Apparently we still have to wait another hour for this ridiculously slow vote count to be completed, but rumour has it (according to the BBC) that the outcome is going to be No No No No.
At this rate it really is going to come down to a Revoke vs No Deal ballot on April 11th.
That would be odd when two of the options were so close last time.
Too many abstentions still. I'm quite annoyed at the government for playing silly buggers on this. I get it, they didn't want there to be these votes, well tough, suck it up and contribute properly.
Apparently we still have to wait another hour for this ridiculously slow vote count to be completed, but rumour has it (according to the BBC) that the outcome is going to be No No No No.
If true then enough is enough. Prorogue parliament and end this farce.
Not quite sure that is a good example for brexit, as it’s not entirely honest to say they are out of it in the way a true brexit will allow us to say it
No it hasn't. That is simply wrong. The vast majority of EU law does not apply to EFTA members because it only pertains to the Single Market. The actual amount of EU legislation incorporated into Norwegian law is less than 30% according to the Norwegian Government.
And the Norwegians are involved in every stage of the development of new EEA legislation up to the final vote. The idea that they are just blindly taking laws from the EU is bullshit.
On the question of money, Norway pays around 300 million Euros a year to the EU for Single Market and programme access. The amount paid is based on GDP and with our larger GDP that amount would be around £3 billion.
Why does Fullfact say Norway pays £740m per year?
Because they are including the Norway Fund which is not necessary for Single Market Access. It is effectively the equivalent of our overseas aid and is designed to help improve equality amongst European Nations
Apparently we still have to wait another hour for this ridiculously slow vote count to be completed, but rumour has it (according to the BBC) that the outcome is going to be No No No No.
If true then enough is enough. Prorogue parliament and end this farce.
Maybe part of the problem is once again they knew it was not end of the line? With Wednesday also set aside for votes MPs will continue to half arse it, or some of them at any rate.
Customs Unions are complex. It isn't a case of customs unions good or customs unions bad.
The UK and the EU have a lot of options in how they draft their customs union and we shouldn't expect it to look like the Turkish one.
The UK could probably get the EU to insist on its inclusion in every trade agreement the EU makes. The UK has sufficient economic weight to make that attractive to both the EU and the third county. The customs union would have to include agriculture in that case (also needed for the Irish border). The UK would have to accept having the deals is more important than having an independent trade policy.
The UK would need to follow EU rules.
All the experts think a customs union should be considered and that a workable customs union is possible.
Again, that's all theory and it isn't tenable for the UK to be in a customs union (even if the EU agree to reciprocity on trade with non-EU partners) in the long term. The UK economy is simply too big not to have an independent trade and regulatory policy. It would be a good place to land for 5-7 years but beyond that we'd need to develop our own trade policy and independent regulatory standards, especially for the services sector where our markets are far more developed than the EU.
Customs unions don't apply to services. It's not all or nothing on trade policy as it applies to customs unions either. We can tap into the EU and get a set of arrangements that deliver much less friction in our trade overall, but at the cost of doing what we are told
But that's the issue, it isn't tenable for the UK to be subordinate to the EU. The economy is too large, a customs union of some kind is a good landing spot in the short term, which is why the backstop makes some kind of sense, but in the long term we will need an independent trade and regulatory policy. Less trade friction can be delivered independently and the advantages of not being subordinate on regulations is fairly self explanatory.
At least seven from my university joined IS, says captured fighter
An Islamic State fighter held in Syria has told the BBC he was one of at least seven students and ex-students from University of Westminster to join IS.
Apparently we still have to wait another hour for this ridiculously slow vote count to be completed, but rumour has it (according to the BBC) that the outcome is going to be No No No No.
If true then enough is enough. Prorogue parliament and end this farce.
Maybe part of the problem is once again they knew it was not end of the line? With Wednesday also set aside for votes MPs will continue to half arse it, or some of them at any rate.
But I'm hopeful something will pass.
There's at least another week of this... Nothing will get a positive vote until next Tuesday...
Voting in favour: 36 Conservatives, 143 Labour MPs, 1 Lib Dem, 4 Plaid Cymru MPs, 4 Independents Voting against: 225 Conservatives, 42 Labour MPs, 1 Lib Dem, 1 Green MP, 14 Independents
We can now add in the SNP (35) and see what happens if you assume Labour split like they did on their own bill, now they are whipped in favour (226/12)
Voting in favour: 36 Conservatives, 226 Labour MPs, 35 SNP, 1 Lib Dem, 4 Plaid Cymru MPs, 4 Independents (316) Voting against: 225 Conservatives, 12 Labour, 1 LD, 1 Green, 14 Ind (253)
Which passes comfortably. So you could play around with lab (and a handful of inds) a bit and still get a pass.
How many SNP mps ?
You're seeing things Big_G, I definitely did not forget GE 2017 happened
I have no idea what you are talking about. There are 35 snps in the HOC
I made a mistake in my original post, which I have now corrected.
No. What is the benefit of their oil per head compared to ours? It has to be part of the equation if you think a political set up is working fine somewhere.
Still repeating the same old rubbish. I already showed you the link to the Norwegian Government's own figures on how much EU law is incorporated into Norwegian law. I suspect the Norwegian's have a much better handle on this than your secondary and rather dubious sources.
At least seven from my university joined IS, says captured fighter
An Islamic State fighter held in Syria has told the BBC he was one of at least seven students and ex-students from University of Westminster to join IS.
Are we allowed to use the word vassalage without being accused of promoting violence?
To put it more technically, we would move to keeping the EU rules, simply giving up political influence over them. That is what you are suggesting?
At some point 99% of the population will say, this is silly, if we are having those rules we might as well have the political influence over them. And we’ll be back to square one?
That is certainly not what the Norway option means at all.
Stats don’t reveal truth when there are two different populations, climates, cultures, economies. Norway certainly has a bit of oil revenue to sweeten public spending and hence their populace’s perceptions. Yet each Norwegian household still pay almost as much into the EU as UK does now? That’s a funny definition of out?
No it doesn't. Some of us on here looked in detail at this around the time of the referendum and the UK equivalent commitment if we had a Norway Deal would be something around £3bn a year. It is massively less than now.
You are also wrong on the influence that Norway has over policy making as part of the EEA agreement.
Not quite sure that is a good example for brexit, as it’s not entirely honest to say they are out of it in the way a true brexit will allow us to say it
That report cites 69.7% of directives and 17.5% of regulations for a total of 28.1% of the EU acquis (page 795 of the report cited in Full Fact).
Those who want to spin it in a certain way cite the first number and round it up to 75%.
(Seriously, am I the only person who actually reads cited links and reports?)
Indeed. This is why I posted to the original Norwegian source.
Apparently we still have to wait another hour for this ridiculously slow vote count to be completed, but rumour has it (according to the BBC) that the outcome is going to be No No No No.
If true then enough is enough. Prorogue parliament and end this farce.
Maybe part of the problem is once again they knew it was not end of the line? With Wednesday also set aside for votes MPs will continue to half arse it, or some of them at any rate.
But I'm hopeful something will pass.
Isn't Wednesday supposed to be about legislating to force the government to implement tonight's decision?
If no decision is taken tonight then it's time for this farce to end.
Give them one final chance to stop ******* about and vote for May's deal or failing that we No Deal a week on Friday.
Customs Unions are complex. It isn't a case of customs unions good or customs unions bad.
The UK and the EU have a lot of options in how they draft their customs union and we shouldn't expect it to look like the Turkish one.
The UK could probably get the EU to insist on its inclusion in every trade agreement the EU makes. The UK has sufficient economic weight to make that attractive to both the EU and the third county. The customs union would have to include agriculture in that case (also needed for the Irish border). The UK would have to accept having the deals is more important than having an independent trade policy.
The UK would need to follow EU rules.
All the experts think a customs union should be considered and that a workable customs union is possible.
Again, that's all theory and it isn't tenable for the UK to be in a customs union (even if the EU agree to reciprocity on trade with non-EU partners) in the long term. The UK economy is simply too big not to have an independent trade and regulatory policy. It would be a good place to land for 5-7 years but beyond that we'd need to develop our own trade policy and independent regulatory standards, especially for the services sector where our markets are far more developed than the EU.
Customs unions don't apply to services. It's not all or nothing on trade policy as it applies to customs unions either. We can tap into the EU and get a set of arrangements that deliver much less friction in our trade overall, but at the cost of doing what we are told
But that's the issue, it isn't tenable for the UK to be subordinate to the EU. The economy is too large, a customs union of some kind is a good landing spot in the short term, which is why the backstop makes some kind of sense, but in the long term we will need an independent trade and regulatory policy. Less trade friction can be delivered independently and the advantages of not being subordinate on regulations is fairly self explanatory.
That's an awful lot of bold assertions with no logic, rationale, or working examples provided.
At least seven from my university joined IS, says captured fighter
An Islamic State fighter held in Syria has told the BBC he was one of at least seven students and ex-students from University of Westminster to join IS.
Another key extremist at University of Westminster was Abukar's brother Makhzumi. He is serving a seven-year jail term after pleading guilty in 2016 to a million-pound fraud to steal the savings of pensioners.
Customs Unions are complex. It isn't a case of customs unions good or customs unions bad.
The UK and the EU have a lot of options in how they draft their customs union and we shouldn't expect it to look like the Turkish one.
The UK could probably get the EU to insist on its inclusion in every trade agreement the EU makes. The UK has sufficient economic weight to make that attractive to both the EU and the third county. The customs union would have to include agriculture in that case (also needed for the Irish border). The UK would have to accept having the deals is more important than having an independent trade policy.
The UK would need to follow EU rules.
All the experts think a customs union should be considered and that a workable customs union is possible.
Again, that's all theory and it isn't tenable for the UK to be in a customs union (even if the EU agree to reciprocity on trade with non-EU partners) in the long term. The UK economy is simply too big not to have an independent trade and regulatory policy. It would be a good place to land for 5-7 years but beyond that we'd need to develop our own trade policy and independent regulatory standards, especially for the services sector where our markets are far more developed than the EU.
Customs unions don't apply to services. It's not all or nothing on trade policy as it applies to customs unions either. We can tap into the EU and get a set of arrangements that deliver much less friction in our trade overall, but at the cost of doing what we are told
But that's the issue, it isn't tenable for the UK to be subordinate to the EU. The economy is too large, a customs union of some kind is a good landing spot in the short term, which is why the backstop makes some kind of sense, but in the long term we will need an independent trade and regulatory policy. Less trade friction can be delivered independently and the advantages of not being subordinate on regulations is fairly self explanatory.
Less trade friction definitely won't be delivered independently. The the advantages of not being subordinate on regulations isn't actually self explanatory. That's why people standardise
Free Trade Agreement: Lose by 30 2nd Ref: Lose by 42 Customs Union Deal: Lose by 82 May's Deal: Lose by 142 No Deal: Lose by 456 Revoke A50: Lose by 506
Indicative Votes Results:
Customs Union: Defeat by 8 2nd Referendum: Defeat by 27 Labour Plan: Defear by 70 Common Market 2.0: Defeat by 95 Revoke A50: Defeat by 109 No Deal: Defeat by 240 Contingent Arrangements: Defeat by 283 EEA/EFTA: Defeat by 312
Surely the reasonable follow up to that would be to say there is clearly significant support for it and put it forward for a proper vote. And I say that as someone who thinks it is a very bad idea. But at the point where it is tied it would be a poor show to just dismiss it.
Apparently we still have to wait another hour for this ridiculously slow vote count to be completed, but rumour has it (according to the BBC) that the outcome is going to be No No No No.
At this rate it really is going to come down to a Revoke vs No Deal ballot on April 11th.
How could Common Market 2.0 fail with the SNP and Lab whipping for it?
Perhaps the rumours are wrong? We only have about another half-a-million years to wait before we find out.
I can only assume that all these ballots are being translated into Norman French, inscribed upon vellum scrolls and delivered to the palace, where they will be individually proclaimed unto Her Majesty by heralds in full 15th Century ceremonial dress, before the results can be announced in Parliament.
Not quite sure that is a good example for brexit, as it’s not entirely honest to say they are out of it in the way a true brexit will allow us to say it
No it hasn't. That is simply wrong. The vast majority of EU law does not apply to EFTA members because it only pertains to the Single Market. The actual amount of EU legislation incorporated into Norwegian law is less than 30% according to the Norwegian Government.
And the Norwegians are involved in every stage of the development of new EEA legislation up to the final vote. The idea that they are just blindly taking laws from the EU is bullshit.
On the question of money, Norway pays around 300 million Euros a year to the EU for Single Market and programme access. The amount paid is based on GDP and with our larger GDP that amount would be around £3 billion.
Why does Fullfact say Norway pays £740m per year?
Because they are including the Norway Fund which is not necessary for Single Market Access. It is effectively the equivalent of our overseas aid and is designed to help improve equality amongst European Nations
Hence my suggestion, how can you compare society’s benefitting differently in investment home and abroad, the impact on taxation and households, and a general sense of happiness and well being, due to income from oil revenue? What could work fine in one situation with a populace very happy could be regressive in a different culture, different psychology with deindustrial, health and social care deficits stacking up.
Apparently we still have to wait another hour for this ridiculously slow vote count to be completed, but rumour has it (according to the BBC) that the outcome is going to be No No No No.
At this rate it really is going to come down to a Revoke vs No Deal ballot on April 11th.
How could Common Market 2.0 fail with the SNP and Lab whipping for it?
Perhaps the rumours are wrong? We only have about another half-a-million years to wait before we find out.
I can only assume that all these ballots are being translated into Norman French, inscribed upon vellum scrolls and delivered to the palace, where they will be individually proclaimed unto Her Majesty by heralds in full 15th Century ceremonial dress, before the results can be announced in Parliament.
There's only 4 options tonight, so they could probably have had 4 divisions in less time than this, surely.
Less trade friction definitely won't be delivered independently. The the advantages of not being subordinate on regulations isn't actually self explanatory. That's why people standardise
Why wouldn't it, if a trade deal with the EU delivers less trade friction for non-EU countries then how does it follow that UK-third country trade deals wouldn't reduce trade friction?
As for regulations, having an independent policy gets us a seat at the standardisation table, not having one means accepting whatever the EU dictates. In the short term the latter would be fine, especially since we're starting from an identical base, but in the long term it wouldn't be acceptable for the world's fifth largest economy to be a rule taker.
Voting in favour: 36 Conservatives, 143 Labour MPs, 1 Lib Dem, 4 Plaid Cymru MPs, 4 Independents Voting against: 225 Conservatives, 42 Labour MPs, 1 Lib Dem, 1 Green MP, 14 Independents
We can now add in the SNP (35) and see what happens if you assume Labour split like they did on their own bill, now they are whipped in favour (226/12)
Voting in favour: 36 Conservatives, 226 Labour MPs, 35 SNP, 1 Lib Dem, 4 Plaid Cymru MPs, 4 Independents (306) Voting against: 225 Conservatives, 12 Labour, 1 LD, 1 Green, 14 Ind (253)
Which passes comfortably. So you could play around with lab (and a handful of inds) a bit and still get a pass.
That would entail 30 Labour who didn't just abstain but actually vote Nay to vote Aye this time.
The idea that's indicative of anything other than Parliament's nonsense is absurd.
Apparently we still have to wait another hour for this ridiculously slow vote count to be completed, but rumour has it (according to the BBC) that the outcome is going to be No No No No.
At this rate it really is going to come down to a Revoke vs No Deal ballot on April 11th.
How could Common Market 2.0 fail with the SNP and Lab whipping for it?
Perhaps the rumours are wrong? We only have about another half-a-million years to wait before we find out.
I can only assume that all these ballots are being translated into Norman French, inscribed upon vellum scrolls and delivered to the palace, where they will be individually proclaimed unto Her Majesty by heralds in full 15th Century ceremonial dress, before the results can be announced in Parliament.
There's only 4 options tonight, so they could probably have had 4 divisions in less time than this, surely.
There's no probably about it, it only takes 10-15 minutes.
At least seven from my university joined IS, says captured fighter
An Islamic State fighter held in Syria has told the BBC he was one of at least seven students and ex-students from University of Westminster to join IS.
Another key extremist at University of Westminster was Abukar's brother Makhzumi. He is serving a seven-year jail term after pleading guilty in 2016 to a million-pound fraud to steal the savings of pensioners.
Apparently we still have to wait another hour for this ridiculously slow vote count to be completed, but rumour has it (according to the BBC) that the outcome is going to be No No No No.
At this rate it really is going to come down to a Revoke vs No Deal ballot on April 11th.
How could Common Market 2.0 fail with the SNP and Lab whipping for it?
Perhaps the rumours are wrong? We only have about another half-a-million years to wait before we find out.
I can only assume that all these ballots are being translated into Norman French, inscribed upon vellum scrolls and delivered to the palace, where they will be individually proclaimed unto Her Majesty by heralds in full 15th Century ceremonial dress, before the results can be announced in Parliament.
There's only 4 options tonight, so they could probably have had 4 divisions in less time than this, surely.
There's no probably about it, it only takes 10-15 minutes.
The reason that they are doing it this way is to prevent the result of one having an impact on the next. even if they don't announce the votes MPs will be able to work out if certain votes have failed (even if you can't determine if one has passed)
Voting in favour: 36 Conservatives, 143 Labour MPs, 1 Lib Dem, 4 Plaid Cymru MPs, 4 Independents Voting against: 225 Conservatives, 42 Labour MPs, 1 Lib Dem, 1 Green MP, 14 Independents
We can now add in the SNP (35) and see what happens if you assume Labour split like they did on their own bill, now they are whipped in favour (226/12)
Voting in favour: 36 Conservatives, 226 Labour MPs, 35 SNP, 1 Lib Dem, 4 Plaid Cymru MPs, 4 Independents (306) Voting against: 225 Conservatives, 12 Labour, 1 LD, 1 Green, 14 Ind (253)
Which passes comfortably. So you could play around with lab (and a handful of inds) a bit and still get a pass.
That would entail 30 Labour who didn't just abstain but actually vote Nay to vote Aye this time.
The idea that's indicative of anything other than Parliament's nonsense is absurd.
Last week it wasn't whipped, now if is - plus a charm offensive in the meantime.
I'm not saying only 12 Labour MPs won't - I'm saying stick a finger in the air and you see that victory is not as unlikely as the current 6/1 suggests
Apparently we still have to wait another hour for this ridiculously slow vote count to be completed, but rumour has it (according to the BBC) that the outcome is going to be No No No No.
At this rate it really is going to come down to a Revoke vs No Deal ballot on April 11th.
How could Common Market 2.0 fail with the SNP and Lab whipping for it?
Perhaps the rumours are wrong? We only have about another half-a-million years to wait before we find out.
I can only assume that all these ballots are being translated into Norman French, inscribed upon vellum scrolls and delivered to the palace, where they will be individually proclaimed unto Her Majesty by heralds in full 15th Century ceremonial dress, before the results can be announced in Parliament.
There's only 4 options tonight, so they could probably have had 4 divisions in less time than this, surely.
There's no probably about it, it only takes 10-15 minutes.
The reason that they are doing it this way is to prevent the result of one having an impact on the next. even if they don't announce the votes MPs will be able to work out if certain votes have failed (even if you can't determine if one has passed)
Makes a certain sense, although frankly given they can all vote for however many options as they like it shouldn't make a difference. It's another example of them pissing about over procedure to avoid the real issue, which is them making a decision.
Hence my suggestion, how can you compare society’s benefitting differently in investment home and abroad, the impact on taxation and households, and a general sense of happiness and well being, due to income from oil revenue? What could work fine in one situation with a populace very happy could be regressive in a different culture, different psychology with deindustrial, health and social care deficits stacking up.
The problem is you have now moved on from quoting false figures and making uninformed statements about how EFTA works to debating happiness in Norway - and with someone who lived and worked there for 15 years.
But the basic position is that if we did choose the Norway option we would pay a lot less to the EU for Single Market access and would be subject to perhaps only 30% of the legislation that we currently have to adopt from the EU. All whilst keeping our trade with them.
It is a very attractive proposition for anyone who is not bothered about the freedom of movement issue.
No, in 2011 the police conducted 1.2m stop-and-searches in England and Wales. In 2017 that figure was around 300,000 (see chart) and knife crime has risen accordingly.
The reason that they are doing it this way is to prevent the result of one having an impact on the next. even if they don't announce the votes MPs will be able to work out if certain votes have failed (even if you can't determine if one has passed)
Makes a certain sense, although frankly given they can all vote for however many options as they like it shouldn't make a difference. It's another example of them pissing about over procedure to avoid the real issue, which is them making a decision.
The other reason they are taking their time is probably because they don't was a repeat of the corrections they had to make on friday in announcing the previous votes
No, in 2011 the police conducted 1.2m stop-and-searches in England and Wales. In 2017 that figure was around 300,000 (see chart) and knife crime has risen accordingly.
My 16yo daughter surprised me tonight by sitting down and watching some of the debate in parliament on TV. After 10 minutes she turned to me and said - "I think about half of those MPs are too scared of the voters and the other half are not scared enough. I just can't tell which are which." That is now making my brain hurt.
My 16yo daughter surprised me tonight by sitting down and watching some of the debate in parliament on TV. After 10 minutes she turned to me and said - "I think about half of those MPs are too scared of the voters and the other half are not scared enough. I just can't tell which are which." That is now making my brain hurt.
Less trade friction definitely won't be delivered independently. The the advantages of not being subordinate on regulations isn't actually self explanatory. That's why people standardise
Why wouldn't it, if a trade deal with the EU delivers less trade friction for non-EU countries then how does it follow that UK-third country trade deals wouldn't reduce trade friction?
As for regulations, having an independent policy gets us a seat at the standardisation table, not having one means accepting whatever the EU dictates. In the short term the latter would be fine, especially since we're starting from an identical base, but in the long term it wouldn't be acceptable for the world's fifth largest economy to be a rule taker.
The customs union would definitely deliver much less trade friction with the EU, which makes up about half our trade. Depending on agreement with the third country it should either reduce trade friction on things like cumulative rules of origin or be neutral, with friction being reduced across the board. It is telling that the few deals that have been rolled over by the DExEU are significantly worse than the EU arrangements they replace.
Your products are only compliant with local standards if the other party says they are. Only the EU and to an extent the US have the power and inclination to impose standards in that way. We are going to have to follow those standards anyway so we might as well formalise it.
My 16yo daughter surprised me tonight by sitting down and watching some of the debate in parliament on TV. After 10 minutes she turned to me and said - "I think about half of those MPs are too scared of the voters and the other half are not scared enough. I just can't tell which are which." That is now making my brain hurt.
My 16yo daughter surprised me tonight by sitting down and watching some of the debate in parliament on TV. After 10 minutes she turned to me and said - "I think about half of those MPs are too scared of the voters and the other half are not scared enough. I just can't tell which are which." That is now making my brain hurt.
Hence my suggestion, how can you compare society’s benefitting differently in investment home and abroad, the impact on taxation and households, and a general sense of happiness and well being, due to income from oil revenue? What could work fine in one situation with a populace very happy could be regressive in a different culture, different psychology with deindustrial, health and social care deficits stacking up.
The problem is you have now moved on from quoting false figures and making uninformed statements about how EFTA works to debating happiness in Norway - and with someone who lived and worked there for 15 years.
But the basic position is that if we did choose the Norway option we would pay a lot less to the EU for Single Market access and would be subject to perhaps only 30% of the legislation that we currently have to adopt from the EU. All whilst keeping our trade with them.
It is a very attractive proposition for anyone who is not bothered about the freedom of movement issue.
Let’s skip to the bottom line. We can trade facts to the point a brexit preference becomes abstract. like enjoying time spent with an Eskimo society it works very well, let’s copy them. But there are two killer facts undermining your preference. Norway is a Nordic country of 5 million people. The success or attractiveness of the Norway model is bogus because it is being underwritten by a wealth UK does not have.
My 16yo daughter surprised me tonight by sitting down and watching some of the debate in parliament on TV. After 10 minutes she turned to me and said - "I think about half of those MPs are too scared of the voters and the other half are not scared enough. I just can't tell which are which." That is now making my brain hurt.
Wow. She needs to apply for internship at a major newspaper immediately!!
No, in 2011 the police conducted 1.2m stop-and-searches in England and Wales. In 2017 that figure was around 300,000 (see chart) and knife crime has risen accordingly.
No, in 2011 the police conducted 1.2m stop-and-searches in England and Wales. In 2017 that figure was around 300,000 (see chart) and knife crime has risen accordingly.
Comments
Deal
Deal with CM2
Deal with CU
No Deal
Then see how it falls out
But I'm hopeful something will pass.
An Islamic State fighter held in Syria has told the BBC he was one of at least seven students and ex-students from University of Westminster to join IS.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47772772
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1112813775990743040
Djanogly-Bone
Cherry-Baker
It isn't news.
If no decision is taken tonight then it's time for this farce to end.
Give them one final chance to stop ******* about and vote for May's deal or failing that we No Deal a week on Friday.
One way or another this has to end!
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47772772
Guess who lobbied to get one of this gang out of jail for Christmas?
For: 266 (+24)
Against: 368 (-23)
DEFEAT by 102 Votes (-47)
So not great.
Initial Indicative Votes Projection:
Single Market Deal: Pass by 4
Free Trade Agreement: Lose by 30
2nd Ref: Lose by 42
Customs Union Deal: Lose by 82
May's Deal: Lose by 142
No Deal: Lose by 456
Revoke A50: Lose by 506
Indicative Votes Results:
Customs Union: Defeat by 8
2nd Referendum: Defeat by 27
Labour Plan: Defear by 70
Common Market 2.0: Defeat by 95
Revoke A50: Defeat by 109
No Deal: Defeat by 240
Contingent Arrangements: Defeat by 283
EEA/EFTA: Defeat by 312
I can only assume that all these ballots are being translated into Norman French, inscribed upon vellum scrolls and delivered to the palace, where they will be individually proclaimed unto Her Majesty by heralds in full 15th Century ceremonial dress, before the results can be announced in Parliament.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxpYW_w5pgo
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1110602936353214464
As for regulations, having an independent policy gets us a seat at the standardisation table, not having one means accepting whatever the EU dictates. In the short term the latter would be fine, especially since we're starting from an identical base, but in the long term it wouldn't be acceptable for the world's fifth largest economy to be a rule taker.
The idea that's indicative of anything other than Parliament's nonsense is absurd.
Betfair still thinks 70% CU passes.
* its a very good story and has a politician connection, but I don't think I should share on a public forum.
The fact it is vaguely believable makes it a good April fool.
I'm not saying only 12 Labour MPs won't - I'm saying stick a finger in the air and you see that victory is not as unlikely as the current 6/1 suggests
But the basic position is that if we did choose the Norway option we would pay a lot less to the EU for Single Market access and would be subject to perhaps only 30% of the legislation that we currently have to adopt from the EU. All whilst keeping our trade with them.
It is a very attractive proposition for anyone who is not bothered about the freedom of movement issue.
Although at this stage everything is now racking up multiple rejections, so does that tell us anything either way.
https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/01/18/can-an-increase-in-stop-and-search-cut-knife-crime
Your products are only compliant with local standards if the other party says they are. Only the EU and to an extent the US have the power and inclination to impose standards in that way. We are going to have to follow those standards anyway so we might as well formalise it.
Comes down to the authorisation required and whether may a crime occur not will occur.
Plus the stat the HYUFD is using is for England and Wales, the C4 stat is for the Met only.
The Speaker should maintain the status quo (“the house is not convinced”)
But I am sure that Bercow will “innovate”
If we're lucky.