What stirring prospectus would the Conservatives offer the country? There's not going to be an early general election if the Conservatives can help it. Turkeys don't accelerate towards Christmas.
I have to say, despite Yang having to right bonkers ideas, he is actually thinking about how to solve the actual future coming down the tracks in a way that actually fits into the world we live in now.
We aren't seeing much of that elsewhere in the US or the UK.
You can easily imagine what a Labour manifesto would look like. You might not like its contents but they'll be talking about problems that the public come across on a daily basis.
Meanwhile the Conservatives are arguing about the nuances of transubstantiation.
5 years is probably the time we will need to work out what we want to do and agree an FTA. So it kinda makes sense.
Except we cannot do a trade deal until we have left. Big problem, this, since it appears we are not keen on leaving until we have done a trade deal. Blind Brexit and all that.
EU might concede on this. They can see the problem it is causing and have already achieved their WDA. They'll want something in return - e.g. Mrs May to drop her red line on CU.
Nope, the final choice is the PM’s. She is the only one who can revoke. It’s her decision alone.
If parliament were to vote with a clear majority in favour of revocation, you'd have a point. Without such a vote, the legal position is unclear and it's not realistic politically.
If the EU genuinely does refuse a proper extension, do you not think it's quite likely that a majority of the Commons WILL vote to revoke A50?
I think it would be very close.
Close-ish, but I'd be surprised if there would be many Labour rebels in that circumstance - I'm not even sure Caroline Flint would rebel.
So it would basically come down to whether a Tory rebellion could be kept down to less than 20....seems unlikely to me, but who knows.
I think there would be a lot of abstentions.
It’d fail something like 230 to 220 votes, I think, with the rest abstentions as you say.
Given the quantities of fudge that have been devised and rejected by MPs so far in the indicative votes, I think it would be a big ask to seek a majority vote for straight Revoke (or No Deal). Which is why I'd imagine Default No Deal By Accident still has legs in such a scenario.
They have just confirmed what he bangs on about, that the establishment are trying to silence him etc etc etc.
Far better to let him publish, and let the internet pick up any horseshit he spouts (which if the internet is good at one thing, it is jumping on that bandwagon when somebody gets caught out).
The problem with that is the Internet becomes bubbles. The sane Internet might pick up on what he spouts, but the people who follow his sh*t might not pick up on that because they don't follow the right places (and the same goes for others as well).
I think there's a reasonable rule of thumb: if you'd get arrested for standing in the street and shouting something into a megaphone, you shouldn't expect a right to say it on open forums on the Internet. Though there are difficulties with that concept as well wrt territories.
But I don't think on his YouTube channel he has. I believe it is actually very toned down (compared to his EDL days), and YouTube state hasn't broken any rules.
As I say, I think it is a dangerous precedent.
We may have to be careful what we say, but wasn't one of his recent legal difficulties due to his live-streaming from outside a court case?
What stirring prospectus would the Conservatives offer the country? There's not going to be an early general election if the Conservatives can help it. Turkeys don't accelerate towards Christmas.
I think @Sean_F is right that a VoNC should narrowly fail in the event of the MV passing.
On the one hand I’d expect the DUP to vote with the opposition (they mean what they say) but other independents and possibly even TIGers abstaining to avoid a GE and/or putting Corbyn in power, so HMG would survive. Just.
Question then is how the Con minority administration survives a new leader with c.300-310 MPs (I expect a few more casualties of war) for another 3 years with no C&S partner.
If (and its a huge if), we'll need a GE sooner rather than later. Parliment can't go on like this.
What stirring prospectus would the Conservatives offer the country? There's not going to be an early general election if the Conservatives can help it. Turkeys don't accelerate towards Christmas.
I have to say, despite Yang having to right bonkers ideas, he is actually thinking about how to solve the actual future coming down the tracks in a way that actually fits into the world we live in now.
We aren't seeing much of that elsewhere in the US or the UK.
You can easily imagine what a Labour manifesto would look like. You might not like its contents but they'll be talking about problems that the public come across on a daily basis.
Meanwhile the Conservatives are arguing about the nuances of transubstantiation.
Well yes Labour are talking about the problems, but the solutions are stuck in the past. renationalize everything, ban self-driving trains, protect jobs in old industries, etc etc etc.
If mps back the deal the Eu hasn’t miscalculated...
(As an aside say we sign and leave. We then turn around and say “we look forward to negotiating an FTA. But we are giving you five years notice that we are terminating the backstop as of 2025.” What are the real world consequences of that?)
They have just confirmed what he bangs on about, that the establishment are trying to silence him etc etc etc.
Far better to let him publish, and let the internet pick up any horseshit he spouts (which if the internet is good at one thing, it is jumping on that bandwagon when somebody gets caught out).
The problem with that is the Internet becomes bubbles. The sane Internet might pick up on what he spouts, but the people who follow his sh*t might not pick up on that because they don't follow the right places (and the same goes for others as well).
I think there's a reasonable rule of thumb: if you'd get arrested for standing in the street and shouting something into a megaphone, you shouldn't expect a right to say it on open forums on the Internet. Though there are difficulties with that concept as well wrt territories.
But I don't think on his YouTube channel he has. I believe it is actually very toned down (compared to his EDL days), and YouTube state hasn't broken any rules.
As I say, I think it is a dangerous precedent.
We may have to be careful what we say, but wasn't one of his recent legal difficulties due to his live-streaming from outside a court case?
That was on Facebook.
Suspending his ability to live stream, I can totally understand...but they admit his videos on the platform don't break the rules.
As I say, it is also about where do we go from here. Watching the twitter higher ups on JRE podcast the other week didn't fill me full of confidence. When presented with evidence that for example that the majority of people in the US agree with the idea that the sex you are born is your gender, they were totally bemused, and how they had banned people for tweeting stuff like this.
The Tories will fracture, they won't break-up. They are in the process of becoming a hard right English nationalist party - the party of Rees Mogg, Bridgen, Farage and Francois - and there will be a sizeable constituency for that in England. But the days of the Tories being pragmatic, pro-business and outward looking are over, whatever happens from here.
No, I don't think that is right. There is a huge split, with the pragmatic, pro-business wing of the party still dominant at the MP level. Just look at the Cabinet: Hammond, Rudd, Gauke, Clark etc are absolutely nothing like Rees Mogg and Francois, nor for that matter are Javid, Gove, or Hunt. Not even is Theresa May, although she's buffeted by forces outside her control.
If we crash out in no-deal chaos, them I think the split will become explicit, especially if it is the deliberate result of Theresa May's (or a replacement PM's) policy. I'd expect a major ministerial and cabinet walk-out, and possibly a formal split of the party's MPs. I can't for example see MPs like Richard Harrington (loyal though he is) wanting to be associated with a party implementing crash-out.
Javid and Hunt will support No Deal because they know it is the only way they get to replace May. Gove will, too, because to do otherwise would be to admit he was wrong in the first place.
If mps back the deal the Eu hasn’t miscalculated...
(As an aside say we sign and leave. We then turn around and say “we look forward to negotiating an FTA. But we are giving you five years notice that we are terminating the backstop as of 2025.” What are the real world consequences of that?)
I think it would stop any FTA negotiations dead in their tracks.
But if we said before we entered the backstop after a failure to agree a FTA "we are giving you one year's notice we are terminating the backstop in 2023", I don't see what the EU could do tbh.
They have just confirmed what he bangs on about, that the establishment are trying to silence him etc etc etc.
Far better to let him publish, and let the internet pick up any horseshit he spouts (which if the internet is good at one thing, it is jumping on that bandwagon when somebody gets caught out).
The problem with that is the Internet becomes bubbles. The sane Internet might pick up on what he spouts, but the people who follow his sh*t might not pick up on that because they don't follow the right places (and the same goes for others as well).
I think there's a reasonable rule of thumb: if you'd get arrested for standing in the street and shouting something into a megaphone, you shouldn't expect a right to say it on open forums on the Internet. Though there are difficulties with that concept as well wrt territories.
But I don't think on his YouTube channel he has. I believe it is actually very toned down (compared to his EDL days), and YouTube state hasn't broken any rules.
As I say, I think it is a dangerous precedent.
We may have to be careful what we say, but wasn't one of his recent legal difficulties due to his live-streaming from outside a court case?
That was on Facebook.
Yes, but YouTube will be well aware of that, and the reputational risks he carries for them.
I think @Sean_F is right that a VoNC should narrowly fail in the event of the MV passing.
On the one hand I’d expect the DUP to vote with the opposition (they mean what they say) but other independents and possibly even TIGers abstaining to avoid a GE and/or putting Corbyn in power, so HMG would survive. Just.
Question then is how the Con minority administration survives a new leader with c.300-310 MPs (I expect a few more casualties of war) for another 3 years with no C&S partner.
If (and its a huge if), we'll need a GE sooner rather than later. Parliment can't go on like this.
The Tories will be slaughtered in any new GE.
It's almost like it was a terrible idea to let metropolitans take over a party of conservative voters.
It's a shame we never got to see IDS v Tony Blair :-D
The Tories will fracture, they won't break-up. They are in the process of becoming a hard right English nationalist party - the party of Rees Mogg, Bridgen, Farage and Francois - and there will be a sizeable constituency for that in England. But the days of the Tories being pragmatic, pro-business and outward looking are over, whatever happens from here.
No, I don't think that is right. There is a huge split, with the pragmatic, pro-business wing of the party still dominant at the MP level. Just look at the Cabinet: Hammond, Rudd, Gauke, Clark etc are absolutely nothing like Rees Mogg and Francois, nor for that matter are Javid, Gove, or Hunt. Not even is Theresa May, although she's buffeted by forces outside her control.
If we crash out in no-deal chaos, them I think the split will become explicit, especially if it is the deliberate result of Theresa May's (or a replacement PM's) policy. I'd expect a major ministerial and cabinet walk-out, and possibly a formal split of the party's MPs. I can't for example see MPs like Richard Harrington (loyal though he is) wanting to be associated with a party implementing crash-out.
Javid and Hunt will support No Deal because they know it is the only way they get to replace May. Gove will, too, because to do otherwise would be to admit he was wrong in the first place.
Gove has been very strongly warning against No Deal.
Javid and Hunt are on manoeuvres, and actually I don't blame them. If we want Theresa May's replacement to be someone sensible, it will have to be someone sensible who can get selected despite the regrettable loss of sanity of so many party members. Put it this way: the next leader is not going to be Hammond or Rudd.
I think @Sean_F is right that a VoNC should narrowly fail in the event of the MV passing.
On the one hand I’d expect the DUP to vote with the opposition (they mean what they say) but other independents and possibly even TIGers abstaining to avoid a GE and/or putting Corbyn in power, so HMG would survive. Just.
Question then is how the Con minority administration survives a new leader with c.300-310 MPs (I expect a few more casualties of war) for another 3 years with no C&S partner.
If (and its a huge if), we'll need a GE sooner rather than later. Parliment can't go on like this.
The Tories will be slaughtered in any new GE.
Tony thinks Boris would beat Jezza!
In a normal world a turnip should be able to beat Mr Thicky. Not a normal world unfortunately.
Nope, the final choice is the PM’s. She is the only one who can revoke. It’s her decision alone.
If parliament were to vote with a clear majority in favour of revocation, you'd have a point. Without such a vote, the legal position is unclear and it's not realistic politically.
It's another example of the unreality of the situation, that there are people who seem to think it feasible that May will break totally with her party and lead about 30 of her MPs into alliance with Labour, in order to revoke Brexit or hold a second referendum.
I don't think it's feasible. That's my entire point. May will always choose the position that keeps most Tories inside the Tory party.
Agreed. She clearly doesnt want no deal, but it's what most of her MPs want if the deal fails, which it will.
She would rather her legacy be No Deal and all its consequences for the UK rather than the complete break-up of the Conservative party.
Why would you expect the Conservative Party leader to take an action that leads to the complete break up of their party?
No party leader would ever do that.
Sure, you’ll be cross but you were never going to vote Conservative anyway and those that do by & large disagree with you.
I think a politician who has become PM should put the interests of the country first if it comes to it. Perhaps I am being naive in expecting that. So be it.
Clearly, no competent politician should allow themselves to be put in such a position. But it is like having a conflict of interest in any other work situation: if there is a conflict of interest between your personal interests or your employer's interests and that of the client you always put the client first. The same here: if there is a conflict between the interests of the country of which she is PM and the interests of the party then she should always put the interests of the country first.
Many decisions can be cited as examples of a PM putting the national interest before party interests. Cameron on gay marriage, Brown on bailing out the banks, Blair on Iraq and tuition fees, Major on Maastricht, Wilson on devaluation etc etc etc. In all these cases the PM of the day thought (not always correctly but that's bye the bye) that what they were doing was in the national interest even though they knew their party would be damaged by it.
A politician who cannot separate national and party interests is not fit to be a minister, let alone PM.
I think @Sean_F is right that a VoNC should narrowly fail in the event of the MV passing.
On the one hand I’d expect the DUP to vote with the opposition (they mean what they say) but other independents and possibly even TIGers abstaining to avoid a GE and/or putting Corbyn in power, so HMG would survive. Just.
Question then is how the Con minority administration survives a new leader with c.300-310 MPs (I expect a few more casualties of war) for another 3 years with no C&S partner.
If (and its a huge if), we'll need a GE sooner rather than later. Parliment can't go on like this.
The Tories will be slaughtered in any new GE.
Tony thinks Boris would beat Jezza!
In a normal world a turnip should be able to beat Mr Thicky. Not a normal world unfortunately.
As an ardent retainer I'm all for giving Yaxley-Lennon as much public exposure as possible, ditto Francois
I agree. Normally don't ban them, lampoon them.
There is also currently this case with the Jewish Australian guy. He sounds like he is a bit of an Australian Tommy Robinson who has said various dodgy stuff about Muslims in the past.
However, he was stitched up by Jim Jefferies, in which an interview was misleadingly editted and released the video of the actual interview including Jefferies saying some really dodgy stuff, and he is the one that is getting the ban hammer.
I think @Sean_F is right that a VoNC should narrowly fail in the event of the MV passing.
On the one hand I’d expect the DUP to vote with the opposition (they mean what they say) but other independents and possibly even TIGers abstaining to avoid a GE and/or putting Corbyn in power, so HMG would survive. Just.
Question then is how the Con minority administration survives a new leader with c.300-310 MPs (I expect a few more casualties of war) for another 3 years with no C&S partner.
If (and its a huge if), we'll need a GE sooner rather than later. Parliment can't go on like this.
The Tories will be slaughtered in any new GE.
Tony thinks Boris would beat Jezza!
In a normal world a turnip should be able to beat Mr Thicky. Not a normal world unfortunately.
Not clear which one you are referring to.
Sorry, I meant Corbyn. He is interchangeable with either turnip or Mr. Thicky. Boris, of course, would probably shag the turnip if it stayed still long enough.
Sky reporting that Varadkar needs to come up with answers on the border to Macron in the event of no deal as the EU will have to put in place border checks. Sky confirms considerably worry in the EU over this as they face the issue that they thought the backstop provided cover for
Apparently it is so serious Merkel is due to meet with them both in the next few days
Important not to take the EU confirmation they are ready for no deal, they are not and wait till the EU tell Varadker the EU border will have to be the French coast
Nope, the final choice is the PM’s. She is the only one who can revoke. It’s her decision alone.
If parliament were to vote with a clear majority in favour of revocation, you'd have a point. Without such a vote, the legal position is unclear and it's not realistic politically.
It's another example of the unreality of the situation, that there are people who seem to think it feasible that May will break totally with her party and lead about 30 of her MPs into alliance with Labour, in order to revoke Brexit or hold a second referendum.
I don't think it's feasible. That's my entire point. May will always choose the position that keeps most Tories inside the Tory party.
Agreed. She clearly doesnt want no deal, but it's what most of her MPs want if the deal fails, which it will.
She would rather her legacy be No Deal and all its consequences for the UK rather than the complete break-up of the Conservative party.
Why would you expect the Conservative Party leader to take an action that leads to the complete break up of their party?
No party leader would ever do that.
Sure, you’ll be cross but you were never going to vote Conservative anyway and those that do by & large disagree with you.
I do not expect May to do anything other than put her party first. I accept she has absolutely no interest in governing for anyone who is not an actual or potential Conservative voter.
I would not expect any political leader to do otherwise.
Yes, we may fantasise about political leaders who break with parties we oppose and support parties we support, but that happens about once a century.
On this "the EU will refuse an extension" thing, I always find Katya Adler is the most reliable journalist...
@BBCkatyaadler 12m12 minutes ago EU emergency #brexit summit 10 April will start 6pm in Brussels. The PM will be invited to ‘engage’ with the 27 EU leaders +inform them of her plans/requests. She’ll then like last time be asked to leave the room while the 27 try to come to unified position required by EU law /1
Leaders are divided. No one likes idea of long #brexit delay - if PM asks for it - and it only takes one country (France in frontline) to say no - as EU decision must be unanimous BUT /2
If the UK does as EU had requested and agrees to holding European parliamentary elections as a condition for being granted a longer #Brexit delay then it’s hard to imagine EU saying no. Even if the PM only presents a vague plan of what intends to do during longer extension /3
This is because if EU leaders say no under those conditions, they will be blamed for no deal by the European businesses and citizens that suffer the consequences /4
Also we are in lead-up to European Parliamentary elections where populist nationalist eurosceptics are expected to perform strongly. AfD, Salvini, Le Pen would have political field day if UK shut out just before vote even though it agreed to EU conditions for longer extension /5
Also the date of 8th April for the PM to inform EU of what she will asks leaders at summit on 10th is not set in stone. It’s the ideal date but .. remember how long and how last minute they waited for her letter before last summit asking for short extension? /6
This is NOT to say that EU leaders are feeling really flexible and open to whatever UK asks for/does. In order to avoid no deal. Far from it. Even the ‘softer’ leaders like Germany’s Angela Merkel have toughened their position /7
The Tories will fracture, they won't break-up. They are in the process of becoming a hard right English nationalist party - the party of Rees Mogg, Bridgen, Farage and Francois - and there will be a sizeable constituency for that in England. But the days of the Tories being pragmatic, pro-business and outward looking are over, whatever happens from here.
No, I don't think that is right. There is a huge split, with the pragmatic, pro-business wing of the party still dominant at the MP level. Just look at the Cabinet: Hammond, Rudd, Gauke, Clark etc are absolutely nothing like Rees Mogg and Francois, nor for that matter are Javid, Gove, or Hunt. Not even is Theresa May, although she's buffeted by forces outside her control.
If we crash out in no-deal chaos, them I think the split will become explicit, especially if it is the deliberate result of Theresa May's (or a replacement PM's) policy. I'd expect a major ministerial and cabinet walk-out, and possibly a formal split of the party's MPs. I can't for example see MPs like Richard Harrington (loyal though he is) wanting to be associated with a party implementing crash-out.
Javid and Hunt will support No Deal because they know it is the only way they get to replace May. Gove will, too, because to do otherwise would be to admit he was wrong in the first place.
Gove has been very strongly warning against No Deal.
Javid and Hunt are on manoeuvres, and actually I don't blame them. If we want Theresa May's replacement to be someone sensible, it will have to be someone sensible who can get selected despite the regrettable loss of sanity of so many party members. Put it this way: the next leader is not going to be Hammond or Rudd.
The problem is that the new leader will then have to "betray" the membership at some point. Hunt and Javid cannot support No Deal and then go back to the EU and agree the terms they will set for a trade negotiation.
Nope, the final choice is the PM’s. She is the only one who can revoke. It’s her decision alone.
If parliament were to vote with a clear majority in favour of revocation, you'd have a point. Without such a vote, the legal position is unclear and it's not realistic politically.
It's another example of the unreality of the situation, that there are people who seem to think it feasible that May will break totally with her party and lead about 30 of her MPs into alliance with Labour, in order to revoke Brexit or hold a second referendum.
I don't think it's feasible. That's my entire point. May will always choose the position that keeps most Tories inside the Tory party.
Agreed. She clearly doesnt want no deal, but it's what most of her MPs want if the deal fails, which it will.
She would rather her legacy be No Deal and all its consequences for the UK rather than the complete break-up of the Conservative party.
Why would you expect the Conservative Party leader to take an action that leads to the complete break up of their party?
No party leader would ever do that.
Sure, you’ll be cross but you were never going to vote Conservative anyway and those that do by & large disagree with you.
.
Many decisions can be cited as examples of a PM putting the national interest before party interests. Cameron on gay marriage, Brown on bailing out the banks, Blair on Iraq and tuition fees, Major on Maastricht, Wilson on devaluation etc etc etc. In all these cases the PM of the day thought (not always correctly but that's bye the bye) that what they were doing was in the national interest even though they knew their party would be damaged by it.
A politician who cannot separate national and party interests is not fit to be a minister, let alone PM.
There's a difference between adopting a policy that some in your party dislike, and a policy that 90% of your party loathe.
People who expect May to revoke A50 or whip for a second referendum are expecting her to break with the vast majority of her colleagues. That happens once a century.
Horseshit...for years and year and years all the ethnic tensions were bubbling away.They were ruled by Tito, who to say was an authoritarian is an understatement, in order to keep things in check.
Sky reporting that Varadkar needs to come up with answers on the border to Macron in the event of no deal as the EU will have to put in place border checks. Sky confirms considerably worry in the EU over this as they face the issue that they thought the backstop provided cover for
Apparently it is so serious Merkel is due to meet with them both in the next few days
Important not to take the EU confirmation they are ready for no deal, they are not and wait till the EU tell Varadker the EU border will have to be the French coast
That was floated (ouch!) a few weeks ago, iirc. It's been discussed as a worse-case-scenario for longer than that.
Nope, the final choice is the PM’s. She is the only one who can revoke. It’s her decision alone.
If parliament were to vote with a clear majority in favour of revocation, you'd have a point. Without such a vote, the legal position is unclear and it's not realistic politically.
It's another example of the unreality of the situation, that there are people who seem to think it feasible that May will break totally with her party and lead about 30 of her MPs into alliance with Labour, in order to revoke Brexit or hold a second referendum.
I don't think it's feasible. That's my entire point. May will always choose the position that keeps most Tories inside the Tory party.
Agreed. She clearly doesnt want no deal, but it's what most of her MPs want if the deal fails, which it will.
She would rather her legacy be No Deal and all its consequences for the UK rather than the complete break-up of the Conservative party.
Why would you expect the Conservative Party leader to take an action that leads to the complete break up of their party?
No party leader would ever do that.
Sure, you’ll be cross but you were never going to vote Conservative anyway and those that do by & large disagree with you.
I do not expect May to do anything other than put her party first. I accept she has absolutely no interest in governing for anyone who is not an actual or potential Conservative voter.
I would not expect any political leader to do otherwise.
Yes, we may fantasise about political leaders who break with parties we oppose and support parties we support, but that happens about once a century.
Under our system of representative parliamentary "democracy", our MPs and by extension, PMs are supposed to represent and govern for all, even those that don't vote for them. We know that doesn't happen in practice, but they could at least pretend ffs!
Sky reporting that Varadkar needs to come up with answers on the border to Macron in the event of no deal as the EU will have to put in place border checks. Sky confirms considerably worry in the EU over this as they face the issue that they thought the backstop provided cover for
Apparently it is so serious Merkel is due to meet with them both in the next few days
Important not to take the EU confirmation they are ready for no deal, they are not and wait till the EU tell Varadker the EU border will have to be the French coast
There will soon come a point when PR is in every party's political interests.
Ah yes, PR because it will benefit my party. A very principled position.
Of course.
Since the metropolitan types like it so much, how about PR for the cities, and FPTP for the shires?
That’s the case here in the US, the states have a lot of leeway about how they conduct federal elections, although currently only Maine has switched from FPTP to AV (or “instant runoff voting” as it’s called here). The only federal restriction is that all congressional districts must be single-member, which rules out STV among other forms. That’s by statute though and has never been tested for constitutionality in the courts.
Seems like they're being way too clever by half. Much better just to table a motion demanding the UK govt requests an extension until whenever (even if that motion is technically 'non-binding'), and dare the government to ignore it if it gets a majority.
And the most OTT tweet of the day award goes to...
I hope it is daft. But then last week, we had a member of parliament saying that Theresa May's deal was akin to the fall of Singapore ffs. (Crispin Blunt in case you didn't guess. What a plonker)
Sky reporting that Varadkar needs to come up with answers on the border to Macron in the event of no deal as the EU will have to put in place border checks. Sky confirms considerably worry in the EU over this as they face the issue that they thought the backstop provided cover for
Apparently it is so serious Merkel is due to meet with them both in the next few days
Important not to take the EU confirmation they are ready for no deal, they are not and wait till the EU tell Varadker the EU border will have to be the French coast
That was floated (ouch!) a few weeks ago, iirc. It's been discussed as a worse-case-scenario for longer than that.
If there are big queues at Calais the Irish get rooked.
Government should quickly act so that other ports such as Southampton give priority to Uk exports over ROI containers.
And the most OTT tweet of the day award goes to...
I hope it is daft. But then last week, we had a member of parliament saying that Theresa May's deal was akin to the fall of Singapore ffs. (Crispin Blunt in case you didn't guess. What a plonker)
Saying something for dramatic effect means the UK is like Yugoslavia?
As an ardent retainer I'm all for giving Yaxley-Lennon as much public exposure as possible, ditto Francois
I agree. Normally don't ban them, lampoon them.
Although it is deeply regrettable that Francois now has a higher profile, enabling him to spout fluent excrement on a daily basis, taking the piss out of him is seeing us all through this current unpleasantness.
Things can turn out worse than you think. When Shackleton reached South Georgia in May 1916, he asked what the outcome had been of that silly litttle war which had been brewing when he left England in 1914.
And the most OTT tweet of the day award goes to...
I hope it is daft. But then last week, we had a member of parliament saying that Theresa May's deal was akin to the fall of Singapore ffs. (Crispin Blunt in case you didn't guess. What a plonker)
I can see some sort of low level civil disobedience at some point in the next few weeks (think the 2000 fuel protests or at worst the poll tax riots) but the idea that we'll have a civil war is for the birds.
I must say that I am quite surprised the Letwin plan is to just ignore that the Commons did not agree anything to justify an extension and just introduce legislation anyway.
Everyone really thought something would pass, didn't they? And they're trying to carry on as though something did.
I must say that I am quite surprised the Letwin plan is to just ignore that the Commons did not agree anything to justify an extension and just introduce legislation anyway.
Everyone really thought something would pass, didn't they? And they're trying to carry on as though something did.
Things can turn out worse than you think. When Shackleton reached South Georgia in May 1916, he asked what the outcome had been of that silly litttle war which had been brewing when he left England in 1914.
You think ethnic cleansing is brewing in the UK? Absurd.
I must say that I am quite surprised the Letwin plan is to just ignore that the Commons did not agree anything to justify an extension and just introduce legislation anyway.
Everyone really thought something would pass, didn't they? And they're trying to carry on as though something did.
Does this Bill actually mean anything?
It means that MPs still want to do anything other than make a decision on Brexit. A distraction and deferment from the moment of decision.
This Pelosi defence of Biden ought to be no surprise. We, in a global sense, need to move on from this generation and their bizarre attitudes to entitlement.
It was pretty much the same argument used by the defenders of Clinton. But it is not a generational thing. There is plenty of evidence around that younger men have a similar sense of entitlement when it comes to women. And as much evidence of politicians taking a "my party: right or wrong" approach to misbehaviour of any kind.
Yes, I agree there are young men with a similar sense. The evidence is all around. The difference is that those who aspire to lead from younger generations generally don't treat it as a peccadillo to be indulged. This is the point that needs to change. The outright enabling from those in power needs to stop.
Someone I know very nearly lost his job due to 'inappropriate body contact'. He doesn't deny that it happened but maintains that it was unintentional. Furthermore, I understand that the 'victim' wasn't aware of it, it was reported by a third party. He was suspended from work for a month or so. Eventually, he was given a final warning and moved to another team.
The reality is that there is now a terror associated with any claim of sexual harrassment. Unlike sexual assault, it can never be disproven.
Inappropriate body contact that the victim wasn’t aware of? Explain how that happens unless she was asleep?
On this "the EU will refuse an extension" thing, I always find Katya Adler is the most reliable journalist...
@BBCkatyaadler 12m12 minutes ago EU emergency #brexit summit 10 April will start 6pm in Brussels. The PM will be invited to ‘engage’ with the 27 EU leaders +inform them of her plans/requests. She’ll then like last time be asked to leave the room while the 27 try to come to unified position required by EU law /1
Leaders are divided. No one likes idea of long #brexit delay - if PM asks for it - and it only takes one country (France in frontline) to say no - as EU decision must be unanimous BUT /2
If the UK does as EU had requested and agrees to holding European parliamentary elections as a condition for being granted a longer #Brexit delay then it’s hard to imagine EU saying no. Even if the PM only presents a vague plan of what intends to do during longer extension /3
This is because if EU leaders say no under those conditions, they will be blamed for no deal by the European businesses and citizens that suffer the consequences /4
Also we are in lead-up to European Parliamentary elections where populist nationalist eurosceptics are expected to perform strongly. AfD, Salvini, Le Pen would have political field day if UK shut out just before vote even though it agreed to EU conditions for longer extension /5
Also the date of 8th April for the PM to inform EU of what she will asks leaders at summit on 10th is not set in stone. It’s the ideal date but .. remember how long and how last minute they waited for her letter before last summit asking for short extension? /6
This is NOT to say that EU leaders are feeling really flexible and open to whatever UK asks for/does. In order to avoid no deal. Far from it. Even the ‘softer’ leaders like Germany’s Angela Merkel have toughened their position /7
Things can turn out worse than you think. When Shackleton reached South Georgia in May 1916, he asked what the outcome had been of that silly litttle war which had been brewing when he left England in 1914.
You think ethnic cleansing is brewing in the UK? Absurd.
I think that things can turn out worse than you think, which is why I said it. The mention of WW1 should have been a valuable clue that I was generalising (unless you think WW1 was an exercise in ethnic cleansing, I suppose).
Sky reporting that Varadkar needs to come up with answers on the border to Macron in the event of no deal as the EU will have to put in place border checks. Sky confirms considerably worry in the EU over this as they face the issue that they thought the backstop provided cover for
Apparently it is so serious Merkel is due to meet with them both in the next few days
Important not to take the EU confirmation they are ready for no deal, they are not and wait till the EU tell Varadker the EU border will have to be the French coast
That was floated (ouch!) a few weeks ago, iirc. It's been discussed as a worse-case-scenario for longer than that.
And the worst case scenario is now just 10 days away.
I think @Sean_F is right that a VoNC should narrowly fail in the event of the MV passing.
On the one hand I’d expect the DUP to vote with the opposition (they mean what they say) but other independents and possibly even TIGers abstaining to avoid a GE and/or putting Corbyn in power, so HMG would survive. Just.
Question then is how the Con minority administration survives a new leader with c.300-310 MPs (I expect a few more casualties of war) for another 3 years with no C&S partner.
Agreed. It's why I can't see the government getting to 2022 anymore. They slipped to 313 last night. Yes, many independents aren't going to support a VoNC, but few will be seen to back the government either.
If somehow the Deal passes, and then the DUP withdraw support an immediate VoNC might fail, but the government is never going to manage another two and a half years with only 307 MPs (or whatever they are left with when Grieve & Co flounce out). They either find a partner (who? Only Labour themselves or the SNP could offer enough MPs to make it worthwhile) or survive the summer before dying in the fires of a September VoNC over some trivial (or not so trivial) argument over a second stage negotiating point of Brexit.
I can't see how we avoid a General Election now; and I can't see it being later than 2020 at best.
They have just confirmed what he bangs on about, that the establishment are trying to silence him etc etc etc.
Far better to let him publish, and let the internet pick up any horseshit he spouts (which if the internet is good at one thing, it is jumping on that bandwagon when somebody gets caught out).
The problem with that is the Internet becomes bubbles. The sane Internet might pick up on what he spouts, but the people who follow his sh*t might not pick up on that because they don't follow the right places (and the same goes for others as well).
I think there's a reasonable rule of thumb: if you'd get arrested for standing in the street and shouting something into a megaphone, you shouldn't expect a right to say it on open forums on the Internet. Though there are difficulties with that concept as well wrt territories.
It’s a reasonable analogy
The difference is YouTube isn’t arresting him for shouting something into a megaphone, they are preventing him from saying anything
Yes it has, but is it sensible to do so? When they object to government ramming things through this looks unsound, especially as the Commons can provide a solution very quickly. This is cart before horse territory perhaps.
Doing this when the indicative votes failed rather shows their goal was remain at all costs rather than help come up with a solution, given they are still seeking control despite not finding a solution.
Things can turn out worse than you think. When Shackleton reached South Georgia in May 1916, he asked what the outcome had been of that silly litttle war which had been brewing when he left England in 1914.
You think ethnic cleansing is brewing in the UK? Absurd.
I think that things can turn out worse than you think, which is why I said it. The mention of WW1 should have been a valuable clue that I was generalising (unless you think WW1 was an exercise in ethnic cleansing, I suppose).
Maybe it can get worse. But civil war worse? Doubt it.
looks like the Euro elections are on. I have just recieved an email from the CEO of my london borough setting out the timetable as laid down by the cabinet office. Not only that but as we are so late in the process it seems that all EU citizens here will have the opportunity to vote here rather than in their own countries. The CEO said
"Previously, in anticipation of european elections, the ERO would have written to all registered citizens of other EU countries living in the area asking them to indicate whether they would participate in the election by voting in the UK or in the EU country in which they also had residency. In these circumstances we will be writing to those citizens assuming that they will vote in the UK unless they tell us that they have registered and intend to vote elsewhere. This is because the possibility for them to register in other EU states has, in a number of cases, already passed as the lists have closed."
This probably will have an impact on the results..
I think @Sean_F is right that a VoNC should narrowly fail in the event of the MV passing.
On the one hand I’d expect the DUP to vote with the opposition (they mean what they say) but other independents and possibly even TIGers abstaining to avoid a GE and/or putting Corbyn in power, so HMG would survive. Just.
Question then is how the Con minority administration survives a new leader with c.300-310 MPs (I expect a few more casualties of war) for another 3 years with no C&S partner.
Agreed. It's why I can't see the government getting to 2022 anymore. They slipped to 313 last night. Yes, many independents aren't going to support a VoNC, but few will be seen to back the government either.
If somehow the Deal passes, and then the DUP withdraw support an immediate VoNC might fail, but the government is never going to manage another two and a half years with only 307 MPs (or whatever they are left with when Grieve & Co flounce out). They either find a partner (who? Only Labour themselves or the SNP could offer enough MPs to make it worthwhile) or survive the summer before dying in the fires of a September VoNC over some trivial (or not so trivial) argument over a second stage negotiating point of Brexit.
I can't see how we avoid a General Election now; and I can't see it being later than 2020 at best.
Agreed. Last embers of the government.
Which makes all these cabinet members caring for nothing but taking over as leader all the more baffling to me. They wont get a chance to enjoy it, and might set a record for shortest PM reigns of the 20th century onwards.
There's a difference between adopting a policy that some in your party dislike, and a policy that 90% of your party loathe.
People who expect May to revoke A50 or whip for a second referendum are expecting her to break with the vast majority of her colleagues. That happens once a century.
Oh I agree, I'm not expecting May to revoke now but it would have been better if she had put the national interest first earlier in the process and told the frothers in her party that they would have to find a consensual way forward at the outset when she became PM. Instead she promised them the Brexit of their dreams, only to realise almost immediately that she could not deliver it. And everything that has happened since follows from her decision to put the party first at that point.
There will soon come a point when PR is in every party's political interests.
Ah yes, PR because it will benefit my party. A very principled position.
As opposed to that principled position of' ah yes that antiquated system of FPTP; it is crap but it benefits my party."
"Disproportionate Representation is democratic when it's my party that gets the disproportionate representation?"
I do think that the contention that it is undemocratic for a party, ideology, or concept to have support in Parliament proportionate to its support in the electorate is a fairly strange contention, but it is one that, curiously, the supporters of the Big Two seem to hold dear.
Re Yugoslavia...it wasn't it will never happen there, it was when will it happen there.
You could say the same about Brexit. We were always the country likely to have a rush of blood to the head and think the EU needed us more than the other way round.
Macron and Varadkar press conference. Varadkar looking very worried
Perhaps he should be a bit more flexible - wouldn't have found himself in this mess.
He noticeably swallowed hard when he said no deal could happen on the 12th April
About 85% of Ireland's total EU freight trade goes via British ports...
Hasn't a (competent) EU version of Chris Grayling hasn't bought a load of ferry capacity on Rosslare-Cherbourg/Cork-Roscoff yet?
I note you assume the EU runs Irish policy.
That might be the reason for Brexit.
I said it deliberately, because I'd assume that if* Irish trade was the big stumbling block from the EU27 point of view to us leaving on WTO terms, that a careful cost-benefit analysis would be done on whether the EU wanted us farting around for another 18 months*, or whether they could get the Irish off the hook by doing stuff like that (and probably funding a new motorway network and ferry port longer-term to get round us).
(*In practice, there are other issues for them, and on balance they'd probably sooner have us in the tent pissing out. But I'm not sure that's a permanent state)
There will soon come a point when PR is in every party's political interests.
Ah yes, PR because it will benefit my party. A very principled position.
As opposed to that principled position of' ah yes that antiquated system of FPTP; it is crap but it benefits my party."
"Disproportionate Representation is democratic when it's my party that gets the disproportionate representation?"
I do think that the contention that it is undemocratic for a party, ideology, or concept to have support in Parliament proportionate to its support in the electorate is a fairly strange contention, but it is one that, curiously, the supporters of the Big Two seem to hold dear.
No-one has ever claimed that PR is undemocratic. Many have, rightly in my view, claimed it's not a very good form of democracy.
Sky reporting that Varadkar needs to come up with answers on the border to Macron in the event of no deal as the EU will have to put in place border checks. Sky confirms considerably worry in the EU over this as they face the issue that they thought the backstop provided cover for
Apparently it is so serious Merkel is due to meet with them both in the next few days
Important not to take the EU confirmation they are ready for no deal, they are not and wait till the EU tell Varadker the EU border will have to be the French coast
That was floated (ouch!) a few weeks ago, iirc. It's been discussed as a worse-case-scenario for longer than that.
And the worst case scenario is now just 10 days away.
There will soon come a point when PR is in every party's political interests.
Ah yes, PR because it will benefit my party. A very principled position.
As opposed to that principled position of' ah yes that antiquated system of FPTP; it is crap but it benefits my party."
"Disproportionate Representation is democratic when it's my party that gets the disproportionate representation?"
I do think that the contention that it is undemocratic for a party, ideology, or concept to have support in Parliament proportionate to its support in the electorate is a fairly strange contention, but it is one that, curiously, the supporters of the Big Two seem to hold dear.
Comments
Meanwhile the Conservatives are arguing about the nuances of transubstantiation.
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1113080573025751041
The Tories, not a f##king clue about anything.
(As an aside say we sign and leave. We then turn around and say “we look forward to negotiating an FTA. But we are giving you five years notice that we are terminating the backstop as of 2025.” What are the real world consequences of that?)
Suspending his ability to live stream, I can totally understand...but they admit his videos on the platform don't break the rules.
As I say, it is also about where do we go from here. Watching the twitter higher ups on JRE podcast the other week didn't fill me full of confidence. When presented with evidence that for example that the majority of people in the US agree with the idea that the sex you are born is your gender, they were totally bemused, and how they had banned people for tweeting stuff like this.
But if we said before we entered the backstop after a failure to agree a FTA "we are giving you one year's notice we are terminating the backstop in 2023", I don't see what the EU could do tbh.
As an ardent retainer I'm all for giving Yaxley-Lennon as much public exposure as possible, ditto Francois
Javid and Hunt are on manoeuvres, and actually I don't blame them. If we want Theresa May's replacement to be someone sensible, it will have to be someone sensible who can get selected despite the regrettable loss of sanity of so many party members. Put it this way: the next leader is not going to be Hammond or Rudd.
A politician who cannot separate national and party interests is not fit to be a minister, let alone PM.
However, he was stitched up by Jim Jefferies, in which an interview was misleadingly editted and released the video of the actual interview including Jefferies saying some really dodgy stuff, and he is the one that is getting the ban hammer.
Oh yeah... Looked like Boris and Amber having an "intimate" chat to me.
Apparently it is so serious Merkel is due to meet with them both in the next few days
Important not to take the EU confirmation they are ready for no deal, they are not and wait till the EU tell Varadker the EU border will have to be the French coast
Yes, we may fantasise about political leaders who break with parties we oppose and support parties we support, but that happens about once a century.
@BBCkatyaadler
12m12 minutes ago
EU emergency #brexit summit 10 April will start 6pm in Brussels. The PM will be invited to ‘engage’ with the 27 EU leaders +inform them of her plans/requests. She’ll then like last time be asked to leave the room while the 27 try to come to unified position required by EU law /1
Leaders are divided. No one likes idea of long #brexit delay - if PM asks for it - and it only takes one country (France in frontline) to say no - as EU decision must be unanimous BUT /2
If the UK does as EU had requested and agrees to holding European parliamentary elections as a condition for being granted a longer #Brexit delay then it’s hard to imagine EU saying no. Even if the PM only presents a vague plan of what intends to do during longer extension /3
This is because if EU leaders say no under those conditions, they will be blamed for no deal by the European businesses and citizens that suffer the consequences /4
Also we are in lead-up to European Parliamentary elections where populist nationalist eurosceptics are expected to perform strongly. AfD, Salvini, Le Pen would have political field day if UK shut out just before vote even though it agreed to EU conditions for longer extension /5
Also the date of 8th April for the PM to inform EU of what she will asks leaders at summit on 10th is not set in stone. It’s the ideal date but .. remember how long and how last minute they waited for her letter before last summit asking for short extension? /6
This is NOT to say that EU leaders are feeling really flexible and open to whatever UK asks for/does. In order to avoid no deal. Far from it. Even the ‘softer’ leaders like Germany’s Angela Merkel have toughened their position /7
https://twitter.com/ivanka/status/1090519840903884800
And the most OTT tweet of the day award goes to...
People who expect May to revoke A50 or whip for a second referendum are expecting her to break with the vast majority of her colleagues. That happens once a century.
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1113047756355010565/photo/1
The problems will be at Holyhead. For the Irish.
Government should quickly act so that other ports such as Southampton give priority to Uk exports over ROI containers.
And, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Paul Brand from ITV News is reporting rumours of a PM statement later.
#Activatethelectern
Nothing has changed....MPs you are a bunch of wankers...sit down and shut up...the public demand you pass my shit deal....
The Councillor who represents the island now calls himself King Robin I.
Everyone really thought something would pass, didn't they? And they're trying to carry on as though something did.
Is it applying to join the EU?
The Uk would happily pay up to move on..
It's how the business world would deal with damages.
Nothing. Has. Changed.
They slipped to 313 last night. Yes, many independents aren't going to support a VoNC, but few will be seen to back the government either.
If somehow the Deal passes, and then the DUP withdraw support an immediate VoNC might fail, but the government is never going to manage another two and a half years with only 307 MPs (or whatever they are left with when Grieve & Co flounce out). They either find a partner (who? Only Labour themselves or the SNP could offer enough MPs to make it worthwhile) or survive the summer before dying in the fires of a September VoNC over some trivial (or not so trivial) argument over a second stage negotiating point of Brexit.
I can't see how we avoid a General Election now; and I can't see it being later than 2020 at best.
The difference is YouTube isn’t arresting him for shouting something into a megaphone, they are preventing him from saying anything
Doing this when the indicative votes failed rather shows their goal was remain at all costs rather than help come up with a solution, given they are still seeking control despite not finding a solution.
I have just recieved an email from the CEO of my london borough setting out the timetable as laid down by the cabinet office.
Not only that but as we are so late in the process it seems that all EU citizens here will have the opportunity to vote here rather than in their own countries.
The CEO said
"Previously, in anticipation of european elections, the ERO would have written to all registered citizens of other EU countries living in the area asking them to indicate whether they would participate in the election by voting in the UK or in the EU country in which they also had residency. In these circumstances we will be writing to those citizens assuming that they will vote in the UK unless they tell us that they have registered and intend to vote elsewhere. This is because the possibility for them to register in other EU states has, in a number of cases, already passed as the lists have closed."
This probably will have an impact on the results..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POxMp61Ksbk
Which makes all these cabinet members caring for nothing but taking over as leader all the more baffling to me. They wont get a chance to enjoy it, and might set a record for shortest PM reigns of the 20th century onwards.
(And yes, I have visited - often. Great birding spot, when I was living in London.)
That might be the reason for Brexit.
I do think that the contention that it is undemocratic for a party, ideology, or concept to have support in Parliament proportionate to its support in the electorate is a fairly strange contention, but it is one that, curiously, the supporters of the Big Two seem to hold dear.
(*In practice, there are other issues for them, and on balance they'd probably sooner have us in the tent pissing out. But I'm not sure that's a permanent state)
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/brexit-busting-ferry-launched-from-dublin-port-1.3468760?mode=amp
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/245488