Though the first article suggests it would be very hard for the Commons to block No Deal anyway, so the argument about prorogation may be academic.
The government trying to go ahead with no deal would not be able to bring forward a single piece of legislation from now until after 31 st October because that always includes a business motion which can be amended.
It also means none of the legislation to do with trade, Customs , immigration etc needed even in the event of no deal will be ready.
The first comment there is actually of interest (rare for most sites unlike here). What do we elect MPs to do - simply to reflect the opinion of the most vocal constituents or to do what the MP thinks is best for the constituency?
The first comment there is actually of interest (rare for most sites unlike here). What do we elect MPs to do - simply to reflect the opinion of the most vocal constituents or to do what the MP thinks is best for the constituency?
Dialling Edmund Burke.
Who ironically died in Beaconsfield the constituency of Grieve and rather close to Gauke's...
There was a forced landing of a helicopter yesterday on a building next to the one I’m due to be speaking in today. The incident messed up my evening plans so let’s hope nothing untoward happens today.
I’m assuming you’re all being deafened by the sound of contemptuous laughter from across the Channel as Europeans look on at the collection of dullards, chancers, fantasists and loons vying for the Tory party leadership.
Unworthy @Cyclefree. Why should we care at all what people on the continent think? How many Americans really care what we think about the Donald? In that case we don't get a say because ultimately it is none of our business and those who "protest" against a democratically chosen President are simply making fools of themselves. Ditto the EU.
None of this is to say that the current impasse/fiasco is optimal of course. But it is our problem and we will solve it one way or another.
Miss Cyclefree, hope you have a nice time, and no helicopters land on you.
Mr. F, thanks. It did strike me as odd to single her out for praise.
Plainly, hers was an interesting career, going from being the daughter of some obscure Athenian bureaucrat, to being chosen as Empress by beauty contest, to becoming ruler of the Eastern Empire in her own right. But, she was obviously not a nice person.
Though the first article suggests it would be very hard for the Commons to block No Deal anyway, so the argument about prorogation may be academic.
The government trying to go ahead with no deal would not be able to bring forward a single piece of legislation from now until after 31 st October because that always includes a business motion which can be amended.
It also means none of the legislation to do with trade, Customs , immigration etc needed even in the event of no deal will be ready.
I'm presuming the idea is that an amendment to a motion that had nothing to do with Brexit would be ruled out of order?
But that's an interesting point about No Deal legislation. Then again, is there any prospect there would be enough time for that to pass by the end of October, if it's resisted?
The first comment there is actually of interest (rare for most sites unlike here). What do we elect MPs to do - simply to reflect the opinion of the most vocal constituents or to do what the MP thinks is best for the constituency?
In a parliamentary democracy it is meant to be the latter, but unfortunately that convention is being subverted, in the same way as the First Among Equals principle has been subverted. Dangerous times.
The backstop is a mutual guarantee, from both sides, that neither will act like wazzocks over the difficult issue of the Irish border as a negotiating tactic for the future relationship.
There is no deal without it.
Leaving the EU without a deal qualifies as "acting like a wazzock" over the Irish border issue.
Except they are acting like wazzocks by insisting upon it though.
So you expect the EU to allow us to alter or remove literally any product standards and regulations, and then export those goods to their consumers across an open border with zero checks?
No. Under the terms of the transition we would not be allowed to alter or remove any product standards and regulations whatsoever.
For the transition (yes) or under the backstop (no)?
For the transition. There is no reason we couldn't kick the can of what happens afterwards to the future negotiations where it belongs and be in the transition already. If we reach a deal during transition then great the backstop is moot. If we don't, we either agree to extend transition until one is agreed, or go to no deal if we can't (which is no different to doing so now). But either way the EU's integrity is maintained and so is ours. The backstop is not needed either way.
How is no deal now because of insistence on the backstop better than no deal after a transition period?
What is the advantage, compared to an extension of Article 50?
The EU have said they won't negotiate with us until we are out and we foolishly agreed to it. I've said I have no problems with extensions so long as they are for credible negotiations.
So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......
I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.
Yes!
A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force.
We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.
I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.
Our military - and Trump's.....
Absolutely if they declare war on us seeking to blockade us illegally then we should absolutely call on our American allies to assist.
Seriously, I don't believe you're real. Your comments are satirical, aren't they?
I'm real. You think the EU should be able to declare war on us and we sit back and do nothing?
You initially said 'virtually a declaration of war' which according to my Ladybird book of international protocol isn't yer actual declaration of war. Of course our armed forces are more prepared for a virtual rather than an actual response. A sail past by a non operational aircraft carrier will be just the thing.
Yes. Blockades have for centuries been viewed as a direct act of war or at least a casus belli.
So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......
I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.
Yes!
A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force.
We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.
I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.
Our military - and Trump's.....
Absolutely if they declare war on us seeking to blockade us illegally then we should absolutely call on our American allies to assist.
Seriously, I don't believe you're real. Your comments are satirical, aren't they?
So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......
I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.
A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force. We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.
I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.
Our military - and Trump's.....
Absolutely if they declare war on us seeking to blockade us illegally then we should absolutely call on our American allies to assist.
One problem is that most of the EU countries are also America`s allies. So which way would Trump jump? Remember there is nothing he would like more than to see us down on our knees grovelling.
The backstop is a mutual guarantee, from both sides, that neither will act like wazzocks over the difficult issue of the Irish border as a negotiating tactic for the future relationship.
There is no deal without it.
Leaving the EU without a deal qualifies as "acting like a wazzock" over the Irish border issue.
Except they are acting like wazzocks by insisting upon it though.
No. It is perfectly reasonable to insist on a guarantee against another party behaving like a wazzock. Note that the backstop is a mutual guarantee - it protects us against the EU behaving badly too.
It's a bit like car insurance. It is perfectly reasonable for the government to insist that all drivers are insured so that other drivers are protected from their mistakes.
I'm real. You think the EU should be able to declare war on us and we sit back and do nothing?
I think 'bully' works better than 'declare war on' here.
A blockade is a casus belli.
You are being ridiculous again. You Leavers and your obsession with war! One has to wonder whether you read too many war comics as children. Achtung Spitfire! For you ze var is over Tommy. Hande hoch!
That is a point, though. We're in a stronger position than I thought, because we have the lion, which would beat the motley collection of cockerels, eagles, wolves, bulls, pine martens, sheep, dogs and butterflies that other European countries are stuck with.
A couple of the others do also have lions. But that's where our secret weapon - the unicorn - would come in.
Stewart is emerging as the backbench big beast who will be there waiting for the time when all turns to dust in the hands of the 'winner'. If there still is a party at that stage.
The backstop is a mutual guarantee, from both sides, that neither will act like wazzocks over the difficult issue of the Irish border as a negotiating tactic for the future relationship.
There is no deal without it.
Leaving the EU without a deal qualifies as "acting like a wazzock" over the Irish border issue.
Except they are acting like wazzocks by insisting upon it though.
So you expect the EU to allow us to alter or remove literally any product standards and regulations, and then export those goods to their consumers across an open border with zero checks?
No. Under the terms of the transition we would not be allowed to alter or remove any product standards and regulations whatsoever.
For the transition (yes) or under the backstop (no)?
For the transition. There is no reason we couldn't kick the can of what happens afterwards to the future negotiations where it belongs and be in the transition already. If we reach a deal during transition then great the backstop is moot. If we don't, we either agree to extend transition until one is agreed, or go to no deal if we can't (which is no different to doing so now). But either way the EU's integrity is maintained and so is ours. The backstop is not needed either way.
How is no deal now because of insistence on the backstop better than no deal after a transition period?
Well, quite. But surely it is our government who has proposed the backstop and would prefer it over indefinite transition because the backstop ends FoM and payments into the EU? Also, if we exit without a deal now, it's us reneging on the Irish border. If it happens during FTA negotiations, the culpability is much less clear... What do you think?
I don't see how we are culpable now. We haven't reneged on anything, the EU chose to add Article 50 to its Constitution after the GFA was passed and the Irish (on their second attempt) ratified it via referendum. Exercising A50 is our right and we are not doing anything wrong by doing so.
Though the first article suggests it would be very hard for the Commons to block No Deal anyway, so the argument about prorogation may be academic.
The government trying to go ahead with no deal would not be able to bring forward a single piece of legislation from now until after 31 st October because that always includes a business motion which can be amended.
It also means none of the legislation to do with trade, Customs , immigration etc needed even in the event of no deal will be ready.
I'm presuming the idea is that an amendment to a motion that had nothing to do with Brexit would be ruled out of order?
But that's an interesting point about No Deal legislation. Then again, is there any prospect there would be enough time for that to pass by the end of October, if it's resisted?
In terms of being ruled out of order that’s up to Bercow . He really can do whatever he feels like . Emergency debates so far can’t have amendments , they’re normally just neutral motions but Bercow could try and find a way to allow MPs to force a change in the standing orders .
I'm real. You think the EU should be able to declare war on us and we sit back and do nothing?
I think 'bully' works better than 'declare war on' here.
A blockade is a casus belli.
You are being ridiculous again. You Leavers and your obsession with war! One has to wonder whether you read too many war comics as children. Achtung Spitfire! For you ze var is over Tommy. Hande hoch!
It's quite 'interesting' that, apparently those of us who lived through the War..... yeah, I know, I was 7 when it ended but I still remember the bombers and doodlebugs....... are Remainers while those who only read the comics are Leavers.
So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......
I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.
Yes!
A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force.
We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.
I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.
Our military - and Trump's.....
Absolutely if they declare war on us seeking to blockade us illegally then we should absolutely call on our American allies to assist.
It would be difficult to characterise imposition of tariffs on goods entering the EU as a "blockade". The essence of a blockade is that it stops goods coming in and going out. The EU is not proposing to prevent goods from entering the UK nor goods from leaving the UK. It is proposing to enforce criteria for entering the EU (and leaving the EU?) which it is entitled to do.
I think I have spoken to you about similar subjects before. The GFA granted limited power (jurisdiction? Wrong word?) to the Dublin Government over NI. Whilst the UK and IRE were both in the EU this did not pose a problem but now we are leaving it does. It is made especially more difficult by the Dublin Government and the EU acting in lockstep, but that is the landscape. To expect the EU or Dublin to act differently due to the threat of military action is implausible, as military action is not a cure to the problem whilst the Dublin Government exists. My plan (rip up the GFA, build a wall, deal with the repercussions) is dangerous and inadvisable but would at least cure the problem because it is within our power and jurisdiction. Your plan would not.
I'm real. You think the EU should be able to declare war on us and we sit back and do nothing?
I think 'bully' works better than 'declare war on' here.
A blockade is a casus belli.
You are being ridiculous again. You Leavers and your obsession with war! One has to wonder whether you read too many war comics as children. Achtung Spitfire! For you ze var is over Tommy. Hande hoch!
No the ridiculous ones are those suggesting we can and will be blockaded if we don't surrender. I've already said it is bullshit and won't happen.
Funny how Remainers can suggest we can be blockaded but calling that out is an obsession. Get over yourself.
I don't see how we are culpable now. We haven't reneged on anything, the EU chose to add Article 50 to its Constitution after the GFA was passed and the Irish (on their second attempt) ratified it via referendum. Exercising A50 is our right and we are not doing anything wrong by doing so.
The withdrawal agreement was negotiated under A50 and agreed by the UK government.
So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......
I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.
A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force. We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.
I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.
Our military - and Trump's.....
Absolutely if they declare war on us seeking to blockade us illegally then we should absolutely call on our American allies to assist.
One problem is that most of the EU countries are also America`s allies. So which way would Trump jump? Remember there is nothing he would like more than to see us down on our knees grovelling.
Please don't indulge him, you should just mock him for his right wing militaristic fantasies.
There was a forced landing of a helicopter yesterday on a building next to the one I’m due to be speaking in today. The incident messed up my evening plans so let’s hope nothing untoward happens today.
I’m assuming you’re all being deafened by the sound of contemptuous laughter from across the Channel as Europeans look on at the collection of dullards, chancers, fantasists and loons vying for the Tory party leadership.
Unworthy @Cyclefree. Why should we care at all what people on the continent think? How many Americans really care what we think about the Donald? In that case we don't get a say because ultimately it is none of our business and those who "protest" against a democratically chosen President are simply making fools of themselves. Ditto the EU.
None of this is to say that the current impasse/fiasco is optimal of course. But it is our problem and we will solve it one way or another.
I’m surprised at you. I’d have thought it obvious why we should care what people on the Continent think.
All the candidates are proposing steps which require the consent of those on the Continent. We need and, I assume, want a good relationship and trade and other deals with them in future. So some air of realism about what is possible and realistic should be a given. Some wish to have the respect of our neighbours would be nice.
If this was a private matter happening in some voluntary association with no effect on anyone else we could ignore it. But this is potentially the next PM we are talking about and a government which will affect our lives and whose actions will also have an impact on the lives of people and businesses on the Continent.
So yes we should care about what they think. And yes they have an interest in what is happening. And yes they are entitled to a view.
But parts of Britain and the Tory party have retreated into a fantasy world. It does not make for pleasant watching. We would do well to listen to the contemptuous hard truths the rest of the world is saying to us, uncomfortable as it may be.
So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......
I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.
Yes!
A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force.
We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.
I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.
Our military - and Trump's.....
Absolutely if they declare war on us seeking to blockade us illegally then we should absolutely call on our American allies to assist.
It would be difficult to characterise imposition of tariffs on goods entering the EU as a "blockade". The essence of a blockade is that it stops goods coming in and going out. The EU is not proposing to prevent goods from entering the UK nor goods from leaving the UK. It is proposing to enforce criteria for entering the EU (and leaving the EU?) which it is entitled to do.
I think I have spoken to you about similar subjects before. The GFA granted limited power (jurisdiction? Wrong word?) to the Dublin Government over NI. Whilst the UK and IRE were both in the EU this did not pose a problem but now we are leaving it does. It is made especially more difficult by the Dublin Government and the EU acting in lockstep, but that is the landscape. To expect the EU or Dublin to act differently due to the threat of military action is implausible, as military action is not a cure to the problem whilst the Dublin Government exists. My plan (rip up the GFA, build a wall, deal with the repercussions) is dangerous and inadvisable but would at least cure the problem because it is within our power and jurisdiction. Your plan would not.
Read the quoted replies. I wasnt speaking about tariffs. If the EU wants to apply tariffs that is their right. What I replied to and called a virtual declaration of war was a blockade.
"So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......"
Stewart is emerging as the backbench big beast who will be there waiting for the time when all turns to dust in the hands of the 'winner'. If there still is a party at that stage.
Well, apart from the fact that he is already in the cabinet.
So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......
I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.
Yes!
A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force.
We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.
I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.
Our military - and Trump's.....
Absolutely if they declare war on us seeking to blockade us illegally then we should absolutely call on our American allies to assist.
It would be difficult to characterise imposition of tariffs on goods entering the EU as a "blockade". The essence of a blockade is that it stops goods coming in and going out. The EU is not proposing to prevent goods from entering the UK nor goods from leaving the UK. It is proposing to enforce criteria for entering the EU (and leaving the EU?) which it is entitled to do.
I think I have spoken to you about similar subjects before. The GFA granted limited power (jurisdiction? Wrong word?) to the Dublin Government over NI. Whilst the UK and IRE were both in the EU this did not pose a problem but now we are leaving it does. It is made especially more difficult by the Dublin Government and the EU acting in lockstep, but that is the landscape. To expect the EU or Dublin to act differently due to the threat of military action is implausible, as military action is not a cure to the problem whilst the Dublin Government exists. My plan (rip up the GFA, build a wall, deal with the repercussions) is dangerous and inadvisable but would at least cure the problem because it is within our power and jurisdiction. Your plan would not.
Read the quoted replies. I wasnt speaking about tariffs. If the EU wants to apply tariffs that is their right. What I replied to and called a virtual declaration of war was a blockade.
"So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......"
That is war.
Luckily we have powerful allies on our side, so we should easily defeat the Brexiteers.
So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......
I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.
Yes!
A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force.
We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.
I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.
Our military - and Trump's.....
Absolutely if they declare war on us seeking to blockade us illegally then we should absolutely call on our American allies to assist.
It would be difficult to characterise imposition of tariffs on goods entering the EU as a "blockade". The essence of a blockade is that it stops goods coming in and going out. The EU is not proposing to prevent goods from entering the UK nor goods from leaving the UK. It is proposing to enforce criteria for entering the EU (and leaving the EU?) which it is entitled to do.
I think I have spoken to you about similar subjects before. The GFA granted limited power (jurisdiction? Wrong word?) to the Dublin Government over NI. Whilst the UK and IRE were both in the EU this did not pose a problem but now we are leaving it does. It is made especially more difficult by the Dublin Government and the EU acting in lockstep, but that is the landscape. To expect the EU or Dublin to act differently due to the threat of military action is implausible, as military action is not a cure to the problem whilst the Dublin Government exists. My plan (rip up the GFA, build a wall, deal with the repercussions) is dangerous and inadvisable but would at least cure the problem because it is within our power and jurisdiction. Your plan would not.
Read the quoted replies. I wasnt speaking about tariffs. If the EU wants to apply tariffs that is their right. What I replied to and called a virtual declaration of war was a blockade.
"So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......"
That is war.
Actually it would just be a few people checking that Lorries contain exactly what they are claiming to contain.
He's quitting the Tories if Boris becomes leader, right?
It is what he said. I doubt he will be the only one. Boris Johnson may well be short of a majority in the house, and he ain't the person to deliver the kind of compromises needed for minority government. A Johnson administration (if that is not an oxymoron) will make May's look like a paragon of strong and stable government
One thing I really don't understand is why Johnson chose to saddle himself with such a definite statement about leaving in October, given that it looks as though he's going to walk the contest anyway. Why didn't he wait and see whether it would be necessary, rather than tying his hands at the start?
I am very surprised to see some of the supposedly decent Tories backing Johnson - particularly the likes of Buckland and Chloe Smith. They appear to be such an amoral bunch that many would vote for Reinhard Heydrich if they thought he might save their seats.
So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......
I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.
Yes!
A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force.
We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.
I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.
Our military - and Trump's.....
Absolutely if they declare war on us seeking to blockade us illegally then we should absolutely call on our American allies to assist.
It would be difficult to characterise imposition of tariffs on goods entering the EU as a "blockade". The essence of a blockade is that it stops goods coming in and going out. The EU is not proposing to prevent goods from entering the UK nor goods from leaving the UK. It is proposing to enforce criteria for entering the EU (and leaving the EU?) which it is entitled to do.
I think I have spoken to you about similar subjects before. The GFA granted limited power (jurisdiction? Wrong word?) to the Dublin Government over NI. Whilst the UK and IRE were both in the EU this did not pose a problem but now we are leaving it does. It is made especially more difficult by the Dublin Government and the EU acting in lockstep, but that is the landscape. To expect the EU or Dublin to act differently due to the threat of military action is implausible, as military action is not a cure to the problem whilst the Dublin Government exists. My plan (rip up the GFA, build a wall, deal with the repercussions) is dangerous and inadvisable but would at least cure the problem because it is within our power and jurisdiction. Your plan would not.
Read the quoted replies. I wasnt speaking about tariffs. If the EU wants to apply tariffs that is their right. What I replied to and called a virtual declaration of war was a blockade.
"So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......"
That is war.
You have lost the plot. You are reinforcing every stereotype about war obsessed little Englanders.
I've been away for a few days and firstly wish to apologise for getting Peterborough so wrong. Like a lot of people, I thought the BXP were a shoo-in for the win. That error led to a series of others, which is a good but painful lesson.
Presumably Osborne saw the alleged Johnson melon incident if it happened (which I would imagine it did, based purely on my low opinion of Johnson and his public comments and behaviour). I imagine that the sort of people who are programmed to believe the word of a posh white man over a black woman might find the story more credible if Osborne backs it up. But perhaps loyalty to the party might prevent him from wielding the knife? (I know Osborne hated May but I cannot remember amid all the noise of the Tory soap opera what the Osborne-Johnson relationship is right now).
I can't remember either. Do they hate each other? Adore each other? Or is it something more nuanced? For example, an intense mutual loathing mitigated by an equally strong and mutual respect for each other's intellect and ability. Or, just as likely, the opposite, a personal chemistry so aromatic as to make their respective partners a little resentful, but somewhat spoiled by both considering the other to be a bit dim. Whatever the truth of the matter, it will no doubt come out in time.
Regarding the 'melon' story. Appalling if true. Unfortunately, courtesy of Donald Trump, the bar is now set below ground level for these 'what a character!' types in politics. So a shrug and a grimace, maybe even a chuckle, and a "Boris being Boris" will be the response of many.
There was a forced landing of a helicopter yesterday on a building next to the one I’m due to be speaking in today. The incident messed up my evening plans so let’s hope nothing untoward happens today.
I’m assuming you’re all being deafened by the sound of contemptuous laughter from across the Channel as Europeans look on at the collection of dullards, chancers, fantasists and loons vying for the Tory party leadership.
Unworthy @Cyclefree. Why should we care at all what people on the continent think? How many Americans really care what we think about the Donald? In that case we don't get a say because ultimately it is none of our business and those who "protest" against a democratically chosen President are simply making fools of themselves. Ditto the EU.
None of this is to say that the current impasse/fiasco is optimal of course. But it is our problem and we will solve it one way or another.
I’m surprised at you. I’d have thought it obvious why we should care what people on the Continent think.
All the candidates are proposing steps which require the consent of those on the Continent. We need and, I assume, want a good relationship and trade and other deals with them in future. So some air of realism about what is possible and realistic should be a given. Some wish to have the respect of our neighbours would be nice.
If this was a private matter happening in some voluntary association with no effect on anyone else we could ignore it. But this is potentially the next PM we are talking about and a government which will affect our lives and whose actions will also have an impact on the lives of people and businesses on the Continent.
So yes we should care about what they think. And yes they have an interest in what is happening. And yes they are entitled to a view.
But parts of Britain and the Tory party have retreated into a fantasy world. It does not make for pleasant watching. We would do well to listen to the contemptuous hard truths the rest of the world is saying to us, uncomfortable as it may be.
I don't dispute that some Tories are in a fantasy world but I object to those who disapprove of this policy or that citing people in other countries with interests potentially inimical to ours as "evidence" that we are going the wrong way. It's like American Democrats going on about how much contempt Trump is held in abroad. It may make them feel better about their own views but it is counterproductive and ultimately irrelevant.
I am very surprised to see some of the supposedly decent Tories backing Johnson - particularly the likes of Buckland and Chloe Smith. They appear to be such an amoral bunch that many would vote for Reinhard Heydrich if they thought he might save their seats.
One thing I really don't understand is why Johnson chose to saddle himself with such a definite statement about leaving in October, given that it looks as though he's going to walk the contest anyway. Why didn't he wait and see whether it would be necessary, rather than tying his hands at the start?
Having one, very clear, thing to say makes it easier for him to avoid the more relevant detailed questions about what he is going to do that is different to May's strategy and that isn't simply no deal.
So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......
I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.
Yes!
A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force.
We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.
I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.
Our military - and Trump's.....
Absolutely if they declare war on us seeking to blockade us illegally then we should absolutely call on our American allies to assist.
It would be difficult to characterise imposition of tariffs on goods entering the EU as a "blockade". The essence of a blockade is that it stops goods coming in and going out. The EU is not proposing to prevent goods from entering the UK nor goods from leaving the UK. It is proposing to enforce criteria for entering the EU (and leaving the EU?) which it is entitled to do.
I think I have spoken to you about similar subjects before. The GFA granted limited power (jurisdiction? Wrong word?) to the Dublin Government over NI. Whilst the UK and IRE were both in the EU this did not pose a problem but now we are leaving it does. It is made especially more difficult by the Dublin Government and the EU acting in lockstep, but that is the landscape. To expect the EU or Dublin to act differently due to the threat of military action is implausible, as military action is not a cure to the problem whilst the Dublin Government exists. My plan (rip up the GFA, build a wall, deal with the repercussions) is dangerous and inadvisable but would at least cure the problem because it is within our power and jurisdiction. Your plan would not.
Read the quoted replies. I wasnt speaking about tariffs. If the EU wants to apply tariffs that is their right. What I replied to and called a virtual declaration of war was a blockade.
"So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......"
That is war.
They never said there would be a blockade. However, they can and probably will check 100% of food imports into the EU from the UK as technically after Brexit we are not subject to EU food standards even if we adopt them. In reality, it will not a 100% check I am sure in the beginning.
Presumably Osborne saw the alleged Johnson melon incident if it happened (which I would imagine it did, based purely on my low opinion of Johnson and his public comments and behaviour). I imagine that the sort of people who are programmed to believe the word of a posh white man over a black woman might find the story more credible if Osborne backs it up. But perhaps loyalty to the party might prevent him from wielding the knife? (I know Osborne hated May but I cannot remember amid all the noise of the Tory soap opera what the Osborne-Johnson relationship is right now).
I can't remember either. Do they hate each other? Adore each other? Or is it something more nuanced? For example, an intense mutual loathing mitigated by an equally strong and mutual respect for each other's intellect and ability. Or, just as likely, the opposite, a personal chemistry so aromatic as to make their respective partners a little resentful, but somewhat spoiled by both considering the other to be a bit dim. Whatever the truth of the matter, it will no doubt come out in time.
Regarding the 'melon' story. Appalling if true. Unfortunately, courtesy of Donald Trump, the bar is now set below ground level for these 'what a character!' types in politics. So a shrug and a grimace, maybe even a chuckle, and a "Boris being Boris" will be the response of many.
One thing I really don't understand is why Johnson chose to saddle himself with such a definite statement about leaving in October, given that it looks as though he's going to walk the contest anyway. Why didn't he wait and see whether it would be necessary, rather than tying his hands at the start?
Yes, it was totally stupid, a massive blunder made even more incomprehensible by the fact that it is identical to Theresa May's blunder of insisting on the 29th March date. You might have thought that the candidates would have learnt something from that, but Boris and the other 31st Octoberites are setting themselves up for an early and humiliating disaster, playing straight into Farage's hands.
Stewart is emerging as the backbench big beast who will be there waiting for the time when all turns to dust in the hands of the 'winner'. If there still is a party at that stage.
Well, apart from the fact that he is already in the cabinet.
For a few weeks so far and a few weeks more probably. He shouldn't survive the incoming PMs reshuffle.
You don’t need to prorogue to disarm parliament. Just call an election.
If Johnson tried to do that simply to avoid personal humiliation, parliament should vote against an election and against bringing him down. Make him go to Brussels and grovel for an extension.
He's quitting the Tories if Boris becomes leader, right?
Well I suppose it's just about possible not to resign the whip should the party appoint as a leader someone you think "a shallow populist – manifestly unsuitable for high office – who would undoubtedly be a disaster for the country" and the party (after all, there are precedents one can think of), but probably, yes.
I don't know other than Reuters who covered Harper's launch, but I think any other platforms would have a similiar viewership. It was 55 viewers on the Reuters stream or so. If 10 outlets covered him, that'd be ~ 1000 viewers max.
He's now trending on twitter with over 5000 active tweets about him.
World Cup: At this rate, Sri Lanka will qualify for the semi finals after collecting 1 point from each match. That's not a bad strategy after beating Afghanistan.
If Johnson tried to do that simply to avoid personal humiliation, parliament should vote against an election and against bringing him down. Make him go to Brussels and grovel for an extension.
I think Corbyn and a majority of MPs would say, "sure, we're totally up for an election, but we don't trust you not to crash the car in the meantime so let's put a new PM in first".
One thing I really don't understand is why Johnson chose to saddle himself with such a definite statement about leaving in October, given that it looks as though he's going to walk the contest anyway. Why didn't he wait and see whether it would be necessary, rather than tying his hands at the start?
Yes, it was totally stupid, a massive blunder made even more incomprehensible by the fact that it is identical to Theresa May's blunder of insisting on the 29th March date. You might have thought that the candidates would have learnt something from that, but Boris and the other 31st Octoberites are setting themselves up for an early and humiliating disaster, playing straight into Farage's hands.
When you add in his bizarre tax promises you begin to see why his advisors think that staying quiet is the best thing he can do.
One thing I really don't understand is why Johnson chose to saddle himself with such a definite statement about leaving in October, given that it looks as though he's going to walk the contest anyway. Why didn't he wait and see whether it would be necessary, rather than tying his hands at the start?
Yes, it was totally stupid, a massive blunder made even more incomprehensible by the fact that it is identical to Theresa May's blunder of insisting on the 29th March date. You might have thought that the candidates would have learnt something from that, but Boris and the other 31st Octoberites are setting themselves up for an early and humiliating disaster, playing straight into Farage's hands.
Read the quoted replies. I wasnt speaking about tariffs. If the EU wants to apply tariffs that is their right. What I replied to and called a virtual declaration of war was a blockade.
"So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......"
That is war.
They never said there would be a blockade. However, they can and probably will check 100% of food imports into the EU from the UK as technically after Brexit we are not subject to EU food standards even if we adopt them. In reality, it will not a 100% check I am sure in the beginning.
Eek said there would be which is what I was replying to. Checking products is different to no planes flying, no food imports and no exports allowed don't you think?
Presumably Osborne saw the alleged Johnson melon incident if it happened (which I would imagine it did, based purely on my low opinion of Johnson and his public comments and behaviour). I imagine that the sort of people who are programmed to believe the word of a posh white man over a black woman might find the story more credible if Osborne backs it up. But perhaps loyalty to the party might prevent him from wielding the knife? (I know Osborne hated May but I cannot remember amid all the noise of the Tory soap opera what the Osborne-Johnson relationship is right now).
I can't remember either. Do they hate each other? Adore each other? Or is it something more nuanced? For example, an intense mutual loathing mitigated by an equally strong and mutual respect for each other's intellect and ability. Or, just as likely, the opposite, a personal chemistry so aromatic as to make their respective partners a little resentful, but somewhat spoiled by both considering the other to be a bit dim. Whatever the truth of the matter, it will no doubt come out in time.
Regarding the 'melon' story. Appalling if true. Unfortunately, courtesy of Donald Trump, the bar is now set below ground level for these 'what a character!' types in politics. So a shrug and a grimace, maybe even a chuckle, and a "Boris being Boris" will be the response of many.
what is the story?
Google for it - you really don't want to post it yourself...
Can someone help me out with the exact current arithmetic in the House of Commons? By my reckoning it currently stands at this:
Government: 322
Conservatives 312 (but I've also seen 313 and 314). Does this include Nick Boles and Johnny Mercer? DUP 10
So a total of 322. But, as I say, I've seen 323 or 324 mentioned
Opposition: 317
Labour 244 SNP 35 Ind 11 LibDem 11 TIG / Ind 11 Plaid 4 Green 1
On Thursday 20th we will know about the Brecon & Radnorshire recall petition. If it's successful then the numbers would be:
321 v 317
If the LibDems or another opposition party then win the by-election it would be 321 v 318
These figures do not include 1 x Speaker, 3 x Deputy Speakers, 7 x Sinn Fein
This is seriously squeaky bum time for a new Gov't. If the Independents like Boles and Mercer vote against the Gov't it gets incredibly tight. It only takes a couple of the remainer Tories to decide they've had enough and the Government will fall.
The backstop is a mutual guarantee, from both sides, that neither will act like wazzocks over the difficult issue of the Irish border as a negotiating tactic for the future relationship.
There is no deal without it.
Leaving the EU without a deal qualifies as "acting like a wazzock" over the Irish border issue.
Except they are acting like wazzocks by insisting upon it though.
So you expect the EU to allow us to alter or remove literally any product standards and regulations, and then export those goods to their consumers across an open border with zero checks?
No. Under the terms of the transition we would not be allowed to alter or remove any product standards and regulations whatsoever.
For the transition (yes) or under the backstop (no)?
For the transition. There is no reason we couldn't kick the can of what happens afterwards to the future negotiations where it belongs and be in the transition already. If we reach a deal during transition then great the backstop is moot. If we don't, we either agree to extend transition until one is agreed, or go to no deal if we can't (which is no different to doing so now). But either way the EU's integrity is maintained and so is ours. The backstop is not needed either way.
How is no deal now because of insistence on the backstop better than no deal after a transition period?
By having the backstop in place then no deal cannot be used by either side as a threat in the negotiations over the future trade agreement. It's the future trade agreement which will be more difficult than the issues of legacy financial obligations and reciprocal citizen rights, so this is the lower risk point at which to deal with creating a guarantee on the Irish border.
Whatever else you might think of Biden, he (or his speechwriters) do have a real knack of winding up Trump, which would undoubtedly be of value in the forthcoming election:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/447840-biden-to-target-trump-in-iowa-remarks “How many sleepless nights do you think Trump has had over what he’s doing to America’s farmers?” he plans to add, according to the news outlet. “Here’s the answer: Just as many as he had when he stiffed the construction workers and electricians and plumbers who built his hotels and casinos. Zero.”...
Stewart is emerging as the backbench big beast who will be there waiting for the time when all turns to dust in the hands of the 'winner'. If there still is a party at that stage.
Well, apart from the fact that he is already in the cabinet.
For a few weeks so far and a few weeks more probably. He shouldn't survive the incoming PMs reshuffle.
I think that the success of his campaign is that it will be much more difficult for the incoming leader not to have him at the cabinet table bound by collective responsibility. Who would want a Tory Yvette Cooper on the back benchers when you have a minority government?
Read the quoted replies. I wasnt speaking about tariffs. If the EU wants to apply tariffs that is their right. What I replied to and called a virtual declaration of war was a blockade.
"So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......"
That is war.
They never said there would be a blockade. However, they can and probably will check 100% of food imports into the EU from the UK as technically after Brexit we are not subject to EU food standards even if we adopt them. In reality, it will not a 100% check I am sure in the beginning.
Eek said there would be which is what I was replying to. Checking products is different to no planes flying, no food imports and no exports allowed don't you think?
No planes flying because we don't have the paperwork for planes to fly. No exports as lorries are being checked blocking the ferries No imports as the lorries being checked are blocking the roads...
So after Harper and Leadsom's campaign launches this morning we now know the Brexit positions of all the candidates.
Leave the EU in October with No Deal if necessary and prorugue Parliament to ensure that - McVey, Raab
Leave the EU in October Deal or No Deal - Boris, Leadsom, Javid
Extend Article 50 beyond October if necessary - Hunt, Gove, Harper
Only Leave the EU with a Deal passed by Parliament - Hancock, Stewart
It would be an interesting exercise to set out their positions if they were not leader. Rory Stewart, for example, says he would back no-deal over revocation, so if Boris Johnson provokes that choice, Stewart would be a no-dealer.
Presumably Osborne saw the alleged Johnson melon incident if it happened (which I would imagine it did, based purely on my low opinion of Johnson and his public comments and behaviour). I imagine that the sort of people who are programmed to believe the word of a posh white man over a black woman might find the story more credible if Osborne backs it up. But perhaps loyalty to the party might prevent him from wielding the knife? (I know Osborne hated May but I cannot remember amid all the noise of the Tory soap opera what the Osborne-Johnson relationship is right now).
I don't see Osborne confirming any of this because he really doesn't look very good if he merely witnessed the incident rather than witnessed it and punched/remonstrated with Johnson - which doesn't seem to be part of the narrative.
Whatever else you might think of Biden, he (or his speechwriters) do have a real knack of winding up Trump, which would undoubtedly be of value in the forthcoming election:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/447840-biden-to-target-trump-in-iowa-remarks “How many sleepless nights do you think Trump has had over what he’s doing to America’s farmers?” he plans to add, according to the news outlet. “Here’s the answer: Just as many as he had when he stiffed the construction workers and electricians and plumbers who built his hotels and casinos. Zero.”...
The only decent moment from the Dems during the whole campaign against Trump came from Biden when he did a speech and launched a furious attack on the GOP nominee: "just a bunch of malarky".
One thing I really don't understand is why Johnson chose to saddle himself with such a definite statement about leaving in October, given that it looks as though he's going to walk the contest anyway. Why didn't he wait and see whether it would be necessary, rather than tying his hands at the start?
Having one, very clear, thing to say makes it easier for him to avoid the more relevant detailed questions about what he is going to do that is different to May's strategy and that isn't simply no deal.
I can see it may be beneficial to him during the leadership campaign. But it may be storing up trouble for afterwards. It seems unnecessary, and even if he thought it might be necessary I don't understand why he didn't wait and see.
One thing I really don't understand is why Johnson chose to saddle himself with such a definite statement about leaving in October, given that it looks as though he's going to walk the contest anyway. Why didn't he wait and see whether it would be necessary, rather than tying his hands at the start?
Boris has made a career out of speaking first and thinking second, there's no chance of him changing his stripes.
I've been away for a few days and firstly wish to apologise for getting Peterborough so wrong. Like a lot of people, I thought the BXP were a shoo-in for the win. That error led to a series of others, which is a good but painful lesson.
With respect, all analysis pointed to a narrow Labour win [ as I wrote before the by-election ]. Most people were relying on polls which are overstating BXP by about 5 points and the Peterborough constituency and its local authority boundaries are not the same.
Stewart is emerging as the backbench big beast who will be there waiting for the time when all turns to dust in the hands of the 'winner'. If there still is a party at that stage.
Well, apart from the fact that he is already in the cabinet.
For a few weeks so far and a few weeks more probably. He shouldn't survive the incoming PMs reshuffle.
I think that the success of his campaign is that it will be much more difficult for the incoming leader not to have him at the cabinet table bound by collective responsibility. Who would want a Tory Yvette Cooper on the back benchers when you have a minority government?
I am very surprised to see some of the supposedly decent Tories backing Johnson - particularly the likes of Buckland and Chloe Smith. They appear to be such an amoral bunch that many would vote for Reinhard Heydrich if they thought he might save their seats.
Being personally moral does not mean you win an election, ask May and Brown
Whatever else you might think of Biden, he (or his speechwriters) do have a real knack of winding up Trump, which would undoubtedly be of value in the forthcoming election:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/447840-biden-to-target-trump-in-iowa-remarks “How many sleepless nights do you think Trump has had over what he’s doing to America’s farmers?” he plans to add, according to the news outlet. “Here’s the answer: Just as many as he had when he stiffed the construction workers and electricians and plumbers who built his hotels and casinos. Zero.”...
The only decent moment from the Dems during the whole campaign against Trump came from Biden when he did a speech and launched a furious attack on the GOP nominee: "just a bunch of malarky".
Can he still fire that up at his age?
A good question - just as well he has a long primary campaign ahead of him to test that. There are other candidates with far more facility in debate than Clinton had. Harris and Buttigieg certainly have the ability to go head to head with him, very different in manner though they are.
Not much change at the head of the market. Johnson the clear and odds on fav, then Hunt and Leadsom in single digits, Gove post cocaine twice the price he was before he did it - lesson there.
Saj and Rory rock solid at 33s. Not really coming in but in no way shape or form on the drift either. These two guys are in this contest.
Dom Raab, strangely, just no betting support. Don't understand that. Brexit believer and a nice young man.
McVey and Harper at prices so long that they may as well pull out now. Wasting everybody's time. Why do it?
Hancock is massive too, but he's getting nibbled at. Maybe the dark horse.
Read the quoted replies. I wasnt speaking about tariffs. If the EU wants to apply tariffs that is their right. What I replied to and called a virtual declaration of war was a blockade.
"So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......"
That is war.
They never said there would be a blockade. However, they can and probably will check 100% of food imports into the EU from the UK as technically after Brexit we are not subject to EU food standards even if we adopt them. In reality, it will not a 100% check I am sure in the beginning.
Eek said there would be which is what I was replying to. Checking products is different to no planes flying, no food imports and no exports allowed don't you think?
No planes flying because we don't have the paperwork for planes to fly. No exports as lorries are being checked blocking the ferries No imports as the lorries being checked are blocking the roads...
I feel most people refuse to see things from the EUs point of view here.
Imagine Wales left the union and decided to have completely different standards to England/Scotland/NI. Do you not think the public would be right to be concerned if items coming from Wales were no longer held to the same standard they were used to? Do you not think the government would have to say "Hey, boyos, either you have laws equal to ours or we check things at the border?". That takes time, impacts businesses, new infrastructure etc.
This isn't about "punishing us". This is about the average Franc or German or whoever knowing if they eat something that comes through us is held to a standard they approve of. Sure, there is also the EU wide protectionist racket side of it, but again, that isn't going to convince the average EU citizen that us wanting all the access and leeway and none of the oversight is hunky dorey.
The referendum was to Leave the EU. This has been interpreted as out of everything. Well then, we don't get any of the good stuff we've been getting for 40 odd years. That is rod of our own governments making.
Unworthy @Cyclefree. Why should we care at all what people on the continent think? How many Americans really care what we think about the Donald? In that case we don't get a say because ultimately it is none of our business and those who "protest" against a democratically chosen President are simply making fools of themselves. Ditto the EU.
None of this is to say that the current impasse/fiasco is optimal of course. But it is our problem and we will solve it one way or another.
I’m surprised at you. I’d have thought it obvious why we should care what people on the Continent think.
All the candidates are proposing steps which require the consent of those on the Continent. We need and, I assume, want a good relationship and trade and other deals with them in future. So some air of realism about what is possible and realistic should be a given. Some wish to have the respect of our neighbours would be nice.
If this was a private matter happening in some voluntary association with no effect on anyone else we could ignore it. But this is potentially the next PM we are talking about and a government which will affect our lives and whose actions will also have an impact on the lives of people and businesses on the Continent.
So yes we should care about what they think. And yes they have an interest in what is happening. And yes they are entitled to a view.
But parts of Britain and the Tory party have retreated into a fantasy world. It does not make for pleasant watching. We would do well to listen to the contemptuous hard truths the rest of the world is saying to us, uncomfortable as it may be.
I don't dispute that some Tories are in a fantasy world but I object to those who disapprove of this policy or that citing people in other countries with interests potentially inimical to ours as "evidence" that we are going the wrong way. It's like American Democrats going on about how much contempt Trump is held in abroad. It may make them feel better about their own views but it is counterproductive and ultimately irrelevant.
Anyway, enjoy your talk.
I think what others think can be a helpful guide to whether what we are doing is sensible. It is not determinative of course. And sometimes we may well disagree. But to ignore the opinions of others completely is dangerous.
And I do not see the EU as an enemy.
Thank you for your good wishes. I am doing two. I will feel more relaxed once they are over. A few nerves and a bit of adrenalin is necessary to make sure I do my best.
Why is Johnson uniquely among the 10 routinely called by his given name? Is it meant to make him seem sort of cuddly and amusing compared to the other 9?
Comments
Everyone knows it should be bear vs shark.
It also means none of the legislation to do with trade, Customs , immigration etc needed even in the event of no deal will be ready.
None of this is to say that the current impasse/fiasco is optimal of course. But it is our problem and we will solve it one way or another.
But that's an interesting point about No Deal legislation. Then again, is there any prospect there would be enough time for that to pass by the end of October, if it's resisted?
Bear v shark do do do do do do.
Mum v shark do do do do do do.
Mum v shark do do do do do do.
It's a bit like car insurance. It is perfectly reasonable for the government to insist that all drivers are insured so that other drivers are protected from their mistakes.
A couple of the others do also have lions. But that's where our secret weapon - the unicorn - would come in.
I think I have spoken to you about similar subjects before. The GFA granted limited power (jurisdiction? Wrong word?) to the Dublin Government over NI. Whilst the UK and IRE were both in the EU this did not pose a problem but now we are leaving it does. It is made especially more difficult by the Dublin Government and the EU acting in lockstep, but that is the landscape. To expect the EU or Dublin to act differently due to the threat of military action is implausible, as military action is not a cure to the problem whilst the Dublin Government exists. My plan (rip up the GFA, build a wall, deal with the repercussions) is dangerous and inadvisable but would at least cure the problem because it is within our power and jurisdiction. Your plan would not.
Funny how Remainers can suggest we can be blockaded but calling that out is an obsession. Get over yourself.
All the candidates are proposing steps which require the consent of those on the Continent. We need and, I assume, want a good relationship and trade and other deals with them in future. So some air of realism about what is possible and realistic should be a given. Some wish to have the respect of our neighbours would be nice.
If this was a private matter happening in some voluntary association with no effect on anyone else we could ignore it. But this is potentially the next PM we are talking about and a government which will affect our lives and whose actions will also have an impact on the lives of people and businesses on the Continent.
So yes we should care about what they think. And yes they have an interest in what is happening. And yes they are entitled to a view.
But parts of Britain and the Tory party have retreated into a fantasy world. It does not make for pleasant watching. We would do well to listen to the contemptuous hard truths the rest of the world is saying to us, uncomfortable as it may be.
"So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......"
That is war.
Regarding the 'melon' story. Appalling if true. Unfortunately, courtesy of Donald Trump, the bar is now set below ground level for these 'what a character!' types in politics. So a shrug and a grimace, maybe even a chuckle, and a "Boris being Boris" will be the response of many.
Anyway, enjoy your talk.
I don't think he'd be a good PM though.
If 10 outlets covered him, that'd be ~ 1000 viewers max.
He's now trending on twitter with over 5000 active tweets about him.
Boris, the shallow populist.
Government: 322
Conservatives 312 (but I've also seen 313 and 314). Does this include Nick Boles and Johnny Mercer?
DUP 10
So a total of 322. But, as I say, I've seen 323 or 324 mentioned
Opposition: 317
Labour 244
SNP 35
Ind 11
LibDem 11
TIG / Ind 11
Plaid 4
Green 1
On Thursday 20th we will know about the Brecon & Radnorshire recall petition. If it's successful then the numbers would be:
321 v 317
If the LibDems or another opposition party then win the by-election it would be 321 v 318
These figures do not include 1 x Speaker, 3 x Deputy Speakers, 7 x Sinn Fein
This is seriously squeaky bum time for a new Gov't. If the Independents like Boles and Mercer vote against the Gov't it gets incredibly tight. It only takes a couple of the remainer Tories to decide they've had enough and the Government will fall.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/447840-biden-to-target-trump-in-iowa-remarks
“How many sleepless nights do you think Trump has had over what he’s doing to America’s farmers?” he plans to add, according to the news outlet. “Here’s the answer: Just as many as he had when he stiffed the construction workers and electricians and plumbers who built his hotels and casinos. Zero.”...
Leave the EU in October with No Deal if necessary and prorogue Parliament to ensure that - McVey, Raab
Leave the EU in October Deal or No Deal - Boris, Leadsom, Javid
Extend Article 50 beyond October if necessary - Hunt, Gove, Harper
Only Leave the EU with a Deal passed by Parliament - Hancock, Stewart
No exports as lorries are being checked blocking the ferries
No imports as the lorries being checked are blocking the roads...
Can he still fire that up at his age?
Just to annoy me and my cash flow.
That has 313 Conservatives, presumably not including Boles but including Mercer.
There are other candidates with far more facility in debate than Clinton had. Harris and Buttigieg certainly have the ability to go head to head with him, very different in manner though they are.
Saj and Rory rock solid at 33s. Not really coming in but in no way shape or form on the drift either. These two guys are in this contest.
Dom Raab, strangely, just no betting support. Don't understand that. Brexit believer and a nice young man.
McVey and Harper at prices so long that they may as well pull out now. Wasting everybody's time. Why do it?
Hancock is massive too, but he's getting nibbled at. Maybe the dark horse.
https://twitter.com/CJTerry/status/1138401384171225088
Imagine Wales left the union and decided to have completely different standards to England/Scotland/NI. Do you not think the public would be right to be concerned if items coming from Wales were no longer held to the same standard they were used to? Do you not think the government would have to say "Hey, boyos, either you have laws equal to ours or we check things at the border?". That takes time, impacts businesses, new infrastructure etc.
This isn't about "punishing us". This is about the average Franc or German or whoever knowing if they eat something that comes through us is held to a standard they approve of. Sure, there is also the EU wide protectionist racket side of it, but again, that isn't going to convince the average EU citizen that us wanting all the access and leeway and none of the oversight is hunky dorey.
The referendum was to Leave the EU. This has been interpreted as out of everything. Well then, we don't get any of the good stuff we've been getting for 40 odd years. That is rod of our own governments making.
And I do not see the EU as an enemy.
Thank you for your good wishes. I am doing two. I will feel more relaxed once they are over. A few nerves and a bit of adrenalin is necessary to make sure I do my best.