What if Parliament is dissolved rather than suspended? Lets imagine if late September Boris calls for an election to be held on 31 October to determine are post-Brexit future, Corbyn agrees, two-thirds of Parliament votes for it . So at 10pm we stop voting and start counting the votes and at 11pm we exit without a deal. Is that an enemy of democracy?
I've highlighted the relevant bit for you. This is not difficult stuff.
More than two-thirds voted for this and made it our law.
Sure. I'm sure you could find many laws that more than two thirds voted for. Now you need to find me where Parliament voted to allow the Prime Minister to seek to prorogue Parliament in order to secure a disorderly no deal Brexit. I'll wait.
It didn't need to, proroguation is an executive power and Parliament voted to permit a "disorderly no deal Brexit" to automatically occur when it chose to invoke Article 50.
I think there's a good argument to be made that similar to the FTPA a law should be passed saying that there can not be a proroguation without the Commons approving it first. But AFAIK that is not what the constitution currently says.
But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.
This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.
It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.
There was no grudging consensus to our EU membership either.
You didn't care though because you were getting what you wanted. Now you care.
Both sides have got more extreme. Many Remainers are ready to ignore the referendum to revoke Article 50. And unhinged Leavers are prepared to ignore democracy and suspend Parliament.
All true. But both sides are not without reason behind them. Hard Remainers can point to the pathetic failure of the assemblage of diverse leavers to be properly organised, and Leavers are not entirely unhinged if they point out that the democracy of the referendum cannot in principle be allowed to be subverted by the very parliament whose job it is to agree a mode of leaving, and have not exactly helped, and indeed clearly intend mostly to remain if they can get away with blaming someone else for it.
That’s nonsense. Remainers need to accept that a democratic mandate must be met through democracy. And Leavers must accept that their cluelessness about what they want does not allow them to subvert Parliamentary democracy. Excusing either is dangerous.
Which is why I believe there needs to be a second referendum - what options exist in it is irrelevant but we can't permanently revoke without a second referendum and we can't leave for No Deal without one.
May's deal is about as Leave as you can get without a second referendum being required...
Can you please explain why we could sign the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum, despite all parties manifestos at the time pledging a referendum if they were elected . . . but a harder Leave than May's deal requires one?
Is it just because you're not getting your way now? Or is there a principle involved that was shown when Lisbon was ratified?
If you're not happy for us to Revoke without a referendum then you might understand how others would not be happy to No Deal without a referendum. Parties have been known to renege on manifestos, it's not really the same thing.
We pandered to the USA when they practised racial segregation.
One of many examples.
But as I say, the question here is as follows -
By failing to condemn Donald Trump for overtly racist language, or for promoting white supremacists on Twitter, or for slagging off our own leaders and institutions, etc etc, do we materially impact for the better the terms of any trade deal we end up doing with America at some point in the future?
If the answer to that is No - as I think it almost certainly is - then we are better advised to go with the natural and correct response.
I don't know about "super happy". I did not expect our politicians to be as incompetent, dishonest and disingenuous as they have been. No matter how cynical you think you are our politicians leave you feeling naive.
But I do agree that leaving with no deal was always a possible outcome and it is simply not true to say that the British people did not vote for it.
Of course it's true to say that the British people did not vote for it. They voted for something which might, if you squint hard enough, be interpreted as containing what seemed at the time the extremely remote possibility that we'd crash out in chaos, but no doubt they were reassured by the unanimous statements of those campaigning for Leave that there would be a deal and a smooth transition.
What if Parliament is dissolved rather than suspended? Lets imagine if late September Boris calls for an election to be held on 31 October to determine are post-Brexit future, Corbyn agrees, two-thirds of Parliament votes for it . So at 10pm we stop voting and start counting the votes and at 11pm we exit without a deal. Is that an enemy of democracy?
I've highlighted the relevant bit for you. This is not difficult stuff.
More than two-thirds voted for this and made it our law.
Sure. I'm sure you could find many laws that more than two thirds voted for. Now you need to find me where Parliament voted to allow the Prime Minister to seek to prorogue Parliament in order to secure a disorderly no deal Brexit. I'll wait.
It didn't need to, proroguation is an executive power and Parliament voted to permit a "disorderly no deal Brexit" to automatically occur when it chose to invoke Article 50.
I think there's a good argument to be made that similar to the FTPA a law should be passed saying that there can not be a proroguation without the Commons approving it first. But AFAIK that is not what the constitution currently says.
Parliament did not vote to allow the government to suspend democracy.
I would expect Boris (or any other UK PM) to say as little as possible about this. Trump is a matter for the American people. They elected him and they get a second chance to reconsider the matter shortly.
The job of our PM is to promote our interests. Falling out with the incumbent choice of the American people does not do that, even if, perhaps particularly when, the man is a racist arse.
This is self indulgent twaddle. Virtue signalling at its most extreme. I find the idea that it might actually shift anyone's vote in our elections depressing and unlikely in equal measure.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Didn't know you were in the Labour Party Stuart.
But that is equal nonsense. Any British politician who made comments like that is our problem and we have our choices. Boris has said many problematic things in the past and we as a country will have to decide how much we care about that. But Trump is not someone we have a vote on, no matter how many inflatable pigs in nappies we want to float skywards.
All the Leavers who claimed that no deal Brexit was Project Fear are now claiming the British public voted for it. A little bit of humility and contrition on their part would be in order.
Point of order: I never claimed no deal Brexit was "Project Fear" and I have never claimed that "the British public voted for it". Which I suppose perhaps fits your claim.
The public voted for Brexit, that is it. Brexit was defined by all sides as leaving the single market and leaving the customs union. Brexit was defined by Leavers as going to be smooth and orderly and defined by Remainers as going to be disastrous and chaotic.
If we leave the single market, leave the customs union, it is disastrous and chaotic then every single thing Remainers said would happen if we voted to Leave may come true.
What if Parliament is dissolved rather than suspended? Lets imagine if mid to late September Boris calls for an election to be held on 31 October to determine our post-Brexit future, Corbyn agrees, two-thirds of Parliament votes for it. So at 10pm we stop voting and start counting the votes and at 11pm we exit without a deal. Is that an enemy of democracy?
You can see how the cogwheels are spinning. They are desperately trying to work out how to get away with turning the UK into a dictatorship long enough to force through a No Deal Brexit.
All the Leavers who claimed that no deal Brexit was Project Fear are now claiming the British public voted for it. A little bit of humility and contrition on their part would be in order.
Well the British Public did vote for it. I think Project Fearers as much said that no deal would be fine rather than that it wouldn't happen.
What if Parliament is dissolved rather than suspended? Lets imagine if mid to late September Boris calls for an election to be held on 31 October to determine our post-Brexit future, Corbyn agrees, two-thirds of Parliament votes for it. So at 10pm we stop voting and start counting the votes and at 11pm we exit without a deal. Is that an enemy of democracy?
You can see how the cogwheels are spinning. They are desperately trying to work out how to get away with turning the UK into a dictatorship long enough to force through a No Deal Brexit.
494 to 122 = 80.2% voted Aye to us leaving without a deal after two years.
That is completely incorrect.
You can argue that it was risky to vote for that legislation if you were concerned about No Deal Brexit.
But (i) May was promising a deal; (ii) the legislation does not (as claimed by No Dealers) make their option a default, as the section specifying the withdrawal date is not in force; and (iii) Parliament did not rule out further constraining the executive in the absence of a deal.
So you are simply rewriting history to your own benefit there.
All the Leavers who claimed that no deal Brexit was Project Fear are now claiming the British public voted for it. A little bit of humility and contrition on their part would be in order.
Point of order: I never claimed no deal Brexit was "Project Fear" and I have never claimed that "the British public voted for it". Which I suppose perhaps fits your claim.
The public voted for Brexit, that is it. Brexit was defined by all sides as leaving the single market and leaving the customs union. Brexit was defined by Leavers as going to be smooth and orderly and defined by Remainers as going to be disastrous and chaotic.
If we leave the single market, leave the customs union, it is disastrous and chaotic then every single thing Remainers said would happen if we voted to Leave may come true.
What Vote Leave said was that they would negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any process to leave. And now Leavers advocate suspending democracy in order to secure no deal Brexit.
What if Parliament is dissolved rather than suspended? Lets imagine if late September Boris calls for an election to be held on 31 October to determine are post-Brexit future, Corbyn agrees, two-thirds of Parliament votes for it . So at 10pm we stop voting and start counting the votes and at 11pm we exit without a deal. Is that an enemy of democracy?
I've highlighted the relevant bit for you. This is not difficult stuff.
More than two-thirds voted for this and made it our law.
Sure. I'm sure you could find many laws that more than two thirds voted for. Now you need to find me where Parliament voted to allow the Prime Minister to seek to prorogue Parliament in order to secure a disorderly no deal Brexit. I'll wait.
It didn't need to, proroguation is an executive power and Parliament voted to permit a "disorderly no deal Brexit" to automatically occur when it chose to invoke Article 50.
I think there's a good argument to be made that similar to the FTPA a law should be passed saying that there can not be a proroguation without the Commons approving it first. But AFAIK that is not what the constitution currently says.
Parliament did not vote to allow the government to suspend democracy.
Democracy is not being suspended. No election is being cancelled. Any proroguation will be short just as occurs as standard every year - as it happens I don't think we've had our traditional summer proroguation yet so if we get an autumn one instead I don't think that's cancelling democracy.
I don't know about "super happy". I did not expect our politicians to be as incompetent, dishonest and disingenuous as they have been. No matter how cynical you think you are our politicians leave you feeling naive.
But I do agree that leaving with no deal was always a possible outcome and it is simply not true to say that the British people did not vote for it.
Of course it's true to say that the British people did not vote for it. They voted for something which might, if you squint hard enough, be interpreted as containing what seemed at the time the extremely remote possibility that we'd crash out in chaos, but no doubt they were reassured by the unanimous statements of those campaigning for Leave that there would be a deal and a smooth transition.
An agreement to agree is always worthless and meaningless. We expected to be able to reach an agreement with the EU. In fact we did but our Parliament in their wisdom rejected the agreement. Three times. That was always a possibility no matter how stupid and self defeating.
All true. But both sides are not without reason behind them. Hard Remainers can point to the pathetic failure of the assemblage of diverse leavers to be properly organised, and Leavers are not entirely unhinged if they point out that the democracy of the referendum cannot in principle be allowed to be subverted by the very parliament whose job it is to agree a mode of leaving, and have not exactly helped, and indeed clearly intend mostly to remain if they can get away with blaming someone else for it.
That’s nonsense. Remainers need to accept that a democratic mandate must be met through democracy. And Leavers must accept that their cluelessness about what they want does not allow them to subvert Parliamentary democracy. Excusing either is dangerous.
As has been pointed out many times by both sides, there was no further instruction on the ballot paper other than "leave". The default position that all leave voters were aware of is that the UK would leave the EU without a deal. Saying there would be a deal was just political bollocks from Leave.EU. Just like the political bollocks that is spouted all the time in election campaigns of any type.
The small print, however, remains (!) that we are due to leave the EU, and always were, with no deal if no deal is negotiated. And it hasn't been.
I mean even our favourite Leavers on here are super happy with leaving without a deal because their vote meant that it was a strong possibility.
I don't know about "super happy". I did not expect our politicians to be as incompetent, dishonest and disingenuous as they have been. No matter how cynical you think you are our politicians leave you feeling naive.
But I do agree that leaving with no deal was always a possible outcome and it is simply not true to say that the British people did not vote for it.
Shouldn't really need saying, but looks like it does. 52% of the British people who voted wanted to Leave but they were told by the Leave campaigns it would be easy, cost nothing and in fact we would be better off. It is certainly bollocks to say, as you have, " it is simply not true to say that the British people did not vote for "
I don't know about "super happy". I did not expect our politicians to be as incompetent, dishonest and disingenuous as they have been. No matter how cynical you think you are our politicians leave you feeling naive.
But I do agree that leaving with no deal was always a possible outcome and it is simply not true to say that the British people did not vote for it.
Of course it's true to say that the British people did not vote for it. They voted for something which might, if you squint hard enough, be interpreted as containing what seemed at the time the extremely remote possibility that we'd crash out in chaos, but no doubt they were reassured by the unanimous statements of those campaigning for Leave that there would be a deal and a smooth transition.
An agreement to agree is always worthless and meaningless. We expected to be able to reach an agreement with the EU. In fact we did but our Parliament in their wisdom rejected the agreement. Three times. That was always a possibility no matter how stupid and self defeating.
Precisely. Over 400 MPs in the first Meaningful Vote chose to reject the Deal and keep No Deal as the legal default. If No Deal now occurs then each and every single MP that rejected the Deal is responsible for that.
If they were seeking no deal then great, they got what they wanted. If they didn't then they've screwed up, royally.
We pandered to the USA when they practised racial segregation.
One of many examples.
But as I say, the question here is as follows -
By failing to condemn Donald Trump for overtly racist language, or for promoting white supremacists on Twitter, or for slagging off our own leaders and institutions, etc etc, do we materially impact for the better the terms of any trade deal we end up doing with America at some point in the future?
If the answer to that is No - as I think it almost certainly is - then we are better advised to go with the natural and correct response.
It might perhaps be easier and save everyone time if we assume that pretty much everything Trump says or tweets is unmitigated and/or offensive rubbish and limit ourselves to congratulating him when he says something sensible.
All true. But both sides are not without reason behind them. Hard Remainers can point to the pathetic failure of the assemblage of diverse leavers to be properly organised, and Leavers are not entirely unhinged if they point out that the democracy of the referendum cannot in principle be allowed to be subverted by the very parliament whose job it is to agree a mode of leaving, and have not exactly helped, and indeed clearly intend mostly to remain if they can get away with blaming someone else for it.
That’s nonsense. Remainers need to accept that a democratic mandate must be met through democracy. And Leavers must accept that their cluelessness about what they want does not allow them to subvert Parliamentary democracy. Excusing either is dangerous.
As has been pointed out many times by both sides, there was no further instruction on the ballot paper other than "leave". The default position that all leave voters were aware of is that the UK would leave the EU without a deal. Saying there would be a deal was just political bollocks from Leave.EU. Just like the political bollocks that is spouted all the time in election campaigns of any type.
The small print, however, remains (!) that we are due to leave the EU, and always were, with no deal if no deal is negotiated. And it hasn't been.
I mean even our favourite Leavers on here are super happy with leaving without a deal because their vote meant that it was a strong possibility.
I don't know about "super happy". I did not expect our politicians to be as incompetent, dishonest and disingenuous as they have been. No matter how cynical you think you are our politicians leave you feeling naive.
But I do agree that leaving with no deal was always a possible outcome and it is simply not true to say that the British people did not vote for it.
Shouldn't really need saying, but looks like it does. 52% of the British people who voted wanted to Leave but they were told by the Leave campaigns it would be easy, cost nothing and in fact we would be better off. It is certainly bollocks to say, as you have, " it is simply not true to say that the British people did not vote for "
They were told by Remainers and the government it would be chaotic, disastrous, cause a recession and cost each household thousands of pounds.
Democracy is not being suspended. No election is being cancelled. Any proroguation will be short just as occurs as standard every year - as it happens I don't think we've had our traditional summer proroguation yet so if we get an autumn one instead I don't think that's cancelling democracy.
Democracy in this country is practised as Parliamentary democracy. That means that the government is held to account by the elected legislature. The proposal is to suspend the elected legislature in order to ensure that the government can ride roughshod over it. That is suspending democracy.
I would expect Boris (or any other UK PM) to say as little as possible about this. Trump is a matter for the American people. They elected him and they get a second chance to reconsider the matter shortly.
The job of our PM is to promote our interests. Falling out with the incumbent choice of the American people does not do that, even if, perhaps particularly when, the man is a racist arse.
This is self indulgent twaddle. Virtue signalling at its most extreme. I find the idea that it might actually shift anyone's vote in our elections depressing and unlikely in equal measure.
The snag with that argument is that if we simply adopted a blanket policy of letting people do whatever they liked in their own countries, we'd end up condoning genocide/Holocaust and so on, provided we could further our national interests by doing so.
No doubt the line isn't always easy to draw, but making simplistic assertions backed up by whatever the fashionable Internet jargon happens to be (in this case "virtue signalling," apparently) isn't very intelligent.
All the Leavers who claimed that no deal Brexit was Project Fear are now claiming the British public voted for it. A little bit of humility and contrition on their part would be in order.
Point of order: I never claimed no deal Brexit was "Project Fear" and I have never claimed that "the British public voted for it". Which I suppose perhaps fits your claim.
The public voted for Brexit, that is it. Brexit was defined by all sides as leaving the single market and leaving the customs union. Brexit was defined by Leavers as going to be smooth and orderly and defined by Remainers as going to be disastrous and chaotic.
If we leave the single market, leave the customs union, it is disastrous and chaotic then every single thing Remainers said would happen if we voted to Leave may come true.
What Vote Leave said was that they would negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any process to leave.
And what the EU said was piss off. Which was always possible if as self defeating and as stupid as our own side have been.
But no matter how incredibly obtuse and dishonest our MPs are being our Parliament remains sovereign and exclusion of it by the Executive is unacceptable both now and as a precedent.
I don't know about "super happy". I did not expect our politicians to be as incompetent, dishonest and disingenuous as they have been. No matter how cynical you think you are our politicians leave you feeling naive.
But I do agree that leaving with no deal was always a possible outcome and it is simply not true to say that the British people did not vote for it.
Of course it's true to say that the British people did not vote for it. They voted for something which might, if you squint hard enough, be interpreted as containing what seemed at the time the extremely remote possibility that we'd crash out in chaos, but no doubt they were reassured by the unanimous statements of those campaigning for Leave that there would be a deal and a smooth transition.
An agreement to agree is always worthless and meaningless. We expected to be able to reach an agreement with the EU. In fact we did but our Parliament in their wisdom rejected the agreement. Three times. That was always a possibility no matter how stupid and self defeating.
Yes it was always a remote possibility, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But that doesn't mean anyone voted for it. It means that the original decision has to be reconsidered because the only way of implementing it bears not the slightest resemblance to what people were voting for (and, to anticipate the response, there is only one way to assess what they voted for, namely the platform of the official Leave campaign).
I would expect Boris (or any other UK PM) to say as little as possible about this. Trump is a matter for the American people. They elected him and they get a second chance to reconsider the matter shortly.
The job of our PM is to promote our interests. Falling out with the incumbent choice of the American people does not do that, even if, perhaps particularly when, the man is a racist arse.
This is self indulgent twaddle. Virtue signalling at its most extreme. I find the idea that it might actually shift anyone's vote in our elections depressing and unlikely in equal measure.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Didn't know you were in the Labour Party Stuart.
But that is equal nonsense. Any British politician who made comments like that is our problem and we have our choices. Boris has said many problematic things in the past and we as a country will have to decide how much we care about that. But Trump is not someone we have a vote on, no matter how many inflatable pigs in nappies we want to float skywards.
A very worrying post. Martin Niemöller‘s wise message is clearly needed more than ever in these times where we are slowly slipping into the void again.
If you follow your logic then no Frenchman, Pole or Englishman should have spoken out during the 1930’s. You’re more of a Neville than a Winston.
Democracy is not being suspended. No election is being cancelled. Any proroguation will be short just as occurs as standard every year - as it happens I don't think we've had our traditional summer proroguation yet so if we get an autumn one instead I don't think that's cancelling democracy.
Democracy in this country is practised as Parliamentary democracy. That means that the government is held to account by the elected legislature. The proposal is to suspend the elected legislature in order to ensure that the government can ride roughshod over it. That is suspending democracy.
Parliament gets prorogued for a few weeks at a time every year as standard. We are long overdue a proroguation in fact IIRC as no proroguation occured last year unusually and none has yet this year. If a long-overdue proroguation for a few weeks happens this Autumn so be it, its no more riding roughshod than is standard.
Parliament should pass an act removing the prerogative power of proroguation if they want to do so. They should also pass a deal if they don't want no deal.
What if Parliament is dissolved rather than suspended? Lets imagine if late September Boris calls for an election to be held on 31 October to determine are post-Brexit future, Corbyn agrees, two-thirds of Parliament votes for it . So at 10pm we stop voting and start counting the votes and at 11pm we exit without a deal. Is that an enemy of democracy?
I've highlighted the relevant bit for you. This is not difficult stuff.
More than two-thirds voted for this and made it our law.
Sure. I'm sure you could find many laws that more than two thirds voted for. Now you need to find me where Parliament voted to allow the Prime Minister to seek to prorogue Parliament in order to secure a disorderly no deal Brexit. I'll wait.
It didn't need to, proroguation is an executive power and Parliament voted to permit a "disorderly no deal Brexit" to automatically occur when it chose to invoke Article 50.
I think there's a good argument to be made that similar to the FTPA a law should be passed saying that there can not be a proroguation without the Commons approving it first. But AFAIK that is not what the constitution currently says.
Parliament did not vote to allow the government to suspend democracy.
Democracy is not being suspended. No election is being cancelled. Any proroguation will be short just as occurs as standard every year - as it happens I don't think we've had our traditional summer proroguation yet so if we get an autumn one instead I don't think that's cancelling democracy.
The prorogation would be specifically to avoid a democratic vote by Parliament - not to allow lawmakers a holiday at the end of a session. So it simply isn't comparable.
You cannot seriously argue that using prorogation to avoid a democratic vote is anything other than suspending democracy. You might argue (I think wrongly but fair enough) that it's nevertheless justified to honour the will of the people in June 2016. But to say it's some kind of belated holiday for hard-working MPs is plainly nonsensical.
We pandered to the USA when they practised racial segregation.
One of many examples.
But as I say, the question here is as follows -
By failing to condemn Donald Trump for overtly racist language, or for promoting white supremacists on Twitter, or for slagging off our own leaders and institutions, etc etc, do we materially impact for the better the terms of any trade deal we end up doing with America at some point in the future?
If the answer to that is No - as I think it almost certainly is - then we are better advised to go with the natural and correct response.
It might perhaps be easier and save everyone time if we assume that pretty much everything Trump says or tweets is unmitigated and/or offensive rubbish and limit ourselves to congratulating him when he says something sensible.
If that's the line, it might be better not to invite him here to be wined and dined and have photo opportunities with the Queen.
All the Leavers who claimed that no deal Brexit was Project Fear are now claiming the British public voted for it. A little bit of humility and contrition on their part would be in order.
Point of order: I never claimed no deal Brexit was "Project Fear" and I have never claimed that "the British public voted for it". Which I suppose perhaps fits your claim.
The public voted for Brexit, that is it. Brexit was defined by all sides as leaving the single market and leaving the customs union. Brexit was defined by Leavers as going to be smooth and orderly and defined by Remainers as going to be disastrous and chaotic.
If we leave the single market, leave the customs union, it is disastrous and chaotic then every single thing Remainers said would happen if we voted to Leave may come true.
What Vote Leave said was that they would negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any process to leave. And now Leavers advocate suspending democracy in order to secure no deal Brexit.
Well, that would have been eminently sensible for both sides. Unfortunately, the EU scuppered that plan by refusing point blank to be sensible, and then insisting on negotiating the deal backwards. Thus neatly illustrating why we were right to vote to leave in the first place.
So now what? We overturn the referendum result because a key campaigning point on the winning side (the EU's overt bureaucracy and intransigence) turns out to have been a massive understatement?
And what the EU said was piss off. Which was always possible if as self defeating and as stupid as our own side have been.
But no matter how incredibly obtuse and dishonest our MPs are being our Parliament remains sovereign and exclusion of it by the Executive is unacceptable both now and as a precedent.
You rightly highlight that we don't hear Leavers talk much about Parliamentary sovereignty any more.
I would expect Boris (or any other UK PM) to say as little as possible about this. Trump is a matter for the American people. They elected him and they get a second chance to reconsider the matter shortly.
The job of our PM is to promote our interests. Falling out with the incumbent choice of the American people does not do that, even if, perhaps particularly when, the man is a racist arse.
This is self indulgent twaddle. Virtue signalling at its most extreme. I find the idea that it might actually shift anyone's vote in our elections depressing and unlikely in equal measure.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Didn't know you were in the Labour Party Stuart.
But that is equal nonsense. Any British politician who made comments like that is our problem and we have our choices. Boris has said many problematic things in the past and we as a country will have to decide how much we care about that. But Trump is not someone we have a vote on, no matter how many inflatable pigs in nappies we want to float skywards.
A very worrying post. Martin Niemöller‘s wise message is clearly needed more than ever in these times where we are slowly slipping into the void again.
If you follow your logic then no Frenchman, Pole or Englishman should have spoken out during the 1930’s. You’re more of a Neville than a Winston.
Says the man who campaigns night and day for a nationalist party with socialist policies.
The prorogation would be specifically to avoid a democratic vote by Parliament - not to allow lawmakers a holiday at the end of a session. So it simply isn't comparable.
You cannot seriously argue that using prorogation to avoid a democratic vote is anything other than suspending democracy. You might argue (I think wrongly but fair enough) that it's nevertheless justified to honour the will of the people in June 2016. But to say it's some kind of belated holiday for hard-working MPs is plainly nonsensical.
Parliament can pass an Act removing the prerogative power of proroguation if it wants to. Parliament can pass a Deal removing all possibilities of No Deal if it wants to.
If No Deal occurs it will be the action - or inaction - of Parliament that made that possible.
We pandered to the USA when they practised racial segregation.
One of many examples.
But as I say, the question here is as follows -
By failing to condemn Donald Trump for overtly racist language, or for promoting white supremacists on Twitter, or for slagging off our own leaders and institutions, etc etc, do we materially impact for the better the terms of any trade deal we end up doing with America at some point in the future?
If the answer to that is No - as I think it almost certainly is - then we are better advised to go with the natural and correct response.
It might perhaps be easier and save everyone time if we assume that pretty much everything Trump says or tweets is unmitigated and/or offensive rubbish and limit ourselves to congratulating him when he says something sensible.
If that's the line, it might be better not to invite him here to be wined and dined and have photo opportunities with the Queen.
I agree. Could not understand why we did that. The craven kow-towing to the US is one of the more dismal features of British politics. One of the few vaguely good things about Corbyn is that he does not automatically genuflect to the US even if, in his case, it is for entirely the wrong reasons and therefore equally contemptible and muddle-headed.
I would expect Boris (or any other UK PM) to say as little as possible about this. Trump is a matter for the American people. They elected him and they get a second chance to reconsider the matter shortly.
The job of our PM is to promote our interests. Falling out with the incumbent choice of the American people does not do that, even if, perhaps particularly when, the man is a racist arse.
This is self indulgent twaddle. Virtue signalling at its most extreme. I find the idea that it might actually shift anyone's vote in our elections depressing and unlikely in equal measure.
The snag with that argument is that if we simply adopted a blanket policy of letting people do whatever they liked in their own countries, we'd end up condoning genocide/Holocaust and so on, provided we could further our national interests by doing so.
No doubt the line isn't always easy to draw, but making simplistic assertions backed up by whatever the fashionable Internet jargon happens to be (in this case "virtue signalling," apparently) isn't very intelligent.
This is a political blog. All arguments have to be made with a minimum of nuance. A country which has policies of genocide is unlikely to be one that aligns with our national interest although the Soviet Union in WW2 is an obvious exception that immediately comes to mind. No doubt there are others.
I don't know about "super happy". I did not expect our politicians to be as incompetent, dishonest and disingenuous as they have been. No matter how cynical you think you are our politicians leave you feeling naive.
But I do agree that leaving with no deal was always a possible outcome and it is simply not true to say that the British people did not vote for it.
Of course it's true to say that the British people did not vote for it. They voted for something which might, if you squint hard enough, be interpreted as containing what seemed at the time the extremely remote possibility that we'd crash out in chaos, but no doubt they were reassured by the unanimous statements of those campaigning for Leave that there would be a deal and a smooth transition.
An agreement to agree is always worthless and meaningless. We expected to be able to reach an agreement with the EU. In fact we did but our Parliament in their wisdom rejected the agreement. Three times. That was always a possibility no matter how stupid and self defeating.
Yes it was always a remote possibility, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But that doesn't mean anyone voted for it. It means that the original decision has to be reconsidered because the only way of implementing it bears not the slightest resemblance to what people were voting for (and, to anticipate the response, there is only one way to assess what they voted for, namely the platform of the official Leave campaign).
They may or may not have voted for it but it was in the small print of the contract they signed by voting. They should have looked through the relevant EU documentation to understand what they signed up for. But of course they didn't.
The prorogation would be specifically to avoid a democratic vote by Parliament - not to allow lawmakers a holiday at the end of a session. So it simply isn't comparable.
You cannot seriously argue that using prorogation to avoid a democratic vote is anything other than suspending democracy. You might argue (I think wrongly but fair enough) that it's nevertheless justified to honour the will of the people in June 2016. But to say it's some kind of belated holiday for hard-working MPs is plainly nonsensical.
Parliament can pass an Act removing the prerogative power of proroguation if it wants to. Parliament can pass a Deal removing all possibilities of No Deal if it wants to.
If No Deal occurs it will be the action - or inaction - of Parliament that made that possible.
Yeah yeah. Boris’s future actions are everyone else’s fault but his. Classic.
I would expect Boris (or any other UK PM) to say as little as possible about this. Trump is a matter for the American people. They elected him and they get a second chance to reconsider the matter shortly.
The job of our PM is to promote our interests. Falling out with the incumbent choice of the American people does not do that, even if, perhaps particularly when, the man is a racist arse.
This is self indulgent twaddle. Virtue signalling at its most extreme. I find the idea that it might actually shift anyone's vote in our elections depressing and unlikely in equal measure.
The snag with that argument is that if we simply adopted a blanket policy of letting people do whatever they liked in their own countries, we'd end up condoning genocide/Holocaust and so on, provided we could further our national interests by doing so.
No doubt the line isn't always easy to draw, but making simplistic assertions backed up by whatever the fashionable Internet jargon happens to be (in this case "virtue signalling," apparently) isn't very intelligent.
This is a political blog. All arguments have to be made with a minimum of nuance. A country which has policies of genocide is unlikely to be one that aligns with our national interest although the Soviet Union in WW2 is an obvious exception that immediately comes to mind. No doubt there are others.
So no nuance really. Just the criterion of national interest, as I said!
I would expect Boris (or any other UK PM) to say as little as possible about this. Trump is a matter for the American people. They elected him and they get a second chance to reconsider the matter shortly.
The job of our PM is to promote our interests. Falling out with the incumbent choice of the American people does not do that, even if, perhaps particularly when, the man is a racist arse.
This is self indulgent twaddle. Virtue signalling at its most extreme. I find the idea that it might actually shift anyone's vote in our elections depressing and unlikely in equal measure.
The snag with that argument is that if we simply adopted a blanket policy of letting people do whatever they liked in their own countries, we'd end up condoning genocide/Holocaust and so on, provided we could further our national interests by doing so.
No doubt the line isn't always easy to draw, but making simplistic assertions backed up by whatever the fashionable Internet jargon happens to be (in this case "virtue signalling," apparently) isn't very intelligent.
This is the reason history keeps repeating itself. Learning the lessons of history is easy to say, but extremely hard to actually do. Most human beings instinctively avoid confrontation. But confronting evil is the only way to conquer it.
'Supplicant', Mike? I thought our Soveriegnity was about to return once we threw off the cursed yoke of the EU.
Surely we are not replacing servitude to the EU with servitude to the USA?
We’re not supplicant
The UK can function perfectly well without a US trade deal
If one makes sense for both sides then great, if not then whatever
It's too important to the psychology of those Brexiteers who see it as a project to unite the 'Anglosphere'. Take away both a US trade deal and a CANZUK alliance and what's the point?
These people are idiots. We are always going to trade more with Europe - it's called geography.
English wine shelves are row upon row of Australian, NZ, Californian, SA etc wines, and very, very skimpy on the infinitely better products of her immediate geographical neighbours to the south and east.
English wine consumers clearly are idiots, but fortunately for the country her businesspeople are not ideologues. They know that when it comes to procurement and export, geography is more important than language.
Lol another german wine drinking cybernat - they really are quite uncouth to go with being off their rockers
More unionist insults from the gutter. Try getting off your belly now and again.
I would expect Boris (or any other UK PM) to say as little as possible about this. Trump is a matter for the American people. They elected him and they get a second chance to reconsider the matter shortly.
The job of our PM is to promote our interests. Falling out with the incumbent choice of the American people does not do that, even if, perhaps particularly when, the man is a racist arse.
This is self indulgent twaddle. Virtue signalling at its most extreme. I find the idea that it might actually shift anyone's vote in our elections depressing and unlikely in equal measure.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Didn't know you were in the Labour Party Stuart.
But that is equal nonsense. Any British politician who made comments like that is our problem and we have our choices. Boris has said many problematic things in the past and we as a country will have to decide how much we care about that. But Trump is not someone we have a vote on, no matter how many inflatable pigs in nappies we want to float skywards.
A very worrying post. Martin Niemöller‘s wise message is clearly needed more than ever in these times where we are slowly slipping into the void again.
If you follow your logic then no Frenchman, Pole or Englishman should have spoken out during the 1930’s. You’re more of a Neville than a Winston.
We have a POTUS who makes pretty disgusting and uninhibited comments on his twitter account, especially before his staff get hold of him in the early morning. "Slipping into the void again"? A sense of perspective is required.
Doesn’t banning private schools fall foul of the ECHR?
I don't think so but I'm not sure.
Still, if you wish to make an argument in favour of banning them you are well advised to accept that it IS a non-trivial infringement of people's liberty to make it illegal to spend their own money on the education of their own children.
It's an easier case to make if you argue not for a ban but for disincentives which are sufficiently strong as to render private schools an irrational choice made only by rich eccentrics.
We pandered to the USA when they practised racial segregation.
One of many examples.
But as I say, the question here is as follows -
By failing to condemn Donald Trump for overtly racist language, or for promoting white supremacists on Twitter, or for slagging off our own leaders and institutions, etc etc, do we materially impact for the better the terms of any trade deal we end up doing with America at some point in the future?
If the answer to that is No - as I think it almost certainly is - then we are better advised to go with the natural and correct response.
It might perhaps be easier and save everyone time if we assume that pretty much everything Trump says or tweets is unmitigated and/or offensive rubbish and limit ourselves to congratulating him when he says something sensible.
If that's the line, it might be better not to invite him here to be wined and dined and have photo opportunities with the Queen.
I agree. Could not understand why we did that. The craven kow-towing to the US is one of the more dismal features of British politics. One of the few vaguely good things about Corbyn is that he does not automatically genuflect to the US even if, in his case, it is for entirely the wrong reasons and therefore equally contemptible and muddle-headed.
I wish I had the gift of looking inside people's heads and reading their thoughts.
'Supplicant', Mike? I thought our Soveriegnity was about to return once we threw off the cursed yoke of the EU.
Surely we are not replacing servitude to the EU with servitude to the USA?
We’re not supplicant
The UK can function perfectly well without a US trade deal
If one makes sense for both sides then great, if not then whatever
It's too important to the psychology of those Brexiteers who see it as a project to unite the 'Anglosphere'. Take away both a US trade deal and a CANZUK alliance and what's the point?
These people are idiots. We are always going to trade more with Europe - it's called geography.
English wine shelves are row upon row of Australian, NZ, Californian, SA etc wines, and very, very skimpy on the infinitely better products of her immediate geographical neighbours to the south and east.
English wine consumers clearly are idiots, but fortunately for the country her businesspeople are not ideologues. They know that when it comes to procurement and export, geography is more important than language.
Lol another german wine drinking cybernat - they really are quite uncouth to go with being off their rockers
More unionist insults from the gutter. Try getting off your belly now and again.
Full Moon tomorrow Malky - look out 'Yoons' about.
The prorogation would be specifically to avoid a democratic vote by Parliament - not to allow lawmakers a holiday at the end of a session. So it simply isn't comparable.
You cannot seriously argue that using prorogation to avoid a democratic vote is anything other than suspending democracy. You might argue (I think wrongly but fair enough) that it's nevertheless justified to honour the will of the people in June 2016. But to say it's some kind of belated holiday for hard-working MPs is plainly nonsensical.
Parliament can pass an Act removing the prerogative power of proroguation if it wants to. Parliament can pass a Deal removing all possibilities of No Deal if it wants to.
If No Deal occurs it will be the action - or inaction - of Parliament that made that possible.
Yeah yeah. Boris’s future actions are everyone else’s fault but his. Classic.
Classic justification for all bullying: blame the victim.
We pandered to the USA when they practised racial segregation.
One of many examples.
But as I say, the question here is as follows -
By failing to condemn Donald Trump for overtly racist language, or for promoting white supremacists on Twitter, or for slagging off our own leaders and institutions, etc etc, do we materially impact for the better the terms of any trade deal we end up doing with America at some point in the future?
If the answer to that is No - as I think it almost certainly is - then we are better advised to go with the natural and correct response.
It might perhaps be easier and save everyone time if we assume that pretty much everything Trump says or tweets is unmitigated and/or offensive rubbish and limit ourselves to congratulating him when he says something sensible.
If that's the line, it might be better not to invite him here to be wined and dined and have photo opportunities with the Queen.
I agree. Could not understand why we did that. The craven kow-towing to the US is one of the more dismal features of British politics. One of the few vaguely good things about Corbyn is that he does not automatically genuflect to the US even if, in his case, it is for entirely the wrong reasons and therefore equally contemptible and muddle-headed.
I wish I had the gift of looking inside people's heads and reading their thoughts.
I’m not. I’m going by what he has said in public on numerous occasions.
I don't know about "super happy". I did not expect our politicians to be as incompetent, dishonest and disingenuous as they have been. No matter how cynical you think you are our politicians leave you feeling naive.
But I do agree that leaving with no deal was always a possible outcome and it is simply not true to say that the British people did not vote for it.
Of course it's true to say that the British people did not vote for it. They voted for something which might, if you squint hard enough, be interpreted as containing what seemed at the time the extremely remote possibility that we'd crash out in chaos, but no doubt they were reassured by the unanimous statements of those campaigning for Leave that there would be a deal and a smooth transition.
An agreement to agree is always worthless and meaningless. We expected to be able to reach an agreement with the EU. In fact we did but our Parliament in their wisdom rejected the agreement. Three times. That was always a possibility no matter how stupid and self defeating.
Yes it was always a remote possibility, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But that doesn't mean anyone voted for it. It means that the original decision has to be reconsidered because the only way of implementing it bears not the slightest resemblance to what people were voting for (and, to anticipate the response, there is only one way to assess what they voted for, namely the platform of the official Leave campaign).
Our politicians should have done what they were told and voted for May's deal which was compatible with that platform. But they didn't. What then?
We just need to believe! Puts me in mind of an old Christmas tune by Greg Lake
They said there'll be a deal for Brexit They said it'll be easiest on Earth But instead the House kept on rejecting Withdrawal agreement: strangled at birth I remember twenty-ninth March Morning A springtime light and Cameron's bête noire With a snarl out of hell, Farage we know well His eyes full of hatred and fire
They sold me a dream of Brexit They told me about British might They told me a fairy story 'Till I believed their xenophobic shite And I believed in Boris Johnson And I looked to the future with excited eyes 'Till I woke with a yawn in the first Light of dawn And I saw him and through his disguise
I wish you a hopeful Brexit I wish you a brave new era All anguish pain and sadness Leave your Heart and let your road be clear They said there'll be deals so easy Global Britain bestriding Earth Will BMW directors save us? Will they hell The Brexit we get we deserve
Very good, especially the final line. England is certainly reaping what she has sowed.
I hope you'll look kindly on refugees from the south if Scotland manages to escape somehow!
All will be welcome, will be no Windrush caper in Scotland either.
The prorogation would be specifically to avoid a democratic vote by Parliament - not to allow lawmakers a holiday at the end of a session. So it simply isn't comparable.
You cannot seriously argue that using prorogation to avoid a democratic vote is anything other than suspending democracy. You might argue (I think wrongly but fair enough) that it's nevertheless justified to honour the will of the people in June 2016. But to say it's some kind of belated holiday for hard-working MPs is plainly nonsensical.
Parliament can pass an Act removing the prerogative power of proroguation if it wants to. Parliament can pass a Deal removing all possibilities of No Deal if it wants to.
If No Deal occurs it will be the action - or inaction - of Parliament that made that possible.
Yeah yeah. Boris’s future actions are everyone else’s fault but his. Classic.
Boris can only do that which Parliament permits him to do. If no deal occurs it will be because Parliament permitted it.
Parliament should pass a deal, or accept no deal or accept something else. So far it has rejected everything repeatedly. Except no deal. It has passed a law making no deal the law of the land on 31 October.
Executive action can't take us out of the EU, Miller saw to that. If we leave 31 October it will be laws that Parliament passed which made that happen and Parliament could have chosen an alternative route if it wanted to.
Parliament could also now vote to pass a simple Act to require a vote in the Commons before proroguation. Parliament passed an Act against the PM's will requiring an extension, its been weeks since the idea or proroguation was mooted so why hasn't that been done yet?
I would expect Boris (or any other UK PM) to say as little as possible about this. Trump is a matter for the American people. They elected him and they get a second chance to reconsider the matter shortly.
The job of our PM is to promote our interests. Falling out with the incumbent choice of the American people does not do that, even if, perhaps particularly when, the man is a racist arse.
This is self indulgent twaddle. Virtue signalling at its most extreme. I find the idea that it might actually shift anyone's vote in our elections depressing and unlikely in equal measure.
The snag with that argument is that if we simply adopted a blanket policy of letting people do whatever they liked in their own countries, we'd end up condoning genocide/Holocaust and so on, provided we could further our national interests by doing so.
No doubt the line isn't always easy to draw, but making simplistic assertions backed up by whatever the fashionable Internet jargon happens to be (in this case "virtue signalling," apparently) isn't very intelligent.
This is the reason history keeps repeating itself. Learning the lessons of history is easy to say, but extremely hard to actually do. Most human beings instinctively avoid confrontation. But confronting evil is the only way to conquer it.
For much the same reason, many people find anti-semitism deplorable and reprehensible, while finding every excuse in the book for rampant prejudice against Muslims.
I would expect Boris (or any other UK PM) to say as little as possible about this. Trump is a matter for the American people. They elected him and they get a second chance to reconsider the matter shortly.
The job of our PM is to promote our interests. Falling out with the incumbent choice of the American people does not do that, even if, perhaps particularly when, the man is a racist arse.
This is self indulgent twaddle. Virtue signalling at its most extreme. I find the idea that it might actually shift anyone's vote in our elections depressing and unlikely in equal measure.
The snag with that argument is that if we simply adopted a blanket policy of letting people do whatever they liked in their own countries, we'd end up condoning genocide/Holocaust and so on, provided we could further our national interests by doing so.
No doubt the line isn't always easy to draw, but making simplistic assertions backed up by whatever the fashionable Internet jargon happens to be (in this case "virtue signalling," apparently) isn't very intelligent.
This is a political blog. All arguments have to be made with a minimum of nuance. A country which has policies of genocide is unlikely to be one that aligns with our national interest although the Soviet Union in WW2 is an obvious exception that immediately comes to mind. No doubt there are others.
So no nuance really. Just the criterion of national interest, as I said!
Yes. As you said determining where our national interest is may not always be easy but yes.
What an idiot , she is worse than Trump on that front. What a brass neck she has to criticise him after her antics at the deportation office.
Indeed they are birds of a feather in that regard.
She and her office thought it a good idea to get those vans designed, approved and on the streets too not just sending a late night Twitter rant without proofreading.
We just need to believe! Puts me in mind of an old Christmas tune by Greg Lake
They said there'll be a deal for Brexit They said it'll be easiest on Earth But instead the House kept on rejecting Withdrawal agreement: strangled at birth I remember twenty-ninth March Morning A springtime light and Cameron's bête noire With a snarl out of hell, Farage we know well His eyes full of hatred and fire
They sold me a dream of Brexit They told me about British might They told me a fairy story 'Till I believed their xenophobic shite And I believed in Boris Johnson And I looked to the future with excited eyes 'Till I woke with a yawn in the first Light of dawn And I saw him and through his disguise
I wish you a hopeful Brexit I wish you a brave new era All anguish pain and sadness Leave your Heart and let your road be clear They said there'll be deals so easy Global Britain bestriding Earth Will BMW directors save us? Will they hell The Brexit we get we deserve
Very good, especially the final line. England is certainly reaping what she has sowed.
I hope you'll look kindly on refugees from the south if Scotland manages to escape somehow!
All will be welcome, will be no Windrush caper in Scotland either.
You going to give them a lift in that shiny new car of yours, Malcolm?
Just catching up on the three Westminster VI polls published at the weekend.
YouGov and Survation have published the detailed tables, per BPC rules, but not ComRes (why?)
The numbers are absolutely dreadful for Ruth Davidson and Richard Leonard, and cheerful reading for Nicola Sturgeon and Willie Rennie. Jo Swinson is going to inherit a lovely start on home ground (about doubled support), but is she capable of nurturing it?
Ruthie is a spent force, and there is no love lost between her and her new master Boris the Clown. I doubt she has the guts to stay, get gubbed at the next election, and thus lose her halo. Best to go before everybody notices that you were crap all along.
I don't know about "super happy". I did not expect our politicians to be as incompetent, dishonest and disingenuous as they have been. No matter how cynical you think you are our politicians leave you feeling naive.
But I do agree that leaving with no deal was always a possible outcome and it is simply not true to say that the British people did not vote for it.
Of course it's true to say that the British people did not vote for it. They voted for something which might, if you squint hard enough, be interpreted as containing what seemed at the time the extremely remote possibility that we'd crash out in chaos, but no doubt they were reassured by the unanimous view of those campaigning for Leave that there would be a deal and a smooth transition.
And always with the reassurance that they needed it more than we did. Oh for the halcyon days of advertising when you could use a well turned phrase like have your cake and eat it without a thought for its truthfulness.
Doesn’t banning private schools fall foul of the ECHR?
I don't think so but I'm not sure.
Still, if you wish to make an argument in favour of banning them you are well advised to accept that it IS a non-trivial infringement of people's liberty to make it illegal to spend their own money on the education of their own children.
It's an easier case to make if you argue not for a ban but for disincentives which are sufficiently strong as to render private schools an irrational choice made only by rich eccentrics.
As I understand you cannot make it illegal to set up or send your child to a private school. The state is however not obliged to subsidise that choice. So a government could legislate to remove the charitable exemption or impose VAT on fees. But it cannot stop a parent from choosing private education.
Personally I would do pretty much anything to avoid my children being educated in a system run by the likes of Corbyn and Milne. But Milne himself is a pretty good example of why a private school education can often be the most colossal waste of money. As is Boris.
Our politicians should have done what they were told and voted for May's deal which was compatible with that platform. But they didn't. What then?
I agree entirely. It's not all MPs' fault, though - unfortunately in 2017 voters made the extremely stupid decision not to grant Theresa May the mandate she needed to carry out their 2016 instruction. That is extremely regrettable, as it has directly led to the mess where hardline ERG loons have been able to team up with a cynical Labour Party to torpedo an orderly Brexit. That doesn't make it a good idea to collapse into a disorderly Brexit, which is the worst possible way of implemented the referendum result.
It might perhaps be easier and save everyone time if we assume that pretty much everything Trump says or tweets is unmitigated and/or offensive rubbish and limit ourselves to congratulating him when he says something sensible.
That has much going for it.
We could have a 'pinned tweet' that condemns him utterly and completely for everything he has said and done on that day - this stays there - and then post a little positive message on each occasion that he says or does something which is vaguely OK.
iScot will need all the refugees it can get given the outflow that will go in the opposite direction
I understand you left ukScot long ago?
I have spent some time in England, yes. iScot move to England is something me and Ms Brisk have discussed but we're quite cash poor at the moment. I'm sure those with the appropriate finances will give it some serious discussion.
We will be happy to get rid of Toom Tabards like you, hopefully you win the lottery.
Our politicians should have done what they were told and voted for May's deal which was compatible with that platform. But they didn't. What then?
I agree entirely. It's not all MPs' fault, though - unfortunately in 2017 voters made the extremely stupid decision not to grant Theresa May the mandate she needed to carry out their 2016 instruction. That is extremely regrettable, as it has directly led to the mess where hardline ERG loons have been able to team up with a cynical Labour Party to torpedo an orderly Brexit. That doesn't make it a good idea to collapse into a disorderly Brexit, which is the worst possible way of implemented the referendum result.
Our collective wisdom had reservations about giving May untrammeled power. The wisdom of crowds indeed as it turned out.
'Supplicant', Mike? I thought our Soveriegnity was about to return once we threw off the cursed yoke of the EU.
Surely we are not replacing servitude to the EU with servitude to the USA?
We’re not supplicant
The UK can function perfectly well without a US trade deal
If one makes sense for both sides then great, if not then whatever
Funny how people can see that is blindingly obvious for the US but switch the name US with EU and you are "insane" . . .
If you struggle to understand that, imagine California was leaving the USA. A deep trade deal with the USA would be essential not to screw their economy, but a trade deal with the EU would be somewhere between nice to have and irrelevant.
If California has reached such a point of divergence from the rest of the USA that they've decided that separation is best then they'd be insane to undergo that separation only to sign up to follow US laws.
Would they? I would have thought they would likely to continue to follow FCC regulations on electrial emitions, and the 110volt standard, and to ensure that mobile phone frequencies were the same, and the UL standard on fire safety.
Simply: they might disagree with the rest of the US on gay marriage, immigration, and the like to an extent where they wouldn't want to be in a union with them. But at the same time recognise that it makes sense for the same iPhone supporting the same voltage and radio frequencies works for both countries.
And if she isn’t, why not? What sort of bastard employer doesn’t give an employee undergoing chemotherapy time off and ensure that someone else does that person’s work?
These people are like the Politbureau, they will be at their desks afraid that if they take an hour off they will be exterminated.
iScot will need all the refugees it can get given the outflow that will go in the opposite direction
I understand you left ukScot long ago?
I have spent some time in England, yes. iScot move to England is something me and Ms Brisk have discussed but we're quite cash poor at the moment. I'm sure those with the appropriate finances will give it some serious discussion.
We will be happy to get rid of Toom Tabards like you, hopefully you win the lottery.
I'll be betting on a Separatist win for insurance certainly
What an idiot , she is worse than Trump on that front. What a brass neck she has to criticise him after her antics at the deportation office.
Winrush May has no moral high ground from which to preach.
Neither does anyone that supports a party that has part of its raison d'etre as a not very secret hatred of another nation. I am sure not all Scottish Nationalists hate English people, but....
That’s nonsense. Remainers need to accept that a democratic mandate must be met through democracy. And Leavers must accept that their cluelessness about what they want does not allow them to subvert Parliamentary democracy. Excusing either is dangerous.
As has been pointed out many times by both sides, there was no further instruction on the ballot paper other than "leave". The default position that all leave voters were aware of is that the UK would leave the EU without a deal. Saying there would be a deal was just political bollocks from Leave.EU. Just like the political bollocks that is spouted all the time in election campaigns of any type.
The small print, however, remains (!) that we are due to leave the EU, and always were, with no deal if no deal is negotiated. And it hasn't been.
I mean even our favourite Leavers on here are super happy with leaving without a deal because their vote meant that it was a strong possibility.
I don't know about "super happy". I did not expect our politicians to be as incompetent, dishonest and disingenuous as they have been. No matter how cynical you think you are our politicians leave you feeling naive.
But I do agree that leaving with no deal was always a possible outcome and it is simply not true to say that the British people did not vote for it.
Shouldn't really need saying, but looks like it does. 52% of the British people who voted wanted to Leave but they were told by the Leave campaigns it would be easy, cost nothing and in fact we would be better off. It is certainly bollocks to say, as you have, " it is simply not true to say that the British people did not vote for "
They were told by Remainers and the government it would be chaotic, disastrous, cause a recession and cost each household thousands of pounds.
That's definitely two for a VoNC I reckon. Clarke being the other.
May is probably a third - and there will be more. Just look for any sane Tory retiring or potentially in the near future...
No way.
You genuinely think that the outgoing Con leader and PM is about to immediately VoNC the incoming Con leader and PM? That would be unprecedented in not just English history, but world history. Surely not??
That's definitely two for a VoNC I reckon. Clarke being the other.
May is probably a third - and there will be more. Just look for any sane Tory retiring or potentially in the near future...
No way.
You genuinely think that the outgoing Con leader and PM is about to immediately VoNC the incoming Con leader and PM? That would be unprecedented in not just English history, but world history. Surely not??
We aren't talking about a VoNC next Thursday but one in late September / October...
I know that Theresa May is no Boris fan, but I just find it inconceivable that she would ever VoNC the leader of her beloved Tory party.
May is incredibly wobbly in many ways, but surely nobody could doubt that she is a textbook example of a partisan. She will be Tory till the day she dies. Or the party dies, which looks like being the earlier event.
What an idiot , she is worse than Trump on that front. What a brass neck she has to criticise him after her antics at the deportation office.
Indeed they are birds of a feather in that regard.
She and her office thought it a good idea to get those vans designed, approved and on the streets too not just sending a late night Twitter rant without proofreading.
I am not going to defend the vans at all.
But the pedant in me is going to point out the obvious difference between telling people who are in a country illegally to go home and telling people who are born in a country or in it legally to go “home”. The latter has a quality of vileness well beyond the horribleness of the vans.
What an idiot , she is worse than Trump on that front. What a brass neck she has to criticise him after her antics at the deportation office.
Winrush May has no moral high ground from which to preach.
Neither does anyone that supports a party that has part of its raison d'etre as a not very secret hatred of another nation. I am sure not all Scottish Nationalists hate English people, but....
Another nation? If you recognise that England is another nation then you need a good constitutional argument to justify the status quo.
What if Parliament is dissolved rather than suspended? Lets imagine if mid to late September Boris calls for an election to be held on 31 October to determine our post-Brexit future, Corbyn agrees, two-thirds of Parliament votes for it. So at 10pm we stop voting and start counting the votes and at 11pm we exit without a deal. Is that an enemy of democracy?
I suspect that Mr Corbyn would offer the VoNC route, but not the two-thirds voting for an early election. (Simply, that requires two thirds of MPs to avoid asking for a GoNAFAE - and the numbers aren't there for that.)
Politics is usually about the path of least resistance - and I think (although I could be wrong) that the GoAFAE is lower resistance than allowing No Deal to happen in the middle of a General Election campaign.
iScot will need all the refugees it can get given the outflow that will go in the opposite direction
I understand you left ukScot long ago?
I have spent some time in England, yes. iScot move to England is something me and Ms Brisk have discussed but we're quite cash poor at the moment. I'm sure those with the appropriate finances will give it some serious discussion.
We will be happy to get rid of Toom Tabards like you, hopefully you win the lottery.
Great phrase Toom Tabard, nickname of John Balliol. Bit like all hat and no cattle.
Doesn’t banning private schools fall foul of the ECHR?
I don't think so but I'm not sure.
Still, if you wish to make an argument in favour of banning them you are well advised to accept that it IS a non-trivial infringement of people's liberty to make it illegal to spend their own money on the education of their own children.
It's an easier case to make if you argue not for a ban but for disincentives which are sufficiently strong as to render private schools an irrational choice made only by rich eccentrics.
As someone who believes in meritocracy but dislikes banning things, a sensible balance can be delivered by VAT on school fees and reducing govt university funding from anywhere which doesnt have a realistic balance between state and private school entrants (doesnt need to be anywhere near equal but for example 8 private schools having same number of entrants as 3000 state schools are not numbers that justify government funding).
What an idiot , she is worse than Trump on that front. What a brass neck she has to criticise him after her antics at the deportation office.
Winrush May has no moral high ground from which to preach.
Neither does anyone that supports a party that has part of its raison d'etre as a not very secret hatred of another nation. I am sure not all Scottish Nationalists hate English people, but....
Another nation? If you recognise that England is another nation then you need a good constitutional argument to justify the status quo.
Depends on how you are defining "nation". Whether in the sense of nation as a national of the United Kingdom (which has a constitutional aspect) or nation, as in "the Six Nations" etc.
'Supplicant', Mike? I thought our Soveriegnity was about to return once we threw off the cursed yoke of the EU.
Surely we are not replacing servitude to the EU with servitude to the USA?
We’re not supplicant
The UK can function perfectly well without a US trade deal
If one makes sense for both sides then great, if not then whatever
Funny how people can see that is blindingly obvious for the US but switch the name US with EU and you are "insane" . . .
If you struggle to understand that, imagine California was leaving the USA. A deep trade deal with the USA would be essential not to screw their economy, but a trade deal with the EU would be somewhere between nice to have and irrelevant.
If California has reached such a point of divergence from the rest of the USA that they've decided that separation is best then they'd be insane to undergo that separation only to sign up to follow US laws.
Would they? I would have thought they would likely to continue to follow FCC regulations on electrial emitions, and the 110volt standard, and to ensure that mobile phone frequencies were the same, and the UL standard on fire safety.
Simply: they might disagree with the rest of the US on gay marriage, immigration, and the like to an extent where they wouldn't want to be in a union with them. But at the same time recognise that it makes sense for the same iPhone supporting the same voltage and radio frequencies works for both countries.
Indeed they might so it would be up to them to choose where to align and where not to. Not to kowtow to the USA insisting they must align wherever future Trump insists they must.
iScot will need all the refugees it can get given the outflow that will go in the opposite direction
I understand you left ukScot long ago?
I have spent some time in England, yes. iScot move to England is something me and Ms Brisk have discussed but we're quite cash poor at the moment. I'm sure those with the appropriate finances will give it some serious discussion.
We will be happy to get rid of Toom Tabards like you, hopefully you win the lottery.
Great phrase Toom Tabard, nickname of John Balliol. Bit like all hat and no cattle.
iScot will need all the refugees it can get given the outflow that will go in the opposite direction
I understand you left ukScot long ago?
I have spent some time in England, yes. iScot move to England is something me and Ms Brisk have discussed but we're quite cash poor at the moment. I'm sure those with the appropriate finances will give it some serious discussion.
We will be happy to get rid of Toom Tabards like you, hopefully you win the lottery.
Great phrase Toom Tabard, nickname of John Balliol. Bit like all hat and no cattle.
As regular readers will know, I'm not exactly a fan of Boris, but the Guardian's trawling back through back issues of his writings to find things they can distort in order to vilify him is getting more and more absurd:
That's definitely two for a VoNC I reckon. Clarke being the other.
May is probably a third - and there will be more. Just look for any sane Tory retiring or potentially in the near future...
No way.
You genuinely think that the outgoing Con leader and PM is about to immediately VoNC the incoming Con leader and PM? That would be unprecedented in not just English history, but world history. Surely not??
That's definitely two for a VoNC I reckon. Clarke being the other.
May is probably a third - and there will be more. Just look for any sane Tory retiring or potentially in the near future...
No way.
You genuinely think that the outgoing Con leader and PM is about to immediately VoNC the incoming Con leader and PM? That would be unprecedented in not just English history, but world history. Surely not??
We aren't talking about a VoNC next Thursday but one in late September / October...
I know that Theresa May is no Boris fan, but I just find it inconceivable that she would ever VoNC the leader of her beloved Tory party.
May is incredibly wobbly in many ways, but surely nobody could doubt that she is a textbook example of a partisan. She will be Tory till the day she dies. Or the party dies, which looks like being the earlier event.
The only way the Tory Party does is if the Brexit Party replaces it
As I understand you cannot make it illegal to set up or send your child to a private school. The state is however not obliged to subsidise that choice. So a government could legislate to remove the charitable exemption or impose VAT on fees. But it cannot stop a parent from choosing private education.
Personally I would do pretty much anything to avoid my children being educated in a system run by the likes of Corbyn and Milne. But Milne himself is a pretty good example of why a private school education can often be the most colossal waste of money. As is Boris.
Yes, I can believe that. As I say, the easier case to make - and the one I would make - is that the private opt out should be strongly disincentivized on the grounds that it rides a coach & horses through the notion of equality of opportunity.
Easy first steps include the thing you mention - end the tax breaks.
I am very against private schools - but this is not the way to win support for the argument.
Doesn’t banning private schools fall foul of the ECHR?
It would be insane in any case, it would cost billions for the state to educate all the pupils. It is a bit like private health care , it saves the state lots of money. It is unfortunate not everybody can have it but such is life. Fine not to like it but you would have to be seriously deranged to get rid of it.
As I understand you cannot make it illegal to set up or send your child to a private school. The state is however not obliged to subsidise that choice. So a government could legislate to remove the charitable exemption or impose VAT on fees. But it cannot stop a parent from choosing private education.
Personally I would do pretty much anything to avoid my children being educated in a system run by the likes of Corbyn and Milne. But Milne himself is a pretty good example of why a private school education can often be the most colossal waste of money. As is Boris.
Yes, I can believe that. As I say, the easier case to make - and the one I would make - is that the private opt out should be strongly disincentivized on the grounds that it rides a coach & horses through the notion of equality of opportunity.
Easy first steps include the thing you mention - end the tax breaks.
It is strongly disincentivized, to the tune of £40K per year per child and - amazingly - no rebate on the money which the state saves as a result.
Doesn’t banning private schools fall foul of the ECHR?
I don't think so but I'm not sure.
Still, if you wish to make an argument in favour of banning them you are well advised to accept that it IS a non-trivial infringement of people's liberty to make it illegal to spend their own money on the education of their own children.
It's an easier case to make if you argue not for a ban but for disincentives which are sufficiently strong as to render private schools an irrational choice made only by rich eccentrics.
As someone who believes in meritocracy but dislikes banning things, a sensible balance can be delivered by VAT on school fees and reducing govt university funding from anywhere which doesnt have a realistic balance between state and private school entrants (doesnt need to be anywhere near equal but for example 8 private schools having same number of entrants as 3000 state schools are not numbers that justify government funding).
Bollox to VAT or any tax, these people are paying twice already, they fund state schools and do not use them and then save them money by going private. You lefties would prefer everybody to be in the grubber getting crap education and crap NHS. When you get to it yourself and have the choice you will not be so sanctimonious or jealous.
As I understand you cannot make it illegal to set up or send your child to a private school. The state is however not obliged to subsidise that choice. So a government could legislate to remove the charitable exemption or impose VAT on fees. But it cannot stop a parent from choosing private education.
Personally I would do pretty much anything to avoid my children being educated in a system run by the likes of Corbyn and Milne. But Milne himself is a pretty good example of why a private school education can often be the most colossal waste of money. As is Boris.
Yes, I can believe that. As I say, the easier case to make - and the one I would make - is that the private opt out should be strongly disincentivized on the grounds that it rides a coach & horses through the notion of equality of opportunity.
Easy first steps include the thing you mention - end the tax breaks.
Australia has very high social mobility with similar private schools to ours, as does Canada, provided they provide scholarships and share facilities I fail to see the problem
What an idiot , she is worse than Trump on that front. What a brass neck she has to criticise him after her antics at the deportation office.
Winrush May has no moral high ground from which to preach.
Neither does anyone that supports a party that has part of its raison d'etre as a not very secret hatred of another nation. I am sure not all Scottish Nationalists hate English people, but....
That's definitely two for a VoNC I reckon. Clarke being the other.
May is probably a third - and there will be more. Just look for any sane Tory retiring or potentially in the near future...
No way.
You genuinely think that the outgoing Con leader and PM is about to immediately VoNC the incoming Con leader and PM? That would be unprecedented in not just English history, but world history. Surely not??
That's definitely two for a VoNC I reckon. Clarke being the other.
May is probably a third - and there will be more. Just look for any sane Tory retiring or potentially in the near future...
No way.
You genuinely think that the outgoing Con leader and PM is about to immediately VoNC the incoming Con leader and PM? That would be unprecedented in not just English history, but world history. Surely not??
We aren't talking about a VoNC next Thursday but one in late September / October...
I know that Theresa May is no Boris fan, but I just find it inconceivable that she would ever VoNC the leader of her beloved Tory party.
May is incredibly wobbly in many ways, but surely nobody could doubt that she is a textbook example of a partisan. She will be Tory till the day she dies. Or the party dies, which looks like being the earlier event.
The only way the Tory Party does is if the Brexit Party replaces it
The Tory Party that you support is no longer the Conservative Party, it is the Brexit-Party-Lite. It has become an absurd parody. It is the English version of the Scottish Nationalists; inward looking with a membership that while still having a minority of decent minded folk, has a majority that is sick with hatred for people of other countries
As I understand you cannot make it illegal to set up or send your child to a private school. The state is however not obliged to subsidise that choice. So a government could legislate to remove the charitable exemption or impose VAT on fees. But it cannot stop a parent from choosing private education.
Personally I would do pretty much anything to avoid my children being educated in a system run by the likes of Corbyn and Milne. But Milne himself is a pretty good example of why a private school education can often be the most colossal waste of money. As is Boris.
Yes, I can believe that. As I say, the easier case to make - and the one I would make - is that the private opt out should be strongly disincentivized on the grounds that it rides a coach & horses through the notion of equality of opportunity.
Easy first steps include the thing you mention - end the tax breaks.
The "tax breaks" are entirely self funding and then some. Having my son at private school, for example, saves the local authority about £8000 a year. Even if you applied VAT and took away their charitable status the monies generated would not cover much more than half of that. As I then couldn't afford it they would have the cost and miss out on the tax.
He is also getting better educated which may well make him a better taxpayer in the future.
iScot will need all the refugees it can get given the outflow that will go in the opposite direction
I understand you left ukScot long ago?
I have spent some time in England, yes. iScot move to England is something me and Ms Brisk have discussed but we're quite cash poor at the moment. I'm sure those with the appropriate finances will give it some serious discussion.
We will be happy to get rid of Toom Tabards like you, hopefully you win the lottery.
I'll be betting on a Separatist win for insurance certainly
I'm unpersuaded destroying many great schools to add thousands of pupils to the state sector, necessitating billions of pounds of expenditure with no commensurate rise in taxation revenue is a policy that belongs anywhere other than the bin.
And on that condemnation of communist nonsense, I bid you all good day.
We just need to believe! Puts me in mind of an old Christmas tune by Greg Lake
They said there'll be a deal for Brexit They said it'll be easiest on Earth But instead the House kept on rejecting Withdrawal agreement: strangled at birth I remember twenty-ninth March Morning A springtime light and Cameron's bête noire With a snarl out of hell, Farage we know well His eyes full of hatred and fire
They sold me a dream of Brexit They told me about British might They told me a fairy story 'Till I believed their xenophobic shite And I believed in Boris Johnson And I looked to the future with excited eyes 'Till I woke with a yawn in the first Light of dawn And I saw him and through his disguise
I wish you a hopeful Brexit I wish you a brave new era All anguish pain and sadness Leave your Heart and let your road be clear They said there'll be deals so easy Global Britain bestriding Earth Will BMW directors save us? Will they hell The Brexit we get we deserve
Very good, especially the final line. England is certainly reaping what she has sowed.
I hope you'll look kindly on refugees from the south if Scotland manages to escape somehow!
All will be welcome, will be no Windrush caper in Scotland either.
You going to give them a lift in that shiny new car of yours, Malcolm?
What if Parliament is dissolved rather than suspended? Lets imagine if mid to late September Boris calls for an election to be held on 31 October to determine our post-Brexit future, Corbyn agrees, two-thirds of Parliament votes for it. So at 10pm we stop voting and start counting the votes and at 11pm we exit without a deal. Is that an enemy of democracy?
I suspect that Mr Corbyn would offer the VoNC route, but not the two-thirds voting for an early election. (Simply, that requires two thirds of MPs to avoid asking for a GoNAFAE - and the numbers aren't there for that.)
Politics is usually about the path of least resistance - and I think (although I could be wrong) that the GoAFAE is lower resistance than allowing No Deal to happen in the middle of a General Election campaign.
I expect that Jeremy Corbyn's condition for agreeing to a general election by any route will be a requirement first to get an extension of the Article 50 period to 31 December 2019. It's right in principle - why should the government get to force its policy on the opposition by default? - and it would be deadly in political terms for Boris Johnson, undermining his promise to get Britain out of the EU by 31 October.
What if Parliament is dissolved rather than suspended? Lets imagine if mid to late September Boris calls for an election to be held on 31 October to determine our post-Brexit future, Corbyn agrees, two-thirds of Parliament votes for it. So at 10pm we stop voting and start counting the votes and at 11pm we exit without a deal. Is that an enemy of democracy?
I suspect that Mr Corbyn would offer the VoNC route, but not the two-thirds voting for an early election. (Simply, that requires two thirds of MPs to avoid asking for a GoNAFAE - and the numbers aren't there for that.)
Politics is usually about the path of least resistance - and I think (although I could be wrong) that the GoAFAE is lower resistance than allowing No Deal to happen in the middle of a General Election campaign.
If the Tories and Labour were to three-line-whip against GoNAFAE and three-line-whip in favour of an election then I think two-thirds for an election is more plausible.
Comments
I think there's a good argument to be made that similar to the FTPA a law should be passed saying that there can not be a proroguation without the Commons approving it first. But AFAIK that is not what the constitution currently says.
Parties have been known to renege on manifestos, it's not really the same thing.
But as I say, the question here is as follows -
By failing to condemn Donald Trump for overtly racist language, or for promoting white supremacists on Twitter, or for slagging off our own leaders and institutions, etc etc, do we materially impact for the better the terms of any trade deal we end up doing with America at some point in the future?
If the answer to that is No - as I think it almost certainly is - then we are better advised to go with the natural and correct response.
But that is equal nonsense. Any British politician who made comments like that is our problem and we have our choices. Boris has said many problematic things in the past and we as a country will have to decide how much we care about that. But Trump is not someone we have a vote on, no matter how many inflatable pigs in nappies we want to float skywards.
The public voted for Brexit, that is it. Brexit was defined by all sides as leaving the single market and leaving the customs union. Brexit was defined by Leavers as going to be smooth and orderly and defined by Remainers as going to be disastrous and chaotic.
If we leave the single market, leave the customs union, it is disastrous and chaotic then every single thing Remainers said would happen if we voted to Leave may come true.
But once they step over that line...
You can argue that it was risky to vote for that legislation if you were concerned about No Deal Brexit.
But (i) May was promising a deal; (ii) the legislation does not (as claimed by No Dealers) make their option a default, as the section specifying the withdrawal date is not in force; and (iii) Parliament did not rule out further constraining the executive in the absence of a deal.
So you are simply rewriting history to your own benefit there.
52% of the British people who voted wanted to Leave but they were told by the Leave campaigns it would be easy, cost nothing and in fact we would be better off.
It is certainly bollocks to say, as you have, " it is simply not true to say that the British people did not vote for "
If they were seeking no deal then great, they got what they wanted. If they didn't then they've screwed up, royally.
No doubt the line isn't always easy to draw, but making simplistic assertions backed up by whatever the fashionable Internet jargon happens to be (in this case "virtue signalling," apparently) isn't very intelligent.
But no matter how incredibly obtuse and dishonest our MPs are being our Parliament remains sovereign and exclusion of it by the Executive is unacceptable both now and as a precedent.
If you follow your logic then no Frenchman, Pole or Englishman should have spoken out during the 1930’s. You’re more of a Neville than a Winston.
Parliament should pass an act removing the prerogative power of proroguation if they want to do so. They should also pass a deal if they don't want no deal.
You cannot seriously argue that using prorogation to avoid a democratic vote is anything other than suspending democracy. You might argue (I think wrongly but fair enough) that it's nevertheless justified to honour the will of the people in June 2016. But to say it's some kind of belated holiday for hard-working MPs is plainly nonsensical.
So now what? We overturn the referendum result because a key campaigning point on the winning side (the EU's overt bureaucracy and intransigence) turns out to have been a massive understatement?
Parliament can pass a Deal removing all possibilities of No Deal if it wants to.
If No Deal occurs it will be the action - or inaction - of Parliament that made that possible.
No rerun of Peterborough by-election.
Still, if you wish to make an argument in favour of banning them you are well advised to accept that it IS a non-trivial infringement of people's liberty to make it illegal to spend their own money on the education of their own children.
It's an easier case to make if you argue not for a ban but for disincentives which are sufficiently strong as to render private schools an irrational choice made only by rich eccentrics.
To answer my own question, yes it does: https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-2-first-protocol-right-education
So Shami should be well placed to advise Jeremy .....
Parliament should pass a deal, or accept no deal or accept something else. So far it has rejected everything repeatedly. Except no deal. It has passed a law making no deal the law of the land on 31 October.
Executive action can't take us out of the EU, Miller saw to that. If we leave 31 October it will be laws that Parliament passed which made that happen and Parliament could have chosen an alternative route if it wanted to.
Parliament could also now vote to pass a simple Act to require a vote in the Commons before proroguation. Parliament passed an Act against the PM's will requiring an extension, its been weeks since the idea or proroguation was mooted so why hasn't that been done yet?
She and her office thought it a good idea to get those vans designed, approved and on the streets too not just sending a late night Twitter rant without proofreading.
As I understand you cannot make it illegal to set up or send your child to a private school. The state is however not obliged to subsidise that choice. So a government could legislate to remove the charitable exemption or impose VAT on fees. But it cannot stop a parent from choosing private education.
Personally I would do pretty much anything to avoid my children being educated in a system run by the likes of Corbyn and Milne. But Milne himself is a pretty good example of why a private school education can often be the most colossal waste of money. As is Boris.
That has much going for it.
We could have a 'pinned tweet' that condemns him utterly and completely for everything he has said and done on that day - this stays there - and then post a little positive message on each occasion that he says or does something which is vaguely OK.
Would be low maintenance, obviously.
Simply: they might disagree with the rest of the US on gay marriage, immigration, and the like to an extent where they wouldn't want to be in a union with them. But at the same time recognise that it makes sense for the same iPhone supporting the same voltage and radio frequencies works for both countries.
But the pedant in me is going to point out the obvious difference between telling people who are in a country illegally to go home and telling people who are born in a country or in it legally to go “home”. The latter has a quality of vileness well beyond the horribleness of the vans.
Politics is usually about the path of least resistance - and I think (although I could be wrong) that the GoAFAE is lower resistance than allowing No Deal to happen in the middle of a General Election campaign.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1150802704375177216
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/15/boris-johnson-islam-muslim-world-centuries-behind-2007-essay
Easy first steps include the thing you mention - end the tax breaks.
He is also getting better educated which may well make him a better taxpayer in the future.
And on that condemnation of communist nonsense, I bid you all good day.
I would like to see this reversed.