, no actually. A further ref doesn’t even have to have remain on it. Just one disputed leave agreement for the people’s input or between two leave options to build on and refine the original decision.
Meanwhile say the phrase No Deal Brexit and people will exclaim: Christ man you cannot be serious! A hole will open in the fabric of hyperspace and we’ll all die!
Well, no, actually.
It’s absolutely clear to me what has gone wrong here to create impasse. The politicians have brainwashed themselves and us with their spin!
What I think is real?
May and her followers cling to her narrow CU less deal not for the country but because it’s a compromise that prevents existential civil war breaking out in the Conservative party.
And, sadly you all need to join me in this sooner or later, there is one thing far more disasterous for UK than no deal brexit and that is no brexit at all, because in that scenario a line is not drawn under this, we don’t move on.
So the question is whether they would make the assumption you go on to make (leave proponents lied) or whether they would be nearer to my thinking (they exaggerated no doubt, but that was clear at the outset, and remainers have maintained control and responsibility for botched negotiations).
In voting leave, I had assumed a fairly efficient establishment stitch up for a soft brexit (while preferring no deal) so I certainly don't feel misled into voting leave, but perhaps naively did not anticipate the extent to which a large portion of remain mps would oppose any brexit (both a minority of tory remainers and those voting along party political lines).
https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheffield-mp-jared-o-mara-likens-his-own-constituents-to-football-hooligans-who-smell-of-processed-meats-1-9680569
(i) Because the divorce terms would have been materially the same regardless of who was running it from the UK end (given the red lines of no CU/SM) it follows that Not Brexit was inevitable, i.e. Brexit was undeliverable.
But this is understandably impossible for a Brexit true believer to swallow. It is saying that the dream was always just that, except with 'pipe' in the front.
Therefore they must - they simply must - reach for the alternative conclusion.
(ii) If only the UK negotiating team had been led by true believers the divorce terms for an exit with no CU/SM would have been far less onerous and would have represented a Brexit truly worthy of the name.
As I say, I understand.
I fear you are dealing with fanatics, so your carefully nuanced reasoning is akin to arguing with slugs about relativity. To simplify, let's talk about fairness.
Had Remain won 52 - 48, these people wouldn't be talking of another referendum, they'd be exulting. Cameron wins again, the people have spoken. No doubt, some diehard Leavers would carry on the argument, but they'd be howled down.
Let's talk about referendums. Had the Scots won 52 - 48 in their bid for independence, the UK Parliament would have farted around and made political points, hoping to ameliorate some of the more extreme views, but they'd have finally given in with much less fuss. The Scots have spoken.
Mrs May understands that revocation or continual delays is an affront to democracy. I'm sure the Labour party and some Remainers also understand the potential backlash, but they either really, really want it, and don't care about the backlash, or see it as a political opportunity too tempting to pass up. And some see it as both.
I'm not really concerned now about the result any longer. Let's either leave and deal with it, or remain and accept the consequences of a divided nation for the foreseeable future.
This stupid Labour policy has been designed to avoid discussing the elephant in the room which is freedom of movement .
It’s much better to stay in the single market and out of the CU . That way you have your own trade policy which at least assuages Leavers . Just call it Norway with restrictions on freedom of movement and this would get big support in the country . The restrictions are in the EEA Treaty , the UK could also add a migration impact fund , registration system etc .
Given non EU immigration is rocketing and EU falling rapidly why on earth must this May red line be allowed to trash a good compromise .
My assumption that the stitch up would be fairly efficient was evidently wrong.
Canada and the USA have close alignment because the former needs to do that to access its biggest market .
Size matters. Something Leavers seem unable to understand . The EU single market is the biggest in the world , the UK is the smaller partner . That’s a fact and no amount of wishful thinking can change that .
He seems to have said:
'...Furthermore, in any other workplace except parliament their work would be covered by a colleague or they would be provided with the necessary means to do a task remotely. Parliament could do this but chooses not to.
Sheffield Hallam constituents had contacted The Star questioning Mr O’Mara’s failure to vote but the MP, who did vote in the third vote on Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement on Friday, called for MPs to be able to vote without actually attending the Houses of Parliament.'
On his case for MPs being allowed to vote remotely in certain circumstances, I agree. In the 21st.C, why not?
I expect that they and the Conservatives would poll in the range 20-25%.
1) The willingness to seriously contemplate no deal influences the possibility of gaining less onerous terms since the EU is clearly averse to a no deal outcome;
2) Who negotiates is important in the sense of who enjoys responsibility (relevant to the claim in the OP). In theory a remainer might be able to convincingly negotiate a hard brexit and a leaver a soft one if viewing the negotiation as an intellectual exercise rather than an opportunity to argue for their personal preference (and particularly so where negotiating on behalf of others rather than as the boss). However, it has not appeared that the remainers in charge were willing to seriously contemplate no deal as per 1).
Well, OK, there was various bits of corruption, the Maastrich rebels, Major resigning as leader and being re-elected, and the unfortunate death of Stephen Milligan. But none of these things resulted in people coming to work crying. Knocking interest rates up to 12%, then 15%, even if only briefly, scared people. A lot of people could not have afforded their mortgages. No matter how Ken Clarke managed the economy (and he did very well), that was not forgotten.
Besides, I don't expect someone like O'Mara who, to be frank, is not the brightest (or nicest) person in there, and who has been there for such a short period (and could not be arsed to turn up a lot of the time) to know how parliament works, or why it is the way it is.
Lib Dems and TIG would likely win close to 20% between them, which would give them representation in every region except the North East and Northern Ireland. If the Lib Dems and TIG didn't have a joint slate, they might both end up with very little.
By contrast Revoke is split 41% for 40% opposed, EUref2 is split 40% for 38% opposed and No Deal has 45% opposed to 38% for
http://www.deltapoll.co.uk/polls/brexit-conservatives
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Streicher#/media/File:Julius_Streicher_72-920_crop.jpg
I also said *in certain circumstances* so I'm not suggesting it for all MPs as a means to avoid attending the HoC.
As part of the UK at that time, Scotland would have been obliged to participate in that election and send MPs to Westminster.
As a counter-factual and hypothetical, how would you, as a Conservative, have reacted had those Scottish MPs joined with Labour to put Ed Miliband into 10 Downing Street?
Work thorough that and you begin to understand the EU's attitude to our participation in the next round of EU Parliamentary elections.
the best way forward is a second referendum but it would be wrong to have remain versus BINO. The softest Brexit that is not BINO looks a lot like the Deal.
At this stage, if they went ahead, I would expect something like Lab 24%, Con 22%, Lib Dem/TIG 18%, Brexit 14%, UKIP 10%, Green 6%, Others 6%.
https://twitter.com/JarvisDupont/status/1112321090314010624?s=20
I would also have preferred an Ed Miliband government even with SNP support to Scottish independence, the former would have been more likely to be short lived than the latter
For me it is one of those issues where it is far too simplistic to pull the old 'It's the 21st century, so why can't we do x?' sort of argument, as though it is purely a technological or procedural issue preventing something that is obviously an improvement, when I am not sure it is such an obvious move. What actual benefit except for a very few individuals would such a move bring, and are there intended consequences to doing so.
People talk the same way about electronic voting generally, and there remain plenty of issues with that as well it often seeming like a solution looking for a problem.
It's also why the idea of speeding up voting in the House is a bit of a non starter for me. I'm not opposed in principle, even though the design of the building is literally for the voting to be done the way it is, but given how many votes there are taking 10-15 minutes for them is really not a problem, so the actual gain is not as transformative as proponents suggest.
FWIW, my percentages would work at about Con 19, Lab 19, Lib Dem/TIG 12, Brexit Party 9, UKIP 6, Green 2, SNP 2, Plaid 1, Northern Ireland 3.
This has generated quite the thread on Twitter, though I am not sure that anything has actually happened that is out of the ordinary. At least not yet.
In fact the poll has permanent Customs Union the only Brexit option other than No Deal Brexit more Tory voters support than oppose
http://www.deltapoll.co.uk/polls/brexit-conservatives
I think if the Tory MPs were finely balanced then a poll showing certain options were broadly acceptable to their supporters even if blatantly against obvious referendum concerns, would have an impact.
But in a world where so many Tory MPs are no deal backers? I don't think things are finely balanced enough.
From my point of view it came the closest to winning last time, albeit with abstentions, and at this point the least unpopular option would be acceptable. I'd hope that would not be a GE, but I'm pessimistic about that - CU is one of those options that seems like it would definitely lead to one.