The Welsh footballer Ched Evans has agreed an out-of-court settlement with lawyers over their handling of a rape case in which he was imprisoned. It is understood to be around £800,000.
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.
You control your stream, unfollow the overenthusiastic retweeter.
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 .
I can assure you that the vote share for parties explicitly advocating leaving the EU will be higher than at any previous EU election.
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.
You need to be careful what you wish for.
Setting the bar for the Scottish referendum at 40% of the electorate killed devolution for a few years, but almost propelled Scotland out of the UK longer term.
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.
Labour needs answers to two key questions before it does a deal:
1) How can May guarantee that any deal is not ripped up by her party the moment she steps down?
2) Why should Labour help the Tories out of a mess of their own creation?
Oh, I thought the Swedish charges had been dropped?
Not dropped, the statute of limitations ran out on some of them. The most serious charge was put on the shelf because there was no way to progress .... it'll probably be resuscitated 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 .
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.
Labour needs answers to two key questions before it does a deal:
1) How can May guarantee that any deal is not ripped up by her party the moment she steps down?
2) Why should Labour help the Tories out of a mess of their own creation?
Hard to see how May can answer these.
Number 1 is unanswerable full stop by anyone. Once the WA is passed it's passed. Surely it should be judged on it's merits and thats it.
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.
Yes, that's all been obvious for quite some time.
However a hurdle has the weakness that a majority for something that doesn't make the hurdle is the worst possible result.
It would have been better to set out a two stage process from the outset, an initial "in principle" vote, which if carried led to creating a deal and then a yes/no vote on the final proposal. It's what the PV is intended to put right, belatedly
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.
Hush you.
Leavers are tired of experts.
TSE you really are f**king tiresome at times, much as I love you. Where true experts can genuinely disagree because the issues are complex, multiple different strategies work, and preferred options vary greatly depending on values and priorities, arguments cannot be settled by expertise.
That is precisely the kind of expert (one claiming to know THE answer to unknowable complex issues for which multiple, sometimes contradictory, strategies are viable) that the public is rightly sick and tired of.
OT what with all these elections coming up I thought I should see if I can vote, but some of the stuff I'm seeing still says my right to vote expired after 15 years.
Can I take it that although the government put out a press release saying "government delivers on pledge to give back British expats the right to vote", they didn't actually deliver on their pledge to give back British expats the right to vote?
Mr. Ace, we should be outside of any insane EU Army whether we're in or out of the EU.
The UK has no choice. Modern defence systems are so expensive and technologically sophisticated that no single nation (apart from the USA) can acquire and operate the full spectrum of defence capabilities outside multinational coalitions. Particularly not the UK which insists on running defence procurement as a form of corporate workfare and therefore extracts less value from its defence expenditure.
Europe and therefore NATO is rapidly sliding down the US list of strategic interests and that situation isn't going to change under President Buttigieg. So European defence co-operation is the only long term option for the UK.
The Welsh footballer Ched Evans has agreed an out-of-court settlement with lawyers over their handling of a rape case in which he was imprisoned. It is understood to be around £800,000.
So, given the constraints and imagining you were May or other players in this game, how would one get to a point by October where a deal is possible?
Thinking of how May moves my routes, assuming her survival through these manoeuvres, would be:
- Conclude talks with Labour this month. Is there anything she can reasonably offer Labour to assure their quite correct assertion that for a CU to be agreed it somehow needs to bind on a pro-Canada / prepared to (exit A50 with) no deal successor?
- If yes, update PD with EU and put any CU assurance measures through parliament -> mid June (survival measures) and attempt to pass MV4 by late June
- If no, and having crossed the no deal / bad deal Rubicon now, then go ahead with government indicative eliminators at end April. This should also say CU (as the Letwin indicatives showed might well pass with government whipping). Update PD without assurances, hope to pass MV on the back of Labour rebels. Again by mid to late June.
- If MVs fail pivot to second referendum by late June, using summer recess delay as necessary. Another big round of parliamentary horse trading to get second referendum question and format that will pass (which would surely include an attempt to revert to May deal!). Try to have assent by mid-September - the aim now is not to conclude by October, but simply to have set up a conclusion, against which the EU can grant one more extension, that request and consideration being wrapped up with several weeks to spare.
The Welsh footballer Ched Evans has agreed an out-of-court settlement with lawyers over their handling of a rape case in which he was imprisoned. It is understood to be around £800,000.
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 .
I can assure you that the vote share for parties explicitly advocating leaving the EU will be higher than at any previous EU election.
Only if you include the Tories. I think it's unlikely that UKIP and the Brexit Party's combined share will exceed UKIP and the BNP (and whichever small parties were in favour of leaving) performances in 2014.
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.
You control your stream, unfollow the overenthusiastic retweeter.
Unfortunately, that changes with age/condition of your prostate :-)
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.
Yes, that's all been obvious for quite some time.
However a hurdle has the weakness that a majority for something that doesn't make the hurdle is the worst possible result.
It would have been better to set out a two stage process from the outset, an initial "in principle" vote, which if carried led to creating a deal and then a yes/no vote on the final proposal. It's what the PV is intended to put right, belatedly
One problem was that its status was contradictory. It became an advisory binding referendum. It was advisory in law, then some thought it binding because of the word of a posh boy from Oxfordshire with a background in public relations. Very fishy. We shouldn't allow that again.
I've gone off referendums in a representative democracy, given that Clem Attlee, Ted Heath and Margaret Thatcher all thought that they were a bad idea. They seem to work in Ireland, Switzerland and New Zealand, but the first two have written constitutions and NZ passed a whole law setting out how referendums should work. Did the UK ever do this, or does it just try as usual to muddle through?
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 .
I can assure you that the vote share for parties explicitly advocating leaving the EU will be higher than at any previous EU election.
Only if you include the Tories. I think it's unlikely that UKIP and the Brexit Party's combined share will exceed UKIP and the BNP (and whichever small parties were in favour of leaving) performances in 2014.
I am including the Tories, who were not anti-EU in 2014.
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.
Yes, that's all been obvious for quite some time.
However a hurdle has the weakness that a majority for something that doesn't make the hurdle is the worst possible result.
It would have been better to set out a two stage process from the outset, an initial "in principle" vote, which if carried led to creating a deal and then a yes/no vote on the final proposal. It's what the PV is intended to put right, belatedly
One problem was that its status was contradictory. It became an advisory binding referendum. It was advisory in law, then some thought it binding because of the word of a posh boy from Oxfordshire with a background in public relations. Very fishy. We shouldn't allow that again.
I've gone off referendums in a representative democracy, given that Clem Attlee, Ted Heath and Margaret Thatcher all thought that they were a bad idea. They seem to work in Ireland, Switzerland and New Zealand, but the first two have written constitutions and NZ passed a whole law setting out how referendums should work. Did the UK ever do this, or does it just try as usual to muddle through?
In practice, there's no such thing as an advisory referendum. If you don't want to be bound by the outcome, don't have one.
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 .
I can assure you that the vote share for parties explicitly advocating leaving the EU will be higher than at any previous EU election.
You might well be right, but turnout of those advocating revoke might be equally high.
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.
Labour needs answers to two key questions before it does a deal:
1) How can May guarantee that any deal is not ripped up by her party the moment she steps down?
2) Why should Labour help the Tories out of a mess of their own creation?
Hard to see how May can answer these.
Number 1 is unanswerable full stop by anyone. Once the WA is passed it's passed. Surely it should be judged on it's merits and thats it.
I've never understood this argument. Labour MPs passing the withdrawal agreement is a cost to them; why would they agree to stump up that cost before they knew what the compensatory benefits were (and the guarantees that those benefits would be delivered)?
If you were buying a new phone, would you be happy if you were told that you had to pay up first, and tie yourself into a two-year contract, and that only after you had done all that could you discuss what phone you'd be getting?
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 .
I can assure you that the vote share for parties explicitly advocating leaving the EU will be higher than at any previous EU election.
Only if you include the Tories. I think it's unlikely that UKIP and the Brexit Party's combined share will exceed UKIP and the BNP (and whichever small parties were in favour of leaving) performances in 2014.
I am including the Tories, who were not anti-EU in 2014.
Well, OK. Although you could make a case that a vote for the Tories in 2014 was more likely to lead to Brexit than a vote for the Tories in 2019 will
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.
Yes, that's all been obvious for quite some time.
However a hurdle has the weakness that a majority for something that doesn't make the hurdle is the worst possible result.
It would have been better to set out a two stage process from the outset, an initial "in principle" vote, which if carried led to creating a deal and then a yes/no vote on the final proposal. It's what the PV is intended to put right, belatedly
One problem was that its status was contradictory. It became an advisory binding referendum. It was advisory in law, then some thought it binding because of the word of a posh boy from Oxfordshire with a background in public relations. Very fishy. We shouldn't allow that again.
I've gone off referendums in a representative democracy, given that Clem Attlee, Ted Heath and Margaret Thatcher all thought that they were a bad idea. They seem to work in Ireland, Switzerland and New Zealand, but the first two have written constitutions and NZ passed a whole law setting out how referendums should work. Did the UK ever do this, or does it just try as usual to muddle through?
In practice, there's no such thing as an advisory referendum. If you don't want to be bound by the outcome, don't have one.
There were a series of referendums on directly elected mayors. Most went against. They got them anyway.
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 genuinely don't understand how a referendum requires 22 weeks to organise and run. The smallest possible gap between calling a GE and voting is far less than that.
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 .
I can assure you that the vote share for parties explicitly advocating leaving the EU will be higher than at any previous EU election.
You might well be right, but turnout of those advocating revoke might be equally high.
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.
Labour needs answers to two key questions before it does a deal:
1) How can May guarantee that any deal is not ripped up by her party the moment she steps down?
2) Why should Labour help the Tories out of a mess of their own creation?
Hard to see how May can answer these.
Number 1 is unanswerable full stop by anyone. Once the WA is passed it's passed. Surely it should be judged on it's merits and thats it.
I've never understood this argument. Labour MPs passing the withdrawal agreement is a cost to them; why would they agree to stump up that cost before they knew what the compensatory benefits were (and the guarantees that those benefits would be delivered)?
If you were buying a new phone, would you be happy if you were told that you had to pay up first, and tie yourself into a two-year contract, and that only after you had done all that could you discuss what phone you'd be getting?
The phone you’re buying is a present you promised to your child who would regard anything other than a phone for Christmas as a complete disaster
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.
Labour needs answers to two key questions before it does a deal:
1) How can May guarantee that any deal is not ripped up by her party the moment she steps down?
2) Why should Labour help the Tories out of a mess of their own creation?
Hard to see how May can answer these.
Number 1 is unanswerable full stop by anyone. Once the WA is passed it's passed. Surely it should be judged on it's merits and thats it.
I've never understood this argument. Labour MPs passing the withdrawal agreement is a cost to them; why would they agree to stump up that cost before they knew what the compensatory benefits were (and the guarantees that those benefits would be delivered)?
If you were buying a new phone, would you be happy if you were told that you had to pay up first, and tie yourself into a two-year contract, and that only after you had done all that could you discuss what phone you'd be getting?
"Labour doesn't want changes to the WA, so why are they voting against it?" is a nice simple message to hammer Labour with, and the answer- that it would be counterproductive to getting the changes they do want outside the WA- is more complex. So it's an effective bit of spin, that's all. Absolutely nobody asks that question in good faith.
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.
Labour needs answers to two key questions before it does a deal:
1) How can May guarantee that any deal is not ripped up by her party the moment she steps down?
2) Why should Labour help the Tories out of a mess of their own creation?
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 .
I can assure you that the vote share for parties explicitly advocating leaving the EU will be higher than at any previous EU election.
You might well be right, but turnout of those advocating revoke might be equally high.
It's clearly in Labour's interests for the talks to break down and the Tories to get at least half the blame, preferably more. They are currently working on getting there.
I also think Labour has reached the point where it is in their interests for May to be brought down - the risk that a new leader might get a majority in a snap GE has now receded considerably.
The Welsh footballer Ched Evans has agreed an out-of-court settlement with lawyers over their handling of a rape case in which he was imprisoned. It is understood to be around £800,000.
The Welsh footballer Ched Evans has agreed an out-of-court settlement with lawyers over their handling of a rape case in which he was imprisoned. It is understood to be around £800,000.
A briefing for animalwelfare groups includes these useful clarifications:
"Whilst the media have tended to focus on the new absolute deadline of 11pm GMT on 31 October, there is another within the Decision. If the withdrawal agreement and (a revised?) political declaration are ratified (not just approved through a 'meaningful' vote under §13 of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018) - thus requiring a new Act of Parliament with all that entails - by 22 May, then the UK would leave on 31 May. Under this scenario, European elections would not have to be held in Britain. Likewise, were Britain not to pass the withdrawal agreement, or to hold elections to the European Parliament as it then should, the 31 May becomes the deadline.
In my assessment, given that European Elections would be held six weeks today in the absence of full ratification of a deal, it is highly unlikely that these can or will be avoided."
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.
Labour needs answers to two key questions before it does a deal:
1) How can May guarantee that any deal is not ripped up by her party the moment she steps down?
2) Why should Labour help the Tories out of a mess of their own creation?
Hard to see how May can answer these.
Number 1 is unanswerable full stop by anyone. Once the WA is passed it's passed. Surely it should be judged on it's merits and thats it.
It seems strange to me that Labour on the cusp of power wants to rip up the convention that a government cannot bind its successor
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.
Yes, that's all been obvious for quite some time.
However a hurdle has the weakness that a majority for something that doesn't make the hurdle is the worst possible result.
It would have been better to set out a two stage process from the outset, an initial "in principle" vote, which if carried led to creating a deal and then a yes/no vote on the final proposal. It's what the PV is intended to put right, belatedly
One problem was that its status was contradictory. It became an advisory binding referendum. It was advisory in law, then some thought it binding because of the word of a posh boy from Oxfordshire with a background in public relations. Very fishy. We shouldn't allow that again.
I've gone off referendums in a representative democracy, given that Clem Attlee, Ted Heath and Margaret Thatcher all thought that they were a bad idea. They seem to work in Ireland, Switzerland and New Zealand, but the first two have written constitutions and NZ passed a whole law setting out how referendums should work. Did the UK ever do this, or does it just try as usual to muddle through?
In practice, there's no such thing as an advisory referendum. If you don't want to be bound by the outcome, don't have one.
There were a series of referendums on directly elected mayors. Most went against. They got them anyway.
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.
Labour needs answers to two key questions before it does a deal:
1) How can May guarantee that any deal is not ripped up by her party the moment she steps down?
2) Why should Labour help the Tories out of a mess of their own creation?
Hard to see how May can answer these.
Number 1 is unanswerable full stop by anyone. Once the WA is passed it's passed. Surely it should be judged on it's merits and thats it.
I've never understood this argument. Labour MPs passing the withdrawal agreement is a cost to them; why would they agree to stump up that cost before they knew what the compensatory benefits were (and the guarantees that those benefits would be delivered)?
If you were buying a new phone, would you be happy if you were told that you had to pay up first, and tie yourself into a two-year contract, and that only after you had done all that could you discuss what phone you'd be getting?
The phone you’re buying is a present you promised to your child who would regard anything other than a phone for Christmas as a complete disaster
Although they asked for it quite a while ago, were pretty close to 50/50 on whether they wanted it in the first place, and have since found out a lot more about what phones are actually in your price range. Maybe a good idea to quickly double check they actually still want it, before signing up to a long-term contract?
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 genuinely don't understand how a referendum requires 22 weeks to organise and run. The smallest possible gap between calling a GE and voting is far less than that.
eek posted a link to the reasoning on a previous thread - basically the theory is that the Electoral Commission need time to test the question, which optimistically gets compressed to 8 weeks (?) that only partly overlaps with parliament passing the legislation, so you need a few more weeks on top of that before you even get started. Then once you've passed the legislation you need to prepare for it, then have the campaign.
It does feel like you could do it faster than that if you really needed to though, what with parliament getting the hang of legislating on 48x speed to stop the PM misbehaving, and in any case once you'd passed the legislation it would presumably be no problem to extend the extension.
The Welsh footballer Ched Evans has agreed an out-of-court settlement with lawyers over their handling of a rape case in which he was imprisoned. It is understood to be around £800,000.
So, given the constraints and imagining you were May or other players in this game, how would one get to a point by October where a deal is possible?
Thinking of how May moves my routes, assuming her survival through these manoeuvres, would be:
- Conclude talks with Labour this month. Is there anything she can reasonably offer Labour to assure their quite correct assertion that for a CU to be agreed it somehow needs to bind on a pro-Canada / prepared to (exit A50 with) no deal successor?
- If yes, update PD with EU and put any CU assurance measures through parliament -> mid June (survival measures) and attempt to pass MV4 by late June
- If no, and having crossed the no deal / bad deal Rubicon now, then go ahead with government indicative eliminators at end April. This should also say CU (as the Letwin indicatives showed might well pass with government whipping). Update PD without assurances, hope to pass MV on the back of Labour rebels. Again by mid to late June.
- If MVs fail pivot to second referendum by late June, using summer recess delay as necessary. Another big round of parliamentary horse trading to get second referendum question and format that will pass (which would surely include an attempt to revert to May deal!). Try to have assent by mid-September - the aim now is not to conclude by October, but simply to have set up a conclusion, against which the EU can grant one more extension, that request and consideration being wrapped up with several weeks to spare.
A referendum is the only way out, but boy is it going to be hard getting the Tories to appreciate that.
Edit/ I do however think that enough MPs across parliament probably see that there aren't any other good paths, to make a genuinely free vote on a PV very close.
But why should anyone else? What are they voting for?
Have you considered just sending her a card instead? Maybe one with a cute picture of a puppy and "Our thoughts are with you in this difficult time" written in big cursive letters?
The Welsh footballer Ched Evans has agreed an out-of-court settlement with lawyers over their handling of a rape case in which he was imprisoned. It is understood to be around £800,000.
So entirely without merit we decided to pay him £800k
Cost of litigation in actual cash, opportunity cost, and diverted strategic attention, vs cost of settlement. Might be 800k is cheap.
Evans would have earnt ~ £2.5 million whilst he was in prison ! £800k settlement (From his lawyers, not the public purse) is nothing I'm going to worry about.
Can anyone remember why Ecuador took in Assange in the first place? For that matter, does Ecuador remember why Ecuador took in Assange in the first place?
The Welsh footballer Ched Evans has agreed an out-of-court settlement with lawyers over their handling of a rape case in which he was imprisoned. It is understood to be around £800,000.
So entirely without merit we decided to pay him £800k
Cost of litigation in actual cash, opportunity cost, and diverted strategic attention, vs cost of settlement. Might be 800k is cheap.
Nobody pays out £800 K for a case that is without merit. You might think that on balance you'd win, but there's a high chance (say 40%) that you'll lose, so it's wise to settle, but that's very different from entirely without merit.
The Welsh footballer Ched Evans has agreed an out-of-court settlement with lawyers over their handling of a rape case in which he was imprisoned. It is understood to be around £800,000.
So entirely without merit we decided to pay him £800k
Cost of litigation in actual cash, opportunity cost, and diverted strategic attention, vs cost of settlement. Might be 800k is cheap.
Evans would have earnt ~ £2.5 million whilst he was in prison ! £800k settlement (From his lawyers, not the public purse) is nothing I'm going to worry about.
A briefing for animalwelfare groups includes these useful clarifications:
"Whilst the media have tended to focus on the new absolute deadline of 11pm GMT on 31 October, there is another within the Decision. If the withdrawal agreement and (a revised?) political declaration are ratified (not just approved through a 'meaningful' vote under §13 of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018) - thus requiring a new Act of Parliament with all that entails - by 22 May, then the UK would leave on 31 May. Under this scenario, European elections would not have to be held in Britain. Likewise, were Britain not to pass the withdrawal agreement, or to hold elections to the European Parliament as it then should, the 31 May becomes the deadline.
In my assessment, given that European Elections would be held six weeks today in the absence of full ratification of a deal, it is highly unlikely that these can or will be avoided."
May does however clearly need to have "another go" at getting the deal agreed immediately after recess, even if it is doomed to fail. And she needs a way around the Speaker's ruling.
Edit/ I do however think that enough MPs across parliament probably see that there aren't any other good paths, to make a genuinely free vote on a PV very close.
It's been free on the Tory side, and whipped FOR on the Labour side ! Unless you think a majority of the cabinet is in favour (They aren't), it doesn't have the numbers.
The Welsh footballer Ched Evans has agreed an out-of-court settlement with lawyers over their handling of a rape case in which he was imprisoned. It is understood to be around £800,000.
So entirely without merit we decided to pay him £800k
Cost of litigation in actual cash, opportunity cost, and diverted strategic attention, vs cost of settlement. Might be 800k is cheap.
Evans would have earnt ~ £2.5 million whilst he was in prison ! £800k settlement (From his lawyers, not the public purse) is nothing I'm going to worry about.
I'm still not comfortable with how that case concluded. Either evidence is inadmissible or it isn't.
A briefing for animalwelfare groups includes these useful clarifications:
"Whilst the media have tended to focus on the new absolute deadline of 11pm GMT on 31 October, there is another within the Decision. If the withdrawal agreement and (a revised?) political declaration are ratified (not just approved through a 'meaningful' vote under §13 of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018) - thus requiring a new Act of Parliament with all that entails - by 22 May, then the UK would leave on 31 May. Under this scenario, European elections would not have to be held in Britain. Likewise, were Britain not to pass the withdrawal agreement, or to hold elections to the European Parliament as it then should, the 31 May becomes the deadline.
In my assessment, given that European Elections would be held six weeks today in the absence of full ratification of a deal, it is highly unlikely that these can or will be avoided."
May does however clearly need to have "another go" at getting the deal agreed immediately after recess, even if it is doomed to fail. And she needs a way around the Speaker's ruling.
Edit/ I do however think that enough MPs across parliament probably see that there aren't any other good paths, to make a genuinely free vote on a PV very close.
It's been free on the Tory side, and whipped FOR on the Labour side ! Unless you think a majority of the cabinet is in favour (They aren't), it doesn't have the numbers.
The amendment was whipped against by Tories and whipped to abstention by Labour.
The indicative option exercise was essentially boycotted by most Tories as no deal was in the mix the first time, and boycotted because no deal wasn't in the mix the second time. Neither of these was a yes/no on a PV.
As opposed to someone who’s been unlawfully at large for seven years, has skipped bail and is the subject of an extradition warrant for a serious sexual assault?
OT what with all these elections coming up I thought I should see if I can vote, but some of the stuff I'm seeing still says my right to vote expired after 15 years.
Can I take it that although the government put out a press release saying "government delivers on pledge to give back British expats the right to vote", they didn't actually deliver on their pledge to give back British expats the right to vote?
It was Gove's doing.
The people of this country have had enough of expats.
Edit/ I do however think that enough MPs across parliament probably see that there aren't any other good paths, to make a genuinely free vote on a PV very close.
It's been free on the Tory side, and whipped FOR on the Labour side ! Unless you think a majority of the cabinet is in favour (They aren't), it doesn't have the numbers.
The amendment was whipped against by Tories and whipped to abstention by Labour.
The indicative option exercise was essentially boycotted by most Tories as no deal was in the mix the first time, and boycotted because no deal wasn't in the mix the second time. Neither of these was a yes/no on a PV.
Can anyone remember why Ecuador took in Assange in the first place? For that matter, does Ecuador remember why Ecuador took in Assange in the first place?
Safe to say the president who originially took Assange in has a somewhat different view to his successor...
The clue might be in her twitter banner....a giant picture saying "Free Julian Assange".
It is really interesting, Snowdon located in Russia standing up for Assange, while his mate Greenwald now a regular Fox News guest with his big push on the "Russian hoax" in regards to that they interfered in the election.
Comments
The Welsh footballer Ched Evans has agreed an out-of-court settlement with lawyers over their handling of a rape case in which he was imprisoned. It is understood to be around £800,000.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/apr/10/ched-evans-settles-out-of-court-over-lawyers-handling-of-case
NATO does not have the EU's endless trend of increased integration and dilution of national sovereignty, and comparing the two is ridiculous.
Setting the bar for the Scottish referendum at 40% of the electorate killed devolution for a few years, but almost propelled Scotland out of the UK longer term.
1) How can May guarantee that any deal is not ripped up by her party the moment she steps down?
2) Why should Labour help the Tories out of a mess of their own creation?
Hard to see how May can answer these.
I do agree with Trump that far too many European countries don’t pay their fair share.
I do fear the end of NATO.
However a hurdle has the weakness that a majority for something that doesn't make the hurdle is the worst possible result.
It would have been better to set out a two stage process from the outset, an initial "in principle" vote, which if carried led to creating a deal and then a yes/no vote on the final proposal. It's what the PV is intended to put right, belatedly
That is precisely the kind of expert (one claiming to know THE answer to unknowable complex issues for which multiple, sometimes contradictory, strategies are viable) that the public is rightly sick and tired of.
Does he get anything right ? Wrong on no deal in both March and April and he continues to become obsessed with no deal happening now on June 1 st .
Give up Peston !
However, there's this press release entitled "Government delivers on pledge to give back British expats the right to vote":
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-delivers-on-pledge-to-give-back-british-expats-the-right-to-vote
Can I take it that although the government put out a press release saying "government delivers on pledge to give back British expats the right to vote", they didn't actually deliver on their pledge to give back British expats the right to vote?
Rugby Australia and the New South Wales Rugby Union say they intend to terminate Israel Folau's contract
https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/47893542
Europe and therefore NATO is rapidly sliding down the US list of strategic interests and that situation isn't going to change under President Buttigieg. So European defence co-operation is the only long term option for the UK.
Can’t see the Ecuadorean diet plan catching on judging from the before and after photos
- Conclude talks with Labour this month. Is there anything she can reasonably offer Labour to assure their quite correct assertion that for a CU to be agreed it somehow needs to bind on a pro-Canada / prepared to (exit A50 with) no deal successor?
- If yes, update PD with EU and put any CU assurance measures through parliament -> mid June (survival measures) and attempt to pass MV4 by late June
- If no, and having crossed the no deal / bad deal Rubicon now, then go ahead with government indicative eliminators at end April. This should also say CU (as the Letwin indicatives showed might well pass with government whipping). Update PD without assurances, hope to pass MV on the back of Labour rebels. Again by mid to late June.
- If MVs fail pivot to second referendum by late June, using summer recess delay as necessary. Another big round of parliamentary horse trading to get second referendum question and format that will pass (which would surely include an attempt to revert to May deal!). Try to have assent by mid-September - the aim now is not to conclude by October, but simply to have set up a conclusion, against which the EU can grant one more extension, that request and consideration being wrapped up with several weeks to spare.
I've gone off referendums in a representative democracy, given that Clem Attlee, Ted Heath and Margaret Thatcher all thought that they were a bad idea. They seem to work in Ireland, Switzerland and New Zealand, but the first two have written constitutions and NZ passed a whole law setting out how referendums should work. Did the UK ever do this, or does it just try as usual to muddle through?
Interesting translation by Google
https://twitter.com/bbc5live/status/1116289959705497600
If you were buying a new phone, would you be happy if you were told that you had to pay up first, and tie yourself into a two-year contract, and that only after you had done all that could you discuss what phone you'd be getting?
I also think Labour has reached the point where it is in their interests for May to be brought down - the risk that a new leader might get a majority in a snap GE has now receded considerably.
But why should anyone else? What are they voting for?
Come on Charles.
"Whilst the media have tended to focus on the new absolute deadline of 11pm GMT on 31 October, there is another within the Decision. If the withdrawal agreement and (a revised?) political declaration are ratified (not just approved through a 'meaningful' vote under §13 of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018) - thus requiring a new Act of Parliament with all that entails - by 22 May, then the UK would leave on 31 May. Under this scenario, European elections would not have to be held in Britain. Likewise, were Britain not to pass the withdrawal agreement, or to hold elections to the European Parliament as it then should, the 31 May becomes the deadline.
In my assessment, given that European Elections would be held six weeks today in the absence of full ratification of a deal, it is highly unlikely that these can or will be avoided."
European elections were never treated seriously here to start with - it's going to be an absolute circus this time round.
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1116300508141170693
It does feel like you could do it faster than that if you really needed to though, what with parliament getting the hang of legislating on 48x speed to stop the PM misbehaving, and in any case once you'd passed the legislation it would presumably be no problem to extend the extension.
Edit/ I do however think that enough MPs across parliament probably see that there aren't any other good paths, to make a genuinely free vote on a PV very close.
https://twitter.com/drgs100/status/1116218479080890368?s=19
The indicative option exercise was essentially boycotted by most Tories as no deal was in the mix the first time, and boycotted because no deal wasn't in the mix the second time. Neither of these was a yes/no on a PV.
And in any case things have changed.
So now there are only two sets outstanding - in the UK and US...
The people of this country have had enough of expats.
https://twitter.com/MashiRafael/status/1116289091061075968?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1116289091061075968&ref_url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/live/2019/apr/11/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-arrested-at-the-ecuadorean-embassy-live-updates
Say party A is on 10%.
Every party above 10% will get a MEP allocated before A.
Every party above 20% will get two MEPs allocated before A.
Every party above 30% will get three MEPs allocated before A.
So for Party A it is critically important whether the other parties are above or below 20% etc.
For Party B on about 30% it is very much in their interest to get at least 3 times Party A's vote.
It is really interesting, Snowdon located in Russia standing up for Assange, while his mate Greenwald now a regular Fox News guest with his big push on the "Russian hoax" in regards to that they interfered in the election.