Perhaps you could give some data as to how many 'short term, minimum wage, zero hour jobs with no training' there are in the economy.
Or perhaps you could? Are you seriously suggesting the proportion of jobs that fit those characteristics has not changed dramatically in the last twenty years?
For a start the number of temporary employees has fallen significantly:
Twenty years ago 7.2% of employees were temps and 34.6 of those were because they couldn't find a full time job.
While currently only 5.2% of employees are temps with 25.2% of those because they cannot find a full time job.
In absolute numbers the number of involuntary temporary workers has fallen from 588 thousand twenty years ago to 375 thousand now.
Here's the ONS data if you want to look for yourself.
Despite the changes in the labour market and workforce over the last twenty years its not all doom and gloom, there have been advantages and new opportunities together with negative aspects.
And despite all the media hype the likes of zero hour jobs really do make up a small proportion of employment.
What is genuinely interesting and concerning is why this increase in full time, permanent employment is not being reflected in the productivity figures. My hypothesis is that cheap and plentiful labour has discouraged capital investment. If that is right then rising real wages should drive productivity.
I have to increase my own productivity at the moment but I'll see if I can reply later.
Not suspending democracy. Just suspending MPs who have already passed the relevant laws required.
That's suspending democracy as it is practised in this country. Anti-democrats are now entering the mainstream of the Conservative party. Britain's civic structures are under assault. This is no longer about Leave or Remain. It is about whether you are a democrat or not.
Far too many Leavers prefer seeing their goals achieved to democracy. It is one more staging post on the spiral down of this country.
Democracy is practised in this country at elections and increasingly in referenda too. Prorogations happen every single year as standard.
If Parliament has already passed the laws required there is no further need for it to sit. If Parliament didn't mean the laws it has passed then maybe it shouldn't have passed them?
Prorogations carried out explicitly to bypass Parliament, the elected members of this country's legislature, do not happen every year as standard. Given that the discussion is about the possibility of a prorogation being done solely and specifically to bypass Parliament, the pretence that it's a standard occurence is deliberately dishonest and betrays a very weak position.
Close enough for government work. Much more recent then.
So we can conclude that those who advocate pushing through no deal by prorogation are advocating a course of action which has not been used since the 17th century and when it was last used it led to a civil war.
But there is no way out of this mess that doesn't go through Brexit, and increasingly it looks like no deal.
There is a large enough group of people, apparently including the bulk of the conservative party that have come to view Brexit as an article of faith. Until it's delivered in some form, they will never move on, any step back will be viewed as a stab in the back.
Brexit may be a disaster in economic terms, but that argument is of the past, getting back to normal politics is now more important.
There is another way out: the break up of the UK.
I don't view that as an alternative way out, but as an additional consequence. I'd rate Irish unity at a 75% chance in next decade, Scottish independence, lower, but still over 50%.
E&W conservatives now seem to view it as a price worth paying, and although she may rail against it publicly a Boris led hard brexit is a thing of dreams for Nicola. If she can't lead Scotland out of the UK in these circumstances, then it'll never happen.
But there is no way out of this mess that doesn't go through Brexit, and increasingly it looks like no deal.
There is a large enough group of people, apparently including the bulk of the conservative party that have come to view Brexit as an article of faith. Until it's delivered in some form, they will never move on, any step back will be viewed as a stab in the back.
Brexit may be a disaster in economic terms, but that argument is of the past, getting back to normal politics is now more important.
There is another way out: the break up of the UK.
I don't view that as an alternative way out, but as an additional consequence. I'd rate Irish unity at a 75% chance in next decade, Scottish independence, lower, but still over 50%.
E&W conservatives now seem to view it as a price worth paying, and although she may rail against it publicly a Boris led hard brexit is a thing of dreams for Nicola. If she can't lead Scotland out of the UK in these circumstances, then it'll never happen.
The flaw in that logic is that any suggestion, as we heard the last time, that breaking up with rUK would be straightforward will be met with a combination of hollow laughter and despair. 50 years of EU membership-v-300 years of Union of Parliaments. It would make Brexit look like a cake walk.
"As a Remainer you are the one who should be voting LD."
it was the Tory party which took us into the EEC which became the EU. Half the Labour party was opposed to membership, along with I think ~5-10% of Tories. The Liberals were always strongly in favour of membership but were not at all the same party.
Heath or Macmillan never proposed a Con-Lib merger with Thorpe or Grimond. It would have been ridiculous. Both parties had their own coherent policies.
The wing of the 'Tory' party which now opposes EU membership and advocates a flat tax/small state future should advocate PR and form a different political party, in order to stop breaching consumer legislation on misrepresentation.
Indeed. they are not Conservatives. The fact that they think breaking up the Union shows them to simply be English Nationalists. Their cheerleader is the Egotist In Chief, Boris Johnson.
That's just partisan rubbish. The WA does keep us in the SM and Customs Union for the transitional period.
Boris didn't say that. He said "If we continually try to wrap ourselves around the current withdrawal agreement, and we remain in the customs union, and in the single market, which is effectively what is entailed by the present withdrawal agreement..."
I don't find the Institute for Government partisan rubbish, as a rule.
The flaw in that logic is that any suggestion, as we heard the last time, that breaking up with rUK would be straightforward will be met with a combination of hollow laughter and despair. 50 years of EU membership-v-300 years of Union of Parliaments. It would make Brexit look like a cake walk.
They are not directly comparable events. The hardest thing about Brexit is defining it, given that it is not possible to regain sovereignty that you haven't lost.
The only reason to prorogue Parliament in this context is to prevent MPs from obstructing the will of the Executive.
It would be the clearest demonstration that the government did not have the practical confidence of the House for its policies.
If it was allowed to succeed as a political manoeuvre, and MPs and the public failed to bring the Executive down, it would smash apart our existing constitutional settlement with nothing to replace it. I see it as a potential moment of truth for the country which I hope we don't have to face.
But there is no way out of this mess that doesn't go through Brexit, and increasingly it looks like no deal.
There is a large enough group of people, apparently including the bulk of the conservative party that have come to view Brexit as an article of faith. Until it's delivered in some form, they will never move on, any step back will be viewed as a stab in the back.
Brexit may be a disaster in economic terms, but that argument is of the past, getting back to normal politics is now more important.
There is another way out: the break up of the UK.
I don't view that as an alternative way out, but as an additional consequence. I'd rate Irish unity at a 75% chance in next decade, Scottish independence, lower, but still over 50%.
E&W conservatives now seem to view it as a price worth paying, and although she may rail against it publicly a Boris led hard brexit is a thing of dreams for Nicola. If she can't lead Scotland out of the UK in these circumstances, then it'll never happen.
The flaw in that logic is that any suggestion, as we heard the last time, that breaking up with rUK would be straightforward will be met with a combination of hollow laughter and despair. 50 years of EU membership-v-300 years of Union of Parliaments. It would make Brexit look like a cake walk.
Not to mention ending the fiscal transfers many orders of magnitude bigger than anything the EU has ever required...
Jennie Formby is attacking Tom Watson for his criticism of her following the Panorama programme as she is undergoing chemotheraphy.
Really sad that she is using personal health to deflect from addressing the serious issues labour are facing
Note that she uses her health to try and deflect criticism but shows no interest in or concern for the health of those junior staff working for the party. Nor does she criticise those who have attacked those staff suffering mental health problems as a result of the culture she presided over.
Despicable.
Hypocrite.
She can be despicable and a hypocrite; they're not mutually exclusive terms.
Ah, appeasing or supporting anti-Semitism is OK if you are ill, it seems
When Tom leaves the Party, Jeremy might as well lock the door, close the curtains and turn the lights off.
Unfortunately for Watson he is probably only as important as he and you think he is, how many Labour voters last election knew Watson was deputy or had even heard of him?
That's just partisan rubbish. The WA does keep us in the SM and Customs Union for the transitional period.
Boris didn't say that. He said "If we continually try to wrap ourselves around the current withdrawal agreement, and we remain in the customs union, and in the single market, which is effectively what is entailed by the present withdrawal agreement..."
I don't find the Institute for Government partisan rubbish, as a rule.
Inconvenient facts are now so often dismissed as partisan or "fake news" as a way to undermine their credentials. It is another very worrying trend.
That's just partisan rubbish. The WA does keep us in the SM and Customs Union for the transitional period.
Boris didn't say that. He said "If we continually try to wrap ourselves around the current withdrawal agreement, and we remain in the customs union, and in the single market, which is effectively what is entailed by the present withdrawal agreement..."
I don't find the Institute for Government partisan rubbish, as a rule.
Which was my second point that you cut. There is nothing dishonest about what he said. Views may differ whether it is a disaster or a good thing. Tend to the latter myself.
As a generality I agree about the Institute for Government. It shows how far we are down the rabbit hole on this.
Jennie Formby is attacking Tom Watson for his criticism of her following the Panorama programme as she is undergoing chemotheraphy.
Really sad that she is using personal health to deflect from addressing the serious issues labour are facing
Note that she uses her health to try and deflect criticism but shows no interest in or concern for the health of those junior staff working for the party. Nor does she criticise those who have attacked those staff suffering mental health problems as a result of the culture she presided over.
Despicable.
Hypocrite.
He hath risen!
Good morrow, fair Corbynista. How's it hanging?
Hanging is far too good for non believers.
I simply hope that which they put out comes back, sort of karma but 100% effective and a bit more quickly.
The flaw in that logic is that any suggestion, as we heard the last time, that breaking up with rUK would be straightforward will be met with a combination of hollow laughter and despair. 50 years of EU membership-v-300 years of Union of Parliaments. It would make Brexit look like a cake walk.
They are not directly comparable events. The hardest thing about Brexit is defining it, given that it is not possible to regain sovereignty that you haven't lost.
That's true but not in a good way for Independence. It will be vastly more difficult than removing the tentacles of a law based and still restricted in scope EU. Completely different scale of issues.
The WDA was drawn-up based on the May red lines. Take those away and you get a very different WDA - and one that sails through Parliament. Doing that, though, would have split the Tories. Therein lies the problem - party before country.
I don't think that's right. There's not much relationship between the WDA and the red lines or final destination; what do you think could have been different in it with different red lines?
As for party before country - actually no. As you know my contempt for the ERGers and other wreckers knows no bounds, but the one thing you can't accuse them of is acting in the interests of the Conservative Party. Overall, Theresa May had actually found the best version of Brexit available. Now we are going to get either the worst possible version, or perhaps a chaotic, divisive and damaging reversal of it.
But there is no way out of this mess that doesn't go through Brexit, and increasingly it looks like no deal.
There is a large enough group of people, apparently including the bulk of the conservative party that have come to view Brexit as an article of faith. Until it's delivered in some form, they will never move on, any step back will be viewed as a stab in the back.
Brexit may be a disaster in economic terms, but that argument is of the past, getting back to normal politics is now more important.
There is another way out: the break up of the UK.
I don't view that as an alternative way out, but as an additional consequence. I'd rate Irish unity at a 75% chance in next decade, Scottish independence, lower, but still over 50%.
E&W conservatives now seem to view it as a price worth paying, and although she may rail against it publicly a Boris led hard brexit is a thing of dreams for Nicola. If she can't lead Scotland out of the UK in these circumstances, then it'll never happen.
The flaw in that logic is that any suggestion, as we heard the last time, that breaking up with rUK would be straightforward will be met with a combination of hollow laughter and despair. 50 years of EU membership-v-300 years of Union of Parliaments. It would make Brexit look like a cake walk.
Not to mention ending the fiscal transfers many orders of magnitude bigger than anything the EU has ever required...
Can you supply some numbers to back up the "many orders of magnitude" claim?
But there is no way out of this mess that doesn't go through Brexit, and increasingly it looks like no deal.
There is a large enough group of people, apparently including the bulk of the conservative party that have come to view Brexit as an article of faith. Until it's delivered in some form, they will never move on, any step back will be viewed as a stab in the back.
Brexit may be a disaster in economic terms, but that argument is of the past, getting back to normal politics is now more important.
There is another way out: the break up of the UK.
I don't view that as an alternative way out, but as an additional consequence. I'd rate Irish unity at a 75% chance in next decade, Scottish independence, lower, but still over 50%.
E&W conservatives now seem to view it as a price worth paying, and although she may rail against it publicly a Boris led hard brexit is a thing of dreams for Nicola. If she can't lead Scotland out of the UK in these circumstances, then it'll never happen.
The flaw in that logic is that any suggestion, as we heard the last time, that breaking up with rUK would be straightforward will be met with a combination of hollow laughter and despair. 50 years of EU membership-v-300 years of Union of Parliaments. It would make Brexit look like a cake walk.
Not to mention ending the fiscal transfers many orders of magnitude bigger than anything the EU has ever required...
If there is one thing that Brexit has taught us it is that issues of cultural identity and sovereignty trump economic issues. One of the Remain campaigns faults was to argue only on an economic basis, Scottish Unionists seem determined to lose Sindyref3 the same way.
Ah, appeasing or supporting anti-Semitism is OK if you are ill, it seems
When Tom leaves the Party, Jeremy might as well lock the door, close the curtains and turn the lights off.
Unfortunately for Watson he is probably only as important as he and you think he is, how many Labour voters last election knew Watson was deputy or had even heard of him?
Ah, welcome Comical Ali, it is always fun to have you on here! I think you could apply your sentence to Mr Thicky before he was elected. The only people who had heard of him were uber-lefties, IRA sympathisers and anti-Jewish Hamas supporters
But there is no way out of this mess that doesn't go through Brexit, and increasingly it looks like no deal.
There is a large enough group of people, apparently including the bulk of the conservative party that have come to view Brexit as an article of faith. Until it's delivered in some form, they will never move on, any step back will be viewed as a stab in the back.
Brexit may be a disaster in economic terms, but that argument is of the past, getting back to normal politics is now more important.
There is another way out: the break up of the UK.
I don't view that as an alternative way out, but as an additional consequence. I'd rate Irish unity at a 75% chance in next decade, Scottish independence, lower, but still over 50%.
E&W conservatives now seem to view it as a price worth paying, and although she may rail against it publicly a Boris led hard brexit is a thing of dreams for Nicola. If she can't lead Scotland out of the UK in these circumstances, then it'll never happen.
The flaw in that logic is that any suggestion, as we heard the last time, that breaking up with rUK would be straightforward will be met with a combination of hollow laughter and despair. 50 years of EU membership-v-300 years of Union of Parliaments. It would make Brexit look like a cake walk.
Not to mention ending the fiscal transfers many orders of magnitude bigger than anything the EU has ever required...
And sharing out £1.84trn of debt. Puts £40bn into context, doesn't it?
The only reason to prorogue Parliament in this context is to prevent MPs from obstructing the will of the Executive.
It would be the clearest demonstration that the government did not have the practical confidence of the House for its policies.
If it was allowed to succeed as a political manoeuvre, and MPs and the public failed to bring the Executive down, it would smash apart our existing constitutional settlement with nothing to replace it. I see it as a potential moment of truth for the country which I hope we don't have to face.
Agreed. Although the chances of it happening are very unlikely IMHO. The very fact that it is being seriously proposed is a measure of how desperate and detached from reality the ultra leavers have become.
The executive has prorogued Parliament for political purposes previously. So not Charles I.
In your scenario if that happens the executive would remain incapable of changing any laws until proroguation was lifted.
In case you hadn't noticed, that's exactly how Charles I proceeded for 11 years.
We aren't talking an 11 year proroguation, we are talking one of a few weeks like happens almost every summer.
No, not like happens almost every summer. Governments do not seek to frustrate the will of Parliament to impose an irrevocable decision on the country. It would be a serious degradation of democracy.
And an awful precedent for others to abuse in future.
I completely agree. This is madness.
Indeed. Close your eyes and imagine Chris Williamson, as leader of the commons, being able to use this new neat trick to stop MPs having any control of the executive.
If this is legally possible there is nothing to prevent Williamson doing it whether it is done now or not.
There is a good case to argue that whether it is done now or not a simple bill should be passed that says the Commons must vote to approve itself being prorogued. Similar to the the terms of the FTPA.
But there is no way out of this mess that doesn't go through Brexit, and increasingly it looks like no deal.
There is a large enough group of people, apparently including the bulk of the conservative party that have come to view Brexit as an article of faith. Until it's delivered in some form, they will never move on, any step back will be viewed as a stab in the back.
Brexit may be a disaster in economic terms, but that argument is of the past, getting back to normal politics is now more important.
There is another way out: the break up of the UK.
I don't view that as an alternative way out, but as an additional consequence. I'd rate Irish unity at a 75% chance in next decade, Scottish independence, lower, but still over 50%.
E&W conservatives now seem to view it as a price worth paying, and although she may rail against it publicly a Boris led hard brexit is a thing of dreams for Nicola. If she can't lead Scotland out of the UK in these circumstances, then it'll never happen.
The flaw in that logic is that any suggestion, as we heard the last time, that breaking up with rUK would be straightforward will be met with a combination of hollow laughter and despair. 50 years of EU membership-v-300 years of Union of Parliaments. It would make Brexit look like a cake walk.
It would only be difficult if Westminster threw its toys out of the pram. With good will it could be a very easy unwinding over a number of years. It has been done many many times by lots of countries.
Dr. Foxy, I'd go further than that. Remain using 'Little England' was intensely stupid (despite the same tittering some uttered as they welcomed Obama's interfering and counter-productive commentary).
Edited extra bit: to clarify, that was specifically Cameron's mistake.
But there is no way out of this mess that doesn't go through Brexit, and increasingly it looks like no deal.
There is a large enough group of people, apparently including the bulk of the conservative party that have come to view Brexit as an article of faith. Until it's delivered in some form, they will never move on, any step back will be viewed as a stab in the back.
Brexit may be a disaster in economic terms, but that argument is of the past, getting back to normal politics is now more important.
There is another way out: the break up of the UK.
I don't view that as an alternative way out, but as an additional consequence. I'd rate Irish unity at a 75% chance in next decade, Scottish independence, lower, but still over 50%.
E&W conservatives now seem to view it as a price worth paying, and although she may rail against it publicly a Boris led hard brexit is a thing of dreams for Nicola. If she can't lead Scotland out of the UK in these circumstances, then it'll never happen.
The flaw in that logic is that any suggestion, as we heard the last time, that breaking up with rUK would be straightforward will be met with a combination of hollow laughter and despair. 50 years of EU membership-v-300 years of Union of Parliaments. It would make Brexit look like a cake walk.
Last time Scotland was walking into the unknown, out of the UK and the EU. Next time I'd expect Scotland to have a friendly power in Brussels easing the transition.
We're a decade beyond the euro debt crisis, 350m people use the euro, the fear factor is gone.
I'd expect the choice offered to the Scottish people to be full on EU membership, including euro adopting and single market.
Maybe Nicola could tweet, "Scotland faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me in the EU, or chaos with Boris Johnson outside"
The only reason to prorogue Parliament in this context is to prevent MPs from obstructing the will of the Executive.
It would be the clearest demonstration that the government did not have the practical confidence of the House for its policies.
If it was allowed to succeed as a political manoeuvre, and MPs and the public failed to bring the Executive down, it would smash apart our existing constitutional settlement with nothing to replace it. I see it as a potential moment of truth for the country which I hope we don't have to face.
Agreed. Although the chances of it happening are very unlikely IMHO. The very fact that it is being seriously proposed is a measure of how desperate and detached from reality the ultra leavers have become.
Its a reflection of how how detached from reality the ultra remainers have become.
Here we have a scenario where at its core Parliament has voted to approve leaving with or without a deal on 31 October, but has voted repeatedly against leaving without a deal, against revoking, against leaving with a deal, against leaving with a referendum first and against each and every alternative that has been proposed. Parliament has become paralysed.
If you want to avoid no deal, vote for a deal. Or vote to revoke. Continuing to reject EVERYTHING isn't a solution.
The flaw in that logic is that any suggestion, as we heard the last time, that breaking up with rUK would be straightforward will be met with a combination of hollow laughter and despair. 50 years of EU membership-v-300 years of Union of Parliaments. It would make Brexit look like a cake walk.
They are not directly comparable events. The hardest thing about Brexit is defining it, given that it is not possible to regain sovereignty that you haven't lost.
That's true but not in a good way for Independence. It will be vastly more difficult than removing the tentacles of a law based and still restricted in scope EU. Completely different scale of issues.
Are you a lawyer? I am not, but my understanding is that most EU law will still need to be complied with should we wish to trade with them as a block, whether as part of a soft Brexit or as part of any future FTA. Most EU law relates to standards. What does not relates to areas that most British politicians support anyway. Brexit is pointless.
The WDA was drawn-up based on the May red lines. Take those away and you get a very different WDA - and one that sails through Parliament. Doing that, though, would have split the Tories. Therein lies the problem - party before country.
I don't think that's right. There's not much relationship between the WDA and the red lines or final destination; what do you think could have been different in it with different red lines?
As for party before country - actually no. As you know my contempt for the ERGers and other wreckers knows no bounds, but the one thing you can't accuse them of is acting in the interests of the Conservative Party. Overall, Theresa May had actually found the best version of Brexit available. Now we are going to get either the worst possible version, or perhaps a chaotic, divisive and damaging reversal of it.
I agree but May is far from blameless in this fiasco.
But there is no way out of this mess that doesn't go through Brexit, and increasingly it looks like no deal.
There is a large enough group of people, apparently including the bulk of the conservative party that have come to view Brexit as an article of faith. Until it's delivered in some form, they will never move on, any step back will be viewed as a stab in the back.
Brexit may be a disaster in economic terms, but that argument is of the past, getting back to normal politics is now more important.
There is another way out: the break up of the UK.
I don't view that as an alternative way out, but as an additional consequence. I'd rate Irish unity at a 75% chance in next decade, Scottish independence, lower, but still over 50%.
E&W conservatives now seem to view it as a price worth paying, and although she may rail against it publicly a Boris led hard brexit is a thing of dreams for Nicola. If she can't lead Scotland out of the UK in these circumstances, then it'll never happen.
The flaw in that logic is that any suggestion, as we heard the last time, that breaking up with rUK would be straightforward will be met with a combination of hollow laughter and despair. 50 years of EU membership-v-300 years of Union of Parliaments. It would make Brexit look like a cake walk.
I don't remember anyone saying it would be straightforward last time, just not as apocalyptic as suggested by Project Fear I (you know, the good one that you liked).
Still, I'm enjoying the last firewall of Unionism, that HMG is so shit at just about everything there isn't any point in trying to get out of its shrivelled grasp.
I wonder how many Tory MPs would vote for a General Election in the immediate aftermath of a no deal exit? Johnson might struggle to pass it even with Labour votes!
Brexit will have been delivered which is the main task for Boris
How do you think the hundreds of thousands of people who lose their jobs as a result of this nonsense will vote for the next decade or two?
More Tory than with no Brexit
Are you seriously saying that those who actually lose their jobs due to no deal will on balance vote Tory in future than if we hadn’t left? Or are you saying the collateral damage to the Tory party of lost jobs is worth it if more people will continue to vote Tory?
HYUFD is saying he doesn’t care what happens to individuals, their families, their communities and the country, just as long as the Tories win. He supports a football team that plays in blue.
HUYFD would be advocating invading Europe if he'd seen a poll that showed it increased the Tory vote share by a couple of points
Don't give him ideas - invading Dublin is probably turning into Plan B for solving the Irish border conundrum. More plausible than most of the Alternative Arrangements Commission.
I can't get too caught up in all this proroguing debate. Feels like it's all a bit of a dead cat from how catastrophic a no-deal Brexit would be. Which is a dead cat for how harmful Brexit would be. Bridlington and Brecon seem far more important than Boris's latest plan, and it may be that the Tories have already missed their opportunity to deliver Brexit. Interesting times!
But there is no way out of this mess that doesn't go through Brexit, and increasingly it looks like no deal.
There is a large enough group of people, apparently including the bulk of the conservative party that have come to view Brexit as an article of faith. Until it's delivered in some form, they will never move on, any step back will be viewed as a stab in the back.
Brexit may be a disaster in economic terms, but that argument is of the past, getting back to normal politics is now more important.
There is another way out: the break up of the UK.
I don't view that as an alternative way out, but as an additional consequence. I'd rate Irish unity at a 75% chance in next decade, Scottish independence, lower, but still over 50%.
E&W conservatives now seem to view it as a price worth paying, and although she may rail against it publicly a Boris led hard brexit is a thing of dreams for Nicola. If she can't lead Scotland out of the UK in these circumstances, then it'll never happen.
The flaw in that logic is that any suggestion, as we heard the last time, that breaking up with rUK would be straightforward will be met with a combination of hollow laughter and despair. 50 years of EU membership-v-300 years of Union of Parliaments. It would make Brexit look like a cake walk.
Not to mention ending the fiscal transfers many orders of magnitude bigger than anything the EU has ever required...
Can you supply some numbers to back up the "many orders of magnitude" claim?
You will wait a while to get the Tory propaganda exercise and then it will be the stock one , that it is the money Westminster borrows to spend on England and then attributes it to Scotland and makes us pay the interest. Fiscal transfer over the last 40 years is a big surplus for Scotland, money goes one way only.
Ah, appeasing or supporting anti-Semitism is OK if you are ill, it seems
When Tom leaves the Party, Jeremy might as well lock the door, close the curtains and turn the lights off.
Unfortunately for Watson he is probably only as important as he and you think he is, how many Labour voters last election knew Watson was deputy or had even heard of him?
Whatever your opinion of Watson it's impossible to deny that Corbyn has completely failed to tackle the antisemitism issue in any serious way. This is not because he does not want to (IMO) - it is because he does not know how to. Incompetence rather than conspiracy I think.
But there is no way out of this mess that doesn't go through Brexit, and increasingly it looks like no deal.
There is a large enough group of people, apparently including the bulk of the conservative party that have come to view Brexit as an article of faith. Until it's delivered in some form, they will never move on, any step back will be viewed as a stab in the back.
Brexit may be a disaster in economic terms, but that argument is of the past, getting back to normal politics is now more important.
There is another way out: the break up of the UK.
I don't view that as an alternative way out, but as an additional consequence. I'd rate Irish unity at a 75% chance in next decade, Scottish independence, lower, but still over 50%.
E&W conservatives now seem to view it as a price worth paying, and although she may rail against it publicly a Boris led hard brexit is a thing of dreams for Nicola. If she can't lead Scotland out of the UK in these circumstances, then it'll never happen.
The flaw in that logic is that any suggestion, as we heard the last time, that breaking up with rUK would be straightforward will be met with a combination of hollow laughter and despair. 50 years of EU membership-v-300 years of Union of Parliaments. It would make Brexit look like a cake walk.
It would only be difficult if Westminster threw its toys out of the pram. With good will it could be a very easy unwinding over a number of years. It has been done many many times by lots of countries.
Indeed, this prorogation discussion has set me thinking that the last time large numbers of elected MPs met outside Parliament for business was a century ago with the formation of the Irish Republic.
Ah, appeasing or supporting anti-Semitism is OK if you are ill, it seems
When Tom leaves the Party, Jeremy might as well lock the door, close the curtains and turn the lights off.
Unfortunately for Watson he is probably only as important as he and you think he is, how many Labour voters last election knew Watson was deputy or had even heard of him?
Ah, welcome Comical Ali, it is always fun to have you on here! I think you could apply your sentence to Mr Thicky before he was elected. The only people who had heard of him were uber-lefties, IRA sympathisers and anti-Jewish Hamas supporters
That is a slur!!! I demand an apology. Are you saying there are pro-Jewish Hamas supporters?
The WDA was drawn-up based on the May red lines. Take those away and you get a very different WDA - and one that sails through Parliament. Doing that, though, would have split the Tories. Therein lies the problem - party before country.
I don't think that's right. There's not much relationship between the WDA and the red lines or final destination; what do you think could have been different in it with different red lines?
As for party before country - actually no. As you know my contempt for the ERGers and other wreckers knows no bounds, but the one thing you can't accuse them of is acting in the interests of the Conservative Party. Overall, Theresa May had actually found the best version of Brexit available. Now we are going to get either the worst possible version, or perhaps a chaotic, divisive and damaging reversal of it.
I agree that you can't possibly accuse the Tories of putting party before country. The Tories are so divided because they're all pushing hard for what they believe is best for the country over unity to the party. The ERG, May and Grieve all put country before party. Only loyalists who voted for May because that was the line to take put party before country (and even then most probably thought like you that was the right thing to do for the country).
The one party that has put party before country is the Labour Party. You can barely put a cigarette paper between what they proposed and May's deal, it even includes a temporary customs union which could be made permanent. But its a Tory Brexit so they rejected it. That is partisan politics and that was party before country.
But there is no way out of this mess that doesn't go through Brexit, and increasingly it looks like no deal.
There is a large enough group of people, apparently including the bulk of the conservative party that have come to view Brexit as an article of faith. Until it's delivered in some form, they will never move on, any step back will be viewed as a stab in the back.
Brexit may be a disaster in economic terms, but that argument is of the past, getting back to normal politics is now more important.
There is another way out: the break up of the UK.
I don't view that as an alternative way out, but as an additional consequence. I'd rate Irish unity at a 75% chance in next decade, Scottish independence, lower, but still over 50%.
E&W conservatives now seem to view it as a price worth paying, and although she may rail against it publicly a Boris led hard brexit is a thing of dreams for Nicola. If she can't lead Scotland out of the UK in these circumstances, then it'll never happen.
The flaw in that logic is that any suggestion, as we heard the last time, that breaking up with rUK would be straightforward will be met with a combination of hollow laughter and despair. 50 years of EU membership-v-300 years of Union of Parliaments. It would make Brexit look like a cake walk.
Not to mention ending the fiscal transfers many orders of magnitude bigger than anything the EU has ever required...
And sharing out £1.84trn of debt. Puts £40bn into context, doesn't it?
You forget David , Westminster confirmed last time that Scotland has no debt, given it cannot borrow. Context is that England is F***** without Scotland.
Ah, appeasing or supporting anti-Semitism is OK if you are ill, it seems
When Tom leaves the Party, Jeremy might as well lock the door, close the curtains and turn the lights off.
Unfortunately for Watson he is probably only as important as he and you think he is, how many Labour voters last election knew Watson was deputy or had even heard of him?
Whatever your opinion of Watson it's impossible to deny that Corbyn has completely failed to tackle the antisemitism issue in any serious way. This is not because he does not want to (IMO) - it is because he does not know how to. Incompetence rather than conspiracy I think.
I am sure the fact he doubts the legitimacy of Israel to exist and thinks it is an evil racist state has nothing to do with things when it comes to MPs and other senior party individuals blurring the lines between criticism of Israel and Jews in general.
You are not a leaver. It is you who are in the wrong party. In the only formal expression of the issue you backed remain. You should look around for a party which reflects your views. I believe atm that would be the LibDems.
Or Labour.
Remain with a side helping of democratic control of transport and utilities.
Last time Scotland was walking into the unknown, out of the UK and the EU. Next time I'd expect Scotland to have a friendly power in Brussels easing the transition.
iScotland would be in the express lane to membership, that's for sure.
We'll need a second backstop for the border arrangements.
The flaw in that logic is that any suggestion, as we heard the last time, that breaking up with rUK would be straightforward will be met with a combination of hollow laughter and despair. 50 years of EU membership-v-300 years of Union of Parliaments. It would make Brexit look like a cake walk.
They are not directly comparable events. The hardest thing about Brexit is defining it, given that it is not possible to regain sovereignty that you haven't lost.
That's true but not in a good way for Independence. It will be vastly more difficult than removing the tentacles of a law based and still restricted in scope EU. Completely different scale of issues.
Are you a lawyer? I am not, but my understanding is that most EU law will still need to be complied with should we wish to trade with them as a block, whether as part of a soft Brexit or as part of any future FTA. Most EU law relates to standards. What does not relates to areas that most British politicians support anyway. Brexit is pointless.
I am a lawyer and agree that untrammeled access to the SM will require regulatory equivalence at the very least. Its not true, however, to say that most EU law relates to standards. There is the social chapter, employment rights, consumer rights, jurisdictional provisions including mutual enforcement of decrees, the EAW, agriculture and fishery regulation, freedom of movement, it goes on and on.
Many of these provisions are of course perfectly sensible and we would retain them. Some, such as the EAW and mutual recognition of decrees will need agreement but again would be advantageous for both parties.
I do not agree that this co-operation and equivalence makes Brexit pointless.
"When I look at my daily to-do list, I feel as though I’ve left the shores of the real life and stepped into a maze of bureaucracy, needless technicalities and political performance."
Last time Scotland was walking into the unknown, out of the UK and the EU. Next time I'd expect Scotland to have a friendly power in Brussels easing the transition.
We're a decade beyond the euro debt crisis, 350m people use the euro, the fear factor is gone.
I'd expect the choice offered to the Scottish people to be full on EU membership, including euro adopting and single market.
Maybe Nicola could tweet, "Scotland faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me in the EU, or chaos with Boris Johnson outside"
Yep, there's usually a point when it comes down to the lesser of 2 evils.
'James O'Brien: I meant more to do with the question of leaving this Union in order to stay in that Union. It’s a long way off, and it’s by no means a foregone conclusion, but I do think you’re right that Nicola Sturgeon – or Jimmy Krankie, as you prefer to describe her – I do think she will, if there’s a no-deal Brexit or a Brexit that’s anything like actually leaving rather than staying in but pretending we’ve left, which I think is the best-case scenario for many of us. What would you prefer, hand on heart, 10, 15 years down the line? Would you rather remain in a UK not in the EU or remain in an independent Scotland in the EU?
Alan: I would probably say… to be honest, European Union.
James O'Brien: Yeah. I haven’t heard anybody say the other. And you are quite a passionate Unionist.
Alan: Yes. Well, I was.
James O'Brien: That’s why you rang in though.
Alan: Yeah, I’m a passionate Unionist, as in, I’m Scottish, I voted to stay in the Union…
James O'Brien: But you rang in to spook us with the prospect of Scottish independence even though, if push comes to shove, you’d take that over what’s on the horizon.
You are not a leaver. It is you who are in the wrong party. In the only formal expression of the issue you backed remain. You should look around for a party which reflects your views. I believe atm that would be the LibDems.
Or Labour.
Remain with a side helping of democratic control of transport and utilities.
True I forgot Labour. But also could you please assist me with the explicit declaration from *pauses to see who is leader, oh yes" Jeremy Corbyn which states that Labour are the party of Remain.
Last time Scotland was walking into the unknown, out of the UK and the EU. Next time I'd expect Scotland to have a friendly power in Brussels easing the transition.
We're a decade beyond the euro debt crisis, 350m people use the euro, the fear factor is gone.
I'd expect the choice offered to the Scottish people to be full on EU membership, including euro adopting and single market.
Maybe Nicola could tweet, "Scotland faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me in the EU, or chaos with Boris Johnson outside"
Yep, there's usually a point when it comes down to the lesser of 2 evils.
'James O'Brien: I meant more to do with the question of leaving this Union in order to stay in that Union. It’s a long way off, and it’s by no means a foregone conclusion, but I do think you’re right that Nicola Sturgeon – or Jimmy Krankie, as you prefer to describe her – I do think she will, if there’s a no-deal Brexit or a Brexit that’s anything like actually leaving rather than staying in but pretending we’ve left, which I think is the best-case scenario for many of us. What would you prefer, hand on heart, 10, 15 years down the line? Would you rather remain in a UK not in the EU or remain in an independent Scotland in the EU?
Alan: I would probably say… to be honest, European Union.
James O'Brien: Yeah. I haven’t heard anybody say the other. And you are quite a passionate Unionist.
Alan: Yes. Well, I was.
James O'Brien: That’s why you rang in though.
Alan: Yeah, I’m a passionate Unionist, as in, I’m Scottish, I voted to stay in the Union…
James O'Brien: But you rang in to spook us with the prospect of Scottish independence even though, if push comes to shove, you’d take that over what’s on the horizon.
But there is no way out of this mess that doesn't go through Brexit, and increasingly it looks like no deal.
There is a large enough group of people, apparently including the bulk of the conservative party that have come to view Brexit as an article of faith. Until it's delivered in some form, they will never move on, any step back will be viewed as a stab in the back.
Brexit may be a disaster in economic terms, but that argument is of the past, getting back to normal politics is now more important.
There is another way out: the break up of the UK.
I don't view that as an alternative way out, but as an additional consequence. I'd rate Irish unity at a 75% chance in next decade, Scottish independence, lower, but still over 50%.
E&W conservatives now seem to view it as a price worth paying, and although she may rail against it publicly a Boris led hard brexit is a thing of dreams for Nicola. If she can't lead Scotland out of the UK in these circumstances, then it'll never happen.
The flaw in that logic is that any suggestion, as we heard the last time, that breaking up with rUK would be straightforward will be met with a combination of hollow laughter and despair. 50 years of EU membership-v-300 years of Union of Parliaments. It would make Brexit look like a cake walk.
I don't remember anyone saying it would be straightforward last time, just not as apocalyptic as suggested by Project Fear I (you know, the good one that you liked).
Still, I'm enjoying the last firewall of Unionism, that HMG is so shit at just about everything there isn't any point in trying to get out of its shrivelled grasp.
I suggest you revisit that work of fiction known as the Scottish Government's White Paper. The foreword would do:
"Last year, in the Edinburgh Agreement, the Scottish and Westminster Governments agreed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome of the referendum, whatever it may be, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom. That is an important commitment from both Governments. It will help to ensure a smooth transition of powers from Westminster to Scotland. That constructive working together will continue after independence."
The WDA was drawn-up based on the May red lines. Take those away and you get a very different WDA - and one that sails through Parliament. Doing that, though, would have split the Tories. Therein lies the problem - party before country.
I don't think that's right. There's not much relationship between the WDA and the red lines or final destination; what do you think could have been different in it with different red lines?
As for party before country - actually no. As you know my contempt for the ERGers and other wreckers knows no bounds, but the one thing you can't accuse them of is acting in the interests of the Conservative Party. Overall, Theresa May had actually found the best version of Brexit available. Now we are going to get either the worst possible version, or perhaps a chaotic, divisive and damaging reversal of it.
I think a lot could have been different without any red lines at all. Leaving the EU could have been a relatively painless process, with the UK staying inside both the SM and the CU until a new relationship was agreed, with no hard time limits involved. Blue passports, a lowering of the Union Jack outside all EU offices, no more MEPs or Commissioners, but day to day everything pretty much the same until a new relationship was secured. However, Mrs May made the mistake of believing the priority was to secure a Brexit that the Conservative party could live with, not one which worked best for the country. That is what guided her from the start. It was a catastrophic error largely because, as you observe, there was no WDA that could ever do that.
I know it's been said before, but a government of national unity is simply not going to happen. Those who think it might are arguing by what they want or think ought to happen - always a fatal mistake in political betting or forecasting. Where on earth could the support for such a government come from? Not from the ERG, Boris supporters or most Conservative MPs. Not from Corbyn and his circle and therefore the Labour Party as a whole, or from any more than a handful of Labour MPs. It just ain't gonna happen. If the next Tory leader loses a VONC, there will be an election.
Jennie Formby is attacking Tom Watson for his criticism of her following the Panorama programme as she is undergoing chemotheraphy.
Really sad that she is using personal health to deflect from addressing the serious issues labour are facing
Note that she uses her health to try and deflect criticism but shows no interest in or concern for the health of those junior staff working for the party. Nor does she criticise those who have attacked those staff suffering mental health problems as a result of the culture she presided over.
I think a lot could have been different without any red lines at all. Leaving the EU could have been a relatively painless process, with the UK staying inside both the SM and the CU until a new relationship was agreed, with no hard time limits involved. Blue passports, a lowering of the Union Jack outside all EU offices, no more MEPs or Commissioners, but day to day everything pretty much the same until a new relationship was secured. However, Mrs May made the mistake of believing the priority was to secure a Brexit that the Conservative party could live with, not one which worked best for the country. That is what guided her from the start. It was a catastrophic error largely because, as you observe, there was no WDA that could ever do that.
No, that's not right. You're forgetting that the EU had strict sequencing, and wouldn't negotiate the final relationship whilst we're still members. It's a completely bonkers position, to be sure, but that is their position and they absolutely refused to budge on it. Therefore, the final destination was largely irrelevant to the WDA, and indeed if the WDA were ratified we'd still be able to go for a Single Market/Customs Union endpoint, if that's what the UK wanted.
But there is no way out of this mess that doesn't go through Brexit, and increasingly it looks like no deal.
There is a large enough group of people, apparently including the bulk of the conservative party that have come to view Brexit as an article of faith. Until it's delivered in some form, they will never move on, any step back will be viewed as a stab in the back.
Brexit may be a disaster in economic terms, but that argument is of the past, getting back to normal politics is now more important.
There is another way out: the break up of the UK.
I'd rate Irish unity at a 75% chance in next decade,
The WDA was drawn-up based on the May red lines. Take those away and you get a very different WDA - and one that sails through Parliament. Doing that, though, would have split the Tories. Therein lies the problem - party before country.
I don't think that's right. There's not much relationship between the WDA and the red lines or final destination; what do you think could have been different in it with different red lines?
As for party before country - actually no. As you know my contempt for the ERGers and other wreckers knows no bounds, but the one thing you can't accuse them of is acting in the interests of the Conservative Party. Overall, Theresa May had actually found the best version of Brexit available. Now we are going to get either the worst possible version, or perhaps a chaotic, divisive and damaging reversal of it.
I think a lot could have been different without any red lines at all. Leaving the EU could have been a relatively painless process, with the UK staying inside both the SM and the CU until a new relationship was agreed, with no hard time limits involved. Blue passports, a lowering of the Union Jack outside all EU offices, no more MEPs or Commissioners, but day to day everything pretty much the same until a new relationship was secured. However, Mrs May made the mistake of believing the priority was to secure a Brexit that the Conservative party could live with, not one which worked best for the country. That is what guided her from the start. It was a catastrophic error largely because, as you observe, there was no WDA that could ever do that.
Even starker than that - it took Theresa far too long to recognise that the country would not tolerate that which the Tory membership demanded.
And that's still the case, whoever the leader is. Nothing has changd.
I suggest you revisit that work of fiction known as the Scottish Government's White Paper. The foreword would do:
"Last year, in the Edinburgh Agreement, the Scottish and Westminster Governments agreed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome of the referendum, whatever it may be, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom. That is an important commitment from both Governments. It will help to ensure a smooth transition of powers from Westminster to Scotland. That constructive working together will continue after independence."
LOL
I guess you Unionists that voted for Brexit and then for May to carry it out don't have much to laugh about, so I can't begrudge you an LOL. But do please carry on fighting the last war.
England cannot gaslight the other home nations and expect to see them hang around indefinitely. Why would they stay to be treated with contempt?
Nationalism obsession whether flag waving to hide incompetence (SNP) or extreme woke self loathing of one's heritage (remainers/LDs) is a fad which will wither and die once we all tire of social media - or get smarter at using/ignoring it.
But there is no way out of this mess that doesn't go through Brexit, and increasingly it looks like no deal.
There is a large enough group of people, apparently including the bulk of the conservative party that have come to view Brexit as an article of faith. Until it's delivered in some form, they will never move on, any step back will be viewed as a stab in the back.
Brexit may be a disaster in economic terms, but that argument is of the past, getting back to normal politics is now more important.
There is another way out: the break up of the UK.
I'd rate Irish unity at a 75% chance in next decade,
I'd say it was a 0.75% chance.
demographics and economics are trending in one direction...
I know it's been said before, but a government of national unity is simply not going to happen. Those who think it might are arguing by what they want or think ought to happen - always a fatal mistake in political betting or forecasting. Where on earth could the support for such a government come from? Not from the ERG, Boris supporters or most Conservative MPs. Not from Corbyn and his circle and therefore the Labour Party as a whole, or from any more than a handful of Labour MPs. It just ain't gonna happen. If the next Tory leader loses a VONC, there will be an election.
I'm not so sure. When it's really mattered, four figures have got controversial votes won in the House of Commons against the Government: Yvette Cooper, Hilary Benn, Oliver Letwin, Dominic Grieve.
If the same people who've voted for their bills/motions so far are convinced that there is no other option, I can see one of those four getting the nod in extremis.
I suggest you revisit that work of fiction known as the Scottish Government's White Paper. The foreword would do:
"Last year, in the Edinburgh Agreement, the Scottish and Westminster Governments agreed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome of the referendum, whatever it may be, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom. That is an important commitment from both Governments. It will help to ensure a smooth transition of powers from Westminster to Scotland. That constructive working together will continue after independence."
LOL
I guess you Unionists that voted for Brexit and then for May to carry it out don't have much to laugh about, so I can't begrudge you an LOL. But do please carry on fighting the last war.
But there is no way out of this mess that doesn't go through Brexit, and increasingly it looks like no deal.
There is a large enough group of people, apparently including the bulk of the conservative party that have come to view Brexit as an article of faith. Until it's delivered in some form, they will never move on, any step back will be viewed as a stab in the back.
Brexit may be a disaster in economic terms, but that argument is of the past, getting back to normal politics is now more important.
There is another way out: the break up of the UK.
I don't view that as an alternative way out, but as an additional consequence. I'd rate Irish unity at a 75% chance in next decade, Scottish independence, lower, but still over 50%.
E&W conservatives now seem to view it as a price worth paying, and although she may rail against it publicly a Boris led hard brexit is a thing of dreams for Nicola. If she can't lead Scotland out of the UK in these circumstances, then it'll never happen.
The flaw in that logic is that any suggestion, as we heard the last time, that breaking up with rUK would be straightforward will be met with a combination of hollow laughter and despair. 50 years of EU membership-v-300 years of Union of Parliaments. It would make Brexit look like a cake walk.
I don't remember anyone saying it would be straightforward last time, just not as apocalyptic as suggested by Project Fear I (you know, the good one that you liked).
Still, I'm enjoying the last firewall of Unionism, that HMG is so shit at just about everything there isn't any point in trying to get out of its shrivelled grasp.
SNIP
LOL
You Tories are really wetting your pants nowadays, nutjobs vying to be PM, soon to be in the wilderness as a forgotten has been empire, losing Scotland next. "Special " with Trump crapping all over you and picking and choosing who you will appoint, Iranians now also lining up to humiliate you even further. It is all going swimmingly.
But there is no way out of this mess that doesn't go through Brexit, and increasingly it looks like no deal.
There is a large enough group of people, apparently including the bulk of the conservative party that have come to view Brexit as an article of faith. Until it's delivered in some form, they will never move on, any step back will be viewed as a stab in the back.
Brexit may be a disaster in economic terms, but that argument is of the past, getting back to normal politics is now more important.
There is another way out: the break up of the UK.
I'd rate Irish unity at a 75% chance in next decade,
I'd say it was a 0.75% chance.
demographics and economics are trending in one direction...
We've been hearing that for 30 years.
Meanwhile the devolved assembly can't even agree to meet.
When the south goes tits up economically post Brexit the incentives will become even less attractive.
I know it's been said before, but a government of national unity is simply not going to happen. Those who think it might are arguing by what they want or think ought to happen - always a fatal mistake in political betting or forecasting. Where on earth could the support for such a government come from? Not from the ERG, Boris supporters or most Conservative MPs. Not from Corbyn and his circle and therefore the Labour Party as a whole, or from any more than a handful of Labour MPs. It just ain't gonna happen. If the next Tory leader loses a VONC, there will be an election.
I'm not so sure. When it's really mattered, four figures have got controversial votes won in the House of Commons against the Government: Yvette Cooper, Hilary Benn, Oliver Letwin, Dominic Grieve.
If the same people who've voted for their bills/motions so far are convinced that there is no other option, I can see one of those four getting the nod in extremis.
But those votes were very different to the idea that Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell would vote for a government led by Vince Cable or Ken Clarke or one of the four you mention. It's inconceivable, and equally inconceivable that all but a handful of Tory MPs would do so. Would you expect Boris and his supporters to join in?
England cannot gaslight the other home nations and expect to see them hang around indefinitely. Why would they stay to be treated with contempt?
Nationalism obsession whether flag waving to hide incompetence (SNP) or extreme woke self loathing of one's heritage (remainers/LDs) is a fad which will wither and die once we all tire of social media - or get smarter at using/ignoring it.
Only a Tory could spout such unaware twaddle. Tory = incompetence. You Toom Tabards really struggle hard to prove how English you have become.
The union is done and England will be in Schengen and the Euro within 20 years.
This is the legacy of Brexit.
Yeah and Japan will be using the Yuan, Mexico will have free movement with USA and Canada will be using the US Dollar . . .
You are so in denial.
No you are. You are in denial that countries can just be neighbours rather than integrating, as my examples demonstrate. No reason whatsoever we can't neighbour Schengen.
But there is no way out of this mess that doesn't go through Brexit, and increasingly it looks like no deal.
There is a large enough group of people, apparently including the bulk of the conservative party that have come to view Brexit as an article of faith. Until it's delivered in some form, they will never move on, any step back will be viewed as a stab in the back.
Brexit may be a disaster in economic terms, but that argument is of the past, getting back to normal politics is now more important.
There is another way out: the break up of the UK.
I don't view that as an alternative way out, but as an additional consequence. I'd rate Irish unity at a 75% chance in next decade, Scottish independence, lower, but still over 50%.
E&W conservatives now seem to view it as a price worth paying, and although she may rail against it publicly a Boris led hard brexit is a thing of dreams for Nicola. If she can't lead Scotland out of the UK in these circumstances, then it'll never happen.
The flaw in that logic is that any suggestion, as we heard the last time, that breaking up with rUK would be straightforward will be met with a combination of hollow laughter and despair. 50 years of EU membership-v-300 years of Union of Parliaments. It would make Brexit look like a cake walk.
I don't remember anyone saying it would be straightforward last time, just not as apocalyptic as suggested by Project Fear I (you know, the good one that you liked).
Still, I'm enjoying the last firewall of Unionism, that HMG is so shit at just about everything there isn't any point in trying to get out of its shrivelled grasp.
SNIP
LOL
You Tories are really wetting your pants nowadays, nutjobs vying to be PM, soon to be in the wilderness as a forgotten has been empire, losing Scotland next. "Special " with Trump crapping all over you and picking and choosing who you will appoint, Iranians now also lining up to humiliate you even further. It is all going swimmingly.
The union is done and England will be in Schengen and the Euro within 20 years.
This is the legacy of Brexit.
Yeah and Japan will be using the Yuan, Mexico will have free movement with USA and Canada will be using the US Dollar . . .
You are so in denial.
No you are. You are in denial that countries can just be neighbours rather than integrating, as my examples demonstrate. No reason whatsoever we can't neighbour Schengen.
But there is no way out of this mess that doesn't go through Brexit, and increasingly it looks like no deal.
There is a large enough group of people, apparently including the bulk of the conservative party that have come to view Brexit as an article of faith. Until it's delivered in some form, they will never move on, any step back will be viewed as a stab in the back.
Brexit may be a disaster in economic terms, but that argument is of the past, getting back to normal politics is now more important.
There is another way out: the break up of the UK.
I'd rate Irish unity at a 75% chance in next decade,
I'd say it was a 0.75% chance.
demographics and economics are trending in one direction...
The 1690 dinosaurs cannot accept that, they will remain blinkered till the end.
I suggest you revisit that work of fiction known as the Scottish Government's White Paper. The foreword would do:
"Last year, in the Edinburgh Agreement, the Scottish and Westminster Governments agreed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome of the referendum, whatever it may be, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom. That is an important commitment from both Governments. It will help to ensure a smooth transition of powers from Westminster to Scotland. That constructive working together will continue after independence."
LOL
I guess you Unionists that voted for Brexit and then for May to carry it out don't have much to laugh about, so I can't begrudge you an LOL. But do please carry on fighting the last war.
There's no need. We won.
The manner of winning from threatening removal of EU citizenship if we voted yes to Tories wearing SLab badges when chapping doors ensured its transience.
But there is no way out of this mess that doesn't go through Brexit, and increasingly it looks like no deal.
There is a large enough group of people, apparently including the bulk of the conservative party that have come to view Brexit as an article of faith. Until it's delivered in some form, they will never move on, any step back will be viewed as a stab in the back.
Brexit may be a disaster in economic terms, but that argument is of the past, getting back to normal politics is now more important.
There is another way out: the break up of the UK.
I'd rate Irish unity at a 75% chance in next decade,
I'd say it was a 0.75% chance.
It depends on if and how we leave the EU. With No Deal I expect the chance of a United ireland depends on how much effort Eire puts into avoiding it.
I know it's been said before, but a government of national unity is simply not going to happen. Those who think it might are arguing by what they want or think ought to happen - always a fatal mistake in political betting or forecasting. Where on earth could the support for such a government come from? Not from the ERG, Boris supporters or most Conservative MPs. Not from Corbyn and his circle and therefore the Labour Party as a whole, or from any more than a handful of Labour MPs. It just ain't gonna happen. If the next Tory leader loses a VONC, there will be an election.
I'm not so sure. When it's really mattered, four figures have got controversial votes won in the House of Commons against the Government: Yvette Cooper, Hilary Benn, Oliver Letwin, Dominic Grieve.
If the same people who've voted for their bills/motions so far are convinced that there is no other option, I can see one of those four getting the nod in extremis.
Another couple of rowing boats to be towed by the US "REAL" navy , desperately trying to hang on to US coattails and pretend they are not helpless.
Interesting comment to say just days after a British Frigate took action in the Gulf. Some 'rowing boat'.
Trafalgar, Copengagen, Falkland Islands, that time a frigate saw off a couple of speedboats approaching an empty tanker without any Tars having their ipods confiscated, all great victories in the annals of RN history.
But there is no way out of this mess that doesn't go through Brexit, and increasingly it looks like no deal.
There is a large enough group of people, apparently including the bulk of the conservative party that have come to view Brexit as an article of faith. Until it's delivered in some form, they will never move on, any step back will be viewed as a stab in the back.
Brexit may be a disaster in economic terms, but that argument is of the past, getting back to normal politics is now more important.
There is another way out: the break up of the UK.
I don't view that as an alternative way out, but as an additional consequence. I'd rate Irish unity at a 75% chance in next decade, Scottish independence, lower, but still over 50%.
E&W conservatives now seem to view it as a price worth paying, and although she may rail against it publicly a Boris led hard brexit is a thing of dreams for Nicola. If she can't lead Scotland out of the UK in these circumstances, then it'll never happen.
SNIP
I don't remember anyone saying it would be straightforward last time, just not as apocalyptic as suggested by Project Fear I (you know, the good one that you liked).
Still, I'm enjoying the last firewall of Unionism, that HMG is so shit at just about everything there isn't any point in trying to get out of its shrivelled grasp.
SNIP
LOL
You Tories are really wetting your pants nowadays, nutjobs vying to be PM, soon to be in the wilderness as a forgotten has been empire, losing Scotland next. "Special " with Trump crapping all over you and picking and choosing who you will appoint, Iranians now also lining up to humiliate you even further. It is all going swimmingly.
Glad we are keeping you amused Malcolm.
It is a delight every day David. Fabulous entertainment , I liked Laurel & Hardy and Keystone Cops as a child, so evokes fond memories as I watch the Tories re-enacting them.
I know it's been said before, but a government of national unity is simply not going to happen. Those who think it might are arguing by what they want or think ought to happen - always a fatal mistake in political betting or forecasting. Where on earth could the support for such a government come from? Not from the ERG, Boris supporters or most Conservative MPs. Not from Corbyn and his circle and therefore the Labour Party as a whole, or from any more than a handful of Labour MPs. It just ain't gonna happen. If the next Tory leader loses a VONC, there will be an election.
I'm not so sure. When it's really mattered, four figures have got controversial votes won in the House of Commons against the Government: Yvette Cooper, Hilary Benn, Oliver Letwin, Dominic Grieve.
If the same people who've voted for their bills/motions so far are convinced that there is no other option, I can see one of those four getting the nod in extremis.
But those votes were very different to the idea that Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell would vote for a government led by Vince Cable or Ken Clarke or one of the four you mention. It's inconceivable, and equally inconceivable that all but a handful of Tory MPs would do so. Would you expect Boris and his supporters to join in?
Exactly! I've been making the exact same point.
Cooper, Benn, Letwin and Grieve have only been able to win votes when they have been supported by Corbyn and the Labour Party.
Corbyn would whip against any but himself being made PM. Without Corbyn there can be no GONU. Corbyn can very easily say to Cooper, Benn, Letwin and Grieve "if you want an extension you must back me to be Prime Minister and I will get one". He can veto anyone else becoming PM.
Comments
Given that the discussion is about the possibility of a prorogation being done solely and specifically to bypass Parliament, the pretence that it's a standard occurence is deliberately dishonest and betrays a very weak position.
E&W conservatives now seem to view it as a price worth paying, and although she may rail against it publicly a Boris led hard brexit is a thing of dreams for Nicola. If she can't lead Scotland out of the UK in these circumstances, then it'll never happen.
I don't find the Institute for Government partisan rubbish, as a rule.
It would be the clearest demonstration that the government did not have the practical confidence of the House for its policies.
If it was allowed to succeed as a political manoeuvre, and MPs and the public failed to bring the Executive down, it would smash apart our existing constitutional settlement with nothing to replace it. I see it as a potential moment of truth for the country which I hope we don't have to face.
https://www.chichester.co.uk/news/politics/tories-expel-west-sussex-councillor-and-suspend-another-1-8989672?fbclid=IwAR3_Q1dePKSiM77BD4Sa39zDMV6TEeEjdzqhkyj-gm-s8hGnGicyPFt-0P8
As a generality I agree about the Institute for Government. It shows how far we are down the rabbit hole on this.
As for party before country - actually no. As you know my contempt for the ERGers and other wreckers knows no bounds, but the one thing you can't accuse them of is acting in the interests of the Conservative Party. Overall, Theresa May had actually found the best version of Brexit available. Now we are going to get either the worst possible version, or perhaps a chaotic, divisive and damaging reversal of it.
Also, Raikkonen's Alfa has stopped on track.
There is a good case to argue that whether it is done now or not a simple bill should be passed that says the Commons must vote to approve itself being prorogued. Similar to the the terms of the FTPA.
Edited extra bit: to clarify, that was specifically Cameron's mistake.
We're a decade beyond the euro debt crisis, 350m people use the euro, the fear factor is gone.
I'd expect the choice offered to the Scottish people to be full on EU membership, including euro adopting and single market.
Maybe Nicola could tweet, "Scotland faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me in the EU, or chaos with Boris Johnson outside"
Here we have a scenario where at its core Parliament has voted to approve leaving with or without a deal on 31 October, but has voted repeatedly against leaving without a deal, against revoking, against leaving with a deal, against leaving with a referendum first and against each and every alternative that has been proposed. Parliament has become paralysed.
If you want to avoid no deal, vote for a deal. Or vote to revoke. Continuing to reject EVERYTHING isn't a solution.
Still, I'm enjoying the last firewall of Unionism, that HMG is so shit at just about everything there isn't any point in trying to get out of its shrivelled grasp.
I can't get too caught up in all this proroguing debate. Feels like it's all a bit of a dead cat from how catastrophic a no-deal Brexit would be. Which is a dead cat for how harmful Brexit would be. Bridlington and Brecon seem far more important than Boris's latest plan, and it may be that the Tories have already missed their opportunity to deliver Brexit. Interesting times!
The one party that has put party before country is the Labour Party. You can barely put a cigarette paper between what they proposed and May's deal, it even includes a temporary customs union which could be made permanent. But its a Tory Brexit so they rejected it. That is partisan politics and that was party before country.
Remain with a side helping of democratic control of transport and utilities.
https://www.politico.eu/article/magid-magid-whats-disappointed-me-in-my-first-two-weeks-in-brussels/
We'll need a second backstop for the border arrangements.
Many of these provisions are of course perfectly sensible and we would retain them. Some, such as the EAW and mutual recognition of decrees will need agreement but again would be advantageous for both parties.
I do not agree that this co-operation and equivalence makes Brexit pointless.
I'm shocked I tell you, shocked...
'James O'Brien: I meant more to do with the question of leaving this Union in order to stay in that Union. It’s a long way off, and it’s by no means a foregone conclusion, but I do think you’re right that Nicola Sturgeon – or Jimmy Krankie, as you prefer to describe her – I do think she will, if there’s a no-deal Brexit or a Brexit that’s anything like actually leaving rather than staying in but pretending we’ve left, which I think is the best-case scenario for many of us. What would you prefer, hand on heart, 10, 15 years down the line? Would you rather remain in a UK not in the EU or remain in an independent Scotland in the EU?
Alan: I would probably say… to be honest, European Union.
James O'Brien: Yeah. I haven’t heard anybody say the other. And you are quite a passionate Unionist.
Alan: Yes. Well, I was.
James O'Brien: That’s why you rang in though.
Alan: Yeah, I’m a passionate Unionist, as in, I’m Scottish, I voted to stay in the Union…
James O'Brien: But you rang in to spook us with the prospect of Scottish independence even though, if push comes to shove, you’d take that over what’s on the horizon.
Alan: I would. I really would. '
https://tinyurl.com/yxvpyt4v
Thanking you in advance, etc.
Why do Scottish nationalists get all the fun?
The foreword would do:
"Last year, in the Edinburgh Agreement, the Scottish and
Westminster Governments agreed to continue to work together
constructively in the light of the outcome of the referendum,
whatever it may be, in the best interests of the people of
Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom. That is an
important commitment from both Governments. It will help to
ensure a smooth transition of powers from Westminster
to Scotland.
That constructive working together will continue after
independence."
LOL
And that's still the case, whoever the leader is. Nothing has changd.
That sensational Lib Dem win in Yorkshire overnight is making me have second thoughts. Does anyone know if there were any special circumstances there?
But do please carry on fighting the last war.
This is the legacy of Brexit.
If the same people who've voted for their bills/motions so far are convinced that there is no other option, I can see one of those four getting the nod in extremis.
Meanwhile the devolved assembly can't even agree to meet.
When the south goes tits up economically post Brexit the incentives will become even less attractive.
Happy 12th of July though.
You Toom Tabards really struggle hard to prove how English you have become.
Not exactly a rowing boat.
But hey, back to the glory days of the plebs having to go to Blackpool?
Ok not exactly benign, but we didn't need an EU bailout either, and most of our banks survived.
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/culture/michelin-restaurants-in-britain-how-will-brexit-impact-uk-fine-dining-1-4839214
Cooper, Benn, Letwin and Grieve have only been able to win votes when they have been supported by Corbyn and the Labour Party.
Corbyn would whip against any but himself being made PM. Without Corbyn there can be no GONU. Corbyn can very easily say to Cooper, Benn, Letwin and Grieve "if you want an extension you must back me to be Prime Minister and I will get one". He can veto anyone else becoming PM.