And after two years of Liam Fox's incompetence the notion of an independent trade policy has been rather tarnished.
To be fair to Liam Fox, the idea that he could get very far on trade deals, without being able to give full details of what our long-term relationship with the EU was going to be, is absurd. The very first question any other country would ask is what the EU deal was going to look like, because it would determine the entire trading position.
If there was an election now I think Lab would win it: Assuming they won on a Cameronesque renegotiate+referendum, Remain fans would mostly suck it up and vote for them where it counted, whereas Brexit enthusiasts are seriously miffed at the government so it's hard to see them being tactical.
However, the problem with the bet is that the Tories are somewhat in control of when the next election happens, and they won't call one unless they either think they'll win it - most likely because they get a new leader - or they completely run out of road.
Huge assumption there - that the EU would renegotiate and that Labour would offer a referendum with Remain as a choice.
Of course they would offer it with remain as a choice. The whole point of a referendum is to remain. It's about people having changed their minds and all that.
You seem very certain. i have only ever heard Labour talk about a “confirmatory referendum” which sounds like weasel words to me.
Oh, of that I have no doubt. Some on here who didn't want remain to be an option tried consoling themselves that an ordinary reading of those words could not possibly mean one of the options was remain. But my certainty is just a matter of the politics of it, whatever words they use - I could believe Corbyn and some others in the leadership clique would be satisfied with a confirmatory referendum without remain satisfying things, depending on what they were confirming, but for so many of the MPs and members the point is to remain, and given the extension and revoke now being so openly popular, I just don't see how, if Labour get the chance to dictate the choice, that remain is not included as an option.
People forget Corbyn has been leader for quite some time now, and he is more canny and flexible than people think he is - after this much aggravation and annoyance he wouldn't give up his chance at power by half arsing it with a confirmatory referendum if he needed to keep the members happy with a remain option.
If a referendum doesn't have Remain in it, what should it have? If there isn't a genuine choice the referendum is as democratic as the elections in North Korea.
And the answer is not leave with deal vs leave with no deal. The latter is so barmy it shouldn't be on the table at all.
As a legal observation, the charges Assange is facing in Sweden would probably not count as rape in most countries, (while not wishing to minimise the alleged offences themselves).
Oh for God’s sake, they count as sexual assault. Have you forgotten the Me Too movement? Why the hell should women have to put up with men assaulting them just because the men in question have apparently done some other good thing?
The alleged offences were committed in Sweden, the women were in Sweden and have been pretty much ignored by people who normally preen themselves on their feminist credentials, the Swedish authorities wanted to question him (the horror) but Assange was too fucking arrogant to do what any decent human being would do. He thought the law should not apply to him. There are words to describe men like that and those who excuse or justify such behaviour. Hero is not one of those words.
If there was an election now I think Lab would win it: Assuming they won on a Cameronesque renegotiate+referendum, Remain fans would mostly suck it up and vote for them where it counted, whereas Brexit enthusiasts are seriously miffed at the government so it's hard to see them being tactical.
However, the problem with the bet is that the Tories are somewhat in control of when the next election happens, and they won't call one unless they either think they'll win it - most likely because they get a new leader - or they completely run out of road.
Huge assumption there - that the EU would renegotiate and that Labour would offer a referendum with Remain as a choice.
The WA is closed, but a different PD is very likely under Labour.
Indeed with CU, and close alignment locked into consumer, environmental and workers rights I could live with it. Clearly inferior to full membership, but streets ahead of Boris Britain.
But the WA is a legally binding Treaty, and the PD is meaningless political bollocks. At the insistance of the EU, who have all put their requests in the first document and all the British requests in the second.
Could someone in favour of a CU arrangement please state why it's a positively good idea.
If there was an election now I think Lab would win it: Assuming they won on a Cameronesque renegotiate+referendum, Remain fans would mostly suck it up and vote for them where it counted, whereas Brexit enthusiasts are seriously miffed at the government so it's hard to see them being tactical.
However, the problem with the bet is that the Tories are somewhat in control of when the next election happens, and they won't call one unless they either think they'll win it - most likely because they get a new leader - or they completely run out of road.
Huge assumption there - that the EU would renegotiate and that Labour would offer a referendum with Remain as a choice.
The WA is closed, but a different PD is very likely under Labour.
Indeed with CU, and close alignment locked into consumer, environmental and workers rights I could live with it. Clearly inferior to full membership, but streets ahead of Boris Britain.
But the WA is a legally binding Treaty, and the PD is meaningless political bollocks. At the insistance of the EU, who have all put their requests in the first document and all the British requests in the second.
Could someone in favour of a CU arrangement please state why it's a positively good idea.
Sure, the Tories can not be trusted with the PD, however we are looking at the scenario of a Labour government so the PD could be safely wrapped up in a watertight agreement before the Tories could get their hands on it.
Baroness Kennedy (Labour): difficult to know whether Assange can get a fair trial in the US.
She's probably right. I do wonder though whether she was as concerned about whether the NatWest Three - extradited under the Labour government's Extradition Act 2003 which presumably will apply in Assange's case - could get a fair trial in the US.
She’s not right. The issue of fair trials in the US was extensively canvassed in a number of court cases here and was rejected.
I really dont like Assange at alll, but 7 years in (self imposed) house arrest, followed by a year in British jails (for jumping his bail), followed by decades in US prisons, does seem excesssive, and more importantly counter productive. Who benefits from this level of punishment? To me he already looks mad, sad, and old. He looks like a man broken by his own stupidity.
Is there conclusive proof that Wikileaks led to the deaths of western agents? I confess i cant remember. But if there isn't then this is too much?
Whether he deserves extradition and any amount of imprisonment in the US is a fair question, it may well be he can construct a reasonable case to avoid the former, but I don't see how his self imposed house arrest can or should be taken into consideration when determining what might be excessive. Those 7 years could have ended at any time he chose, it seems entirely unfair to think he should get less time for any other offences because of his own choices over those 7 years.
If there was an election now I think Lab would win it: Assuming they won on a Cameronesque renegotiate+referendum, Remain fans would mostly suck it up and vote for them where it counted, whereas Brexit enthusiasts are seriously miffed at the government so it's hard to see them being tactical.
However, the problem with the bet is that the Tories are somewhat in control of when the next election happens, and they won't call one unless they either think they'll win it - most likely because they get a new leader - or they completely run out of road.
Huge assumption there - that the EU would renegotiate and that Labour would offer a referendum with Remain as a choice.
I didn't say the EU would renegotiate, I said Labour would run on renegotiating.
Who would they renegotiate with if the EU wouldn’t negotiate? The Berlaymont building cat?
As a legal observation, the charges Assange is facing in Sweden would probably not count as rape in most countries, (while not wishing to minimise the alleged offences themselves).
Oh for God’s sake, they count as sexual assault. Have you forgotten the Me Too movement? Why the hell should women have to put up with men assaulting them just because the men in question have apparently done some other good thing?
The alleged offences were committed in Sweden, the women were in Sweden and have been pretty much ignored by people who normally preen themselves on their feminist credentials, the Swedish authorities wanted to question him (the horror) but Assange was too fucking arrogant to do what any decent human being would do. He thought the law should not apply to him. There are words to describe men like that and those who excuse or justify such behaviour. Hero is not one of those words.
I agree, and his lack of character over this issue makes me think that his motives were impure on his intelligence leaks.
If there was an election now I think Lab would win it: Assuming they won on a Cameronesque renegotiate+referendum, Remain fans would mostly suck it up and vote for them where it counted, whereas Brexit enthusiasts are seriously miffed at the government so it's hard to see them being tactical.
However, the problem with the bet is that the Tories are somewhat in control of when the next election happens, and they won't call one unless they either think they'll win it - most likely because they get a new leader - or they completely run out of road.
Huge assumption there - that the EU would renegotiate and that Labour would offer a referendum with Remain as a choice.
The WA is closed, but a different PD is very likely under Labour.
Indeed with CU, and close alignment locked into consumer, environmental and workers rights I could live with it. Clearly inferior to full membership, but streets ahead of Boris Britain.
But the WA is a legally binding Treaty, and the PD is meaningless political bollocks. At the insistance of the EU, who have all put their requests in the first document and all the British requests in the second.
Could someone in favour of a CU arrangement please state why it's a positively good idea.
Because its better than not leaving at all ?
And after two years of Liam Fox's incompetence the notion of an independent trade policy has been rather tarnished.
A lot of leave supporters would argue that outsourcing our entire trade policy to the organisation we just left, is worse than remaining as members. As members we have a seat at the table.
The EU would negotiate our inbound tarrifs while we have no seat at the table, leaving us to negotiate tariffs applied to our own goods with each third country individually but with no leverage. I don't understand how anyone would both understand this arrangement and be in favour of it.
If there was an election now I think Lab would win it: Assuming they won on a Cameronesque renegotiate+referendum, Remain fans would mostly suck it up and vote for them where it counted, whereas Brexit enthusiasts are seriously miffed at the government so it's hard to see them being tactical.
However, the problem with the bet is that the Tories are somewhat in control of when the next election happens, and they won't call one unless they either think they'll win it - most likely because they get a new leader - or they completely run out of road.
Huge assumption there - that the EU would renegotiate and that Labour would offer a referendum with Remain as a choice.
Of course they would offer it with remain as a choice. The whole point of a referendum is to remain. It's about people having changed their minds and all that.
You seem very certain. i have only ever heard Labour talk about a “confirmatory referendum” which sounds like weasel words to me.
Oh, of that I have no doubt. Some on here who didn't want remain to be an option tried consoling themselves that an ordinary reading of those words could not possibly mean one of the options was remain. But my certainty is just a matter of the politics of it, whatever words they use - I could believe Corbyn and some others in the leadership clique would be satisfied with a confirmatory referendum without remain satisfying things
People forget Corbyn has been leader for quite some time now, and he is more canny and flexible than people think he is - after this much aggravation and annoyance he wouldn't give up his chance at power by half arsing it with a confirmatory referendum if he needed to keep the members happy with a remain option.
If a referendum doesn't have Remain in it, what should it have? If there isn't a genuine choice the referendum is as democratic as the elections in North Korea.
And the answer is not leave with deal vs leave with no deal. The latter is so barmy it shouldn't be on the table at all.
The proponents of a literal confirmatory referendum seem to think it would be a yes/ no question, but with no indication what happens if the answer is no, which is also barmy and another reason no would mean remain. What would be the point of a referendum if it was not even vaguely clear what one of the options meant? Even in 2016 we at least knew of possibilities for when Leave won.
Decent ratio for Jezza on his tweet to be fair. Assange sounds like a shitty house guest but Corbyn has struck a chord with his implied concern about what many particularly on the left see as an overmighty US extradition system.
A journalist blowing the whistle on illegal assassinations by the US military is quite a powerful argument. Corbyn's growing on me
So you’re willing to overlook the rape allegations against Assange, his refusal to answer questions from the Swedish authorities or the plight of the women allegedly assaulted by him.
One should no longer be surprised at the way that some people utterly disregard alleged crimes against women when the alleged perpetrator is a favourite of theirs. Disgusted certainly - but not surprised.
Do a little more research on Assange, his willingness to co-operate with the Russian authorities, with Holocaust deniers, his claims that he is facing a Jewish conspiracy against him (no I don’t understand what he’s on about either), the reasons why Trump was praising him at one point. He’s not quite the hero you or Corbyn imagine.
If Sweden still wanted to prosecute him, they could do so. They would be ahead of the US in the extradition queue
All they ever wanted to do was question him. But even that was too much for the self-regarding narcissist.
If there was an election now I think Lab would win it: Assuming they won on a Cameronesque renegotiate+referendum, Remain fans would mostly suck it up and vote for them where it counted, whereas Brexit enthusiasts are seriously miffed at the government so it's hard to see them being tactical.
However, the problem with the bet is that the Tories are somewhat in control of when the next election happens, and they won't call one unless they either think they'll win it - most likely because they get a new leader - or they completely run out of road.
Huge assumption there - that the EU would renegotiate and that Labour would offer a referendum with Remain as a choice.
The WA is closed, but a different PD is very likely under Labour.
Indeed with CU, and close alignment locked into consumer, environmental and workers rights I could live with it. Clearly inferior to full membership, but streets ahead of Boris Britain.
But the WA is a legally binding Treaty, and the PD is meaningless political bollocks. At the insistance of the EU, who have all put their requests in the first document and all the British requests in the second.
Could someone in favour of a CU arrangement please state why it's a positively good idea.
Because its better than not leaving at all ?
And after two years of Liam Fox's incompetence the notion of an independent trade policy has been rather tarnished.
A lot of leave supporters would argue that outsourcing our entire trade policy to the organisation we just left, is worse than remaining as members. As members we have a seat at the table.
The EU would negotiate our inbound tarrifs while we have no seat at the table, leaving us to negotiate tariffs applied to our own goods with each third country individually but with no leverage. I don't understand how anyone would both understand this arrangement and be in favour of it.
If there was an election now I think Lab would win it: Assuming they won on a Cameronesque renegotiate+referendum, Remain fans would mostly suck it up and vote for them where it counted, whereas Brexit enthusiasts are seriously miffed at the government so it's hard to see them being tactical.
However, the problem with the bet is that the Tories are somewhat in control of when the next election happens, and they won't call one unless they either think they'll win it - most likely because they get a new leader - or they completely run out of road.
Huge assumption there - that the EU would renegotiate and that Labour would offer a referendum with Remain as a choice.
The WA is closed, but a different PD is very likely under Labour.
Indeed with CU, and close alignment locked into consumer, environmental and workers rights I could live with it. Clearly inferior to full membership, but streets ahead of Boris Britain.
But the WA is a legally binding Treaty, and the PD is meaningless political bollocks. At the insistance of the EU, who have all put their requests in the first document and all the British requests in the second.
Could someone in favour of a CU arrangement please state why it's a positively good idea.
Sure, the Tories can not be trusted with the PD, however we are looking at the scenario of a Labour government so the PD could be safely wrapped up in a watertight agreement before the Tories could get their hands on it.
The watertight agreement is the WA, which the EU have unequivocally stated is not up for negotiation.
I really dont like Assange at alll, but 7 years in (self imposed) house arrest, followed by a year in British jails (for jumping his bail), followed by decades in US prisons, does seem excesssive, and more importantly counter productive. Who benefits from this level of punishment? To me he already looks mad, sad, and old. He looks like a man broken by his own stupidity.
Is there conclusive proof that Wikileaks led to the deaths of western agents? I confess i cant remember. But if there isn't then this is too much?
Whether he deserves extradition and any amount of imprisonment in the US is a fair question, it may well be he can construct a reasonable case to avoid the former, but I don't see how his self imposed house arrest can or should be taken into consideration when determining what might be excessive. Those 7 years could have ended at any time he chose, it seems entirely unfair to think he should get less time for any other offences because of his own choices over those 7 years.
I get that, and of course he must face justice, and I heard earlier that he might face "five years" in US jails, which is probably fair enough (I do not know the details of wikileaks to go any further to be honest)
But "decades" in American prisons? On top of all this? It is surely a reasonable question to say maybe this is a bit severe, or at least not serving the purposes of western politics, and this is a heavily politicised issue.
I agree with some other people on here, probably the best outcome is that he goes to Sweden, is charged with these sexual crimes, and then, if guilty, does his time there and then disappears into obscurity. But again I do not recall the detailed impacts of wikileaks, so maybe there is some underlying crime which deserves a much greater punishment?
Baroness Kennedy (Labour): difficult to know whether Assange can get a fair trial in the US.
She's probably right. I do wonder though whether she was as concerned about whether the NatWest Three - extradited under the Labour government's Extradition Act 2003 which presumably will apply in Assange's case - could get a fair trial in the US.
She’s not right. The issue of fair trials in the US was extensively canvassed in a number of court cases here and was rejected.
Hmm, not sure about that. Plea bargaining 'Try to defend yourself and after staying in a US jail for years you might get 50 years and you and your family will certainly be bankrupt, or plead guilty and you get 5 years' cannot possibly be a fair trial. The particular case of the NatWest Three was even worse - it was an offence allegedly committed by UK citizens in the UK against a UK bank which didn't even accept that any offence against it had been committed at all. All the evidence and witnesses were in the UK, and the defendants couldn't possibly afford to shift all the witnesses to the US even if the latter had been willing to do so.
If there was an election now I think Lab would win it: Assuming they won on a Cameronesque renegotiate+referendum, Remain fans would mostly suck it up and vote for them where it counted, whereas Brexit enthusiasts are seriously miffed at the government so it's hard to see them being tactical.
However, the problem with the bet is that the Tories are somewhat in control of when the next election happens, and they won't call one unless they either think they'll win it - most likely because they get a new leader - or they completely run out of road.
Huge assumption there - that the EU would renegotiate and that Labour would offer a referendum with Remain as a choice.
The WA is closed, but a different PD is very likely under Labour.
Indeed with CU, and close alignment locked into consumer, environmental and workers rights I could live with it. Clearly inferior to full membership, but streets ahead of Boris Britain.
But the WA is a legally binding Treaty, and the PD is meaningless political bollocks. At the insistance of the EU, who have all put their requests in the first document and all the British requests in the second.
Could someone in favour of a CU arrangement please state why it's a positively good idea.
Because its better than not leaving at all ?
And after two years of Liam Fox's incompetence the notion of an independent trade policy has been rather tarnished.
The only tangible effect of the EU on ordinary people’s way of life was mass immigration; that’s why there was never much support for a referendum before 2010, when 6 years of it began to kick in. Westminster feels as far away as Brussels, who cares where the decisions are made? Trade deals, sovereignty etc etc, I don’t think the average leave voter knows or cares, they just wanted an end to FOM, and Mays deal did that. Madness not to have voted for it
As a legal observation, the charges Assange is facing in Sweden would probably not count as rape in most countries, (while not wishing to minimise the alleged offences themselves).
Oh for God’s sake, they count as sexual assault. Have you forgotten the Me Too movement? Why the hell should women have to put up with men assaulting them just because the men in question have apparently done some other good thing?
The alleged offences were committed in Sweden, the women were in Sweden and have been pretty much ignored by people who normally preen themselves on their feminist credentials, the Swedish authorities wanted to question him (the horror) but Assange was too fucking arrogant to do what any decent human being would do. He thought the law should not apply to him. There are words to describe men like that and those who excuse or justify such behaviour. Hero is not one of those words.
I agree, and his lack of character over this issue makes me think that his motives were impure on his intelligence leaks.
Indeed. And there is quite a lot of evidence supporting what you say. The more people have looked at Assange and what he did in detail the less they have liked him and his actions.
But there are plenty of fools around who think that if someone can be painted as being anti-American they need not inquire further.
If there was an election now I think Lab would win it: Assuming they won on a Cameronesque renegotiate+referendum, Remain fans would mostly suck it up and vote for them where it counted, whereas Brexit enthusiasts are seriously miffed at the government so it's hard to see them being tactical.
However, the problem with the bet is that the Tories are somewhat in control of when the next election happens, and they won't call one unless they either think they'll win it - most likely because they get a new leader - or they completely run out of road.
Huge assumption there - that the EU would renegotiate and that Labour would offer a referendum with Remain as a choice.
I didn't say the EU would renegotiate, I said Labour would run on renegotiating.
Who would they renegotiate with if the EU wouldn’t negotiate? The Berlaymont building cat?
Look, it's not complicated.
You have an election campaign where you promise things to the voters. You win the election. Mission accomplished. Whether or not you can actually do the things you promised is something you worry about later.
If there was an election now I think Lab would win it: Assuming they won on a Cameronesque renegotiate+referendum, Remain fans would mostly suck it up and vote for them where it counted, whereas Brexit enthusiasts are seriously miffed at the government so it's hard to see them being tactical.
However, the problem with the bet is that the Tories are somewhat in control of when the next election happens, and they won't call one unless they either think they'll win it - most likely because they get a new leader - or they completely run out of road.
Huge assumption there - that the EU would renegotiate and that Labour would offer a referendum with Remain as a choice.
The WA is closed, but a different PD is very likely under Labour.
Indeed with CU, and close alignment locked into consumer, environmental and workers rights I could live with it. Clearly inferior to full membership, but streets ahead of Boris Britain.
But the WA is a legally binding Treaty, and the PD is meaningless political bollocks. At the insistance of the EU, who have all put their requests in the first document and all the British requests in the second.
Could someone in favour of a CU arrangement please state why it's a positively good idea.
Because its better than not leaving at all ?
And after two years of Liam Fox's incompetence the notion of an independent trade policy has been rather tarnished.
A lot of leave supporters would argue that outsourcing our entire trade policy to the organisation we just left, is worse than remaining as members. As members we have a seat at the table.
The EU would negotiate our inbound tarrifs while we have no seat at the table, leaving us to negotiate tariffs applied to our own goods with each third country individually but with no leverage. I don't understand how anyone would both understand this arrangement and be in favour of it.
If there was an election now I think Lab would win it: Assuming they won on a Cameronesque renegotiate+referendum, Remain fans would mostly suck it up and vote for them where it counted, whereas Brexit enthusiasts are seriously miffed at the government so it's hard to see them being tactical.
However, the problem with the bet is that the Tories are somewhat in control of when the next election happens, and they won't call one unless they either think they'll win it - most likely because they get a new leader - or they completely run out of road.
Huge assumption there - that the EU would renegotiate and that Labour would offer a referendum with Remain as a choice.
I didn't say the EU would renegotiate, I said Labour would run on renegotiating.
Who would they renegotiate with if the EU wouldn’t negotiate? The Berlaymont building cat?
Look, it's not complicated.
You have an election campaign where you promise things to the voters. You win the election. Mission accomplished. Whether or not you can actually do the things you promised is something you worry about later.
And you don’t think someone might ask during the election campaign “How can you renegotiate with someone who won’t negotiate with you?”.
If there was an election now I think Lab would win it: Assuming they won on a Cameronesque renegotiate+referendum, Remain fans would mostly suck it up and vote for them where it counted, whereas Brexit enthusiasts are seriously miffed at the government so it's hard to see them being tactical.
However, the problem with the bet is that the Tories are somewhat in control of when the next election happens, and they won't call one unless they either think they'll win it - most likely because they get a new leader - or they completely run out of road.
Huge assumption there - that the EU would renegotiate and that Labour would offer a referendum with Remain as a choice.
The WA is closed, but a different PD is very likely under Labour.
Indeed with CU, and close alignment locked into consumer, environmental and workers rights I could live with it. Clearly inferior to full membership, but streets ahead of Boris Britain.
But the WA is a legally binding Treaty, and the PD is meaningless political bollocks. At the insistance of the EU, who have all put their requests in the first document and all the British requests in the second.
Could someone in favour of a CU arrangement please state why it's a positively good idea.
Sure, the Tories can not be trusted with the PD, however we are looking at the scenario of a Labour government so the PD could be safely wrapped up in a watertight agreement before the Tories could get their hands on it.
The watertight agreement is the WA, which the EU have unequivocally stated is not up for negotiation.
A Labour government to hammer out the Final Trade Agreement is very likely to have completely different red lines though. Surely you can see that?
Hence the same WA and Starmer in charge of phase 2 is a completely different kettle of fish to the WA then Raab.
If there was an election now I think Lab would win it: Assuming they won on a Cameronesque renegotiate+referendum, Remain fans would mostly suck it up and vote for them where it counted, whereas Brexit enthusiasts are seriously miffed at the government so it's hard to see them being tactical.
However, the problem with the bet is that the Tories are somewhat in control of when the next election happens, and they won't call one unless they either think they'll win it - most likely because they get a new leader - or they completely run out of road.
Huge assumption there - that the EU would renegotiate and that Labour would offer a referendum with Remain as a choice.
I didn't say the EU would renegotiate, I said Labour would run on renegotiating.
Who would they renegotiate with if the EU wouldn’t negotiate? The Berlaymont building cat?
Look, it's not complicated.
You have an election campaign where you promise things to the voters. You win the election. Mission accomplished. Whether or not you can actually do the things you promised is something you worry about later.
Like implement Brexit you mean? I see a slight flaw with your idea - that voters buy the promises any longer.....
You seem very certain. i have only ever heard Labour talk about a “confirmatory referendum” which sounds like weasel words to me.
Sure, Corbyn is currently being weaselly. But if you had an election, and he didn't offer Remain supporters a referendum, they wouldn't vote for him. A referendum keeps the party together, and only loses some of his leave supporters. Renegotiation+referendum is the obvious play given a split party - that's why Cameron went with it.
The 'weasel' part of it is trying to make it more sellable to the Labour party/MPs/voters/potential voters not all of whom are desperate to stop Brexit and remain.
In much the same way they branded it a people's vote rather than just a 2nd referendum as it was more sellable.
Baroness Kennedy (Labour): difficult to know whether Assange can get a fair trial in the US.
She's probably right. I do wonder though whether she was as concerned about whether the NatWest Three - extradited under the Labour government's Extradition Act 2003 which presumably will apply in Assange's case - could get a fair trial in the US.
She’s not right. The issue of fair trials in the US was extensively canvassed in a number of court cases here and was rejected.
Hmm, not sure about that. Plea bargaining 'Try to defend yourself and after staying in a US jail for years you might get 50 years and you and your family will certainly be bankrupt, or plead guilty and you get 5 years' cannot possibly be a fair trial. The particular case of the NatWest Three was even worse - it was an offence allegedly committed by UK citizens in the UK against a UK bank which didn't even accept that any offence against it had been committed at all. All the evidence and witnesses were in the UK, and the defendants couldn't possibly afford to shift all the witnesses to the US even if the latter had been willing to do so.
I agree that the extradition treaty is not a good one and on the issue of the US criminal justice system which is tough.
But my point is that a number of English people who have been extradited under this treaty tried to make exactly the same argument about not being able to get a fair trial and the point was rejected by the courts. The way the Act and the Treaty are drafted makes it very hard indeed to make that point successfully. Helena Kennedy knows (or should know) that. There is enough precedent established to make it very difficult indeed for anyone to make such a claim successfully.
New party registered with the Electoral Commission, Progressive People's Party - a better name than ChangeUK?
Is that the sort of ‘progressive’ that means pretty much keeping the status quo - a party for well off liberals who want to be seen to helping the poor as long as it doesn’t cost them personally or lower their house prices?
But the WA is a legally binding Treaty, and the PD is meaningless political bollocks. At the insistance of the EU, who have all put their requests in the first document and all the British requests in the second.
Could someone in favour of a CU arrangement please state why it's a positively good idea.
Because its better than not leaving at all ?
And after two years of Liam Fox's incompetence the notion of an independent trade policy has been rather tarnished.
A lot of leave supporters would argue that outsourcing our entire trade policy to the organisation we just left, is worse than remaining as members. As members we have a seat at the table.
The EU would negotiate our inbound tarrifs while we have no seat at the table, leaving us to negotiate tariffs applied to our own goods with each third country individually but with no leverage. I don't understand how anyone would both understand this arrangement and be in favour of it.
If the alternative is not to leave the EU at all which would you chose ?
And perhaps you could name the UK politicians who would be prepared to put in the detailed work necessary to create our own trade deals.
Not leaving now is much better than being eternal supplicants, with no seat at the table, where those who do sit at the table would take huge delight in screwing the UK at every opportunity.
I am one of few on this forum who will argue that on the day after we leave, the EU will find a way to put a 'f*** the British' clause in every law they pass and every trade deal they make, just to spite us for leaving. The language used by the likes of Tusk and Junker over the past three years I think supports my thesis.
We either need to leave properly, or not at all. My personal preference would be to leave with the agreed deal with some movement on the backstop, such that we have a managed withdrawal and divergence over the next decade or so.
The problem is that the EU's first priority is to prevent that divergence.
UK politicians: Michael Gove is a good starting point.
And you don’t think someone might ask during the election campaign “How can you renegotiate with someone who won’t negotiate with you?”.
Actually they might not: I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories are running on renegotiating as well: That's still what people like David Davis are pushing. And even if they do, just keep saying they'll negotiate if you stand firm. Even the voters who think you're probably full of shit won't be that upset that you're trying, and it allows you to get through the campaign without committing to either a specific, possible brexit (wildly unpopular) or remain (loses key voters). Remainiacs will think it's bullshit but they'll put up with it as long as they're getting their referendum.
Basically there's very little electoral downside to promising the EU will do weirdly generous things for you. This is how we got the Swiss immigration referendum, Tsipras, the Greek bailout referendum, Cameron's majority, and the Brexit referendum. Obviously it's a problem once you win the vote and get to the implementation stage, as we saw with all these things, but one thing at a time...
Decent ratio for Jezza on his tweet to be fair. Assange sounds like a shitty house guest but Corbyn has struck a chord with his implied concern about what many particularly on the left see as an overmighty US extradition system.
Good to see Corbyn sticking up for Assange. The first time I've said anything positive about Jezza.
Save that we established on the previous thread that Corbyn voted for the Extradition Act which implemented the US-UK extradition treaty. There were lots of people campaigning against it precisely because of its overmighty reach but Corbyn was not one of them.
It will be very interesting if that point can be made to stick. It does seem hard to object to the principle of the apparently over generous to the US extradition treaty if he supported it himself. Did he not know what he was doing? Even if we believe that, he was far from shy from speaking his mind and voting his own way if he disagreed with his party, so when he votes for something one has to assume he backed it, not that he was just being a loyal soldier.
** waves to any journalists reading this **
Please ask Corbyn why he voted for the Extradition Act.
If there was an election now I think Lab would win it: Assuming they won on a Cameronesque renegotiate+referendum, Remain fans would mostly suck it up and vote for them where it counted, whereas Brexit enthusiasts are seriously miffed at the government so it's hard to see them being tactical.
However, the problem with the bet is that the Tories are somewhat in control of when the next election happens, and they won't call one unless they either think they'll win it - most likely because they get a new leader - or they completely run out of road.
Huge assumption there - that the EU would renegotiate and that Labour would offer a referendum with Remain as a choice.
The WA is closed, but a different PD is very likely under Labour.
Indeed with CU, and close alignment locked into consumer, environmental and workers rights I could live with it. Clearly inferior to full membership, but streets ahead of Boris Britain.
But the WA is a legally binding Treaty, and the PD is meaningless political bollocks. At the insistance of the EU, who have all put their requests in the first document and all the British requests in the second.
Could someone in favour of a CU arrangement please state why it's a positively good idea.
Sure, the Tories can not be trusted with the PD, however we are looking at the scenario of a Labour government so the PD could be safely wrapped up in a watertight agreement before the Tories could get their hands on it.
The watertight agreement is the WA, which the EU have unequivocally stated is not up for negotiation.
A Labour government to hammer out the Final Trade Agreement is very likely to have completely different red lines though. Surely you can see that?
Hence the same WA and Starmer in charge of phase 2 is a completely different kettle of fish to the WA then Raab.
So if the WA is the same, why did Labour vote against it?
I agree that the extradition treaty is not a good one and on the issue of the US criminal justice system which is tough.
But my point is that a number of English people who have been extradited under this treaty tried to make exactly the same argument about not being able to get a fair trial and the point was rejected by the courts. The way the Act and the Treaty are drafted makes it very hard indeed to make that point successfully. Helena Kennedy knows (or should know) that. There is enough precedent established to make it very difficult indeed for anyone to make such a claim successfully.
Yes, I agree with that. But I suspect she's trying to make a political, not a legal, point.
I feel like the only person who doesn't care if Assange is extradited or not. Seems like quite a few people out there are eager to use him as a proxy to express their dislike of american policy and that's the only thing that matters. It just doesn't seem like a political issue to me until the court process plays out and it lands on the Home Secretary of the day's desk. Granted there's interesting speculation based on who that might be, but it's all a bit jumping the gun
With Corbyn's latest remarks on Assange, adopting the SWP position, and deeply antagonising our major ally, this mild centrist is provoked to ask: what does Corbyn have to do to get "dealt with" by MI6?
If there is a clear and present danger to the UK, it is not Brexit (which I dislike intensely), it is Corbyn. It is therefore the job of the Deep State to remove him from the picture. The fact Corbyn sails towards power tells us that 1. the idea of a Deep State is a myth, and 2. MI6 must be staffed by inept and cowardly idiots who couldn't assassinate a chicken stuck in a shoebox.
The deep state is a myth, but I would be wary of even in jest talking of politicians being 'dealt with'.
I thought it was obvious i was parodying the paranoid views of the Corbynite left, which believes that there is some massive conspiracy to do him down, up to and including threats to his life. Evidently this is not the case or he would have been despatched months ago by a 007 hit squad, infecting him with some weird fungal disease, presumably picked up from his allotment
i am sorry if I alarmed anyone!!
The advance of Corbyn could be seen as a tribute to British democracy, I suppose. although I confess I am looking in the Silver Linings Playbook here.
If there was an election now I think Lab would win it: Assuming they won on a Cameronesque renegotiate+referendum, Remain fans would mostly suck it up and vote for them where it counted, whereas Brexit enthusiasts are seriously miffed at the government so it's hard to see them being tactical.
However, the problem with the bet is that the Tories are somewhat in control of when the next election happens, and they won't call one unless they either think they'll win it - most likely because they get a new leader - or they completely run out of road.
Huge assumption there - that the EU would renegotiate and that Labour would offer a referendum with Remain as a choice.
The WA is closed, but a different PD is very likely under Labour.
Indeed with CU, and close alignment locked into consumer, environmental and workers rights I could live with it. Clearly inferior to full membership, but streets ahead of Boris Britain.
But the WA is a legally binding Treaty, and the PD is meaningless political bollocks. At the insistance of the EU, who have all put their requests in the first document and all the British requests in the second.
Could someone in favour of a CU arrangement please state why it's a positively good idea.
Sure, the Tories can not be trusted with the PD, however we are looking at the scenario of a Labour government so the PD could be safely wrapped up in a watertight agreement before the Tories could get their hands on it.
The watertight agreement is the WA, which the EU have unequivocally stated is not up for negotiation.
A Labour government to hammer out the Final Trade Agreement is very likely to have completely different red lines though. Surely you can see that?
Hence the same WA and Starmer in charge of phase 2 is a completely different kettle of fish to the WA then Raab.
So if the WA is the same, why did Labour vote against it?
If there was an election now I think Lab would win it: Assuming they won on a Cameronesque renegotiate+referendum, Remain fans would mostly suck it up and vote for them where it counted, whereas Brexit enthusiasts are seriously miffed at the government so it's hard to see them being tactical.
However, the problem with the bet is that the Tories are somewhat in control of when the next election happens, and they won't call one unless they either think they'll win it - most likely because they get a new leader - or they completely run out of road.
Huge assumption there - that the EU would renegotiate and that Labour would offer a referendum with Remain as a choice.
The WA is closed, but a different PD is very likely under Labour.
Indeed with CU, and close alignment locked into consumer, environmental and workers rights I could live with it. Clearly inferior to full membership, but streets ahead of Boris Britain.
But the WA is a legally binding Treaty, and the PD is meaningless political bollocks. At the insistance of the EU, who have all put their requests in the first document and all the British requests in the second.
Could someone in favour of a CU arrangement please state why it's a positively good idea.
Sure, the Tories can not be trusted with the PD, however we are looking at the scenario of a Labour government so the PD could be safely wrapped up in a watertight agreement before the Tories could get their hands on it.
The watertight agreement is the WA, which the EU have unequivocally stated is not up for negotiation.
A Labour government to hammer out the Final Trade Agreement is very likely to have completely different red lines though. Surely you can see that?
Hence the same WA and Starmer in charge of phase 2 is a completely different kettle of fish to the WA then Raab.
So if the WA is the same, why did Labour vote against it?
PD
The last vote was on the WA without the PD, but Labour still voted against it.
The PD is completely meaningless in the grand scheme of things, it's up to the government of the day on both sides to negotiate the next phase of the agreement.
Except in the absence of a No Deal Brexit it is hard to see much polling evidence for Yes getting over 50% and Sturgeon is dithering almost as much as May
Hardly surprising when the SNP has been deploying most of Better Together's economic lines against Brexit.
If there was an election now I think Lab would win it: Assuming they won on a Cameronesque renegotiate+referendum, Remain fans would mostly suck it up and vote for them where it counted, whereas Brexit enthusiasts are seriously miffed at the government so it's hard to see them being tactical.
However, the problem with the bet is that the Tories are somewhat in control of when the next election happens, and they won't call one unless they either think they'll win it - most likely because they get a new leader - or they completely run out of road.
Huge assumption there - that the EU would renegotiate and that Labour would offer a referendum with Remain as a choice.
The WA is closed, but a different PD is very likely under Labour.
Indeed with CU, and close alignment locked into consumer, environmental and workers rights I could live with it. Clearly inferior to full membership, but streets ahead of Boris Britain.
But the WA is a legally binding Treaty, and the PD is meaningless political bollocks. At the insistance of the EU, who have all put their requests in the first document and all the British requests in the second.
Could someone in favour of a CU arrangement please state why it's a positively good idea.
Because 1) Conducting and concluding trade agreements is the one thing that the EU is positively, definitely, good at; 2) Although outside the CU we'd be better able to tailor deals to our own strengths, this benefit is probably roughly offset by the EU's heftier negotiating power; and 3) It will take us 10-20 years to redo all those deals anyway, so if we can get access cheaply via the EU in the meantime, we might as well.
If there was an election now I think Lab would win it: Assuming they won on a Cameronesque renegotiate+referendum, Remain fans would mostly suck it up and vote for them where it counted, whereas Brexit enthusiasts are seriously miffed at the government so it's hard to see them being tactical.
However, the problem with the bet is that the Tories are somewhat in control of when the next election happens, and they won't call one unless they either think they'll win it - most likely because they get a new leader - or they completely run out of road.
Huge assumption there - that the EU would renegotiate and that Labour would offer a referendum with Remain as a choice.
The WA is closed, but a different PD is very likely under Labour.
Indeed with CU, and close alignment locked into consumer, environmental and workers rights I could live with it. Clearly inferior to full membership, but streets ahead of Boris Britain.
But the WA is a legally binding Treaty, and the PD is meaningless political bollocks. At the insistance of the EU, who have all put their requests in the first document and all the British requests in the second.
Could someone in favour of a CU arrangement please state why it's a positively good idea.
Sure, the Tories can not be trusted with the PD, however we are looking at the scenario of a Labour government so the PD could be safely wrapped up in a watertight agreement before the Tories could get their hands on it.
The watertight agreement is the WA, which the EU have unequivocally stated is not up for negotiation.
A Labour government to hammer out the Final Trade Agreement is very likely to have completely different red lines though. Surely you can see that?
Hence the same WA and Starmer in charge of phase 2 is a completely different kettle of fish to the WA then Raab.
So if the WA is the same, why did Labour vote against it?
If there was an election now I think Lab would win it: Assuming they won on a Cameronesque renegotiate+referendum, Remain fans would mostly suck it up and vote for them where it counted, whereas Brexit enthusiasts are seriously miffed at the government so it's hard to see them being tactical.
However, the problem with the bet is that the Tories are somewhat in control of when the next election happens, and they won't call one unless they either think they'll win it - most likely because they get a new leader - or they completely run out of road.
Huge assumption there - that the EU would renegotiate and that Labour would offer a referendum with Remain as a choice.
The WA is closed, but a different PD is very likely under Labour.
Indeed with CU, and close alignment locked into consumer, environmental and workers rights I could live with it. Clearly inferior to full membership, but streets ahead of Boris Britain.
But the WA is a legally binding Treaty, and the PD is meaningless political bollocks. At the insistance of the EU, who have all put their requests in the first document and all the British requests in the second.
Could someone in favour of a CU arrangement please state why it's a positively good idea.
Sure, the Tories can not be trusted with the PD, however we are looking at the scenario of a Labour government so the PD could be safely wrapped up in a watertight agreement before the Tories could get their hands on it.
The watertight agreement is the WA, which the EU have unequivocally stated is not up for negotiation.
A Labour government to hammer out the Final Trade Agreement is very likely to have completely different red lines though. Surely you can see that?
Hence the same WA and Starmer in charge of phase 2 is a completely different kettle of fish to the WA then Raab.
So if the WA is the same, why did Labour vote against it?
Its all about control of the next phase. The WA without control of the next phase is handing the Tories a loaded gun. The WA but Labour controlling the next phase is keeping control of the gun. Can you really not understand this?
Lab is right to vote against the WA unless in control of the next phase. It is that simple.
A Labour government to hammer out the Final Trade Agreement is very likely to have completely different red lines though. Surely you can see that?
Hence the same WA and Starmer in charge of phase 2 is a completely different kettle of fish to the WA then Raab.
It's not obvious what would be different. If anything it looks as though Labour's policy is for a looser arrangement with the EU. The Labour manifesto promised that "Freedom of Movement would end". It talked of doing its own trade deals, promising that it would "work with global trading partners to develop ‘best-in-class’ free trade and investment agreements that remove trade barriers and promote skilled jobs and high standards." It said it would "safeguard the capacity for public bodies to make procurement decisions in keeping with public policy objectives", and that it would ensure that "future trade deals safeguard the right to regulate in the public interest and to protect public services", which can only mean being outside the EU public procurement and state-subsidy rules.
If there was an election now I think Lab would win it: Assuming they won on a Cameronesque renegotiate+referendum, Remain fans would mostly suck it up and vote for them where it counted, whereas Brexit enthusiasts are seriously miffed at the government so it's hard to see them being tactical.
However, the problem with the bet is that the Tories are somewhat in control of when the next election happens, and they won't call one unless they either think they'll win it - most likely because they get a new leader - or they completely run out of road.
Huge assumption there - that the EU would renegotiate and that Labour would offer a referendum with Remain as a choice.
The WA is closed, but a different PD is very likely under Labour.
Indeed with CU, and close alignment locked into consumer, environmental and workers rights I could live with it. Clearly inferior to full membership, but streets ahead of Boris Britain.
But the WA is a legally binding Treaty, and the PD is meaningless political bollocks. At the insistance of the EU, who have all put their requests in the first document and all the British requests in the second.
Could someone in favour of a CU arrangement please state why it's a positively good idea.
Because 1) Conducting and concluding trade agreements is the one thing that the EU is positively, definitely, good at; 2) Although outside the CU we'd be better able to tailor deals to our own strengths, this benefit is probably roughly offset by the EU's heftier negotiating power; and 3) It will take us 10-20 years to redo all those deals anyway, so if we can get access cheaply via the EU in the meantime, we might as well.
But the EU deals wouldn’t apply to UK exports, only to UK imports. Ask Turkey what they think about that sort of arrangement with the EU. We’d have to pay duty on British cars exported to Japan, while Japanese cars come to the UK duty free, as they closed down their factories in the UK, with no UK say in that arrangement.
New party registered with the Electoral Commission, Progressive People's Party - a better name than ChangeUK?
Is that the sort of ‘progressive’ that means pretty much keeping the status quo - a party for well off liberals who want to be seen to helping the poor as long as it doesn’t cost them personally or lower their house prices?
Probably. Progressive, much like liberal, sometimes seems to mean just 'good' to some. Not that i trust political self designations on the other side.
A Labour government to hammer out the Final Trade Agreement is very likely to have completely different red lines though. Surely you can see that?
Hence the same WA and Starmer in charge of phase 2 is a completely different kettle of fish to the WA then Raab.
It's not obvious what would be different. If anything it looks as though Labour's policy is for a looser arrangement with the EU. The Labour manifesto promised that "Freedom of Movement would end". It talked of doing its own trade deals, promising that it would "work with global trading partners to develop ‘best-in-class’ free trade and investment agreements that remove trade barriers and promote skilled jobs and high standards." It said it would "safeguard the capacity for public bodies to make procurement decisions in keeping with public policy objectives", and that it would ensure that "future trade deals safeguard the right to regulate in the public interest and to protect public services", which can only mean being outside the EU public procurement and state-subsidy rules.
The fact that you cannot understand my simple point explains why May keeps losing Meaningful Votes. No matter how many times I explain it to you, I cannot understand it for you. Tories are not to be trusted with the next phase, they have said so themselves.
If there was an election now I think Lab would win it: Assuming they won on a Cameronesque renegotiate+referendum, Remain fans would mostly suck it up and vote for them where it counted, whereas Brexit enthusiasts are seriously miffed at the government so it's hard to see them being tactical.
However, the problem with the bet is that the Tories are somewhat in control of when the next election happens, and they won't call one unless they either think they'll win it - most likely because they get a new leader - or they completely run out of road.
Huge assumption there - that the EU would renegotiate and that Labour would offer a referendum with Remain as a choice.
The WA is closed, but a different PD is very likely under Labour.
Indeed with CU, and close alignment locked into consumer, environmental and workers rights I could live with it. Clearly inferior to full membership, but streets ahead of Boris Britain.
But the WA is a legally binding Treaty, and the PD is meaningless political bollocks. At the insistance of the EU, who have all put their requests in the first document and all the British requests in the second.
Could someone in favour of a CU arrangement please state why it's a positively good idea.
Sure, the Tories can not be trusted with the PD, however we are looking at the scenario of a Labour government so the PD could be safely wrapped up in a watertight agreement before the Tories could get their hands on it.
The watertight agreement is the WA, which the EU have unequivocally stated is not up for negotiation.
A Labour government to hammer out the Final Trade Agreement is very likely to have completely different red lines though. Surely you can see that?
Hence the same WA and Starmer in charge of phase 2 is a completely different kettle of fish to the WA then Raab.
So if the WA is the same, why did Labour vote against it?
PD
The last vote was on the WA without the PD, but Labour still voted against it.
The PD is completely meaningless in the grand scheme of things, it's up to the government of the day on both sides to negotiate the next phase of the agreement.
Any third referendum (if we must have another one of the fuckers - I would prefer to Leave into EFTA) must be Remain vs Deal. Anything else is a joke.
Known and Available Remain vs Known and Available Leave is a gigantic improvement on Referendum II: Cameron’s Folly, which was Known Remain vs Project Onto It Whatever Takes Your Fucking Fancy Leave.
But, better no more referendums, which are steaming piles of pigshit, amplified, and spread into every orifice of the masses.
A Labour government to hammer out the Final Trade Agreement is very likely to have completely different red lines though. Surely you can see that?
Hence the same WA and Starmer in charge of phase 2 is a completely different kettle of fish to the WA then Raab.
It's not obvious what would be different. If anything it looks as though Labour's policy is for a looser arrangement with the EU. The Labour manifesto promised that "Freedom of Movement would end". It talked of doing its own trade deals, promising that it would "work with global trading partners to develop ‘best-in-class’ free trade and investment agreements that remove trade barriers and promote skilled jobs and high standards." It said it would "safeguard the capacity for public bodies to make procurement decisions in keeping with public policy objectives", and that it would ensure that "future trade deals safeguard the right to regulate in the public interest and to protect public services", which can only mean being outside the EU public procurement and state-subsidy rules.
The fact that you cannot understand my simple point explains why May keeps losing Meaningful Votes. No matter how many times I explain it to you, I cannot understand it for you. Tories are not to be trusted with the next phase, they have said so themselves.
I understand perfectly. You are saying that Labour are completely cynical and will not support any deal which the government supports, even a deal which is 100% in accordance with their own stated policies. I agree with you that this likely.
More than we'll be able to say about UK the Conservative Party anytime soon...
It's still very difficult to say which of the main two parties will get most votes at both the local elections and the Euro elections, which makes those elections all the more interesting.
In raw terms, the Conservatives will gain the most votes in the local elections, due to the nature of the seats being fought, and the number of candidates. But, that's different to National Equivalent Vote share.
What's more, this year's contests are heavily skewed towards Leave-voting England, with about 6,800 out of 8,347 seats in authorities that voted Leave. That won't spare the Conservatives from the anger of Leave voters, but will probably limit the appeal of Labour and the Lib Dems in such seats.
More than we'll be able to say about UK the Conservative Party anytime soon...
It's still very difficult to say which of the main two parties will get most votes at both the local elections and the Euro elections, which makes those elections all the more interesting.
In raw terms, the Conservatives will gain the most votes in the local elections, due to the nature of the seats being fought, and the number of candidates. But, that's different to National Equivalent Vote share.
What's more, this year's contests are heavily skewed towards Leave-voting England, with about 6,800 out of 8,347 seats in authorities that voted Leave. That won't spare the Conservatives from the anger of Leave voters, but will probably limit the appeal of Labour and the Lib Dems in such seats.
Also, Nigel Farage's new gang aren't contesting those seats, and UKIP are much diminished. So it's not as though there's a clear alternative receptacle for disgruntled Tory voters. I expect that the carnage won't be too bad in seat terms, but on a much diminished absolute number of Conservative votes (and low turnout generally).
More than we'll be able to say about UK the Conservative Party anytime soon...
It's still very difficult to say which of the main two parties will get most votes at both the local elections and the Euro elections, which makes those elections all the more interesting.
In raw terms, the Conservatives will gain the most votes in the local elections, due to the nature of the seats being fought, and the number of candidates. But, that's different to National Equivalent Vote share.
What's more, this year's contests are heavily skewed towards Leave-voting England, with about 6,800 out of 8,347 seats in authorities that voted Leave. That won't spare the Conservatives from the anger of Leave voters, but will probably limit the appeal of Labour and the Lib Dems in such seats.
Also, Nigel Farage's new gang aren't contesting those seats, and UKIP are much diminished. So it's not as though there's a clear alternative receptacle for disgruntled Tory voters. I expect that the carnage won't be too bad in seat terms, but on a much diminished absolute number of Conservative votes (and low turnout generally).
I think the Conservatives will suffer from abstentions, but better abstentions than former supporters going out to vote for the opposition.
Another oddity is that a lot of the Remain-voting seats are in the Stockbroker Belt, where the Conservatives probably face their fiercest opposition from Residents.
If there was an election now I think Lab would win it: Assuming they won on a Cameronesque renegotiate+referendum, Remain fans would mostly suck it up and vote for them where it counted, whereas Brexit enthusiasts are seriously miffed at the government so it's hard to see them being tactical.
However, the problem with the bet is that the Tories are somewhat in control of when the next election happens, and they won't call one unless they either think they'll win it - most likely because they get a new leader - or they completely run out of road.
Huge assumption there - that the EU would renegotiate and that Labour would offer a referendum with Remain as a choice.
The WA is closed, but a different PD is very likely under Labour.
Indeed with CU, and close alignment locked into consumer, environmental and workers rights I could live with it. Clearly inferior to full membership, but streets ahead of Boris Britain.
But the WA is a legally binding Treaty, and the PD is meaningless political bollocks. At the insistance of the EU, who have all put their requests in the first document and all the British requests in the second.
Could someone in favour of a CU arrangement please state why it's a positively good idea.
Because 1) Conducting and concluding trade agreements is the one thing that the EU is positively, definitely, good at; 2) Although outside the CU we'd be better able to tailor deals to our own strengths, this benefit is probably roughly offset by the EU's heftier negotiating power; and 3) It will take us 10-20 years to redo all those deals anyway, so if we can get access cheaply via the EU in the meantime, we might as well.
But the EU deals wouldn’t apply to UK exports, only to UK imports. Ask Turkey what they think about that sort of arrangement with the EU. We’d have to pay duty on British cars exported to Japan, while Japanese cars come to the UK duty free, as they closed down their factories in the UK, with no UK say in that arrangement.
I know that’s the situation with the Turkish deal but is it a requirement of all customs unions?
I’m sure we could design something that worked. But I suspect the EU will demand FoM
If there was an election now I think Lab would win it: Assuming they won on a Cameronesque renegotiate+referendum, Remain fans would mostly suck it up and vote for them where it counted, whereas Brexit enthusiasts are seriously miffed at the government so it's hard to see them being tactical.
However, the problem with the bet is that the Tories are somewhat in control of when the next election happens, and they won't call one unless they either think they'll win it - most likely because they get a new leader - or they completely run out of road.
Huge assumption there - that the EU would renegotiate and that Labour would offer a referendum with Remain as a choice.
The WA is closed, but a different PD is very likely under Labour.
Indeed with CU, and close alignment locked into consumer, environmental and workers rights I could live with it. Clearly inferior to full membership, but streets ahead of Boris Britain.
But the WA is a legally binding Treaty, and the PD is meaningless political bollocks. At the insistance of the EU, who have all put their requests in the first document and all the British requests in the second.
Could someone in favour of a CU arrangement please state why it's a positively good idea.
Sure, the Tories can not be trusted with the PD, however we are looking at the scenario of a Labour government so the PD could be safely wrapped up in a watertight agreement before the Tories could get their hands on it.
The watertight agreement is the WA, which the EU have unequivocally stated is not up for negotiation.
A Labour government to hammer out the Final Trade Agreement is very likely to have completely different red lines though. Surely you can see that?
Hence the same WA and Starmer in charge of phase 2 is a completely different kettle of fish to the WA then Raab.
So if the WA is the same, why did Labour vote against it?
PD
The last vote was on the WA without the PD, but Labour still voted against it.
The PD is completely meaningless in the grand scheme of things, it's up to the government of the day on both sides to negotiate the next phase of the agreement.
A Labour government to hammer out the Final Trade Agreement is very likely to have completely different red lines though. Surely you can see that?
Hence the same WA and Starmer in charge of phase 2 is a completely different kettle of fish to the WA then Raab.
Yes, the EU have said repeatedly that if a customs agreement was no longer a red line, they'd be happy to reopen talks. That said, I think that although they'd be pleased to sign up to that and other political agreement things, they'd hesitate to go back to redo the WA.
As for whether Labour would offer a confirmatory vote - yes, I think so. When it comes to election planning, McDonnell is very much in the driving seat, and he's keen on it for its own sake (he's much more explicitly a Remainer than JC) and also as a vote-winner. There are IMO quite a lot of anti-Corbyn Remainers who feel they could tolerate a few years of JC if it meant they had a shot at staying in the EU for good.
If there was an election now I think Lab would win it: Assuming they won on a Cameronesque renegotiate+referendum, Remain fans would mostly suck it up and vote for them where it counted, whereas Brexit enthusiasts are seriously miffed at the government so it's hard to see them being tactical.
However, the problem with the bet is that the Tories are somewhat in control of when the next election happens, and they won't call one unless they either think they'll win it - most likely because they get a new leader - or they completely run out of road.
Huge assumption there - that the EU would renegotiate and that Labour would offer a referendum with Remain as a choice.
The WA is closed, but a different PD is very likely under Labour.
Indeed with CU, and close alignment locked into consumer, environmental and workers rights I could live with it. Clearly inferior to full membership, but streets ahead of Boris Britain.
But the WA is a legally binding Treaty, and the PD is meaningless political bollocks. At the insistance of the EU, who have all put their requests in the first document and all the British requests in the second.
Could someone in favour of a CU arrangement please state why it's a positively good idea.
Because 1) Conducting and concluding trade agreements is the one thing that the EU is positively, definitely, good at; 2) Although outside the CU we'd be better able to tailor deals to our own strengths, this benefit is probably roughly offset by the EU's heftier negotiating power; and 3) It will take us 10-20 years to redo all those deals anyway, so if we can get access cheaply via the EU in the meantime, we might as well.
But the EU deals wouldn’t apply to UK exports, only to UK imports. Ask Turkey what they think about that sort of arrangement with the EU. We’d have to pay duty on British cars exported to Japan, while Japanese cars come to the UK duty free, as they closed down their factories in the UK, with no UK say in that arrangement.
I know that’s the situation with the Turkish deal but is it a requirement of all customs unions?
I’m sure we could design something that worked. But I suspect the EU will demand FoM
It's what the EU have offered - quite enthusiastically, for obvious reasons.
*The* full EU Customs Union has no chance of being offered to a non member without EU Treaty changes. And still doesn't solve the Northern Ireland problem. And still wouldn't give us a seat at the table after we leave.
If there was an election now I think Lab would win it: Assuming they won on a Cameronesque renegotiate+referendum, Remain fans would mostly suck it up and vote for them where it counted, whereas Brexit enthusiasts are seriously miffed at the government so it's hard to see them being tactical.
However, the problem with the bet is that the Tories are somewhat in control of when the next election happens, and they won't call one unless they either think they'll win it - most likely because they get a new leader - or they completely run out of road.
Huge assumption there - that the EU would renegotiate and that Labour would offer a referendum with Remain as a choice.
The WA is closed, but a different PD is very likely under Labour.
Indeed with CU, and close alignment locked into consumer, environmental and workers rights I could live with it. Clearly inferior to full membership, but streets ahead of Boris Britain.
But the WA is a legally binding Treaty, and the PD is meaningless political bollocks. At the insistance of the EU, who have all put their requests in the first document and all the British requests in the second.
Could someone in favour of a CU arrangement please state why it's a positively good idea.
Because 1) Conducting and concluding trade agreements is the one thing that the EU is positively, definitely, good at; 2) Although outside the CU we'd be better able to tailor deals to our own strengths, this benefit is probably roughly offset by the EU's heftier negotiating power; and 3) It will take us 10-20 years to redo all those deals anyway, so if we can get access cheaply via the EU in the meantime, we might as well.
But the EU deals wouldn’t apply to UK exports, only to UK imports. Ask Turkey what they think about that sort of arrangement with the EU. We’d have to pay duty on British cars exported to Japan, while Japanese cars come to the UK duty free, as they closed down their factories in the UK, with no UK say in that arrangement.
I know that’s the situation with the Turkish deal but is it a requirement of all customs unions?
I’m sure we could design something that worked. But I suspect the EU will demand FoM
What exactly is wrong with freedom of movement? CU+SM is clearly the way to go, respects Referendum II yet strikes a decent compromise and protects the economy.
Landing the main core is a huge engineering achievement given its huge kinetic energy coming in.
At launch it weighs 1400 tonnes, and in under a minute it's doing 600mph. Only then, after breaking the sound barrier, do they dare give the engines the beans.. After that it's doing the equivalent delta of 0-60 in 1 second, every second, for almost a minute.
More than we'll be able to say about UK the Conservative Party anytime soon...
It's still very difficult to say which of the main two parties will get most votes at both the local elections and the Euro elections, which makes those elections all the more interesting.
In raw terms, the Conservatives will gain the most votes in the local elections, due to the nature of the seats being fought, and the number of candidates. But, that's different to National Equivalent Vote share.
What's more, this year's contests are heavily skewed towards Leave-voting England, with about 6,800 out of 8,347 seats in authorities that voted Leave. That won't spare the Conservatives from the anger of Leave voters, but will probably limit the appeal of Labour and the Lib Dems in such seats.
Also, Nigel Farage's new gang aren't contesting those seats, and UKIP are much diminished. So it's not as though there's a clear alternative receptacle for disgruntled Tory voters. I expect that the carnage won't be too bad in seat terms, but on a much diminished absolute number of Conservative votes (and low turnout generally).
I expect independents and small parties to do very well as there will be millions like me for whom it will be a case of not voting for any of the main parties. That combined with refusing to vote at all should make this a very interesting set of results. It would be nice if the turnout was the lowest on record for local elections.
If there was an election now I think Lab would win it: Assuming they won on a Cameronesque renegotiate+referendum, Remain fans would mostly suck it up and vote for them where it counted, whereas Brexit enthusiasts are seriously miffed at the government so it's hard to see them being tactical.
However, the problem with the bet is that the Tories are somewhat in control of when the next election happens, and they won't call one unless they either think they'll win it - most likely because they get a new leader - or they completely run out of road.
Huge assumption there - that the EU would renegotiate and that Labour would offer a referendum with Remain as a choice.
The WA is closed, but a different PD is very likely under Labour.
Indeed with CU, and close alignment locked into consumer, environmental and workers rights I could live with it. Clearly inferior to full membership, but streets ahead of Boris Britain.
But the WA is a legally binding Treaty, and the PD is meaningless political bollocks. At the insistance of the EU, who have all put their requests in the first document and all the British requests in the second.
Could someone in favour of a CU arrangement please state why it's a positively good idea.
Because 1) Conducting and concluding trade agreements is the one thing that the EU is positively, definitely, good at; 2) Although outside the CU we'd be better able to tailor deals to our own strengths, this benefit is probably roughly offset by the EU's heftier negotiating power; and 3) It will take us 10-20 years to redo all those deals anyway, so if we can get access cheaply via the EU in the meantime, we might as well.
But the EU deals wouldn’t apply to UK exports, only to UK imports. Ask Turkey what they think about that sort of arrangement with the EU. We’d have to pay duty on British cars exported to Japan, while Japanese cars come to the UK duty free, as they closed down their factories in the UK, with no UK say in that arrangement.
I know that’s the situation with the Turkish deal but is it a requirement of all customs unions?
I’m sure we could design something that worked. But I suspect the EU will demand FoM
What exactly is wrong with freedom of movement? CU+SM is clearly the way to go, respects Referendum II yet strikes a decent compromise and protects the economy.
One of May's mad red lines. Particularly mad as immigration from the rest of the world, for better or worse, is never ever reduced by the government at any time.
Landing the main core is a huge engineering achievement given its huge kinetic energy coming in.
(Reviews the tape) Centre stage separation occurred with a forward speed of 10,730km/h and at an altitude of 102km. That's massively impressive to get it down. The drone ship was 530km from the launch site, and the flight time of the centre stage was just under 10 minutes.
If there was an election now I think Lab would win it: Assuming they won on a Cameronesque renegotiate+referendum, Remain fans would mostly suck it up and vote for them where it counted, whereas Brexit enthusiasts are seriously miffed at the government so it's hard to see them being tactical.
However, the problem with the bet is that the Tories are somewhat in control of when the next election happens, and they won't call one unless they either think they'll win it - most likely because they get a new leader - or they completely run out of road.
Huge assumption there - that the EU would renegotiate and that Labour would offer a referendum with Remain as a choice.
The WA is closed, but a different PD is very likely under Labour.
Indeed with CU, and close alignment locked into consumer, environmental and workers rights I could live with it. Clearly inferior to full membership, but streets ahead of Boris Britain.
But the WA is a legally binding Treaty, and the PD is meaningless political bollocks. At the insistance of the EU, who have all put their requests in the first document and all the British requests in the second.
Could someone in favour of a CU arrangement please state why it's a positively good idea.
Because 1) Conducting and concluding trade agreements is the one thing that the EU is positively, definitely, good at; 2) Although outside the CU we'd be better able to tailor deals to our own strengths, this benefit is probably roughly offset by the EU's heftier negotiating power; and 3) It will take us 10-20 years to redo all those deals anyway, so if we can get access cheaply via the EU in the meantime, we might as well.
But the EU deals wouldn’t apply to UK exports, only to UK imports. Ask Turkey what they think about that sort of arrangement with the EU. We’d have to pay duty on British cars exported to Japan, while Japanese cars come to the UK duty free, as they closed down their factories in the UK, with no UK say in that arrangement.
I know that’s the situation with the Turkish deal but is it a requirement of all customs unions?
I’m sure we could design something that worked. But I suspect the EU will demand FoM
What exactly is wrong with freedom of movement? CU+SM is clearly the way to go, respects Referendum II yet strikes a decent compromise and protects the economy.
Ye, Common Powell Kinnock Boles is clearly the best route. We need to leave - but the economic part of the EU has massive benefits.
A customs union is the EU's preferred solution to the Irish border. For that reason only, it would be a two way arrangement applying to both imports and exports. I doubt they'd be willing to even consider any form of customs union with the UK in the absence of the Irish border question.
As the backstop shows, their price for a CU is likely regulatory alignment, which is something they desperately want anyway for different reasons.
Landing the main core is a huge engineering achievement given its huge kinetic energy coming in.
At launch it weighs 1400 tonnes, and in under a minute it's doing 600mph. Only then, after breaking the sound barrier, do they dare give the engines the beans.. After that it's doing the equivalent delta of 0-60 in 1 second, every second, for almost a minute.
My favourite Saturn V stat, was that the vehicle had lost 8% of its total mass at the point where the engines cleared the top of the tower!
A customs union is the EU's preferred solution to the Irish border. For that reason only, it would be a two way arrangement applying to both imports and exports. I doubt they'd be willing to even consider any form of customs union with the UK in the absence of the Irish border question.
As the backstop shows, their price for a CU is likely regulatory alignment, which is something they desperately want anyway for different reasons.
Two way between the UK and EU, but very much one way with EU third party trade deals.
If there was an election now I think Lab would win it: Assuming they won on a Cameronesque renegotiate+referendum, Remain fans would mostly suck it up and vote for them where it counted, whereas Brexit enthusiasts are seriously miffed at the government so it's hard to see them being tactical.
However, the problem with the bet is that the Tories are somewhat in control of when the next election happens, and they won't call one unless they either think they'll win it - most likely because they get a new leader - or they completely run out of road.
Huge assumption there - that the EU would renegotiate and that Labour would offer a referendum with Remain as a choice.
The WA is closed, but a different PD is very likely under Labour.
Indeed with CU, and close alignment locked into consumer, environmental and workers rights I could live with it. Clearly inferior to full membership, but streets ahead of Boris Britain.
But the WA is a legally binding Treaty, and the PD is meaningless political bollocks. At the insistance of the EU, who have all put their requests in the first document and all the British requests in the second.
Could someone in favour of a CU arrangement please state why it's a positively good idea.
Because 1) Conducting and concluding trade agreements is the one thing that the EU is positively, definitely, good at; 2) Although outside the CU we'd be better able to tailor deals to our own strengths, this benefit is probably roughly offset by the EU's heftier negotiating power; and 3) It will take us 10-20 years to redo all those deals anyway, so if we can get access cheaply via the EU in the meantime, we might as well.
But the EU deals wouldn’t apply to UK exports, only to UK imports. Ask Turkey what they think about that sort of arrangement with the EU. We’d have to pay duty on British cars exported to Japan, while Japanese cars come to the UK duty free, as they closed down their factories in the UK, with no UK say in that arrangement.
I know that’s the situation with the Turkish deal but is it a requirement of all customs unions?
I’m sure we could design something that worked. But I suspect the EU will demand FoM
What exactly is wrong with freedom of movement? CU+SM is clearly the way to go, respects Referendum II yet strikes a decent compromise and protects the economy.
Referndum II? Is that Referendum I revoke? Did I miss that?
Tory members tend hard right and are few in number. It would be funny if they vote against their own party to vote for one that - amazing as it might seem - is even more incompetent.
Tory members tend hard right and are few in number. It would be funny if they vote against their own party to vote for one that - amazing as it might seem - is even more incompetent.
If there was an election now I think Lab would win it: Assuming they won on a Cameronesque renegotiate+referendum, Remain fans would mostly suck it up and vote for them where it counted, whereas Brexit enthusiasts are seriously miffed at the government so it's hard to see them being tactical.
However, the problem with the bet is that the Tories are somewhat in control of when the next election happens, and they won't call one unless they either think they'll win it - most likely because they get a new leader - or they completely run out of road.
Huge assumption there - that the EU would renegotiate and that Labour would offer a referendum with Remain as a choice.
The WA is closed, but a different PD is very likely under Labour.
Indeed with CU, and close alignment locked into consumer, environmental and workers rights I could live with it. Clearly inferior to full membership, but streets ahead of Boris Britain.
But the WA is a legally binding Treaty, and the PD is meaningless political bollocks. At the insistance of the EU, who have all put their requests in the first document and all the British requests in the second.
Could someone in favour of a CU arrangement please state why it's a positively good idea.
Because 1) Conducting and concluding trade agreements is the one thing that the EU is positively, definitely, good at; 2) Although outside the CU we'd be better able to tailor deals to our own strengths, this benefit is probably roughly offset by the EU's heftier negotiating power; and 3) It will take us 10-20 years to redo all those deals anyway, so if we can get access cheaply via the EU in the meantime, we might as well.
But the EU deals wouldn’t apply to UK exports, only to UK imports. Ask Turkey what they think about that sort of arrangement with the EU. We’d have to pay duty on British cars exported to Japan, while Japanese cars come to the UK duty free, as they closed down their factories in the UK, with no UK say in that arrangement.
Yeah, the Turkey setup is an abomination. As I understand it (I may be wrong), the CU is infinitely better than a CU, and the deal only works if we can negotiate some magical bespoke arrangement which doesn't screw us over like Turkey. We don't need a say in new negotiations (it's not like we had a voice beforehand), just to preserve the status quo, minus our fees and our pretend seat at the table.
Latest poll very tight though, Conservatives 34.9%, Liberals 32.8% which almost certainly means the Liberals lose their majority but a hung Parliament not a Tory majority.
Mainstreet Research also has the Conservatives comfortably ahead in Alberta and the Prairies and the Liberals comfortably ahead in Quebec but it is close in British Columbia where the Conservatives narrowly lead and marginal seat rich Ontario, where the Liberals still hold a narrow lead and the Atlantic states
Like Australia which votes next month it still looks pretty close and Trudeau tends to retain a narrow lead as preferred PM
If there was an election now I think Lab would win it: Assuming they won on a Cameronesque renegotiate+referendum, Remain fans would mostly suck it up and vote for them where it counted, whereas Brexit enthusiasts are seriously miffed at the government so it's hard to see them being tactical.
However, the problem with the bet is that the Tories are somewhat in control of when the next election happens, and they won't call one unless they either think they'll win it - most likely because they get a new leader - or they completely run out of road.
Huge assumption there - that the EU would renegotiate and that Labour would offer a referendum with Remain as a choice.
The WA is closed, but a different PD is very likely under Labour.
Indeed with CU, and close alignment locked into consumer, environmental and workers rights I could live with it. Clearly inferior to full membership, but streets ahead of Boris Britain.
But the WA is a legally binding Treaty, and the PD is meaningless political bollocks. At the insistance of the EU, who have all put their requests in the first document and all the British requests in the second.
Could someone in favour of a CU arrangement please state why it's a positively good idea.
Because 1) Conducting and concluding trade agreements is the one thing that the EU is positively, definitely, good at; 2) Although outside the CU we'd be better able to tailor deals to our own strengths, this benefit is probably roughly offset by the EU's heftier negotiating power; and 3) It will take us 10-20 years to redo all those deals anyway, so if we can get access cheaply via the EU in the meantime, we might as well.
But the EU deals wouldn’t apply to UK exports, only to UK imports. Ask Turkey what they think about that sort of arrangement with the EU. We’d have to pay duty on British cars exported to Japan, while Japanese cars come to the UK duty free, as they closed down their factories in the UK, with no UK say in that arrangement.
I know that’s the situation with the Turkish deal but is it a requirement of all customs unions?
I’m sure we could design something that worked. But I suspect the EU will demand FoM
What exactly is wrong with freedom of movement? CU+SM is clearly the way to go, respects Referendum II yet strikes a decent compromise and protects the economy.
Referndum II? Is that Referendum I revoke? Did I miss that?
Tory members tend hard right and are few in number. It would be funny if they vote against their own party to vote for one that - amazing as it might seem - is even more incompetent.
A matter for laughing, not crying.
If you think this attitude is limited to Tory members then you are in for a shock.
Comments
And the answer is not leave with deal vs leave with no deal. The latter is so barmy it shouldn't be on the table at all.
The alleged offences were committed in Sweden, the women were in Sweden and have been pretty much ignored by people who normally preen themselves on their feminist credentials, the Swedish authorities wanted to question him (the horror) but Assange was too fucking arrogant to do what any decent human being would do. He thought the law should not apply to him. There are words to describe men like that and those who excuse or justify such behaviour. Hero is not one of those words.
She’s not right. The issue of fair trials in the US was extensively canvassed in a number of court cases here and was rejected.
The EU would negotiate our inbound tarrifs while we have no seat at the table, leaving us to negotiate tariffs applied to our own goods with each third country individually but with no leverage. I don't understand how anyone would both understand this arrangement and be in favour of it.
Remainer former trade minister -->> https://www.greghands.com/news/five-main-reasons-why-eu-customs-union-would-be-worst-choice-all
Night all.
But "decades" in American prisons? On top of all this? It is surely a reasonable question to say maybe this is a bit severe, or at least not serving the purposes of western politics, and this is a heavily politicised issue.
I agree with some other people on here, probably the best outcome is that he goes to Sweden, is charged with these sexual crimes, and then, if guilty, does his time there and then disappears into obscurity. But again I do not recall the detailed impacts of wikileaks, so maybe there is some underlying crime which deserves a much greater punishment?
But there are plenty of fools around who think that if someone can be painted as being anti-American they need not inquire further.
You have an election campaign where you promise things to the voters. You win the election. Mission accomplished. Whether or not you can actually do the things you promised is something you worry about later.
And perhaps you could name the UK politicians who would be prepared to put in the detailed work necessary to create our own trade deals.
Hence the same WA and Starmer in charge of phase 2 is a completely different kettle of fish to the WA then Raab.
In much the same way they branded it a people's vote rather than just a 2nd referendum as it was more sellable.
But my point is that a number of English people who have been extradited under this treaty tried to make exactly the same argument about not being able to get a fair trial and the point was rejected by the courts. The way the Act and the Treaty are drafted makes it very hard indeed to make that point successfully. Helena Kennedy knows (or should know) that. There is enough precedent established to make it very difficult indeed for anyone to make such a claim successfully.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1116464175960743937
I am one of few on this forum who will argue that on the day after we leave, the EU will find a way to put a 'f*** the British' clause in every law they pass and every trade deal they make, just to spite us for leaving. The language used by the likes of Tusk and Junker over the past three years I think supports my thesis.
We either need to leave properly, or not at all. My personal preference would be to leave with the agreed deal with some movement on the backstop, such that we have a managed withdrawal and divergence over the next decade or so.
The problem is that the EU's first priority is to prevent that divergence.
UK politicians: Michael Gove is a good starting point.
If it goes to plan we'll see another two rockets landing back side by side!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXMGu2d8c8g
Basically there's very little electoral downside to promising the EU will do weirdly generous things for you. This is how we got the Swiss immigration referendum, Tsipras, the Greek bailout referendum, Cameron's majority, and the Brexit referendum. Obviously it's a problem once you win the vote and get to the implementation stage, as we saw with all these things, but one thing at a time...
Please ask Corbyn why he voted for the Extradition Act.
** stops waving **
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candida_auris
The PD is completely meaningless in the grand scheme of things, it's up to the government of the day on both sides to negotiate the next phase of the agreement.
1) Conducting and concluding trade agreements is the one thing that the EU is positively, definitely, good at;
2) Although outside the CU we'd be better able to tailor deals to our own strengths, this benefit is probably roughly offset by the EU's heftier negotiating power; and
3) It will take us 10-20 years to redo all those deals anyway, so if we can get access cheaply via the EU in the meantime, we might as well.
Lab is right to vote against the WA unless in control of the next phase. It is that simple.
https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/negotiating-brexit/
That is a pretty good photo,Corbyn's stare is indeed memorable.
It isn't that they didn't want a PD but a particular PD.
Known and Available Remain vs Known and Available Leave is a gigantic improvement on Referendum II: Cameron’s Folly, which was Known Remain vs Project Onto It Whatever Takes Your Fucking Fancy Leave.
But, better no more referendums, which are steaming piles of pigshit, amplified, and spread into every orifice of the masses.
What's more, this year's contests are heavily skewed towards Leave-voting England, with about 6,800 out of 8,347 seats in authorities that voted Leave. That won't spare the Conservatives from the anger of Leave voters, but will probably limit the appeal of Labour and the Lib Dems in such seats.
"Pete Buttigieg Isn’t Just Winning Over People on the Internet"
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/04/buttigieg-media-sensation-presidential-campaign/586858/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXMGu2d8c8g
Space is cool.
Another oddity is that a lot of the Remain-voting seats are in the Stockbroker Belt, where the Conservatives probably face their fiercest opposition from Residents.
I’m sure we could design something that worked. But I suspect the EU will demand FoM
Do I have that right?
*The* full EU Customs Union has no chance of being offered to a non member without EU Treaty changes. And still doesn't solve the Northern Ireland problem. And still wouldn't give us a seat at the table after we leave.
F1 starts in three hours, so time for some sleep!
Centre stage separation occurred with a forward speed of 10,730km/h and at an altitude of 102km. That's massively impressive to get it down. The drone ship was 530km from the launch site, and the flight time of the centre stage was just under 10 minutes.
We need to leave - but the economic part of the EU has massive benefits.
As the backstop shows, their price for a CU is likely regulatory alignment, which is something they desperately want anyway for different reasons.
Less than 100 days until the 50th anniversary!
Buenos noches todos amigos!
https://twitter.com/thequentinletts/status/1116433597219655682?s=20
A matter for laughing, not crying.
Mainstreet Research also has the Conservatives comfortably ahead in Alberta and the Prairies and the Liberals comfortably ahead in Quebec but it is close in British Columbia where the Conservatives narrowly lead and marginal seat rich Ontario, where the Liberals still hold a narrow lead and the Atlantic states
Like Australia which votes next month it still looks pretty close and Trudeau tends to retain a narrow lead as preferred PM