Miss Cyclefree, to whom would said army be responsible? Who would be commander in chief? What if the UK faced a threat to the Falklands and the French to one of their outlying territories: whose defence would be prioritised? Would British soldiers be loyal to HM and the UK or the EU?
Wait until she finds out how much was spent on WW3 planning during the cold war..
Stupid woman.
We are not planning a war.
Well, not all of us.
'Nigel Farage has said he would, “don khaki, pick up a rifle and head for the front lines” if Theresa May fails to deliver Brexit in the fashion he wants.'
I hope parliament can finally put aside its differences and pass the Batale Royale Law.
Miss Cyclefree, to whom would said army be responsible? Who would be commander in chief? What if the UK faced a threat to the Falklands and the French to one of their outlying territories: whose defence would be prioritised? Would British soldiers be loyal to HM and the UK or the EU?
It's a horrendous idea.
So you’re advocating the UK’s withdrawal from NATO?
It would appear to me that this parliament, under either Mrs May or any feasible replacement PM, is resolved to block Deal, No Deal, and REF2. That leaves nothing. A different parliament (via a GE) is therefore required. But (Tory) MPs are blocking that too. So where does this leave us? Utterly stuck. Can't even see an exit, let alone stumble towards it. It's an unpleasant, claustrophobic situation. It doesn't feel at all like taking back control.
Except the polls show a different Parliament via a GE would produce just another hung parliament, so we are stuck in EU purgatory limbo
There would be a lot of ballot spoiling going on, it would be a tough decision. Of course I support the WA and of course I want to leave, but would I have any expectation that another leave victory would be adhered to? Definitely not. This is a strong reason why a people's vote would be nonsense, but as we know parliament likes nonsense.
As I said on the previous thread, once you have a clear and reducible-to-writing form of Leave you can exclude the possibility of a Leave result being stolen by the politicians. You put the wording in a schedule to the Act and you provide that if Leave wins then on the *very next day* the PM will sign up to the deal in the schedule. Only a furthe Act can reverse that , and there isn't time for another Act to pass.
No one belives May and Boris no one believes Lammy or Cooper or Grieve. Both sides have prominent figures who have lied and lied about their intentions. It's understandable that a lot of the public would not trust either, even if a result was supposedly legally binding. If even Stephen Kinnock can see that a 2nd ref would add to the chaos and be widely derided then anyone can see it. It's a deal, no deal or revoke as the only options IMO.
Mr. Eagles, NATO doesn't integrate endlessly, doesn't make us pay billions a year for the privilege of membership, doesn't impose legislation on us, doesn't strip vetoes for QMV, etc etc etc.
Wait until she finds out how much was spent on WW3 planning during the cold war..
Stupid woman.
We are not planning a war.
Well, not all of us.
'Nigel Farage has said he would, “don khaki, pick up a rifle and head for the front lines” if Theresa May fails to deliver Brexit in the fashion he wants.'
Presumably having donned khaki, he would bugger off to the NAAFI and leave the others the dirty work.
Its the rich that gets the pleasure and the poor wot gets the blame,
Its the same the world over, aint it a bleeding shame?
It would appear to me that this parliament, under either Mrs May or any feasible replacement PM, is resolved to block Deal, No Deal, and REF2. That leaves nothing. A different parliament (via a GE) is therefore required. But (Tory) MPs are blocking that too. So where does this leave us? Utterly stuck. Can't even see an exit, let alone stumble towards it. It's an unpleasant, claustrophobic situation. It doesn't feel at all like taking back control.
Tbf a PV hasn't really been tested as a proposition with a free vote. Last time was just an amendment with whips against and to abstain. Plus, now we have the time and no obvious alternative.
It would appear to me that this parliament, under either Mrs May or any feasible replacement PM, is resolved to block Deal, No Deal, and REF2. That leaves nothing. A different parliament (via a GE) is therefore required. But (Tory) MPs are blocking that too. So where does this leave us? Utterly stuck. Can't even see an exit, let alone stumble towards it. It's an unpleasant, claustrophobic situation. It doesn't feel at all like taking back control.
The people took back control. The politicians didn’t want it!
There would be a lot of ballot spoiling going on, it would be a tough decision. Of course I support the WA and of course I want to leave, but would I have any expectation that another leave victory would be adhered to? Definitely not. This is a strong reason why a people's vote would be nonsense, but as we know parliament likes nonsense.
As I said on the previous thread, once you have a clear and reducible-to-writing form of Leave you can exclude the possibility of a Leave result being stolen by the politicians. You put the wording in a schedule to the Act and you provide that if Leave wins then on the *very next day* the PM will sign up to the deal in the schedule. Only a furthe Act can reverse that , and there isn't time for another Act to pass.
No one belives May and Boris no one believes Lammy or Cooper or Grieve. Both sides have prominent figures who have lied and lied about their intentions. It's understandable that a lot of the public would not trust either, even if a result was supposedly legally binding. If even Stephen Kinnock can see that a 2nd ref would add to the chaos and be widely derided then anyone can see it. It's a deal, no deal or revoke as the only options IMO.
None of that matters in the set up I propose. You only have to trust that May will put her own deal in place when legally obliged to do so.
Mr. Eagles, NATO doesn't integrate endlessly, doesn't make us pay billions a year for the privilege of membership, doesn't impose legislation on us, doesn't strip vetoes for QMV, etc etc etc.
Have a look at Article V.
We can be plunged into a war with our forces fighting without our consent.
That’s more shocking than QMV.
The NATO 2% target makes us pay billions a year for membership.
For the record, I voted Remain last time and would vote Leave if there was another Referendum. I don't believe in being asked the same question until we get the right answer. We were told in no uncertain terms it was a one-off vote. I am sure that I will be outnumbered by those moving the other way or previous Leavers staying at home.
Fair enough.
Although this would be most unlike the previous 'vote until you get it right' referendums. The EU have been relatively scrupulous in staying out of trying to persuade us one way or the other (and indeed European opinion is now far more divided on whether or not they wish us to leave than was the case a year ago).
For the record, I voted Remain last time and would vote Leave if there was another Referendum. I don't believe in being asked the same question until we get the right answer. We were told in no uncertain terms it was a one-off vote. I am sure that I will be outnumbered by those moving the other way or previous Leavers staying at home.
Well as stated I am the same in as much as I would support the WA deal, yet I voted remain. If no deal vs Remain I would continue to vote for financial self interest and vote remain.
There would be a lot of ballot spoiling going on, it would be a tough decision. Of course I support the WA and of course I want to leave, but would I have any expectation that another leave victory would be adhered to? Definitely not. This is a strong reason why a people's vote would be nonsense, but as we know parliament likes nonsense.
As I said on the previous thread, once you have a clear and reducible-to-writing form of Leave you can exclude the possibility of a Leave result being stolen by the politicians. You put the wording in a schedule to the Act and you provide that if Leave wins then on the *very next day* the PM will sign up to the deal in the schedule. Only a furthe Act can reverse that , and there isn't time for another Act to pass.
No one belives May and Boris no one believes Lammy or Cooper or Grieve. Both sides have prominent figures who have lied and lied about their intentions. It's understandable that a lot of the public would not trust either, even if a result was supposedly legally binding. If even Stephen Kinnock can see that a 2nd ref would add to the chaos and be widely derided then anyone can see it. It's a deal, no deal or revoke as the only options IMO.
None of that matters in the set up I propose. You only have to trust that May will put her own deal in place when legally obliged to do so.
I think it does matter, if the electorate don't trust the politicians then it allows the politicians to interpret a referendum result however they want and will allow whichever side loses to claim it wasn't fair and we need to have another go.
Fits with the Divvie rule that nothing Brexit related is dead till it's been gut shot with a silver bullet, head torn off, stake through heart and lowered into a vat of molten steel.
I think its a fair point - Merkel may not be there and the "Enough Already" crowd can only increase in size.
Not much comment on Varadkar's remarks yesterday about the UK in a/the CU "having a say in EU trade deals" which will please Labour (its their pet Unicorn) but infuriate the Commission.....is he trying to be "helpful" (if so, to whom?) or is he simply wrong?
Is it just me, or is Assange getting lifted today rather convenient timing....
You could raise an eyebrow at the timing given that a day ago the Attorney General of the US said the Obama administration used the FBI to spy on the Trump campaign and that Wikileaks have dumped a lot of stuff damaging to the Democrats already from Wieners laptop and Trump has started calling Russiagate treasonous. Or it could all be coincidental.
Miss Cyclefree, to whom would said army be responsible? Who would be commander in chief? What if the UK faced a threat to the Falklands and the French to one of their outlying territories: whose defence would be prioritised? Would British soldiers be loyal to HM and the UK or the EU?
It's a horrendous idea.
Something similar to Nato is not horrendous. You raise very good good questions. But that is a reason for thinking about what a sensible answer to them might be. Not refusing to think about them at all and assuming that the current post-war settlement will last. Because a look across the Atlantic or to Kiev or to China tells you that it won’t.
For the record, I voted Remain last time and would vote Leave if there was another Referendum. I don't believe in being asked the same question until we get the right answer. We were told in no uncertain terms it was a one-off vote. I am sure that I will be outnumbered by those moving the other way or previous Leavers staying at home.
Fair enough.
Although this would be most unlike the previous 'vote until you get it right' referendums. The EU have been relatively scrupulous in staying out of trying to persuade us one way or the other (and indeed European opinion is now far more divided on whether or not they wish us to leave than was the case a year ago).
And it wouldn't be the same question.
I'd say Barnier, Verhofstadt etc have quietly but not explicitly pushed for Britain to try again and get the correct answer. Rightly or wrongly they certainly haven't treated May with much respect and have not been supportive of her position as someone just trying to 'respect the result of a vote'.
Miss Cyclefree, to whom would said army be responsible? Who would be commander in chief? What if the UK faced a threat to the Falklands and the French to one of their outlying territories: whose defence would be prioritised? Would British soldiers be loyal to HM and the UK or the EU?
It's a horrendous idea.
Something similar to Nato is not horrendous. You raise very good good questions. But that is a reason for thinking about what a sensible answer to them might be. Not refusing to think about them at all and assuming that the current post-war settlement will last. Because a look across the Atlantic or to Kiev or to China tells you that it won’t.
Agreed. And as with much about the EU, a more engaged UK would likely improve whatever structure emerges.
Miss Cyclefree, to whom would said army be responsible? Who would be commander in chief? What if the UK faced a threat to the Falklands and the French to one of their outlying territories: whose defence would be prioritised? Would British soldiers be loyal to HM and the UK or the EU?
It's a horrendous idea.
No, not really. We barely have the military capacity to act alone anyway, let alone the political. And the same organisational and command issues are dealt with fine in NATO.
One thing that gets my goat..."twitter threads"....just write it in a f##king notepad doc and screenshot it!
NO!
Posting photos of text is an antipattern I thought we'd eliminated in about 1996. Twitter threads work great, people can RT the bits of them that are the most interesting to their followers then only the people who are interested in them click and get the rest.
Cette valse de plus en plus incompréhensible des dates montre que le Royaume-Uni a réussi l’exploit d’exporter ses batailles byzantines internes à Bruxelles. Car ce sommet a fait voler en éclat le beau front uni des Européens qui tenait vaille que vaille depuis trois ans, à l’image d’un couple franco-allemand décidément de plus en plus fictionnel.
"...This waltz towards more and more incomprehensible dates shows that the United Kingdom has managed to export its internal Byzantine battles to Brussels. This summit has shattered the beautiful united front of those Europeans who had held true to its values for three years, like the increasingly fictional Franco-German alliance..."
... Not much comment on Varadkar's remarks yesterday about the UK in a/the CU "having a say in EU trade deals" which will please Labour (its their pet Unicorn) but infuriate the Commission.....is he trying to be "helpful" (if so, to whom?) or is he simply wrong?
Both I think. He's trying (probably rather counter-productively) to make it more likely that Labour and the government reach an agreement, and also he's simply wrong.
For the record, I voted Remain last time and would vote Leave if there was another Referendum. I don't believe in being asked the same question until we get the right answer. We were told in no uncertain terms it was a one-off vote. I am sure that I will be outnumbered by those moving the other way or previous Leavers staying at home.
Fair enough.
Although this would be most unlike the previous 'vote until you get it right' referendums. The EU have been relatively scrupulous in staying out of trying to persuade us one way or the other (and indeed European opinion is now far more divided on whether or not they wish us to leave than was the case a year ago).
And it wouldn't be the same question.
I'd say Barnier, Verhofstadt etc have quietly but not explicitly pushed for Britain to try again and get the correct answer. Rightly or wrongly they certainly haven't treated May with much respect and have not been supportive of her position as someone just trying to 'respect the result of a vote'.
Barnier was reportedly quite in accord with Macron in arguing for limiting the extension to June, so I'm not convinced by that.
Well, by October we will have had three chances to make a decision and pretty much a year since the WA was agreed so I can see why the EU’s patience might well run out by then, particularly if MPs waste the time they have been given by just pushing off on holiday for most of it.
So if a fresh extension is needed it needs to be (a) something different eg a referendum; and/or (b) a different leader. And what type of MEPs we elect in May may also affect views. If UKIP/ Brexit parties do worse than expected that might shift sentiment.
But as Jonathan Hill, the last British commissioner said on Radio 4 this morning, in a very good interview, we don’t need time. We know what the choices are. We simply need to make a decision. If not the EU will make it for us and effectively expel us.
There would be a lot of ballot spoiling going on, it would be a tough decision. Of course I support the WA and of course I want to leave, but would I have any expectation that another leave victory would be adhered to? Definitely not. This is a strong reason why a people's vote would be nonsense, but as we know parliament likes nonsense.
As I said on the previous thread, once you have a clear and reducible-to-writing form of Leave you can exclude the possibility of a Leave result being stolen by the politicians. You put the wording in a schedule to the Act and you provide that if Leave wins then on the *very next day* the PM will sign up to the deal in the schedule. Only a furthe Act can reverse that , and there isn't time for another Act to pass.
No one belives May and Boris no one believes Lammy or Cooper or Grieve. Both sides have prominent figures who have lied and lied about their intentions. It's understandable that a lot of the public would not trust either, even if a result was supposedly legally binding. If even Stephen Kinnock can see that a 2nd ref would add to the chaos and be widely derided then anyone can see it. It's a deal, no deal or revoke as the only options IMO.
None of that matters in the set up I propose. You only have to trust that May will put her own deal in place when legally obliged to do so.
I think it does matter, if the electorate don't trust the politicians then it allows the politicians to interpret a referendum result however they want and will allow whichever side loses to claim it wasn't fair and we need to have another go.
After Brexit nobody's going to be calling any referendums for a while, and definitely not on Cameron's innovative model of asking the voters if they want to do something the government thinks is stupid, in the hope of proving to his troublesome backbenchers that the voters think it's stupid too.
Labour under no pressure now to agree anything with the government . They need to string this out and see the Tories hammered in the Council and EU elections .
Labour should campaign on the latter with a confirmatory vote . Pro EU voters need to get out and vote in large numbers to stop the hate mongers from framing the narrative .
Miss Cyclefree, a counterpoint, assuming your underlying suggestion is correct (which it may not be), is that we can vote for a new set of MPs. We can't vote for a new EU.
Not to mention the damage that has already been caused and will be even worse if we end up staying in having voted to leave.
I'd add that if we stay, that'll shatter the Conservatives and improve Corbyn's chances of winning the subsequent election massively. And whilst there are some daft sods in the Conservatives, the worst of them are the backbenchers, whereas Labour's lunatics are squatting on the front bench.
There aren’t many good options now. I don’t care if the Tories are shattered. Labour are lunatics, I agree, but if they are in power and we are still in the EU, their ability to carry out their lunacy will be limited to some extent.
I have to say that I am beginning to rethink my whole approach to the EU. I wonder whether it might not be better to get more involved. Bear with me: some say that an EU army would be a terrible thing. But would it be such a bad thing for the EU to take European defence more seriously? After all the US is retreating from Europe and Putin is being aggressive so maybe the old verities are no longer true and we need some fresh thinking. Ditto re the euro and re taxation of large global companies. And, maybe, rather than retreating into national nativist and nastily illiberal parties we should look to see how we can develop a much more liberal Europe-wide demos.
I don’t know and my thinking on this has barely started and if I have time (I have a new project starting soon) I may do some thread headers on this. But as I’ve banged on about this before, we - and the EU - need a proper strategy about how we interact with each other. The tragedy of Brexit is that none of that fresh thinking about what such a British/ European strategy should be has been done. It has been a colossal wasted opportunity.
When even The Economist describes the Euro as "a disaster" it's hard to see why we would wish to be part of it.
Well, by October we will have had three chances to make a decision and pretty much a year since the WA was agreed so I can see why the EU’s patience might well run out by then, particularly if MPs waste the time they have been given by just pushing off on holiday for most of it.
So if a fresh extension is needed it needs to be (a) something different eg a referendum; and/or (b) a different leader. And what type of MEPs we elect in May may also affect views. If UKIP/ Brexit parties do worse than expected that might shift sentiment.
But as Jonathan Hill, the last British commissioner said on Radio 4 this morning, in a very good interview, we don’t need time. We know what the choices are. We simply need to make a decision. If not the EU will make it for us and effectively expel us.
The only reason it's October is to ensure we take part in the EU elections and get round to making a decision
October doesn't really give us enough time to hold a referendum as that requires 22 weeks (see my post in the previous thread) so it would require a decision fairly rapidly.
... Not much comment on Varadkar's remarks yesterday about the UK in a/the CU "having a say in EU trade deals" which will please Labour (its their pet Unicorn) but infuriate the Commission.....is he trying to be "helpful" (if so, to whom?) or is he simply wrong?
Both I think. He's trying (probably rather counter-productively) to make it more likely that Labour and the government reach an agreement, and also he's simply wrong.
Any agreement with Labour that says 'ask the EU for Customs Union with say on trade deals' is bound to fail - surely Varadkar should know that?
Well, by October we will have had three chances to make a decision and pretty much a year since the WA was agreed so I can see why the EU’s patience might well run out by then, particularly if MPs waste the time they have been given by just pushing off on holiday for most of it.
So if a fresh extension is needed it needs to be (a) something different eg a referendum; and/or (b) a different leader. And what type of MEPs we elect in May may also affect views. If UKIP/ Brexit parties do worse than expected that might shift sentiment.
But as Jonathan Hill, the last British commissioner said on Radio 4 this morning, in a very good interview, we don’t need time. We know what the choices are. We simply need to make a decision. If not the EU will make it for us and effectively expel us.
The only reason it's October is to ensure we take part in the EU elections and get round to making a decision
October doesn't really give us enough time to hold a referendum as that requires 22 weeks (see my post in the previous thread) so it would require a decision fairly rapidly.
To me it feels like the opposite, October takes the pressure off making a decision now, and is probably not quite long enough for referendum and/or new tory leader/general election (both are feasible but tight and our politicians unlikely to start the processes quickly enough for them to happen.)
Why would the EU choose October in particular? Because they don't trust us to make a good decision so are happy enough to kick the can down the road into 2020 and probably beyond if needed.
Labour under no pressure now to agree anything with the government . They need to string this out and see the Tories hammered in the Council and EU elections .
Labour should campaign on the latter with a confirmatory vote . Pro EU voters need to get out and vote in large numbers to stop the hate mongers from framing the narrative .
The latest Yougov today for the European elections has both the Tories and Labour collapsing to just 18% each with the Brexit Party just behind on 17% and CUK up to 10%
RIGHT NOW: Elisabeth Massi Fritz on defunct Våldtäktsutredningen against Julian Assange: "We will do everything we can to ensure that the prosecutors resume the Swedish preliminary investigation"
while on the subject, shouldn't the bbc be saying "so-called Wikileaks" (like they say "so-called Islamic State"). It hasn't been a "wiki" since 2010 and the last major whistleblower actually leaking stuff to so-called Wikileaks that I am aware of was Chelsea Manning.
Should probably change their name to "Hackers4Putin"
... Not much comment on Varadkar's remarks yesterday about the UK in a/the CU "having a say in EU trade deals" which will please Labour (its their pet Unicorn) but infuriate the Commission.....is he trying to be "helpful" (if so, to whom?) or is he simply wrong?
Both I think. He's trying (probably rather counter-productively) to make it more likely that Labour and the government reach an agreement, and also he's simply wrong.
Any agreement with Labour that says 'ask the EU for Customs Union with say on trade deals' is bound to fail - surely Varadkar should know that?
Surely depends on what "say" means. It would be very easy for them to agree to consultative say in trade deals, whereas a veto is likely to be problematic. Not sure if there is a limited compromise between those options that diplomats can work out, such as agreement for veto on particular, limited areas of trade.
Well, by October we will have had three chances to make a decision and pretty much a year since the WA was agreed so I can see why the EU’s patience might well run out by then, particularly if MPs waste the time they have been given by just pushing off on holiday for most of it.
So if a fresh extension is needed it needs to be (a) something different eg a referendum; and/or (b) a different leader. And what type of MEPs we elect in May may also affect views. If UKIP/ Brexit parties do worse than expected that might shift sentiment.
But as Jonathan Hill, the last British commissioner said on Radio 4 this morning, in a very good interview, we don’t need time. We know what the choices are. We simply need to make a decision. If not the EU will make it for us and effectively expel us.
The only reason it's October is to ensure we take part in the EU elections and get round to making a decision
October doesn't really give us enough time to hold a referendum as that requires 22 weeks (see my post in the previous thread) so it would require a decision fairly rapidly.
I've said it before and I'll say it again; the most important problem with the ref was the result. 52%/48% was not a resounding victory, nor did it give politicians enough room to all go towards massive constitutional change that would harm voters.
Most major changes to constitutions in other countries require 2/3rd majorities for these main reasons:
1) it proves "the people" actually want it to happen. 52/48 is a slim margin that could easily be swayed within a week, let alone years of hard work. If minds changed, politicians would be blamed for enacting something now unpopular. Which leads to
2) a 2/3 majority gives political will to politicians. Very few politicians are actually radicals who want to change everything root and stem. Leaving the EU is a radical change. With no certainty the public will still be in favour of it a few years down the line, why should politicians hitch their reputations to the wagon? Had it been 60/40, even, I feel Labour would have given more ground earlier and the PV people would have probably accepted the result easier. But 52/48 is no grounds for revolution. 52/48 is the worst of all worlds, a mandate for change, but no definition on what change should look like. Which leads to
3) coming up with a solution that fulfils what the majority of voters wanted is easier when 66% of people want "a thing". You can disagree with a sizable chunk of the 66% and still have a majority of people in favour of the proposal. With 52/48 you cannot afford to lose any of the 52 who wanted "the thing". And therein lies the problem. When that 52% all think "the thing" is different, then how can you have majority support for it? And the closer you get to what the 48% wanted, the more of the original 52% hate the new plan, so you can't try compromise between the two sides, and if you do nobody likes the only option you're left with, and the country has no plan. Which leads us to where we are now.
Labour under no pressure now to agree anything with the government . They need to string this out and see the Tories hammered in the Council and EU elections .
Labour should campaign on the latter with a confirmatory vote . Pro EU voters need to get out and vote in large numbers to stop the hate mongers from framing the narrative .
The latest Yougov today for the European elections has both the Tories and Labour collapsing to just 18% each with the Brexit Party just behind on 17% and CUK up to 10%
Con is going to be pounded so hard in the EU elections.
Labour under no pressure now to agree anything with the government . They need to string this out and see the Tories hammered in the Council and EU elections .
Labour should campaign on the latter with a confirmatory vote . Pro EU voters need to get out and vote in large numbers to stop the hate mongers from framing the narrative .
The latest Yougov today for the European elections has both the Tories and Labour collapsing to just 18% each with the Brexit Party just behind on 17% and CUK up to 10%
Con is going to be pounded so hard in the EU elections.
So will Labour on those numbers, the Tories, Labour and Brexit Party and 'Stay in the EU' Party almost neck and neck for the Euros in that poll
Labour under no pressure now to agree anything with the government . They need to string this out and see the Tories hammered in the Council and EU elections .
Labour should campaign on the latter with a confirmatory vote . Pro EU voters need to get out and vote in large numbers to stop the hate mongers from framing the narrative .
The latest Yougov today for the European elections has both the Tories and Labour collapsing to just 18% each with the Brexit Party just behind on 17% and CUK up to 10%
That was a hypothetical poll with a purely second vote party aswell . If Labour have a second vote on any deal they’ll top the EU elections .
The Leave vote is split , indeed it’s likely the UK will return less anti EU parties than last time but the media keep pushing the opposite .
Labour should not do any deal with the Tories unless it includes a second vote . They have nothing to gain and will be hammered if they facilitate a Tory Brexit .
Miss Cyclefree, to whom would said army be responsible? Who would be commander in chief? What if the UK faced a threat to the Falklands and the French to one of their outlying territories: whose defence would be prioritised? Would British soldiers be loyal to HM and the UK or the EU?
It's a horrendous idea.
How the fuck do you think NATO works? It's responsible to the NATO council and the CinC is ALWAYS an American 4*. The EUMS will be responsible to the EUCO and the CinC will be appointed from within the forces of the member nations.
EUCO and the CinC will decide whose post-colonial vanity we are going to sate in your ludicrous hypothesis.
European defence integration is happening and its only going to get both quicker and deeper. The UK is going to be involved whether its in the EU or not as strategic and financial imperatives compel it.
Labour under no pressure now to agree anything with the government . They need to string this out and see the Tories hammered in the Council and EU elections .
Labour should campaign on the latter with a confirmatory vote . Pro EU voters need to get out and vote in large numbers to stop the hate mongers from framing the narrative .
The latest Yougov today for the European elections has both the Tories and Labour collapsing to just 18% each with the Brexit Party just behind on 17% and CUK up to 10%
That was a hypothetical poll with a purely second vote party aswell as CUK . If Labour have a second vote on any deal they’ll top the EU elections .
The Leave vote is split , indeed it’s likely the UK will return less anti EU parties than last time but the media keep pushing the opposite .
Labour should not do any deal with the Tories unless it includes a second vote . They have nothing to gain and will be hammered if they facilitate a Tory Brexit .
Except Corbyn is still not committing to a second vote as he knows he needs Leave seats to win too.
One thing that gets my goat..."twitter threads"....just write it in a f##king notepad doc and screenshot it!
NO!
Posting photos of text is an antipattern I thought we'd eliminated in about 1996. Twitter threads work great, people can RT the bits of them that are the most interesting to their followers then only the people who are interested in them click and get the rest.
I don't mind Twitter threads either, but I don't like it when people see fit to retweet a full thread of 5+ tweets. If I want to read the thread I'll click on it, someone spamming it into my feed without a choice makes me less likely to read it.
Mr. Eagles, NATO doesn't integrate endlessly, doesn't make us pay billions a year for the privilege of membership, doesn't impose legislation on us, doesn't strip vetoes for QMV, etc etc etc.
Have a look at Article V.
We can be plunged into a war with our forces fighting without our consent.
That’s more shocking than QMV.
The NATO 2% target makes us pay billions a year for membership.
Have a look at Article VI which means NATO isn't obliged to lift a finger for the Falklands.
Miss Cyclefree, to whom would said army be responsible? Who would be commander in chief? What if the UK faced a threat to the Falklands and the French to one of their outlying territories: whose defence would be prioritised? Would British soldiers be loyal to HM and the UK or the EU?
It's a horrendous idea.
How the fuck do you think NATO works? It's responsible to the NATO council and the CinC is ALWAYS an American 4*. The EUMS will be responsible to the EUCO and the CinC will be appointed from within the forces of the member nations.
EUCO and the CinC will decide whose post-colonial vanity we are going to sate in your ludicrous hypothesis.
European defence integration is happening and its only going to get both quicker and deeper. The UK is going to be involved whether its in the EU or not as strategic and financial imperatives compel it.
Labour under no pressure now to agree anything with the government . They need to string this out and see the Tories hammered in the Council and EU elections .
Labour should campaign on the latter with a confirmatory vote . Pro EU voters need to get out and vote in large numbers to stop the hate mongers from framing the narrative .
Watch Peston and see how quick McDonnell is to pick up on any hint from a Tory that any deal with Labour might be undone. They are already at collecting excuses for the breakdown stage.
Comments
It's a horrendous idea.
https://twitter.com/Ruptly/status/1116277306161618944
https://twitter.com/MikeStuchbery_/status/1116278048842747905
Its the rich that gets the pleasure and the poor wot gets the blame,
Its the same the world over, aint it a bleeding shame?
https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1116273359464161280
We can be plunged into a war with our forces fighting without our consent.
That’s more shocking than QMV.
The NATO 2% target makes us pay billions a year for membership.
Although this would be most unlike the previous 'vote until you get it right' referendums.
The EU have been relatively scrupulous in staying out of trying to persuade us one way or the other (and indeed European opinion is now far more divided on whether or not they wish us to leave than was the case a year ago).
And it wouldn't be the same question.
https://twitter.com/twlldun/status/1116278396688969728?s=21
And even then..
Not much comment on Varadkar's remarks yesterday about the UK in a/the CU "having a say in EU trade deals" which will please Labour (its their pet Unicorn) but infuriate the Commission.....is he trying to be "helpful" (if so, to whom?) or is he simply wrong?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1116172224459882496
And as with much about the EU, a more engaged UK would likely improve whatever structure emerges.
Posting photos of text is an antipattern I thought we'd eliminated in about 1996. Twitter threads work great, people can RT the bits of them that are the most interesting to their followers then only the people who are interested in them click and get the rest.
https://twitter.com/dkshrewsbury/status/1116262524767354880?s=21
(a somewhat free translation)
https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/1116279902263758850
He looks like George Galloway after a night out with Farage.
Well, by October we will have had three chances to make a decision and pretty much a year since the WA was agreed so I can see why the EU’s patience might well run out by then, particularly if MPs waste the time they have been given by just pushing off on holiday for most of it.
So if a fresh extension is needed it needs to be (a) something different eg a referendum; and/or (b) a different leader. And what type of MEPs we elect in May may also affect views. If UKIP/ Brexit parties do worse than expected that might shift sentiment.
But as Jonathan Hill, the last British commissioner said on Radio 4 this morning, in a very good interview, we don’t need time. We know what the choices are. We simply need to make a decision. If not the EU will make it for us and effectively expel us.
Labour should campaign on the latter with a confirmatory vote . Pro EU voters need to get out and vote in large numbers to stop the hate mongers from framing the narrative .
October doesn't really give us enough time to hold a referendum as that requires 22 weeks (see my post in the previous thread) so it would require a decision fairly rapidly.
Why would the EU choose October in particular? Because they don't trust us to make a good decision so are happy enough to kick the can down the road into 2020 and probably beyond if needed.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/g5fjrnocck/Results_190329_EUElecetion_w.pdf
https://twitter.com/Expressen/status/1116277830726373376
RIGHT NOW: Elisabeth Massi Fritz on defunct Våldtäktsutredningen against Julian Assange: "We will do everything we can to ensure that the prosecutors resume the Swedish preliminary investigation"
Should probably change their name to "Hackers4Putin"
Turkish audiences called it "the great buggery scene".
Most major changes to constitutions in other countries require 2/3rd majorities for these main reasons:
1) it proves "the people" actually want it to happen. 52/48 is a slim margin that could easily be swayed within a week, let alone years of hard work. If minds changed, politicians would be blamed for enacting something now unpopular. Which leads to
2) a 2/3 majority gives political will to politicians. Very few politicians are actually radicals who want to change everything root and stem. Leaving the EU is a radical change. With no certainty the public will still be in favour of it a few years down the line, why should politicians hitch their reputations to the wagon? Had it been 60/40, even, I feel Labour would have given more ground earlier and the PV people would have probably accepted the result easier. But 52/48 is no grounds for revolution. 52/48 is the worst of all worlds, a mandate for change, but no definition on what change should look like. Which leads to
3) coming up with a solution that fulfils what the majority of voters wanted is easier when 66% of people want "a thing". You can disagree with a sizable chunk of the 66% and still have a majority of people in favour of the proposal. With 52/48 you cannot afford to lose any of the 52 who wanted "the thing". And therein lies the problem. When that 52% all think "the thing" is different, then how can you have majority support for it? And the closer you get to what the 48% wanted, the more of the original 52% hate the new plan, so you can't try compromise between the two sides, and if you do nobody likes the only option you're left with, and the country has no plan. Which leads us to where we are now.
The Leave vote is split , indeed it’s likely the UK will return less anti EU parties than last time but the media keep pushing the opposite .
Labour should not do any deal with the Tories unless it includes a second vote . They have nothing to gain and will be hammered if they facilitate a Tory Brexit .
NATO determines our minimum defence spend.
We’ve been below it but have been forced to increase it.
I want to take back control because if you object to EU membership fees then logically you must object to NATO fees.
We’ve never even had a referendum on NATO membership.
One of those rare cases of somewhere having a party after the cleaners have been?
EUCO and the CinC will decide whose post-colonial vanity we are going to sate in your ludicrous hypothesis.
European defence integration is happening and its only going to get both quicker and deeper. The UK is going to be involved whether its in the EU or not as strategic and financial imperatives compel it.
Leavers are tired of experts.