The country is hardening towards rock hard Brexit at the same time as Theresa's on her knees begging Jezza to come up with any deal he possibly can for her....
In several sub-polls I've seen on no-deal, several parts of that no-deal vote are of people thinking it means remain.
The country is hardening towards rock hard Brexit at the same time as Theresa's on her knees begging Jezza to come up with any deal he possibly can for her....
Doesn't really matter whether the public are theoretically in support of no deal or not. If it happens all that matters is whether it is as bad as its made out to be or not. If things go south no-one will admit to having been in favour, and if they do they will simply blame someone else, probably the government.
Yes I know all that. So what is Mr Hannan's (and your) alternative. That could get through the house.
To be honest, remaining in the EU and being shits from the inside is way better than anything involving a customs union with the organisation we just left. It’s the worst possible outcome.
The analysis that Mr Hands gives is all pie in the sky and avoids the main question about what will certainly happen. The reality is that on day one businesses like mine will have to pay an extra 10% to ship our products to the EC. I see nothing in the analysis about how the government will compensate us for the massive cost imposition.
The one solution that does exist and will be used extensively is that we set up a company in Dublin and ship products via this location. We will minimise the value of transfer price to reduce costs and pile up profits in Ireland on which we will pay lower Irish taxes. The net impact will be a massive loss of tax revenue to the UK Government and a benefit to the EC.
It is a Kafkaesque world where politicians and members of public line up to demand to do my business harm with no apparent benefit to them except the feeling of power.
Gove frames it fairly explicitly like that in this 2009 interview.
"Because he was clear on those areas [e.g. Europe], he had permission from the base to move to the centre on issues of social policy like health and education, and also on the environment."
That's not what you said.
Of course, like any party leader, he couldn't ignore a substantial body of opinion in the party, any more than Harold Wilson could ignore the hard left or Maggie the 'wets'.
I just edited my comment to add that Mark Francois was his Shadow Europe Minister. He also brought David Campbell Bannerman back in from UKIP.
He went well beyond not ignoring them.
I must confess I don't think I'd heard of Mark Francois until after the 2017 election. He was hardly a major promotion by Cameron.
The biggest obstacle to the future of the Conservative Party is that they don’t appeal to the young, he says. For the Party, “young” is now “below 47”. “We need to find new voters,” he says.
At our recent Conservative constituency AGM a new chairman was appointed, who I think will make considerable efforts to try to encourage younger people to join the party. But as a very senior member said to me afterwards: "Anyone under 50 who'd heard tonight's discussion would run a mile.'
We have a big, big problem, and as Sam Gyimah says, we've gone a long way backwards since the Cameron days.
Cameron seemed to think modernisation meant promoting ERG-type nutters in a quid-pro-quo for giving him leeway on the social issues. The state of the party now is the culmination of Cameron's strategy.
Indeed, and I'm not sure all those A Listers parachuted into safe seats in 2010 have returned Dave's favour.
The “Cutie” I spent days canvassing for, lasted only two years before giving up on the whole MP idea to move to the States. Grr...
Yes I know all that. So what is Mr Hannan's (and your) alternative. That could get through the house.
To be honest, remaining in the EU and being shits from the inside is way better than anything involving a customs union with the organisation we just left. It’s the worst possible outcome.
The analysis that Mr Hands gives is all pie in the sky and avoids the main question about what will certainly happen. The reality is that on day one businesses like mine will have to pay an extra 10% to ship our products to the EC. I see nothing in the analysis about how the government will compensate us for the massive cost imposition.
The one solution that does exist and will be used extensively is that we set up a company in Dublin and ship products via this location. We will minimise the value of transfer price to reduce costs and pile up profits in Ireland on which we will pay lower Irish taxes. The net impact will be a massive loss of tax revenue to the UK Government and a benefit to the EC.
It is a Kafkaesque world where politicians and members of public line up to demand to do my business harm with no apparent benefit to them except the feeling of power.
That's been the problem with Brexit from the start. Politicians driven by dogma who see their job as denying, ignoring or trying to explain away all the practical concerns that will hit real lives and livelihoods. They decide the answer first and then pick and choose from the evidence afterwards.
Sensible stuff from Nick Herbert. He could have added that it also takes us out of the CAP and CFP.
Useful post from Nick Herbert, and I like the Motions Table summary too.
I had thought "CM2.0" was a better outcome than Ken Clarke's "CU" proposal, but I am not so sure now. Will "CU" really tick all the same boxes as May's Deal other than "independent trade policy" - which I think most of us have decided is not really worth the fag of wrecking the economy for.
I'd be concerned that the lack of standards/legislative alignment due to being out of the Single Market would cause supply chain disruption and delays for checks of standards/etc. And the need to re-underwrite all standards checking regimes.
The biggest obstacle to the future of the Conservative Party is that they don’t appeal to the young, he says. For the Party, “young” is now “below 47”. “We need to find new voters,” he says.
At our recent Conservative constituency AGM a new chairman was appointed, who I think will make considerable efforts to try to encourage younger people to join the party. But as a very senior member said to me afterwards: "Anyone under 50 who'd heard tonight's discussion would run a mile.'
We have a big, big problem, and as Sam Gyimah says, we've gone a long way backwards since the Cameron days.
Cameron seemed to think modernisation meant promoting ERG-type nutters in a quid-pro-quo for giving him leeway on the social issues. The state of the party now is the culmination of Cameron's strategy.
Indeed, and I'm not sure all those A Listers parachuted into safe seats in 2010 have returned Dave's favour.
The “Cutie” I spent days canvassing for, lasted only two years before giving up on the whole MP idea to move to the States. Grr...
Still, she's added greatly to the sum of human knowledge on social media since then.
Gove frames it fairly explicitly like that in this 2009 interview.
"Because he was clear on those areas [e.g. Europe], he had permission from the base to move to the centre on issues of social policy like health and education, and also on the environment."
That's not what you said.
Of course, like any party leader, he couldn't ignore a substantial body of opinion in the party, any more than Harold Wilson could ignore the hard left or Maggie the 'wets'.
I just edited my comment to add that Mark Francois was his Shadow Europe Minister. He also brought David Campbell Bannerman back in from UKIP.
He went well beyond not ignoring them.
I must confess I don't think I'd heard of Mark Francois until after the 2017 election. He was hardly a major promotion by Cameron.
During the coalition years, he allowed Cabinet ministers to say we should leave the EU, and then promoted one of them to be Foreign Secretary. I don't think the idea that he fed the Eurosceptic beast is controversial.
The biggest obstacle to the future of the Conservative Party is that they don’t appeal to the young, he says. For the Party, “young” is now “below 47”. “We need to find new voters,” he says.
At our recent Conservative constituency AGM a new chairman was appointed, who I think will make considerable efforts to try to encourage younger people to join the party. But as a very senior member said to me afterwards: "Anyone under 50 who'd heard tonight's discussion would run a mile.'
We have a big, big problem, and as Sam Gyimah says, we've gone a long way backwards since the Cameron days.
Cameron seemed to think modernisation meant promoting ERG-type nutters in a quid-pro-quo for giving him leeway on the social issues. The state of the party now is the culmination of Cameron's strategy.
Indeed, and I'm not sure all those A Listers parachuted into safe seats in 2010 have returned Dave's favour.
The “Cutie” I spent days canvassing for, lasted only two years before giving up on the whole MP idea to move to the States. Grr...
... A CU is an utterly bonkers idea - it locks in all the possible negatives of leaving the EU, whilst foregoing all the positives....
Interesting. So you don't see any of these as positives from leaving the EU?
- Control over immigration - Leaving the CAP - Leaving the CFP - Ending the direct application of EU law to domestic issues outside product regulation - Leaving the political structures of the EU - Being free of ever-closer union - Sending £350m a week to Brussels (yes, I know, I know...)
In other words, you thought 95%+ of what Vote Leave campaigned on wasn't actually anything positive?
It just isn't PURE ! The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking ERG! Splitters
The biggest obstacle to the future of the Conservative Party is that they don’t appeal to the young, he says. For the Party, “young” is now “below 47”. “We need to find new voters,” he says.
At our recent Conservative constituency AGM a new chairman was appointed, who I think will make considerable efforts to try to encourage younger people to join the party. But as a very senior member said to me afterwards: "Anyone under 50 who'd heard tonight's discussion would run a mile.'
We have a big, big problem, and as Sam Gyimah says, we've gone a long way backwards since the Cameron days.
Cameron seemed to think modernisation meant promoting ERG-type nutters in a quid-pro-quo for giving him leeway on the social issues. The state of the party now is the culmination of Cameron's strategy.
Indeed, and I'm not sure all those A Listers parachuted into safe seats in 2010 have returned Dave's favour.
The “Cutie” I spent days canvassing for, lasted only two years before giving up on the whole MP idea to move to the States. Grr...
And then went totally insane, right? Or am I thinking of the wrong ex-MP?
During the coalition years, he allowed Cabinet ministers to say we should leave the EU, and then promoted one of them to be Foreign Secretary. I don't think the idea that he fed the Eurosceptic beast is controversial.
He didn't feed the beast, it was there guzzling in the undergrowth all along, and he kept it pretty well chained up for a decade. He also had a really good plan for slaying it. Admittedly that plan was torpedoed by the electorate in 2016, which is a big pity. It was a great prize he was going for.
Yes I know all that. So what is Mr Hannan's (and your) alternative. That could get through the house.
To be honest, remaining in the EU and being shits from the inside is way better than anything involving a customs union with the organisation we just left. It’s the worst possible outcome.
The analysis that Mr Hands gives is all pie in the sky and avoids the main question about what will certainly happen. The reality is that on day one businesses like mine will have to pay an extra 10% to ship our products to the EC. I see nothing in the analysis about how the government will compensate us for the massive cost imposition.
The one solution that does exist and will be used extensively is that we set up a company in Dublin and ship products via this location. We will minimise the value of transfer price to reduce costs and pile up profits in Ireland on which we will pay lower Irish taxes. The net impact will be a massive loss of tax revenue to the UK Government and a benefit to the EC.
It is a Kafkaesque world where politicians and members of public line up to demand to do my business harm with no apparent benefit to them except the feeling of power.
Good post. You have summed up one of the many stupidities of Brexit
... A CU is an utterly bonkers idea - it locks in all the possible negatives of leaving the EU, whilst foregoing all the positives....
Interesting. So you don't see any of these as positives from leaving the EU?
- Control over immigration - Leaving the CAP - Leaving the CFP - Ending the direct application of EU law to domestic issues outside product regulation - Leaving the political structures of the EU - Being free of ever-closer union - Sending £350m a week to Brussels (yes, I know, I know...)
In other words, you thought 95%+ of what Vote Leave campaigned on wasn't actually anything positive?
Don't forget the good sized boost to the Irish Exchequer if the CU ends up being a Turkey as alluded to by @HamiltonAce
... A CU is an utterly bonkers idea - it locks in all the possible negatives of leaving the EU, whilst foregoing all the positives....
Interesting. So you don't see any of these as positives from leaving the EU?
- Control over immigration - Leaving the CAP - Leaving the CFP - Ending the direct application of EU law to domestic issues outside product regulation - Leaving the political structures of the EU - Being free of ever-closer union - Sending £350m a week to Brussels (yes, I know, I know...)
In other words, you thought 95%+ of what Vote Leave campaigned on wasn't actually anything positive?
Interestingly, most of those are achieved by CM2.0
- Control over immigration [limited (we could exercise our existing controls on FoM that we don't use, but we can confirm that 60 million Syrians and Turks won't be coming in)] - Leaving the CAP [yes] - Leaving the CFP [yes] - Ending the direct application of EU law to domestic issues outside product regulation [mostly; unless involved in Single Market issues] - Leaving the political structures of the EU [yes, including the ECJ] - Free of ever-closer union [yes] - Not sending £350m a week to Brussels [yes; down to only about £100m]
During the coalition years, he allowed Cabinet ministers to say we should leave the EU, and then promoted one of them to be Foreign Secretary. I don't think the idea that he fed the Eurosceptic beast is controversial.
He didn't feed the beast, it was there guzzling in the undergrowth all along, and he kept it pretty well chained up for a decade. He also had a really good plan for slaying it. Admittedly that plan was torpedoed by the electorate in 2016, which is a big pity. It was a great prize he was going for.
Of course he fed it. That's why the reaction to his renegotiation and then his decision (as he presented it) to campaign for Remain caused such a backlash.
You can't whitewash massive strategic mistakes on the basis that it would have been a great plan if only the electorate had played along.
Off topic, if any of you plan on any gardening remember to use gloves, especially if you are tying in your roses or repotting cacti, as I was this weekend.
I never do - I like the feel of soil etc - but for my pains I now have arms full of scratches and a swollen blue infected finger which has necessitated a very long wait at the emergency walk in clinic.
Yes I know all that. So what is Mr Hannan's (and your) alternative. That could get through the house.
To be honest, remaining in the EU and being shits from the inside is way better than anything involving a customs union with the organisation we just left. It’s the worst possible outcome.
The country is hardening towards rock hard Brexit at the same time as Theresa's on her knees begging Jezza to come up with any deal he possibly can for her....
This poll seems to conveniently ignore the three Celtic nations? I wonder why?
Even if this Parliament passes the Withdrawal Agreement and we manage to leave the EU - by no means certain - it is hard to see how the Future Relationship can be progressed with no mandate and no majority. So I think the chance of a general election in 2019 is greater than 45%. More like 60%.
I think he nearly got it right the third time. Anyway, he hasn't totally lost it, because he did eventually manage to think of an alternative word. It's fine.
It is interesting to see the tone Guido Fawkes is still taking on this, given how tub thumping it usually is. He was explicitly a reluctant deal supporter despite not really fearing no deal but thinking parliament would not like it, but seems more wearied than incandescent about May’s actions than, say, the ERG. And his post on that NI poll seems to me very much like he thinks the DUP have been the main problem, even if they are right.
You can't whitewash massive strategic mistakes on the basis that it would have been a great plan if only the electorate had played along.
Nor can you use the benefit of hindsight to call it a 'massive strategic mistake'. I'm not even sure that there was any choice in the matter. Your comments make sense only if you ignore the huge opposition to our membership of the EU which had built up over decades.
The biggest obstacle to the future of the Conservative Party is that they don’t appeal to the young, he says. For the Party, “young” is now “below 47”. “We need to find new voters,” he says.
At our recent Conservative constituency AGM a new chairman was appointed, who I think will make considerable efforts to try to encourage younger people to join the party. But as a very senior member said to me afterwards: "Anyone under 50 who'd heard tonight's discussion would run a mile.'
We have a big, big problem, and as Sam Gyimah says, we've gone a long way backwards since the Cameron days.
Cameron seemed to think modernisation meant promoting ERG-type nutters in a quid-pro-quo for giving him leeway on the social issues. The state of the party now is the culmination of Cameron's strategy.
I think not in his wildest dreams did he think that, Jurassic Park-like, that all those fossils would come back to life.
I think Mark Francois looks a little more like Mr Stay Puft from Ghostbusters
Stay Puft is huge, he's more like Slimer I think.
He’ll always be Penfold to me, with Peter Griffin a close second
Not that I disagree that everyone should be spoken to now, but let’s be honest they are all going to just moan and demand a PV, they would not compromise on that an inch so what would be the point? Corbyn and May probably wont either but have the possibility of shifting a bit.
Off topic, if any of you plan on any gardening remember to use gloves, especially if you are tying in your roses or repotting cacti, as I was this weekend.
I never do - I like the feel of soil etc - but for my pains I now have arms full of scratches and a swollen blue infected finger which has necessitated a very long wait at the emergency walk in clinic.
Still no finger wagging by me for a while.....
Hope you told the emergency walk in clinic to, er, pull their finger out.....
Not that I disagree that everyone should be spoken to now, but let’s be honest they are all going to just moan and demand a PV, they would not compromise on that an inch so what would be the point? Corbyn and May probably wont either but have the possibility of shifting a bit.
Doubtless they'll demand whatever May and Corbyn "cook up" is "put back to the people".
I think he nearly got it right the third time. Anyway, he hasn't totally lost it, because he did eventually manage to think of an alternative word. It's fine.
What is the origin of Trumpton's orange skin?
I like to think he probably still has a massive stash of Sunny D, which he consumes gallons of a day.....
You can't whitewash massive strategic mistakes on the basis that it would have been a great plan if only the electorate had played along.
Nor can you use the benefit of hindsight to call it a 'massive strategic mistake'. I'm not even sure that there was any choice in the matter. Your comments make sense only if you ignore the huge opposition to our membership of the EU which had built up over decades.
The opposition was only "huge" inside the Tory party, and instead of confronting that and recognising it as a strategic risk, Cameron's decided to placate them and thought gambling the whole country would allow him to finally shut them up. It's one of the most catastrophic foreseeable political failures in history.
The opposition was only "huge" inside the Tory party...
Err, I don't think that 17.4 million people were inside the Tory party, but apart from that, a party leader does have to take account of what the party wants.
Off topic, if any of you plan on any gardening remember to use gloves, especially if you are tying in your roses or repotting cacti, as I was this weekend.
I never do - I like the feel of soil etc - but for my pains I now have arms full of scratches and a swollen blue infected finger which has necessitated a very long wait at the emergency walk in clinic.
Still no finger wagging by me for a while.....
Hope you told the emergency walk in clinic to, er, pull their finger out.....
No. I hate wasting GPs time with something so trivial. I tend to ignore all pain or illness until the last possible minute, which may explain why I so often end up in hospital
But chemist took one look at it and sent me to doc. I had a very good book with me to while away the time - Mr Darley's Arabian which is an irresistible combination of horses, history and scoundrels. My ideal book really.😁
Not that I disagree that everyone should be spoken to now, but let’s be honest they are all going to just moan and demand a PV, they would not compromise on that an inch so what would be the point? Corbyn and May probably wont either but have the possibility of shifting a bit.
Doubtless they'll demand whatever May and Corbyn "cook up" is "put back to the people".
But if there were to be a deal cooked up by May and Corbyn, both supporting it in a public vote, you'd think the people wouldn't be ornery enough to STILL vote it down? Would they?
Just reading that Corbyn will demand a Customs Union. alignment on workers rights, but won't demand F o M, a second referendum, or taking part in Euro elections.
Is that a runner?
I’m extremely sceptical that Corbyn is in any way serious about reaching a Deal.
You can't whitewash massive strategic mistakes on the basis that it would have been a great plan if only the electorate had played along.
Nor can you use the benefit of hindsight to call it a 'massive strategic mistake'. I'm not even sure that there was any choice in the matter. Your comments make sense only if you ignore the huge opposition to our membership of the EU which had built up over decades.
The opposition was only "huge" inside the Tory party, and instead of confronting that and recognising it as a strategic risk, Cameron's decided to placate them and thought gambling the whole country would allow him to finally shut them up. It's one of the most catastrophic foreseeable political failures in history.
I think Remain would have won comfortably, if not for the refugee crisis, and Merkel's response. Losing wasn't really foreseeable in 2015. Following Lisbon, offering a referendum was Cameron's best path to a majority, otherwise he faced watching Ukip slowly gutting his party.
The opposition was only "huge" inside the Tory party...
Err, I don't think that 17.4 million people were inside the Tory party.
That misses the point somewhat. How many of them deeply cared one way or the other before the referendum campaign?
So you disregard their view because they were not hugely engaged until asked?
I didn't say that either. My argument is just that arriving at a point where 17.4m people voted to leave the EU is not unconnected from decisions made by David Cameron in the 10 years before that, and wasn't just a good plan that went unexpectedly wrong.
Someone offers a different product at different prices. If you pay for one product and then take the other that’s theft. It doesn’t matter if it’s paying for an apple and walking off with an avocado or paying for a VW Polo and driving away in a Ferrari. If even paying for standard class and travelling first
You take something without paying its theft. Black and white really.
The opposition was only "huge" inside the Tory party...
Err, I don't think that 17.4 million people were inside the Tory party.
That misses the point somewhat. How many of them deeply cared one way or the other before the referendum campaign?
So you disregard their view because they were not hugely engaged until asked?
I didn't say that either. My argument is just that arriving at a point where 17.4m people voted to leave the EU is not unconnected from decisions made by David Cameron in the 10 years before that, and wasn't just a good plan that went unexpectedly wrong.
Not that I disagree that everyone should be spoken to now, but let’s be honest they are all going to just moan and demand a PV, they would not compromise on that an inch so what would be the point? Corbyn and May probably wont either but have the possibility of shifting a bit.
Doubtless they'll demand whatever May and Corbyn "cook up" is "put back to the people".
But if there were to be a deal cooked up by May and Corbyn, both supporting it in a public vote, you'd think the people wouldn't be ornery enough to STILL vote it down? Would they?
I'm currently assuming that if the agreement includes a public vote, it will be on the basis of a compromise that allows Corbyn to campaign against it, which will allow him to both oppose a Tory Brexit and give the impression of being pro Remain.
You can't whitewash massive strategic mistakes on the basis that it would have been a great plan if only the electorate had played along.
Nor can you use the benefit of hindsight to call it a 'massive strategic mistake'. I'm not even sure that there was any choice in the matter. Your comments make sense only if you ignore the huge opposition to our membership of the EU which had built up over decades.
The opposition was only "huge" inside the Tory party, and instead of confronting that and recognising it as a strategic risk, Cameron's decided to placate them and thought gambling the whole country would allow him to finally shut them up. It's one of the most catastrophic foreseeable political failures in history.
Precisely. Cameron shied away from taking on the nutters himself and tried to get the electorate to do it for him. It was an act of cowardice as well as a disastrous political misjudgment which could yet end up ruining both his country and his party.
I think in that scenario we could be looking at an accidental crash-out at short notice, so it wouldn't exactly be a comedy outcome. The only good thing about it would be that Labour would cop some of the blame.
Or Corbyn's moronic view of the chemical weapons attack, when he preferred the view of the Russian state to that of the British?
We all know Corbyn has some terrible views. Nevertheless May is trying to do a deal with him over Brexit. Playing to the gallery isn't really conducive to that.
You can't whitewash massive strategic mistakes on the basis that it would have been a great plan if only the electorate had played along.
Nor can you use the benefit of hindsight to call it a 'massive strategic mistake'. I'm not even sure that there was any choice in the matter. Your comments make sense only if you ignore the huge opposition to our membership of the EU which had built up over decades.
The opposition was only "huge" inside the Tory party, and instead of confronting that and recognising it as a strategic risk, Cameron's decided to placate them and thought gambling the whole country would allow him to finally shut them up. It's one of the most catastrophic foreseeable political failures in history.
Ignoring euroscepticism wholesale wasn’t an option for the Conservative Party in the same way the Labour Party couldn’t ignore Celtic nationalism when it took office.
You can't whitewash massive strategic mistakes on the basis that it would have been a great plan if only the electorate had played along.
Nor can you use the benefit of hindsight to call it a 'massive strategic mistake'. I'm not even sure that there was any choice in the matter. Your comments make sense only if you ignore the huge opposition to our membership of the EU which had built up over decades.
The opposition was only "huge" inside the Tory party, and instead of confronting that and recognising it as a strategic risk, Cameron's decided to placate them and thought gambling the whole country would allow him to finally shut them up. It's one of the most catastrophic foreseeable political failures in history.
Only if you think EU membership is both a good thing.
You can't whitewash massive strategic mistakes on the basis that it would have been a great plan if only the electorate had played along.
Nor can you use the benefit of hindsight to call it a 'massive strategic mistake'. I'm not even sure that there was any choice in the matter. Your comments make sense only if you ignore the huge opposition to our membership of the EU which had built up over decades.
The opposition was only "huge" inside the Tory party, and instead of confronting that and recognising it as a strategic risk, Cameron's decided to placate them and thought gambling the whole country would allow him to finally shut them up. It's one of the most catastrophic foreseeable political failures in history.
Precisely. Cameron shied away from taking on the nutters himself and tried to get the electorate to do it for him. It was an act of cowardice as well as a disastrous political misjudgment which could yet end up ruining both his country and his party.
What utter tosh. What the hell do you think he was doing in the referendum campaign if not 'taking on the nutters himself'? He could have done with a bit of help from those, especially in Labour, who did virtually nothing or who actively obstructed the Remain campaign, but who now have the gall to criticise Cameron for not doing enough.
Or Corbyn's moronic view of the chemical weapons attack, when he preferred the view of the Russian state to that of the British?
We all know Corbyn has some terrible views. Nevertheless May is trying to do a deal with him over Brexit. Playing to the gallery isn't really conducive to that.
He’s a big boy, he can handle it. If both want a deal one can be found even if he walks into the meeting and calls her an idiot for insulting him just now.
Someone offers a different product at different prices. If you pay for one product and then take the other that’s theft. It doesn’t matter if it’s paying for an apple and walking off with an avocado or paying for a VW Polo and driving away in a Ferrari. If even paying for standard class and travelling first
You take something without paying its theft. Black and white really.
What if you pay for guacamole and walk off with mushy peas?
Not that I disagree that everyone should be spoken to now, but let’s be honest they are all going to just moan and demand a PV, they would not compromise on that an inch so what would be the point? Corbyn and May probably wont either but have the possibility of shifting a bit.
It will keep the pressure on Labour over the PV, as many of its own MPs are doing on Twitter and elsewhere.
You can't whitewash massive strategic mistakes on the basis that it would have been a great plan if only the electorate had played along.
Nor can you use the benefit of hindsight to call it a 'massive strategic mistake'. I'm not even sure that there was any choice in the matter. Your comments make sense only if you ignore the huge opposition to our membership of the EU which had built up over decades.
It even affected the Labour Party to the extent Ed Miliband had to say something about it in his 2015 manifesto:
“Our reforms will help deliver a Europe focused on jobs and growth, not simply more austerity and rising unemployment. Labour will focus on the completion of the single market and tougher budget discipline, including on those items where spending at the EU level can save money at the national level. That means driving reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and a Commission-led zero-based review of spending on EU agencies to reduce waste and inefficiency. We will not join the Euro, and we will ensure EU rules protect the interests of non-Euro members.”
“We will work to strengthen the influence national parliaments over European legislation, by arguing for a ‘red-card mechanism’ for member states, providing greater parliamentary scrutiny.”
Ignoring euroscepticism simply isn’t an option in the British political system, in the same way it is in France or Germany.
I think in that scenario we could be looking at an accidental crash-out at short notice, so it wouldn't exactly be a comedy outcome. The only good thing about it would be that Labour would cop some of the blame.
Yup. Everyone's a winner in that situation.
No Dealers and the ERG will have their credibility ruined for a generation as the reality of No Deal hits the voters.
We'd sue for peace with the EU and get a very softish Brexit.
A few weeks of short term pain for long term gain.
You can't whitewash massive strategic mistakes on the basis that it would have been a great plan if only the electorate had played along.
Nor can you use the benefit of hindsight to call it a 'massive strategic mistake'. I'm not even sure that there was any choice in the matter. Your comments make sense only if you ignore the huge opposition to our membership of the EU which had built up over decades.
The opposition was only "huge" inside the Tory party, and instead of confronting that and recognising it as a strategic risk, Cameron's decided to placate them and thought gambling the whole country would allow him to finally shut them up. It's one of the most catastrophic foreseeable political failures in history.
Precisely. Cameron shied away from taking on the nutters himself and tried to get the electorate to do it for him. It was an act of cowardice as well as a disastrous political misjudgment which could yet end up ruining both his country and his party.
What utter tosh. What the hell do you think he was doing in the referendum campaign if not 'taking on the nutters himself'? He could have done with a bit of help from those, especially in Labour, who did virtually nothing or who actively obstructed the Remain campaign, but who now have the gall to criticise Cameron for not doing enough.
6 years after being Prime Minister and months away from a referendum he decided it might be a good idea to say that being in the EU wasn't as terrible as he'd previously indicated, and you'd be an idiot if you concluded from his previous position that leaving might be better.
Or Corbyn's moronic view of the chemical weapons attack, when he preferred the view of the Russian state to that of the British?
We all know Corbyn has some terrible views. Nevertheless May is trying to do a deal with him over Brexit. Playing to the gallery isn't really conducive to that.
He’s a big boy, he can handle it. If both want a deal one can be found even if he walks into the meeting and calls her an idiot for insulting him just now.
Ye he's got the hide of a rhino so it won't bother him. But going for something like his plans would have us drowning in debt would have been better - it'd allow him to pump out one of those "austerity" tweets.
You can't whitewash massive strategic mistakes on the basis that it would have been a great plan if only the electorate had played along.
Nor can you use the benefit of hindsight to call it a 'massive strategic mistake'. I'm not even sure that there was any choice in the matter. Your comments make sense only if you ignore the huge opposition to our membership of the EU which had built up over decades.
The opposition was only "huge" inside the Tory party, and instead of confronting that and recognising it as a strategic risk, Cameron's decided to placate them and thought gambling the whole country would allow him to finally shut them up. It's one of the most catastrophic foreseeable political failures in history.
Precisely. Cameron shied away from taking on the nutters himself and tried to get the electorate to do it for him. It was an act of cowardice as well as a disastrous political misjudgment which could yet end up ruining both his country and his party.
What utter tosh. What the hell do you think he was doing in the referendum campaign if not 'taking on the nutters himself'? He could have done with a bit of help from those, especially in Labour, who did virtually nothing or who actively obstructed the Remain campaign, but who now have the gall to criticise Cameron for not doing enough.
He should have taken them on within the party. As Blair did with the Labour left in the 1990s. If he had done that in 2005 they would have folded quite easily.
You can't whitewash massive strategic mistakes on the basis that it would have been a great plan if only the electorate had played along.
Nor can you use the benefit of hindsight to call it a 'massive strategic mistake'. I'm not even sure that there was any choice in the matter. Your comments make sense only if you ignore the huge opposition to our membership of the EU which had built up over decades.
The opposition was only "huge" inside the Tory party, and instead of confronting that and recognising it as a strategic risk, Cameron's decided to placate them and thought gambling the whole country would allow him to finally shut them up. It's one of the most catastrophic foreseeable political failures in history.
Precisely. Cameron shied away from taking on the nutters himself and tried to get the electorate to do it for him. It was an act of cowardice as well as a disastrous political misjudgment which could yet end up ruining both his country and his party.
What utter tosh. What the hell do you think he was doing in the referendum campaign if not 'taking on the nutters himself'? He could have done with a bit of help from those, especially in Labour, who did virtually nothing or who actively obstructed the Remain campaign, but who now have the gall to criticise Cameron for not doing enough.
But it was blue on blue from the start. And it was Cameron who ordered the Remain campaign to go softly on the likes of Boris and Gove, not wanting to exacerbate his problems when Remain cruised to victory.
You can't whitewash massive strategic mistakes on the basis that it would have been a great plan if only the electorate had played along.
Nor can you use the benefit of hindsight to call it a 'massive strategic mistake'. I'm not even sure that there was any choice in the matter. Your comments make sense only if you ignore the huge opposition to our membership of the EU which had built up over decades.
The opposition was only "huge" inside the Tory party, and instead of confronting that and recognising it as a strategic risk, Cameron's decided to placate them and thought gambling the whole country would allow him to finally shut them up. It's one of the most catastrophic foreseeable political failures in history.
Precisely. Cameron shied away from taking on the nutters himself and tried to get the electorate to do it for him. It was an act of cowardice as well as a disastrous political misjudgment which could yet end up ruining both his country and his party.
What utter tosh. What the hell do you think he was doing in the referendum campaign if not 'taking on the nutters himself'? He could have done with a bit of help from those, especially in Labour, who did virtually nothing or who actively obstructed the Remain campaign, but who now have the gall to criticise Cameron for not doing enough.
He should have taken them on within the party. As Blair did with the Labour left in the 1990s. If he had done that in 2005 they would have folded quite easily.
I must have imagined the comments about 'fruitcakes and loons' and 'not banging on about Europe', or missed some massive passage from his famous 2005 speech which clinched the leadership:
I think in that scenario we could be looking at an accidental crash-out at short notice, so it wouldn't exactly be a comedy outcome. The only good thing about it would be that Labour would cop some of the blame.
Yup. Everyone's a winner in that situation.
No Dealers and the ERG will have their credibility ruined for a generation as the reality of No Deal hits the voters.
We'd sue for peace with the EU and get a very softish Brexit.
A few weeks of short term pain for long term gain.
Big risk for the EU is that Uk suppliers find other sources and never go back.
Big risk for the EU is that any punishment queues at Calais are dished out to Irish trucks too.
Someone offers a different product at different prices. If you pay for one product and then take the other that’s theft. It doesn’t matter if it’s paying for an apple and walking off with an avocado or paying for a VW Polo and driving away in a Ferrari. If even paying for standard class and travelling first
You take something without paying its theft. Black and white really.
What if you pay for guacamole and walk off with mushy peas?
But it was blue on blue from the start. And it was Cameron who ordered the Remain campaign to go softly on the likes of Boris and Gove, not wanting to exacerbate his problems when Remain cruised to victory.
Yes, that was an error in retrospect. But it was a very honourable one - he wanted to be able to reunite the party and the country after the expected Remain victory.
Someone offers a different product at different prices. If you pay for one product and then take the other that’s theft. It doesn’t matter if it’s paying for an apple and walking off with an avocado or paying for a VW Polo and driving away in a Ferrari. If even paying for standard class and travelling first
You take something without paying its theft. Black and white really.
Might it be shades of grey where you intend to pay to upgrade to first if asked - but in the knowledge that more times than not, there won't be anybody that checks the tickets? (Not that I use the train - always drive up to London....)
From the everything-Liam-Fox-touches-turns-to-shit department:
"The head of the watchdog tasked with protecting Britain from unfair global trading practices after Brexit has quit after less than six months, dealing a blow to government plans to expand world trade after leaving the EU."
I think in that scenario we could be looking at an accidental crash-out at short notice, so it wouldn't exactly be a comedy outcome. The only good thing about it would be that Labour would cop some of the blame.
Yup. Everyone's a winner in that situation.
No Dealers and the ERG will have their credibility ruined for a generation as the reality of No Deal hits the voters.
We'd sue for peace with the EU and get a very softish Brexit.
A few weeks of short term pain for long term gain.
When "the reality of No Deal hits the voters" we should recall all ERG MPs, in fact all who voted for No Deal.
Someone offers a different product at different prices. If you pay for one product and then take the other that’s theft. It doesn’t matter if it’s paying for an apple and walking off with an avocado or paying for a VW Polo and driving away in a Ferrari. If even paying for standard class and travelling first
You take something without paying its theft. Black and white really.
Might it be shades of grey where you intend to pay to upgrade to first if asked - but in the knowledge that more times than not, there won't be anybody that checks the tickets? (Not that I use the train - always drive up to London....)
Isn’t that the same as people going on the train without any ticket at all hoping that they don’t see an inspector? Bloody leeches.
Someone offers a different product at different prices. If you pay for one product and then take the other that’s theft. It doesn’t matter if it’s paying for an apple and walking off with an avocado or paying for a VW Polo and driving away in a Ferrari. If even paying for standard class and travelling first
You take something without paying its theft. Black and white really.
Might it be shades of grey where you intend to pay to upgrade to first if asked - but in the knowledge that more times than not, there won't be anybody that checks the tickets? (Not that I use the train - always drive up to London....)
Comments
The one solution that does exist and will be used extensively is that we set up a company in Dublin and ship products via this location. We will minimise the value of transfer price to reduce costs and pile up profits in Ireland on which we will pay lower Irish taxes. The net impact will be a massive loss of tax revenue to the UK Government and a benefit to the EC.
It is a Kafkaesque world where politicians and members of public line up to demand to do my business harm with no apparent benefit to them except the feeling of power.
- Control over immigration [limited (we could exercise our existing controls on FoM that we don't use, but we can confirm that 60 million Syrians and Turks won't be coming in)]
- Leaving the CAP [yes]
- Leaving the CFP [yes]
- Ending the direct application of EU law to domestic issues outside product regulation [mostly; unless involved in Single Market issues]
- Leaving the political structures of the EU [yes, including the ECJ]
- Free of ever-closer union [yes]
- Not sending £350m a week to Brussels [yes; down to only about £100m]
You can't whitewash massive strategic mistakes on the basis that it would have been a great plan if only the electorate had played along.
I never do - I like the feel of soil etc - but for my pains I now have arms full of scratches and a swollen blue infected finger which has necessitated a very long wait at the emergency walk in clinic.
Still no finger wagging by me for a while.....
Brexiteers had several chances to leave, yet continued to vote against it.
https://twitter.com/RobDunsmore/status/1113386124989345793
What is the origin of Trumpton's orange skin?
Not that I disagree that everyone should be spoken to now, but let’s be honest they are all going to just moan and demand a PV, they would not compromise on that an inch so what would be the point? Corbyn and May probably wont either but have the possibility of shifting a bit.
But chemist took one look at it and sent me to doc. I had a very good book with me to while away the time - Mr Darley's Arabian which is an irresistible combination of horses, history and scoundrels. My ideal book really.😁
One of his wedding presents when he married my mother was the name of a horse in a fixed race. Came in at 20/1. Paid for their honeymoon.
https://twitter.com/pcollinstimes/status/1113033806750117888?s=21
Someone offers a different product at different prices. If you pay for one product and then take the other that’s theft. It doesn’t matter if it’s paying for an apple and walking off with an avocado or paying for a VW Polo and driving away in a Ferrari. If even paying for standard class and travelling first
You take something without paying its theft. Black and white really.
Or Corbyn's moronic view of the chemical weapons attack, when he preferred the view of the Russian state to that of the British?
I’d say 120 Tory rebels and c.100 Labour rebels is more likely.
It even affected the Labour Party to the extent Ed Miliband had to say something about it in his 2015 manifesto:
“Our reforms will help deliver a Europe focused on jobs and growth, not simply more austerity and rising unemployment. Labour will focus on the completion of the single market and tougher budget discipline, including on those items where spending at the EU level can save money at the national level. That means driving reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and a Commission-led zero-based review of spending on EU agencies to reduce waste and inefficiency. We will not join the Euro, and we will ensure EU rules protect the interests of non-Euro members.”
“We will work to strengthen the influence national parliaments over European legislation, by arguing for a ‘red-card mechanism’ for member states, providing greater parliamentary scrutiny.”
Ignoring euroscepticism simply isn’t an option in the British political system, in the same way it is in France or Germany.
No Dealers and the ERG will have their credibility ruined for a generation as the reality of No Deal hits the voters.
We'd sue for peace with the EU and get a very softish Brexit.
A few weeks of short term pain for long term gain.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6882175/The-EU-force-Brit-holidaymakers-hand-foods-like-pasties-ham-No-Deal-Brexit.html
https://twitter.com/jami0mckay/status/1113340843010809858
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/oct/04/conservatives2005.conservatives3
Big risk for the EU is that any punishment queues at Calais are dished out to Irish trucks too.
Alas, it didn't turn out that way.
"The head of the watchdog tasked with protecting Britain from unfair global trading practices after Brexit has quit after less than six months, dealing a blow to government plans to expand world trade after leaving the EU."
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/03/blow-to-uk-global-trade-as-new-watchdog-chief-quits-liam-fox
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/oct/04/conservatives2006.conservatives
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47800418