The present selection of political parties in Great Britain constitutes the best possible argument for the avoidance of compulsory voting. They encompass, depending on which one of the steaming cowpats one is attempting to describe, the hard-right; the hard-left; an obsession with the constitution to the exclusion of all else; party hierarchies and mass memberships alike riddled from top to bottom with various flavours of bigots; venal incompetence; and, more often than not, some combination of two or more of these unwelcome things.
It is almost as if the body politic has been infected by a lethal cocktail of plagues contracted from Northern Ireland. I fear that we wait in vain for signs of a cure...
The problem Barnier has that if the WA is not signed then he will be always know in future as the man who held all the cards, had the worlds best negotiating team and still could not get a deal.
So anything he says take with a pinch of salt. it is the response of the leaders that is important.
yes, Barnier got greedy and atm has nothing to show for it but a big downside for everyone. Almost as stupid as Varadkar
If Mr Varadkar believes the EU will stand behind Ireland even at the cost of the German economy (already in the doldrums) then he does not understand who is in charge.
In what conceivable circumstance would there be a trade off between the two?
@Philip_Thompson you should expel the ERG for not following the whip. Oh and Boris.
May was too cowardly to make the meaningful votes a confidence motion. More fool her.
If Grieve and co vote No Confidence in the government then expulsion will be automatic.
The ERG gave Grieve and co cover and could you really expel the ERG (May probably wanted to but Tory membership is far more right wing then the 5 yearly voter)...
The problem Barnier has that if the WA is not signed then he will be always know in future as the man who held all the cards, had the worlds best negotiating team and still could not get a deal.
So anything he says take with a pinch of salt. it is the response of the leaders that is important.
yes, Barnier got greedy and atm has nothing to show for it but a big downside for everyone. Almost as stupid as Varadkar
If Mr Varadkar believes the EU will stand behind Ireland even at the cost of the German economy (already in the doldrums) then he does not understand who is in charge.
In what conceivable circumstance would there be a trade off between the two?
There is standing behind and there is nearly standing behind, whilst pretending that you are fully standing behind. The Irish would have little choice but to grin and bear it. Finding the circumstance may be more their problem rather than ours. Who knows?
Can anyone really see anything other than no deal now? How does any other eventually happen? Boris is not going to get another deal and he won’t call an election prior.
No deal it is I think, he is stupid enough.
He needs an election to No Deal, unless he engineers the timing of an election to be such that we drop out during the campaign period when HoC is not sitting.
Or, enough Labour MPs break Seamus's Whip and agree to back WA.
If there’s no legislation to amend and no VONC how can ‘no deal’ be stopped?
With no legislation to amend I suspect boredom could result in a VoNC...
This mess is entirely May's fault for throwing away the majority and being so weak with the EU.
It does seem like the best way to get forward from here if the EU doesn't want to blink is to have an election, purge Parliament of people like Grieve and then move forwards with No Deal.
After that we won't be begging, you don't know Britain very well if you think we will turn to begging, but we will remain open to a deal the moment they want to drop their delusionally undemocratic backstop demands. The backstop was a disgrace that they tried to foist on us and if they get nothing instead that is their choice.
Following an election there are two plausible outcomes. Boris wins a majority to back No Deal, we won't beg after that. Or Boris loses and Corbyn gets a rainbow majority to have a 2nd referendum. There is no realistic alternative.
What you fail to understand about the backstop, although god knows it has been pointed out countless times, is that it was a joint agreement between the EU and the UK reflecting the UK's desire not to put the future of Northern Ireland in jeopardy. It was as much us as them.
That Boris et al, after of course backing it, now seems so dead set against it is evidence that they don't know or don't care about the situation in Northern Ireland. Or else believe they can stonewall the WTO should circumstances arise whereby we are told by them to erect border controls.
Then again perhaps he is singing from Patrick Minford's hymnsheet and actually wants to unilaterally reduce tariffs to zero so as to reinvigorate British agriculture and industry. But perhaps not.
I understand it was a joint agreement "by the UK", though the UK as represented by dire remainers Robbins and May. Thankfully though we are a Parliamentary democracy and Parliament saw fit to reject May's godawful backstop containing deal. So the deal is dead, as are many international agreements throughout history that have failed to be ratified.
Now the backstop should die as it should never have been created in the first place. I don't care if you think its good, our politicians rejected it 3 times and now the PM rejects it too. Bye bye backstop. You insisted to me repeatedly that I was absurd and delusional in thinking it would ever be defeated, I've lost track of the amount of times you told me that the backstop would definitely ultimately pass, that I was a crazy idiot for thinking otherwise.
We shall see. If I'm wrong I assure you that it's more a reflection of leavers than it is of me.
The problem Barnier has that if the WA is not signed then he will be always know in future as the man who held all the cards, had the worlds best negotiating team and still could not get a deal.
So anything he says take with a pinch of salt. it is the response of the leaders that is important.
yes, Barnier got greedy and atm has nothing to show for it but a big downside for everyone. Almost as stupid as Varadkar
If Mr Varadkar believes the EU will stand behind Ireland even at the cost of the German economy (already in the doldrums) then he does not understand who is in charge.
Ah, the faith PB Brexiteers have in the German car manufacturers riding in on their unicorns like Blücher's Prussians at Waterloo to save their fantasy at the last minute is nothing short of touching.
You appear to believe that any suggestion anybody makes that disagrees with your position automatically makes that person insane and equivalent to Adolf Hitler. You must be a terrible negotiator. In fact, directly equivalent to the way you perceive anybody else’s negotiating strategy.
Have you ever dealt with the EU institutions or their leaders at a high level? Have you ever spoken to the leaders of industry in Germany or the other EU states?
You appear, and this is emblematic of people in politics on all sides at the moment, to think that equating people to a fascist dictator and refusing to accept that other people can have valid perspectives is equivalent to positing an argument.
Sad for you, sad for your colleagues, sad for politics.
Nah, just saying that expecting the German carmakers to bail out the Brexiteers is as delusional as Hitler in his bunker expecting Steiner to bale them out.
People are welcome to mock my knowledge of the negotiations, and indeed have done frequently, but I have been right all along.
The problem Barnier has that if the WA is not signed then he will be always know in future as the man who held all the cards, had the worlds best negotiating team and still could not get a deal.
So anything he says take with a pinch of salt. it is the response of the leaders that is important.
yes, Barnier got greedy and atm has nothing to show for it but a big downside for everyone. Almost as stupid as Varadkar
If Mr Varadkar believes the EU will stand behind Ireland even at the cost of the German economy (already in the doldrums) then he does not understand who is in charge.
Ah, the faith PB Brexiteers have in the German car manufacturers riding in on their unicorns like Blücher's Prussians at Waterloo to save their fantasy at the last minute is nothing short of touching.
You appear to believe that any suggestion anybody makes that disagrees with your position automatically makes that person insane and equivalent to Adolf Hitler. You must be a terrible negotiator. In fact, directly equivalent to the way you perceive anybody else’s negotiating strategy.
Have you ever dealt with the EU institutions or their leaders at a high level? Have you ever spoken to the leaders of industry in Germany or the other EU states?
You appear, and this is emblematic of people in politics on all sides at the moment, to think that equating people to a fascist dictator and refusing to accept that other people can have valid perspectives is equivalent to positing an argument.
Sad for you, sad for your colleagues, sad for politics.
You don't appear to be familiar with the Downfall meme do you? It has bugger all to do with the Nazis essentially, rather it calls out insanely stubborn refusals to face reality, such as are daily exhibited by the Brexiteers on this site.
I was sorry to note you decision to leave the Conservative Party following the appointment of Boris Johnson as Prime Minister.
I'm sure it was a particular wrench to distance yourself from an organisation that you have supported and worked so assiduously and conscientiously for many decades.
@Philip_Thompson you should expel the ERG for not following the whip. Oh and Boris.
May was too cowardly to make the meaningful votes a confidence motion. More fool her.
If Grieve and co vote No Confidence in the government then expulsion will be automatic.
The ERG gave Grieve and co cover and could you really expel the ERG (May probably wanted to but Tory membership is far more right wing then the 5 yearly voter)...
Indeed the ERG did because they saw through it that it was a crap deal.
May had the option of making the WDA a Confidence motion but she didn't do so. No Deal is already the legal default so if Boris doesn't blink it will take a No Confidence motion to stop him.
@Philip_Thompson you should expel the ERG for not following the whip. Oh and Boris.
May was too cowardly to make the meaningful votes a confidence motion. More fool her.
If Grieve and co vote No Confidence in the government then expulsion will be automatic.
The ERG gave Grieve and co cover and could you really expel the ERG (May probably wanted to but Tory membership is far more right wing then the 5 yearly voter)...
Indeed the ERG did because they saw through it that it was a crap deal.
May had the option of making the WDA a Confidence motion but she didn't do so. No Deal is already the legal default so if Boris doesn't blink it will take a No Confidence motion to stop him.
So you can lay an October 2019 election at just 3.85 on BFE and win if it falls in any other month or year.
Thanks, decent tip. I'm scared of laying though.
It is exactly the same as backing there not being an election in October, odds on at about 1/3.
Not exactly you have to put your liability up first.
As you do if you bet on an odds-on eventuality.
Stop confusing me - there's a fundamental difference between backing and laying. Maybe it's more emotional than anything but it exists.
The main difference is that, on Betfair, you can lay multiple options and only have to put up the money for the worst-case liability. So for example if you want to bet against David Miliband being next Labour leader, you might lay a £10 bet at the current odds of 40. That would give you a liability of £390 which you have to deposit with Betfair. The backer puts up £10, and if you win you get the £10 as profit (less commission) plus your original £390, and if you lose he gets his £10 back plus your £390 to give his total amount returned of £400 less commission.
Now if you also want to bet against Andy Burnham being next leader, you might lay a £4 bet at the current 100.0. Your liability on that is £396 but you'd only have to deposit an extra £6 because they can't both be losing bets and you have already committed £390.
Conversely if you are backing multiple options you need to put up the stake for each case because they might all be losing bets. So in the above example if it was the same deluded punter backing Miliband and Burnham, he'd have to deposit £10+£4 = £16.
I was sorry to note you decision to leave the Conservative Party following the appointment of Boris Johnson as Prime Minister.
I'm sure it was a particular wrench to distance yourself from an organisation that you have supported and worked so assiduously and conscientiously for many decades.
Best wishes.
JackW
Thanks Jack. The horror of it is,,, I might have to vote Yellow Peril!
@Philip_Thompson you should expel the ERG for not following the whip. Oh and Boris.
May was too cowardly to make the meaningful votes a confidence motion. More fool her.
If Grieve and co vote No Confidence in the government then expulsion will be automatic.
It may be different in your native Australia but since the Fixed Term Parliaments Act was passed only a motion in the prescribed form can be a confidence motion in the UK Parliament. You should probably research a bit about UK politics and procedure before posting so extensively about it.
So you can lay an October 2019 election at just 3.85 on BFE and win if it falls in any other month or year.
Thanks, decent tip. I'm scared of laying though.
It is exactly the same as backing there not being an election in October, odds on at about 1/3.
Not exactly you have to put your liability up first.
As you do if you bet on an odds-on eventuality.
Stop confusing me - there's a fundamental difference between backing and laying. Maybe it's more emotional than anything but it exists.
The main difference is that, on Betfair, you can lay multiple options and only have to put up the money for the worst-case liability. So for example if you want to bet against David Miliband being next Labour leader, you might lay a £10 bet at the current odds of 40. That would give you a liability of £390 which you have to deposit with Betfair. The backer puts up £10, and if you win you get the £10 as profit (less commission), and if you lose he gets his £10 back plus your £390 to give his total amount returned of £400 less commission.
Now if you also want to bet against Andy Burnham being next leader, you might lay a £4 bet at the current 100.0. Your liability on that is £396 but you'd only have to deposit an extra £6 because they can't both be losing bets and you have already committed £390.
Conversely if you are backing multiple options you need to put up the stake for each case because they might all be losing bets. So in the above example if it was the same deluded punter backing Miliband and Burnham, he'd have to deposit £10+£4 = £16.
Very well explained but frankly I'm not clever enough for such laying shenanagins.
I'll stick to backing (on betfair where I can lay off on the back if I choose).
So you can lay an October 2019 election at just 3.85 on BFE and win if it falls in any other month or year.
Thanks, decent tip. I'm scared of laying though.
It is exactly the same as backing there not being an election in October, odds on at about 1/3.
Not exactly you have to put your liability up first.
Yes, exactly. Except for the very small tweak that the bet is denominated by the size of the winnings rather than the size of the stake. But if you focus on the liability in both cases, it is exactly the same.
A long time ago I used to be the same, not really understanding it and thinking it was somehow like spread betting where you have an uncertain liability. But it isn’t, and you don’t. It’s just like a bet. Indeed it is a bet.
The problem Barnier has that if the WA is not signed then he will be always know in future as the man who held all the cards, had the worlds best negotiating team and still could not get a deal.
So anything he says take with a pinch of salt. it is the response of the leaders that is important.
yes, Barnier got greedy and atm has nothing to show for it but a big downside for everyone. Almost as stupid as Varadkar
If Mr Varadkar believes the EU will stand behind Ireland even at the cost of the German economy (already in the doldrums) then he does not understand who is in charge.
In what conceivable circumstance would there be a trade off between the two?
The purpose of a Union is solidarity, and the group standiing together to defend the interests of a member. The EU27 will stand by Ireland, not by the soon to be ex member. The backstop will not be renegotiated.
Brexit is an existential crisis for the UK. Irish reunification and Scottish Independence are increasingly close and increasingly certain. No Deal will be the fatal blow, and Scots and Irish know it.
If the UK was a country we would not be constantly having these definition debates.
The UK is a state, made up of three countries and part of a fourth country. It is not itself a country.
State=legal Country=geographical Nation=people
The UK is a country made up of four nation states.
Trust you to get yourself in a tizzy about it and to get it wrong.
The UK is a state, the constituent parts of it are not. The only part of the UK which is unambiguously a separate standalone nation is Scotland. The other three parts have a more confusing status. Eg Northern Ireland was created by the partition of of Ireland, and it is almost impossible to imagine Northern Ireland as a separate independent country rather than a part of either the UK or Ireland. Wales and England share a legal and education system (and a cricket team) and have been administered as a single country for centuries.
According to PM BJ, England has a legislature. It is also a distinct jurisdiction. Ergo it is a state.
England is not yet its own jurisdiction. The name of the jurisdiction you are thinking of is "England and Wales". I agree that the status of Wales is not clear-cut but it is not (now) part of England.
@Philip_Thompson you should expel the ERG for not following the whip. Oh and Boris.
May was too cowardly to make the meaningful votes a confidence motion. More fool her.
If Grieve and co vote No Confidence in the government then expulsion will be automatic.
FPTA: May couldn't make any vote other than "This House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government" a confidence motion.
FTPA isn't worth the paper its written on when the government has a majority.
Just as May called an early election by calling a press conference, announcing an election to the world's media and THEN holding the vote, she could have circumvented the FTPA. Announce that she views the WDA as a Confidence motion, that she will remove the whip from anyone that rejects it and if the vote is lost then the next day will hold a vote under the FTPA to call an early election with a three-line-whip to support an early election.
The problem Barnier has that if the WA is not signed then he will be always know in future as the man who held all the cards, had the worlds best negotiating team and still could not get a deal.
So anything he says take with a pinch of salt. it is the response of the leaders that is important.
yes, Barnier got greedy and atm has nothing to show for it but a big downside for everyone. Almost as stupid as Varadkar
If Mr Varadkar believes the EU will stand behind Ireland even at the cost of the German economy (already in the doldrums) then he does not understand who is in charge.
In what conceivable circumstance would there be a trade off between the two?
The purpose of a Union is solidarity, and the group standiing together to defend the interests of a member. The EU27 will stand by Ireland, not by the soon to be ex member. The backstop will not be renegotiated.
Brexit is an existential crisis for the UK. Irish reunification and Scottish Independence are increasingly close and increasingly certain. No Deal will be the fatal blow, and Scots and Irish know it.
+1. @Philip_Thompson - you asked me yesterday why the UK couldn’t exist outside the EU. Here’s your answer.
So you can lay an October 2019 election at just 3.85 on BFE and win if it falls in any other month or year.
Thanks, decent tip. I'm scared of laying though.
It is exactly the same as backing there not being an election in October, odds on at about 1/3.
Not exactly you have to put your liability up first.
Yes, exactly. Except for the very small tweak that the bet is denominated by the size of the winnings rather than the size of the stake. But if you focus on the liability in both cases, it is exactly the same.
A long time ago I used to be the same, not really understanding it and thinking it was somehow like spread betting where you have an uncertain liability. But it isn’t, and you don’t. It’s just like a bet. Indeed it is a bet.
It's nothing like spread betting. I've had the odd lay or two - Most infamously for the nightshifters Verstappen a month or so ago. It's just much more sweaty than backing.
If I wanted to be a bookmaker - err, I'd email shadsy or something.
@Philip_Thompson you should expel the ERG for not following the whip. Oh and Boris.
May was too cowardly to make the meaningful votes a confidence motion. More fool her.
If Grieve and co vote No Confidence in the government then expulsion will be automatic.
It may be different in your native Australia but since the Fixed Term Parliaments Act was passed only a motion in the prescribed form can be a confidence motion in the UK Parliament. You should probably research a bit about UK politics and procedure before posting so extensively about it.
I am not Australian, I'm English.
I've also written repeatedly how a post-FTPA confidence motion can be held. The legal procedure is different but the consequences are the same. Similarly pre-FTPA losing a vote that had been termed a confidence motion didn't automatically trigger an election by itself - there were procedures to follow afterwards. Now there are just different procedures to follow but the consquences are the same.
"Animal welfare campaigners are calling for greyhound races to be cancelled as temperatures soar across the UK.
The League Against Cruel Sports warned the the greyhounds, who will be transported from their kennels and then raced at the tracks, are at risk of heatstroke."
The problem Barnier has that if the WA is not signed then he will be always know in future as the man who held all the cards, had the worlds best negotiating team and still could not get a deal.
So anything he says take with a pinch of salt. it is the response of the leaders that is important.
yes, Barnier got greedy and atm has nothing to show for it but a big downside for everyone. Almost as stupid as Varadkar
If Mr Varadkar believes the EU will stand behind Ireland even at the cost of the German economy (already in the doldrums) then he does not understand who is in charge.
In what conceivable circumstance would there be a trade off between the two?
The purpose of a Union is solidarity, and the group standiing together to defend the interests of a member. The EU27 will stand by Ireland, not by the soon to be ex member. The backstop will not be renegotiated.
Brexit is an existential crisis for the UK. Irish reunification and Scottish Independence are increasingly close and increasingly certain. No Deal will be the fatal blow, and Scots and Irish know it.
+1. @Philip_Thompson - you asked me yesterday why the UK couldn’t exist outside the EU. Here’s your answer.
No it's not.
If the Irish or Scots choose to leave that is their choice and good luck to them.
The country is "the United Kingdom", the nationality is "British". Some people who would rather there wasn't a union prefer to describe their nationality as English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, Cornish or whatever they like. And that's completely fine by me. But those who are content with the union, whichever of the British Isles they hail from, would normally use "British" (possibly alongside other terms - plenty of proud Lancastrians who are also happy to be called British, for example).
Why was it called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland if "Britain" were an umbrella term for everything?
Britain is not the umbrella term for everything geographically or politically. The UK is. British is, as pointed out, the umbrella term for the nationality, though.
If the UK was a country we would not be constantly having these definition debates.
The UK is a state, made up of three countries and part of a fourth country. It is not itself a country.
State=legal Country=geographical Nation=people
The UK is a country made up of four nation states.
Trust you to get yourself in a tizzy about it and to get it wrong.
The UK is a state, the constituent parts of it are not. The only part of the UK which is unambiguously a separate standalone nation is Scotland. The other three parts have a more confusing status. Eg Northern Ireland was created by the partition of of Ireland, and it is almost impossible to imagine Northern Ireland as a separate independent country rather than a part of either the UK or Ireland. Wales and England share a legal and education system (and a cricket team) and have been administered as a single country for centuries.
According to PM BJ, England has a legislature. It is also a distinct jurisdiction. Ergo it is a state.
England is not yet its own jurisdiction. The name of the jurisdiction you are thinking of is "England and Wales". I agree that the status of Wales is not clear-cut but it is not (now) part of England.
That is an interesting legal point. Solicitors like myself are increasingly using the term “laws of England” as opposed to “laws of England and Wales” in jurisdictional clauses as, increasingly, they are separate jurisdictions de facto if not yet de jure. There was an article on the issue in the Law Society Gazette recently IIRC.
Once a staunch unionist, I am coming round to the idea of Scottish independence being a good thing. Only when the last remanent of empire is extinguished can we become (a) modern nation(s). That means the British state itself.
I'm coming to the same conclusion. And I thought independence was crazy in 2014. But the Brexiteers have shown me I didn't know what crazy was.
@Philip_Thompson you should expel the ERG for not following the whip. Oh and Boris.
May was too cowardly to make the meaningful votes a confidence motion. More fool her.
If Grieve and co vote No Confidence in the government then expulsion will be automatic.
It may be different in your native Australia but since the Fixed Term Parliaments Act was passed only a motion in the prescribed form can be a confidence motion in the UK Parliament. You should probably research a bit about UK politics and procedure before posting so extensively about it.
I am not Australian, I'm English.
I've also written repeatedly how a post-FTPA confidence motion can be held. The legal procedure is different but the consequences are the same. Similarly pre-FTPA losing a vote that had been termed a confidence motion didn't automatically trigger an election by itself - there were procedures to follow afterwards. Now there are just different procedures to follow but the consquences are the same.
I’ve read them and, with respect, and speaking as a legal professional of some 20 years standing, they are bollocks.
Are you sure you are English? Your manner of phrasing and apparent distance from the English way of thinking would suggest otherwise.
Kerala is a State Texas is a State Bavaria is a State
The word "State" doesn't mean what you think it means, Sunil. The UK is a state, as is Iceland, Spain, Chile, the Russian Federation, Zimbabwe, and so on
So you can lay an October 2019 election at just 3.85 on BFE and win if it falls in any other month or year.
Thanks, decent tip. I'm scared of laying though.
It is exactly the same as backing there not being an election in October, odds on at about 1/3.
Not exactly you have to put your liability up first.
As you do if you bet on an odds-on eventuality.
Stop confusing me - there's a fundamental difference between backing and laying. Maybe it's more emotional than anything but it exists.
The main difference is that, on Betfair, you can lay multiple options and only have to put up the money for the worst-case liability. So for example if you want to bet against David Miliband being next Labour leader, you might lay a £10 bet at the current odds of 40. That would give you a liability of £390 which you have to deposit with Betfair. The backer puts up £10, and if you win you get the £10 as profit (less commission) plus your original £390, and if you lose he gets his £10 back plus your £390 to give his total amount returned of £400 less commission.
Now if you also want to bet against Andy Burnham being next leader, you might lay a £4 bet at the current 100.0. Your liability on that is £396 but you'd only have to deposit an extra £6 because they can't both be losing bets and you have already committed £390.
Conversely if you are backing multiple options you need to put up the stake for each case because they might all be losing bets. So in the above example if it was the same deluded punter backing Miliband and Burnham, he'd have to deposit £10+£4 = £16.
So if you end up in a position where you are 'all-green' is it possible to not have anything committed? And to potentially keep betting essentially with your winnings already by keeping green and not committing anything?
I'm assuming that's not possible when you're backing rather than laying, or is it?
The problem Barnier has that if the WA is not signed then he will be always know in future as the man who held all the cards, had the worlds best negotiating team and still could not get a deal.
So anything he says take with a pinch of salt. it is the response of the leaders that is important.
yes, Barnier got greedy and atm has nothing to show for it but a big downside for everyone. Almost as stupid as Varadkar
If Mr Varadkar believes the EU will stand behind Ireland even at the cost of the German economy (already in the doldrums) then he does not understand who is in charge.
In what conceivable circumstance would there be a trade off between the two?
The purpose of a Union is solidarity, and the group standiing together to defend the interests of a member. The EU27 will stand by Ireland, not by the soon to be ex member. The backstop will not be renegotiated.
Brexit is an existential crisis for the UK. Irish reunification and Scottish Independence are increasingly close and increasingly certain. No Deal will be the fatal blow, and Scots and Irish know it.
+1. @Philip_Thompson - you asked me yesterday why the UK couldn’t exist outside the EU. Here’s your answer.
No it's not.
If the Irish or Scots choose to leave that is their choice and good luck to them.
Leaving the EU means the end of the UK ergo the UK cannot exist outside the EU anymore than a fish can live out of water. Any other conclusion is unsupportable
@Philip_Thompson you should expel the ERG for not following the whip. Oh and Boris.
May was too cowardly to make the meaningful votes a confidence motion. More fool her.
If Grieve and co vote No Confidence in the government then expulsion will be automatic.
The ERG gave Grieve and co cover and could you really expel the ERG (May probably wanted to but Tory membership is far more right wing then the 5 yearly voter)...
Indeed the ERG did because they saw through it that it was a crap deal.
May had the option of making the WDA a Confidence motion but she didn't do so. No Deal is already the legal default so if Boris doesn't blink it will take a No Confidence motion to stop him.
Look, I know you're a no-dealer so even more stupid than the average Brexiteer, but May could NOT make the WDA a confidence motion. The only thing that is a confidence motion since the FTPA passed is a motion that "This House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government." Nothing else, not losing a Queen's speech nor loss of supply suffices.
Sure, she could have said "if the WDA doesn't pass, I'll resign" but then what? The Tory party elects a new leader and the government goes on - i.e. exactly what's just happened. Without the threat of a dissolution behind it, any "confidence matter" that's not an actual VONC is an empty threat.
The problem Barnier has that if the WA is not signed then he will be always know in future as the man who held all the cards, had the worlds best negotiating team and still could not get a deal.
So anything he says take with a pinch of salt. it is the response of the leaders that is important.
yes, Barnier got greedy and atm has nothing to show for it but a big downside for everyone. Almost as stupid as Varadkar
If Mr Varadkar believes the EU will stand behind Ireland even at the cost of the German economy (already in the doldrums) then he does not understand who is in charge.
In what conceivable circumstance would there be a trade off between the two?
The purpose of a Union is solidarity, and the group standiing together to defend the interests of a member. The EU27 will stand by Ireland, not by the soon to be ex member. The backstop will not be renegotiated.
Brexit is an existential crisis for the UK. Irish reunification and Scottish Independence are increasingly close and increasingly certain. No Deal will be the fatal blow, and Scots and Irish know it.
+1. @Philip_Thompson - you asked me yesterday why the UK couldn’t exist outside the EU. Here’s your answer.
No it's not.
If the Irish or Scots choose to leave that is their choice and good luck to them.
If the Scots leave it's not the UK. And if the Northern Irish leave it's not the UKofGB&NI.
@Philip_Thompson you should expel the ERG for not following the whip. Oh and Boris.
May was too cowardly to make the meaningful votes a confidence motion. More fool her.
If Grieve and co vote No Confidence in the government then expulsion will be automatic.
It may be different in your native Australia but since the Fixed Term Parliaments Act was passed only a motion in the prescribed form can be a confidence motion in the UK Parliament. You should probably research a bit about UK politics and procedure before posting so extensively about it.
I am not Australian, I'm English.
I've also written repeatedly how a post-FTPA confidence motion can be held. The legal procedure is different but the consequences are the same. Similarly pre-FTPA losing a vote that had been termed a confidence motion didn't automatically trigger an election by itself - there were procedures to follow afterwards. Now there are just different procedures to follow but the consquences are the same.
I’ve read them and, with respect, and speaking as a legal professional of some 20 years standing, they are bollocks.
Are you sure you are English? Your manner of phrasing and apparent distance from the English way of thinking would suggest otherwise.
Yes 100% sure. And I see no disconnect of phrasing or distance from the way of thinking. In fact I have voted with a plurality/majority of the English voters in every General Election or Referendum I've voted in bar one.
The problem Barnier has that if the WA is not signed then he will be always know in future as the man who held all the cards, had the worlds best negotiating team and still could not get a deal.
So anything he says take with a pinch of salt. it is the response of the leaders that is important.
yes, Barnier got greedy and atm has nothing to show for it but a big downside for everyone. Almost as stupid as Varadkar
If Mr Varadkar believes the EU will stand behind Ireland even at the cost of the German economy (already in the doldrums) then he does not understand who is in charge.
In what conceivable circumstance would there be a trade off between the two?
The purpose of a Union is solidarity, and the group standiing together to defend the interests of a member. The EU27 will stand by Ireland, not by the soon to be ex member. The backstop will not be renegotiated.
Brexit is an existential crisis for the UK. Irish reunification and Scottish Independence are increasingly close and increasingly certain. No Deal will be the fatal blow, and Scots and Irish know it.
+1. @Philip_Thompson - you asked me yesterday why the UK couldn’t exist outside the EU. Here’s your answer.
No it's not.
If the Irish or Scots choose to leave that is their choice and good luck to them.
With no UK, Australia will no longer have a "mother country" but several parent countries. It will hopefully reduce our tendency to want to claim exclusive ownership of a "special relationship" with certain parts of the English-speaking world.
So you can lay an October 2019 election at just 3.85 on BFE and win if it falls in any other month or year.
Thanks, decent tip. I'm scared of laying though.
It is exactly the same as backing there not being an election in October, odds on at about 1/3.
Not exactly you have to put your liability up first.
As you do if you bet on an odds-on eventuality.
Stop confusing me - there's a fundamental difference between backing and laying. Maybe it's more emotional than anything but it exists.
The main difference is that, on Betfair, you can lay multiple options and only have to put up the money for the worst-case liability. So for example if you want to bet against David Miliband being next Labour leader, you might lay a £10 bet at the current odds of 40. That would give you a liability of £390 which you have to deposit with Betfair. The backer puts up £10, and if you win you get the £10 as profit (less commission) plus your original £390, and if you lose he gets his £10 back plus your £390 to give his total amount returned of £400 less commission.
Now if you also want to bet against Andy Burnham being next leader, you might lay a £4 bet at the current 100.0. Your liability on that is £396 but you'd only have to deposit an extra £6 because they can't both be losing bets and you have already committed £390.
Conversely if you are backing multiple options you need to put up the stake for each case because they might all be losing bets. So in the above example if it was the same deluded punter backing Miliband and Burnham, he'd have to deposit £10+£4 = £16.
So if you end up in a position where you are 'all-green' is it possible to not have anything committed? And to potentially keep betting essentially with your winnings already by keeping green and not committing anything?
I'm assuming that's not possible when you're backing rather than laying, or is it?
Ah the famous all green - I think you do get to play with your greenery from memory (when backing)
@Philip_Thompson you should expel the ERG for not following the whip. Oh and Boris.
May was too cowardly to make the meaningful votes a confidence motion. More fool her.
If Grieve and co vote No Confidence in the government then expulsion will be automatic.
The ERG gave Grieve and co cover and could you really expel the ERG (May probably wanted to but Tory membership is far more right wing then the 5 yearly voter)...
Indeed the ERG did because they saw through it that it was a crap deal.
May had the option of making the WDA a Confidence motion but she didn't do so. No Deal is already the legal default so if Boris doesn't blink it will take a No Confidence motion to stop him.
Look, I know you're a no-dealer so even more stupid than the average Brexiteer, but May could NOT make the WDA a confidence motion. The only thing that is a confidence motion since the FTPA passed is a motion that "This House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government." Nothing else, not losing a Queen's speech nor loss of supply suffices.
Sure, she could have said "if the WDA doesn't pass, I'll resign" but then what? The Tory party elects a new leader and the government goes on - i.e. exactly what's just happened. Without the threat of a dissolution behind it, any "confidence matter" that's not an actual VONC is an empty threat.
That's not what I said for her to say.
I said "if the WDA doesn't pass I'll remove the whip from anyone who voted against it and call an election".
May has the power to call an election, as she'd already demonstrated. I believe she has the power to remove the whip from people, as has happened in the past.
@Philip_Thompson you should expel the ERG for not following the whip. Oh and Boris.
May was too cowardly to make the meaningful votes a confidence motion. More fool her.
If Grieve and co vote No Confidence in the government then expulsion will be automatic.
FPTA: May couldn't make any vote other than "This House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government" a confidence motion.
FTPA isn't worth the paper its written on when the government has a majority.
Just as May called an early election by calling a press conference, announcing an election to the world's media and THEN holding the vote, she could have circumvented the FTPA. Announce that she views the WDA as a Confidence motion, that she will remove the whip from anyone that rejects it and if the vote is lost then the next day will hold a vote under the FTPA to call an early election with a three-line-whip to support an early election.
That requires people actually believing a word May says
@Philip_Thompson you should expel the ERG for not following the whip. Oh and Boris.
May was too cowardly to make the meaningful votes a confidence motion. More fool her.
If Grieve and co vote No Confidence in the government then expulsion will be automatic.
It may be different in your native Australia but since the Fixed Term Parliaments Act was passed only a motion in the prescribed form can be a confidence motion in the UK Parliament. You should probably research a bit about UK politics and procedure before posting so extensively about it.
I am not Australian, I'm English.
I've also written repeatedly how a post-FTPA confidence motion can be held. The legal procedure is different but the consequences are the same. Similarly pre-FTPA losing a vote that had been termed a confidence motion didn't automatically trigger an election by itself - there were procedures to follow afterwards. Now there are just different procedures to follow but the consquences are the same.
I’ve read them and, with respect, and speaking as a legal professional of some 20 years standing, they are bollocks.
Are you sure you are English? Your manner of phrasing and apparent distance from the English way of thinking would suggest otherwise.
Yes 100% sure. And I see no disconnect of phrasing or distance from the way of thinking. In fact I have voted with a plurality/majority of the English voters in every General Election or Referendum I've voted in bar one.
You just don’t come across as English - your suggestion that we are more akin to Australians than Europeans being but one example. I mean I’m sure there are plenty of Australians who have voted like English people while resident here but that doesn’t make them English.
The problem Barnier has that if the WA is not signed then he will be always know in future as the man who held all the cards, had the worlds best negotiating team and still could not get a deal.
So anything he says take with a pinch of salt. it is the response of the leaders that is important.
yes, Barnier got greedy and atm has nothing to show for it but a big downside for everyone. Almost as stupid as Varadkar
If Mr Varadkar believes the EU will stand behind Ireland even at the cost of the German economy (already in the doldrums) then he does not understand who is in charge.
In what conceivable circumstance would there be a trade off between the two?
The purpose of a Union is solidarity, and the group standiing together to defend the interests of a member. The EU27 will stand by Ireland, not by the soon to be ex member. The backstop will not be renegotiated.
Brexit is an existential crisis for the UK. Irish reunification and Scottish Independence are increasingly close and increasingly certain. No Deal will be the fatal blow, and Scots and Irish know it.
+1. @Philip_Thompson - you asked me yesterday why the UK couldn’t exist outside the EU. Here’s your answer.
No it's not.
If the Irish or Scots choose to leave that is their choice and good luck to them.
If the Scots leave it's not the UK. And if the Northern Irish leave it's not the UKofGB&NI.
So be it. I'm fine with that. Then England can be a free nation outside the EU without those hangers on. Though I suspect they'll be too frit to vote to leave.
So you can lay an October 2019 election at just 3.85 on BFE and win if it falls in any other month or year.
I do not understand the logic of the article. So what happens on 31st October ? If BJ can get Brexit through why should he call an election ? Surely, the election will be held before 31st October.
@Philip_Thompson you should expel the ERG for not following the whip. Oh and Boris.
May was too cowardly to make the meaningful votes a confidence motion. More fool her.
If Grieve and co vote No Confidence in the government then expulsion will be automatic.
It may be different in your native Australia but since the Fixed Term Parliaments Act was passed only a motion in the prescribed form can be a confidence motion in the UK Parliament. You should probably research a bit about UK politics and procedure before posting so extensively about it.
I am not Australian, I'm English.
I've also written repeatedly how a post-FTPA confidence motion can be held. The legal procedure is different but the consequences are the same. Similarly pre-FTPA losing a vote that had been termed a confidence motion didn't automatically trigger an election by itself - there were procedures to follow afterwards. Now there are just different procedures to follow but the consquences are the same.
I’ve read them and, with respect, and speaking as a legal professional of some 20 years standing, they are bollocks.
Are you sure you are English? Your manner of phrasing and apparent distance from the English way of thinking would suggest otherwise.
Yes 100% sure. And I see no disconnect of phrasing or distance from the way of thinking. In fact I have voted with a plurality/majority of the English voters in every General Election or Referendum I've voted in bar one.
You just don’t come across as English - your suggestion that we are more akin to Australians than Europeans being but one example. I mean I’m sure there are plenty of Australians who have voted like English people while resident here but that doesn’t make them English.
We are massively more akin to Australians than Europeans, having lived in multiple towns and cities in both cities the difference between towns and cities is bigger than the differences between the countries.
Give me any ways at all that Romanians are more like the English than Australians are please. They are literally our kin anyway.
The problem Barnier has that if the WA is not signed then he will be always know in future as the man who held all the cards, had the worlds best negotiating team and still could not get a deal.
So anything he says take with a pinch of salt. it is the response of the leaders that is important.
yes, Barnier got greedy and atm has nothing to show for it but a big downside for everyone. Almost as stupid as Varadkar
If Mr Varadkar believes the EU will stand behind Ireland even at the cost of the German economy (already in the doldrums) then he does not understand who is in charge.
In what conceivable circumstance would there be a trade off between the two?
The purpose of a Union is solidarity, and the group standiing together to defend the interests of a member. The EU27 will stand by Ireland, not by the soon to be ex member. The backstop will not be renegotiated.
Brexit is an existential crisis for the UK. Irish reunification and Scottish Independence are increasingly close and increasingly certain. No Deal will be the fatal blow, and Scots and Irish know it.
+1. @Philip_Thompson - you asked me yesterday why the UK couldn’t exist outside the EU. Here’s your answer.
No it's not.
If the Irish or Scots choose to leave that is their choice and good luck to them.
If the Scots leave it's not the UK. And if the Northern Irish leave it's not the UKofGB&NI.
So be it. I'm fine with that. Then England can be a free nation outside the EU without those hangers on. Though I suspect they'll be too frit to vote to leave.
You might be objectively fine with it, as someone who can head back to Australia when they like you can be, as you don’t have a vested interest in this country, but we have proved that the UK can’t exist outside the EU. The idea that we should divorce ourselves from input into the decisions that inevitably effect us is mad and the fact a majority voted for it does not make it less mad. We need to be at the table with our sibling countries rather than begging from them as this course of action means we inevitably will
So you can lay an October 2019 election at just 3.85 on BFE and win if it falls in any other month or year.
I do not understand the logic of the article. So what happens on 31st October ? If BJ can get Brexit through why should he call an election ? Surely, the election will be held before 31st October.
The problem Barnier has that if the WA is not signed then he will be always know in future as the man who held all the cards, had the worlds best negotiating team and still could not get a deal.
So anything he says take with a pinch of salt. it is the response of the leaders that is important.
yes, Barnier got greedy and atm has nothing to show for it but a big downside for everyone. Almost as stupid as Varadkar
If Mr Varadkar believes the EU will stand behind Ireland even at the cost of the German economy (already in the doldrums) then he does not understand who is in charge.
In what conceivable circumstance would there be a trade off between the two?
The purpose of a Union is solidarity, and the group standiing together to defend the interests of a member. The EU27 will stand by Ireland, not by the soon to be ex member. The backstop will not be renegotiated.
Brexit is an existential crisis for the UK. Irish reunification and Scottish Independence are increasingly close and increasingly certain. No Deal will be the fatal blow, and Scots and Irish know it.
+1. @Philip_Thompson - you asked me yesterday why the UK couldn’t exist outside the EU. Here’s your answer.
No it's not.
If the Irish or Scots choose to leave that is their choice and good luck to them.
With no UK, Australia will no longer have a "mother country" but several parent countries. It will hopefully reduce our tendency to want to claim exclusive ownership of a "special relationship" with certain parts of the English-speaking world.
I don't view Australia as a child country of us. They are our family, like cousins or siblings not children. If the UK dissolves then the English-speaking family of nations will just have a few more members.
@Philip_Thompson you should expel the ERG for not following the whip. Oh and Boris.
May was too cowardly to make the meaningful votes a confidence motion. More fool her.
If Grieve and co vote No Confidence in the government then expulsion will be automatic.
The ERG gave Grieve and co cover and could you really expel the ERG (May probably wanted to but Tory membership is far more right wing then the 5 yearly voter)...
Indeed the ERG did because they saw through it that it was a crap deal.
May had the option of making the WDA a Confidence motion but she didn't do so. No Deal is already the legal default so if Boris doesn't blink it will take a No Confidence motion to stop him.
Look, I know you're a no-dealer so even more stupid than the average Brexiteer, but May could NOT make the WDA a confidence motion. The only thing that is a confidence motion since the FTPA passed is a motion that "This House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government." Nothing else, not losing a Queen's speech nor loss of supply suffices.
Sure, she could have said "if the WDA doesn't pass, I'll resign" but then what? The Tory party elects a new leader and the government goes on - i.e. exactly what's just happened. Without the threat of a dissolution behind it, any "confidence matter" that's not an actual VONC is an empty threat.
That's not what I said for her to say.
I said "if the WDA doesn't pass I'll remove the whip from anyone who voted against it and call an election".
May has the power to call an election, as she'd already demonstrated. I believe she has the power to remove the whip from people, as has happened in the past.
The PM does NOT have the power to call an election. The 2017 election was called bekcause a 2/3 majority of the Commons voted to call it, which is the procedure set out in the FTPA.
The problem Barnier has that if the WA is not signed then he will be always know in future as the man who held all the cards, had the worlds best negotiating team and still could not get a deal.
So anything he says take with a pinch of salt. it is the response of the leaders that is important.
yes, Barnier got greedy and atm has nothing to show for it but a big downside for everyone. Almost as stupid as Varadkar
If Mr Varadkar believes the EU will stand behind Ireland even at the cost of the German economy (already in the doldrums) then he does not understand who is in charge.
In what conceivable circumstance would there be a trade off between the two?
The purpose of a Union is solidarity, and the group standiing together to defend the interests of a member. The EU27 will stand by Ireland, not by the soon to be ex member. The backstop will not be renegotiated.
Brexit is an existential crisis for the UK. Irish reunification and Scottish Independence are increasingly close and increasingly certain. No Deal will be the fatal blow, and Scots and Irish know it.
+1. @Philip_Thompson - you asked me yesterday why the UK couldn’t exist outside the EU. Here’s your answer.
No it's not.
If the Irish or Scots choose to leave that is their choice and good luck to them.
If the Scots leave it's not the UK. And if the Northern Irish leave it's not the UKofGB&NI.
So be it. I'm fine with that. Then England can be a free nation outside the EU without those hangers on. Though I suspect they'll be too frit to vote to leave.
You might be objectively fine with it, as someone who can head back to Australia when they like you can be, as you don’t have a vested interest in this country, but we have proved that the UK can’t exist outside the EU.
I can't head back to Australia, I'm not Australian! FFS.
I have a vested interest in this country, it is my only nationality and my only country. The UK can exist outside the EU, if the Scots are too frit to go independent once more then we will remain the UK.
@Philip_Thompson you should expel the ERG for not following the whip. Oh and Boris.
May was too cowardly to make the meaningful votes a confidence motion. More fool her.
If Grieve and co vote No Confidence in the government then expulsion will be automatic.
I don't think she was cowardly: quite the opposite, in fact. However she had many disadvantages, one of which was to prioritise the Party and its good over all else. Somebody pointed out she's been a member since very young and I don't think she quite understood that the country should come first if you're PM, not the Party.
So you can lay an October 2019 election at just 3.85 on BFE and win if it falls in any other month or year.
I do not understand the logic of the article. So what happens on 31st October ? If BJ can get Brexit through why should he call an election ? Surely, the election will be held before 31st October.
A September election works for me.
A September election is now impossible.
Heck I think the earliest possible date is now October 10th...
@Philip_Thompson you should expel the ERG for not following the whip. Oh and Boris.
May was too cowardly to make the meaningful votes a confidence motion. More fool her.
If Grieve and co vote No Confidence in the government then expulsion will be automatic.
The ERG gave Grieve and co cover and could you really expel the ERG (May probably wanted to but Tory membership is far more right wing then the 5 yearly voter)...
Indeed the ERG did because they saw through it that it was a crap deal.
May had the option of making the WDA a Confidence motion but she didn't do so. No Deal is already the legal default so if Boris doesn't blink it will take a No Confidence motion to stop him.
Look, I know you're a no-dealer so even more stupid than the average Brexiteer, but May could NOT make the WDA a confidence motion. The only thing that is a confidence motion since the FTPA passed is a motion that "This House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government." Nothing else, not losing a Queen's speech nor loss of supply suffices.
Sure, she could have said "if the WDA doesn't pass, I'll resign" but then what? The Tory party elects a new leader and the government goes on - i.e. exactly what's just happened. Without the threat of a dissolution behind it, any "confidence matter" that's not an actual VONC is an empty threat.
That's not what I said for her to say.
I said "if the WDA doesn't pass I'll remove the whip from anyone who voted against it and call an election".
May has the power to call an election, as she'd already demonstrated. I believe she has the power to remove the whip from people, as has happened in the past.
She would have needed 2/3 of all MPs to back her. Now, Labour and the other opposition parties probably would have, but what about the Tories she would have just stripped the whip from? Hardly. And how about all the supposedly-loyal Tories that wouldn't have much fancied their chances. I think she would have faced a significant chance of not getting the 2/3 majority.
But it's all moot now. Alea iact est as a certain floppy-haired New Yorker might say.
So you can lay an October 2019 election at just 3.85 on BFE and win if it falls in any other month or year.
I do not understand the logic of the article. So what happens on 31st October ? If BJ can get Brexit through why should he call an election ? Surely, the election will be held before 31st October.
A September election works for me.
A September election is now impossible.
Heck I think the earliest possible date is now October 10th...
@Philip_Thompson you should expel the ERG for not following the whip. Oh and Boris.
May was too cowardly to make the meaningful votes a confidence motion. More fool her.
If Grieve and co vote No Confidence in the government then expulsion will be automatic.
It may be different in your native Australia but since the Fixed Term Parliaments Act was passed only a motion in the prescribed form can be a confidence motion in the UK Parliament. You should probably research a bit about UK politics and procedure before posting so extensively about it.
I am not Australian, I'm English.
I've also written repeatedly how a post-FTPA confidence motion can be held. The legal procedure is different but the consequences are the same. Similarly pre-FTPA losing a vote that had been termed a confidence motion didn't automatically trigger an election by itself - there were procedures to follow afterwards. Now there are just different procedures to follow but the consquences are the same.
I’ve read them and, with respect, and speaking as a legal professional of some 20 years standing, they are bollocks.
Are you sure you are English? Your manner of phrasing and apparent distance from the English way of thinking would suggest otherwise.
Yes 100% sure. And I see no disconnect of phrasing or distance from the way of thinking. In fact I have voted with a plurality/majority of the English voters in every General Election or Referendum I've voted in bar one.
You just don’t come across as English - your suggestion that we are more akin to Australians than Europeans being but one example. I mean I’m sure there are plenty of Australians who have voted like English people while resident here but that doesn’t make them English.
We are massively more akin to Australians than Europeans, having lived in multiple towns and cities in both cities the difference between towns and cities is bigger than the differences between the countries.
Give me any ways at all that Romanians are more like the English than Australians are please. They are literally our kin anyway.
Simple. Romania is in Europe as is the UK, both with European roots. Our native languages are Indo-European, the native languages of Australia are of –Pama–Nyungan family. Australia is an alien country literally in the other side of the world with roots in Asia and the Pacific. Admittedly there have been some European outposts established in the coast since 1789 but that doesn’t mean we are like them.
@Philip_Thompson you should expel the ERG for not following the whip. Oh and Boris.
May was too cowardly to make the meaningful votes a confidence motion. More fool her.
If Grieve and co vote No Confidence in the government then expulsion will be automatic.
The ERG gave Grieve and co cover and could you really expel the ERG (May probably wanted to but Tory membership is far more right wing then the 5 yearly voter)...
Indeed the ERG did because they saw through it that it was a crap deal.
May had the option of making the WDA a Confidence motion but she didn't do so. No Deal is already the legal default so if Boris doesn't blink it will take a No Confidence motion to stop him.
Look, I know you're a no-dealer so even more stupid than the average Brexiteer, but May could NOT make the WDA a confidence motion. The only thing that is a confidence motion since the FTPA passed is a motion that "This House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government." Nothing else, not losing a Queen's speech nor loss of supply suffices.
Sure, she could have said "if the WDA doesn't pass, I'll resign" but then what? The Tory party elects a new leader and the government goes on - i.e. exactly what's just happened. Without the threat of a dissolution behind it, any "confidence matter" that's not an actual VONC is an empty threat.
That's not what I said for her to say.
I said "if the WDA doesn't pass I'll remove the whip from anyone who voted against it and call an election".
May has the power to call an election, as she'd already demonstrated. I believe she has the power to remove the whip from people, as has happened in the past.
The PM does NOT have the power to call an election. The 2017 election was called bekcause a 2/3 majority of the Commons voted to call it, which is the procedure set out in the FTPA.
Procedure is different, practice is the same. In theory the PM didn't call the election pre-FTPA, Her Majesty the Queen did on the PM's advice. What matters is practice more than theory or procedure.
When Theresa May stood in Downing Street and called for an election to the world's gathered media she called the election, not the Commons. The Commons just ratified what she'd already called and the media had already moved into election mode before the Commons even voted. She could have done the same by proxy with the WDA thus making the WDA a confidence vote by proxy.
The problem Barnier has that if the WA is not signed then he will be always know in future as the man who held all the cards, had the worlds best negotiating team and still could not get a deal.
So anything he says take with a pinch of salt. it is the response of the leaders that is important.
yes, Barnier got greedy and atm has nothing to show for it but a big downside for everyone. Almost as stupid as Varadkar
If Mr Varadkar believes the EU will stand behind Ireland even at the cost of the German economy (already in the doldrums) then he does not understand who is in charge.
In what conceivable circumstance would there be a trade off between the two?
The purpose of a Union is solidarity, and the group standiing together to defend the interests of a member. The EU27 will stand by Ireland, not by the soon to be ex member. The backstop will not be renegotiated.
Brexit is an existential crisis for the UK. Irish reunification and Scottish Independence are increasingly close and increasingly certain. No Deal will be the fatal blow, and Scots and Irish know it.
+1. @Philip_Thompson - you asked me yesterday why the UK couldn’t exist outside the EU. Here’s your answer.
No it's not.
If the Irish or Scots choose to leave that is their choice and good luck to them.
If the Scots leave it's not the UK. And if the Northern Irish leave it's not the UKofGB&NI.
So be it. I'm fine with that. Then England can be a free nation outside the EU without those hangers on. Though I suspect they'll be too frit to vote to leave.
Will England be a permanent member of the UN Security Council?
EU citizens rights are now just being verbally guaranteed . So Bozo says don’t worry and that’s that .
The UK is fast turning into a Banana Republic and a failed state. Hopefully the EU will have a sympathetic refugee programme.
Verbally, May also said the same.
The government refuses to bring forward legislation , as they don’t want it amended . The UK is fucked. The lunatics have taken over . Scotland needs to escape ASAP.
Simple. Romania is in Europe as is the UK, both with European roots. Our native languages are Indo-European, the native languages of Australia are of –Pama–Nyungan family. Australia is an alien country literally in the other side of the world with roots in Asia and the Pacific. Admittedly there have been some European outposts established in the coast since 1789 but that doesn’t mean we are like them.
Procedure is different, practice is the same. In theory the PM didn't call the election pre-FTPA, Her Majesty the Queen did on the PM's advice. What matters is practice more than theory or procedure.
When Theresa May stood in Downing Street and called for an election to the world's gathered media she called the election, not the Commons. The Commons just ratified what she'd already called and the media had already moved into election mode before the Commons even voted. She could have done the same by proxy with the WDA thus making the WDA a confidence vote by proxy.
In which case may I suggest you read what the law actually says.
The amount of fun a Labour party could have in September as Boris tries to call an election will be a sight to behold.
Granted we do need an election but I think the pound of flesh required for Boris to get his wish will rather put him off...
The problem Barnier has that if the WA is not signed then he will be always know in future as the man who held all the cards, had the worlds best negotiating team and still could not get a deal.
So anything he says take with a pinch of salt. it is the response of the leaders that is important.
yes, Barnier got greedy and atm has nothing to show for it but a big downside for everyone. Almost as stupid as Varadkar
If Mr Varadkar believes the EU will stand behind Ireland even at the cost of the German economy (already in the doldrums) then he does not understand who is in charge.
In what conceivable circumstance would there be a trade off between the two?
The purpose of a Union is solidarity, and the group standiing together to defend the interests of a member. The EU27 will stand by Ireland, not by the soon to be ex member. The backstop will not be renegotiated.
Brexit is an existential crisis for the UK. Irish reunification and Scottish Independence are increasingly close and increasingly certain. No Deal will be the fatal blow, and Scots and Irish know it.
+1. @Philip_Thompson - you asked me yesterday why the UK couldn’t exist outside the EU. Here’s your answer.
No it's not.
If the Irish or Scots choose to leave that is their choice and good luck to them.
If the Scots leave it's not the UK. And if the Northern Irish leave it's not the UKofGB&NI.
Opposite surely. The term "United Kingdom" only dates as part of the state's [sic] name since the union with Ireland in 1801. The entity created in 1707 was simply the "Kingdom of Great Britain" although it was often informally referred to as "the United Kingdom" (bearing in mind 18th century usage was more liberal with capitalization) at the time.
Give me any ways at all that Romanians are more like the English than Australians are please. They are literally our kin anyway.
Simple. Romania is in Europe as is the UK, both with European roots. Australia is an alien country literally in the other side of the world with roots in Asia and the Pacific. Admittedly there have been some European outposts established in the coast since 1789 but that doesn’t mean we are like them.
Absolute and total garbage.
Pick anyone random from England, blindfold them and drop them off randomly in either Melbourne or Bucharest. I know which one I think they will find most alike and which one most alien.
The problem Barnier has that if the WA is not signed then he will be always know in future as the man who held all the cards, had the worlds best negotiating team and still could not get a deal.
So anything he says take with a pinch of salt. it is the response of the leaders that is important.
yes, Barnier got greedy and atm has nothing to show for it but a big downside for everyone. Almost as stupid as Varadkar
If Mr Varadkar believes the EU will stand behind Ireland even at the cost of the German economy (already in the doldrums) then he does not understand who is in charge.
In what conceivable circumstance would there be a trade off between the two?
The purpose of a Union is solidarity, and the group standiing together to defend the interests of a member. The EU27 will stand by Ireland, not by the soon to be ex member. The backstop will not be renegotiated.
Brexit is an existential crisis for the UK. Irish reunification and Scottish Independence are increasingly close and increasingly certain. No Deal will be the fatal blow, and Scots and Irish know it.
+1. @Philip_Thompson - you asked me yesterday why the UK couldn’t exist outside the EU. Here’s your answer.
No it's not.
If the Irish or Scots choose to leave that is their choice and good luck to them.
With no UK, Australia will no longer have a "mother country" but several parent countries. It will hopefully reduce our tendency to want to claim exclusive ownership of a "special relationship" with certain parts of the English-speaking world.
I don't view Australia as a child country of us. They are our family, like cousins or siblings not children. If the UK dissolves then the English-speaking family of nations will just have a few more members.
Australia is a Pama–Nyungan speaking country with some recent English speaking arrivals.
EU citizens rights are now just being verbally guaranteed . So Bozo says don’t worry and that’s that .
The UK is fast turning into a Banana Republic and a failed state. Hopefully the EU will have a sympathetic refugee programme.
Verbally, May also said the same.
The government refuses to bring forward legislation , as they don’t want it amended . The UK is fucked. The lunatics have taken over . Scotland needs to escape ASAP.
Haven't the rights of UK citizens in the EU been guaranteed verbally too?
So you can lay an October 2019 election at just 3.85 on BFE and win if it falls in any other month or year.
I do not understand the logic of the article. So what happens on 31st October ? If BJ can get Brexit through why should he call an election ? Surely, the election will be held before 31st October.
A September election works for me.
A September election is now impossible.
Heck I think the earliest possible date is now October 10th...
October 24th I am told.
That was if a vote of No Confidence occurs on in the first 2 days of Parliment returning.
Simple. Romania is in Europe as is the UK, both with European roots. Our native languages are Indo-European, the native languages of Australia are of –Pama–Nyungan family. Australia is an alien country literally in the other side of the world with roots in Asia and the Pacific. Admittedly there have been some European outposts established in the coast since 1789 but that doesn’t mean we are like them.
Australia is more alien than Romania?
Can I have some of what you are smoking?
Considering I have never been to Australia, never met an Australian and never dealt with an Australian company but have met plenty of Romanians, have been to Romania and have dealt with Romanian companies - I would agree with DougSeal.
The problem Barnier has that if the WA is not signed then he will be always know in future as the man who held all the cards, had the worlds best negotiating team and still could not get a deal.
So anything he says take with a pinch of salt. it is the response of the leaders that is important.
yes, Barnier got greedy and atm has nothing to show for it but a big downside for everyone. Almost as stupid as Varadkar
If Mr Varadkar believes the EU will stand behind Ireland even at the cost of the German economy (already in the doldrums) then he does not understand who is in charge.
In what conceivable circumstance would there be a trade off between the two?
The purpose of a Union is solidarity, and the group standiing together to defend the interests of a member. The EU27 will stand by Ireland, not by the soon to be ex member. The backstop will not be renegotiated.
Brexit is an existential crisis for the UK. Irish reunification and Scottish Independence are increasingly close and increasingly certain. No Deal will be the fatal blow, and Scots and Irish know it.
+1. @Philip_Thompson - you asked me yesterday why the UK couldn’t exist outside the EU. Here’s your answer.
No it's not.
If the Irish or Scots choose to leave that is their choice and good luck to them.
If the Scots leave it's not the UK. And if the Northern Irish leave it's not the UKofGB&NI.
Opposite surely. The term "United Kingdom" only dates as part of the state's [sic] name since the union with Ireland in 1801. The entity created in 1707 was simply the "Kingdom of Great Britain" although it was often informally referred to as "the United Kingdom" (bearing in mind 18th century usage was more liberal with capitalization) at the time.
OK. It will be the Kingdom of England and South Wales then.
The problem Barnier has that if the WA is not signed then he will be always know in future as the man who held all the cards, had the worlds best negotiating team and still could not get a deal.
So anything he says take with a pinch of salt. it is the response of the leaders that is important.
yes, Barnier got greedy and atm has nothing to show for it but a big downside for everyone. Almost as stupid as Varadkar
If Mr Varadkar believes the EU will stand behind Ireland even at the cost of the German economy (already in the doldrums) then he does not understand who is in charge.
In what conceivable circumstance would there be a trade off between the two?
The purpose of a Union is solidarity, and the group standiing together to defend the interests of a member. The EU27 will stand by Ireland, not by the soon to be ex member. The backstop will not be renegotiated.
Brexit is an existential crisis for the UK. Irish reunification and Scottish Independence are increasingly close and increasingly certain. No Deal will be the fatal blow, and Scots and Irish know it.
+1. @Philip_Thompson - you asked me yesterday why the UK couldn’t exist outside the EU. Here’s your answer.
No it's not.
If the Irish or Scots choose to leave that is their choice and good luck to them.
With no UK, Australia will no longer have a "mother country" but several parent countries. It will hopefully reduce our tendency to want to claim exclusive ownership of a "special relationship" with certain parts of the English-speaking world.
I don't view Australia as a child country of us. They are our family, like cousins or siblings not children. If the UK dissolves then the English-speaking family of nations will just have a few more members.
Children aren't family? Spartan times for the Thompson sprogs!
I was sorry to note you decision to leave the Conservative Party following the appointment of Boris Johnson as Prime Minister.
I'm sure it was a particular wrench to distance yourself from an organisation that you have supported and worked so assiduously and conscientiously for many decades.
Best wishes.
JackW
Thanks Jack. The horror of it is,,, I might have to vote Yellow Peril!
Good Lord my dear chap. I never knew you had such a profound predilection for Auchentennach Fine Pies !! ....
@Philip_Thompson you should expel the ERG for not following the whip. Oh and Boris.
May was too cowardly to make the meaningful votes a confidence motion. More fool her.
If Grieve and co vote No Confidence in the government then expulsion will be automatic.
It may be different in your native Australia but since the Fixed Term Parliaments Act was passed only a motion in the prescribed form can be a confidence motion in the UK Parliament. You should probably research a bit about UK politics and procedure before posting so extensively about it.
I am not Australian, I'm English.
I've also written repeatedly how a post-FTPA confidence motion can be held. The legal procedure is different but the consequences are the same. Similarly pre-FTPA losing a vote that had been termed a confidence motion didn't automatically trigger an election by itself - there were procedures to follow afterwards. Now there are just different procedures to follow but the consquences are the same.
I’ve read them and, with respect, and speaking as a legal professional of some 20 years standing, they are bollocks.
Are you sure you are English? Your manner of phrasing and apparent distance from the English way of thinking would suggest otherwise.
Yes 100% sure. And I see no disconnect of phrasing or distance from the way of thinking. In fact I have voted with a plurality/majority of the English voters in every General Election or Referendum I've voted in bar one.
You just don’t come across as English - your suggestion that we are more akin to Australians than Europeans being but one example. I mean I’m sure there are plenty of Australians who have voted like English people while resident here but that doesn’t make them English.
We are massively more akin to Australians than Europeans, having lived in multiple towns and cities in both cities the difference between towns and cities is bigger than the differences between the countries.
Give me any ways at all that Romanians are more like the English than Australians are please. They are literally our kin anyway.
IIRC in your case they are literally your kin, but not necessarily for others. Did you mean to use a word other than "literally"?
@Philip_Thompson you should expel the ERG for not following the whip. Oh and Boris.
May was too cowardly to make the meaningful votes a confidence motion. More fool her.
If Grieve and co vote No Confidence in the government then expulsion will be automatic.
It may be different in your native Australia but since the Fixed Term Parliaments Act was passed only a motion in the prescribed form can be a confidence motion in the UK Parliament. You should probably research a bit about UK politics and procedure before posting so extensively about it.
I am not Australian, I'm English.
I've also written repeatedly how a post-FTPA confidence motion can be held. The legal procedure is different but the consequences are the same. Similarly pre-FTPA losing a vote that had been termed a confidence motion didn't automatically trigger an election by itself - there were procedures to follow afterwards. Now there are just different procedures to follow but the consequences are the same.
I agree that the practical impact of the FTPA is overstated. In practice, it is still going to be relatively easy for the PM to contrive a general election if they want one by moving a resolution either via the 55% route (May's in 2017) or even if necessary by the government voting for no confidence in itself. If the PM prior to that makes it clear that he will regard an earlier motion as a no confidence motion, triggering a subsequent attempt to hold a GE, and also that any MP voting against on that earlier motion will have the whip removed automatically, any Conservative who votes against that motion has to expect that a GE will follow at which they will be unable to stand as a Conservative.
Procedure is different, practice is the same. In theory the PM didn't call the election pre-FTPA, Her Majesty the Queen did on the PM's advice. What matters is practice more than theory or procedure.
When Theresa May stood in Downing Street and called for an election to the world's gathered media she called the election, not the Commons. The Commons just ratified what she'd already called and the media had already moved into election mode before the Commons even voted. She could have done the same by proxy with the WDA thus making the WDA a confidence vote by proxy.
In which case may I suggest you read what the law actually says.
The amount of fun a Labour party could have in September as Boris tries to call an election will be a sight to behold.
Granted we do need an election but I think the pound of flesh required for Boris to get his wish will rather put him off...
Quite. Labour will obviously insist on an A 50 extension as the price of their support for an election.
Simple. Romania is in Europe as is the UK, both with European roots. Our native languages are Indo-European, the native languages of Australia are of –Pama–Nyungan family. Australia is an alien country literally in the other side of the world with roots in Asia and the Pacific. Admittedly there have been some European outposts established in the coast since 1789 but that doesn’t mean we are like them.
Australia is more alien than Romania?
Can I have some of what you are smoking?
Considering I have never been to Australia, never met an Australian and never dealt with an Australian company but have met plenty of Romanians, have been to Romania and have dealt with Romanian companies - I would agree with DougSeal.
@Philip_Thompson you should expel the ERG for not following the whip. Oh and Boris.
May was too cowardly to make the meaningful votes a confidence motion. More fool her.
If Grieve and co vote No Confidence in the government then expulsion will be automatic.
The ERG gave Grieve and co cover and could you really expel the ERG (May probably wanted to but Tory membership is far more right wing then the 5 yearly voter)...
Indeed the ERG did because they saw through it that it was a crap deal.
May had the option of making the WDA a Confidence motion but she didn't do so. No Deal is already the legal default so if Boris doesn't blink it will take a No Confidence motion to stop him.
Look, I know you're a no-dealer so even more stupid than the average Brexiteer, but May could NOT make the WDA a confidence motion. The only thing that is a confidence motion since the FTPA passed is a motion that "This House has no confidence
That's not what I said for her to say.
I said "if the WDA doesn't pass I'll remove the whip from anyone who voted against it and call an election".
May has the power to call an election, as she'd already demonstrated. I believe she has the power to remove the whip from people, as has happened in the past.
The PM does NOT have the power to call an election. The 2017 election was called bekcause a 2/3 majority of the Commons voted to call it, which is the procedure set out in the FTPA.
Procedure is different, practice is the same. In theory the PM didn't call the election pre-FTPA, Her Majesty the Queen did on the PM's advice. What matters is practice more than theory or procedure.
When Theresa May stood in Downing Street and called for an election to the world's gathered media she called the election, not the Commons. The Commons just ratified what she'd already called and the media had already moved into election mode before the Commons even voted. She could have done the same by proxy with the WDA thus making the WDA a confidence vote by proxy.
I’m sorry but that is so wrong it almost comes out the other side. The FTPA removes the right of the executive to call an early election. If the Commons had told May where to stick her election after she announced it an election would not have happened. That is not “calling an election”.
@Philip_Thompson you should expel the ERG for not following the whip. Oh and Boris.
May was too cowardly to make the meaningful votes a confidence motion. More fool her.
If Grieve and co vote No Confidence in the government then expulsion will be automatic.
FPTA: May couldn't make any vote other than "This House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government" a confidence motion.
"Nothwithstanding the provisions of the Fixed Term Parliament Act, this House states that...". Would that have worked?
I doubt it. The Parliament that passed the FPTA cannot bind the current Parliament of course, but what that actually means is that the enacting Parliament cannot make the legislation it passes unamendable or unrepealable by a future Parliament. That subsequent Parliament would still have to go through the normal primary legislative process to amend or repeal the FPTA.
I suppose the government could try to use one of the many Henry VIII clauses enacted in recent times to try to repeal or amend the FPTA by fiat, but I suspect they won't want to try that for fear the power being found unconstitutional by the courts.
Procedure is different, practice is the same. In theory the PM didn't call the election pre-FTPA, Her Majesty the Queen did on the PM's advice. What matters is practice more than theory or procedure.
When Theresa May stood in Downing Street and called for an election to the world's gathered media she called the election, not the Commons. The Commons just ratified what she'd already called and the media had already moved into election mode before the Commons even voted. She could have done the same by proxy with the WDA thus making the WDA a confidence vote by proxy.
In which case may I suggest you read what the law actually says.
The amount of fun a Labour party could have in September as Boris tries to call an election will be a sight to behold.
Granted we do need an election but I think the pound of flesh required for Boris to get his wish will rather put him off...
Quite. Labour will obviously insist on an A 50 extension as the price of their support for an election.
I'll be blunt - Boris's one chance of a pre October 31st election was blown when he didn't ask for it as he stood outside 10 Downing Street last night..
Simple. Romania is in Europe as is the UK, both with European roots. Our native languages are Indo-European, the native languages of Australia are of –Pama–Nyungan family. Australia is an alien country literally in the other side of the world with roots in Asia and the Pacific. Admittedly there have been some European outposts established in the coast since 1789 but that doesn’t mean we are like them.
Australia is more alien than Romania?
Can I have some of what you are smoking?
Considering I have never been to Australia, never met an Australian and never dealt with an Australian company but have met plenty of Romanians, have been to Romania and have dealt with Romanian companies - I would agree with DougSeal.
Simple. Romania is in Europe as is the UK, both with European roots. Our native languages are Indo-European, the native languages of Australia are of –Pama–Nyungan family. Australia is an alien country literally in the other side of the world with roots in Asia and the Pacific. Admittedly there have been some European outposts established in the coast since 1789 but that doesn’t mean we are like them.
Australia is more alien than Romania?
Can I have some of what you are smoking?
Considering I have never been to Australia, never met an Australian and never dealt with an Australian company but have met plenty of Romanians, have been to Romania and have dealt with Romanian companies - I would agree with DougSeal.
Give me any ways at all that Romanians are more like the English than Australians are please. They are literally our kin anyway.
Simple. Romania is in Europe as is the UK, both with European roots. Australia is an alien country literally in the other side of the world with roots in Asia and the Pacific. Admittedly there have been some European outposts established in the coast since 1789 but that doesn’t mean we are like them.
Absolute and total garbage.
Pick anyone random from England, blindfold them and drop them off randomly in either Melbourne or Bucharest. I know which one I think they will find most alike and which one most alien.
Which bit is garbage? Everything I said is completely factually correct. I doubt there are more than a handful of people in the UK who can speak a native language of Australia, plenty more can speak the relatively similar Romanian.
Simple. Romania is in Europe as is the UK, both with European roots. Our native languages are Indo-European, the native languages of Australia are of –Pama–Nyungan family. Australia is an alien country literally in the other side of the world with roots in Asia and the Pacific. Admittedly there have been some European outposts established in the coast since 1789 but that doesn’t mean we are like them.
Australia is more alien than Romania?
Can I have some of what you are smoking?
Considering I have never been to Australia, never met an Australian and never dealt with an Australian company but have met plenty of Romanians, have been to Romania and have dealt with Romanian companies - I would agree with DougSeal.
I wouldnt take your experience as representative.
I didn't say it was. However you can't say for sure that yours or RobD's experience is representative either.
How many Australians live and work in Nuneaton for example? What about Warsall? Burnley? Sunderland? How many people can afford thousands of pounds for flights to Australia on holiday?
@Philip_Thompson you should expel the ERG for not following the whip. Oh and Boris.
May was too cowardly to make the meaningful votes a confidence motion. More fool her.
If Grieve and co vote No Confidence in the government then expulsion will be automatic.
It may be different in your native Australia but since the Fixed Term Parliaments Act was passed only a motion in the prescribed form can be a confidence motion in the UK Parliament. You should probably research a bit about UK politics and procedure before posting so extensively about it.
I am not Australian, I'm English.
I've also written repeatedly how a post-FTPA confidence motion can be held. The legal procedure is different but the consequences are the same. Similarly pre-FTPA losing a vote that had been termed a confidence motion didn't automatically trigger an election by itself - there were procedures to follow afterwards. Now there are just different procedures to follow but the consequences are the same.
I agree that the practical impact of the FTPA is overstated. In practice, it is still going to be relatively easy for the PM to contrive a general election if they want one by moving a resolution either via the 55% route (May's in 2017) or even if necessary by the government voting for no confidence in itself. If the PM prior to that makes it clear that he will regard an earlier motion as a no confidence motion, triggering a subsequent attempt to hold a GE, and also that any MP voting against on that earlier motion will have the whip removed automatically, any Conservative who votes against that motion has to expect that a GE will follow at which they will be unable to stand as a Conservative.
It's 2/3 of MPs that have to consent to an early dissolution. Cameron and Clegg proposed 55% in the original draft, IIRC, but that was thrown out.
If Mr Varadkar believes the EU will stand behind Ireland even at the cost of the German economy (already in the doldrums) then he does not understand who is in charge.
Ah, the faith PB Brexiteers have in the German car manufacturers riding in on their unicorns like Blücher's Prussians at Waterloo to save their fantasy at the last minute is nothing short of touching.
You appear to believe that any suggestion anybody makes that disagrees with your position automatically makes that person insane and equivalent to Adolf Hitler. You must be a terrible negotiator. In fact, directly equivalent to the way you perceive anybody else’s negotiating strategy.
Have you ever dealt with the EU institutions or their leaders at a high level? Have you ever spoken to the leaders of industry in Germany or the other EU states?
You appear, and this is emblematic of people in politics on all sides at the moment, to think that equating people to a fascist dictator and refusing to accept that other people can have valid perspectives is equivalent to positing an argument.
Sad for you, sad for your colleagues, sad for politics.
Nah, just saying that expecting the German carmakers to bail out the Brexiteers is as delusional as Hitler in his bunker expecting Steiner to bale them out.
People are welcome to mock my knowledge of the negotiations, and indeed have done frequently, but I have been right all along.
Fair enough response but that really wasn’t the point I was making. In the EU (and outside of it) every national government makes its decisions based entirely upon what they think is best for 1) their own governing party 2) their nations economy.
The key is the perspective that each actor has. Whether a no-deal would be a good, bad, or disastrous thing for the UK and EU and its constituent nations is not the point. It is all of those entities perception of it. My information and belief is that the German political class are terrified of the prospect and the backstop is the weakest link in the chain. The fact that the German government are in a poor political situation exacerbates their possible reaction.
I can be wrong and it may not even come to it but that is my view.
So you can lay an October 2019 election at just 3.85 on BFE and win if it falls in any other month or year.
I do not understand the logic of the article. So what happens on 31st October ? If BJ can get Brexit through why should he call an election ? Surely, the election will be held before 31st October.
A September election works for me.
A September election is now impossible.
Heck I think the earliest possible date is now October 10th...
October 24th I am told.
That was if a vote of No Confidence occurs on in the first 2 days of Parliment returning.
Simple. Romania is in Europe as is the UK, both with European roots. Our native languages are Indo-European, the native languages of Australia are of –Pama–Nyungan family. Australia is an alien country literally in the other side of the world with roots in Asia and the Pacific. Admittedly there have been some European outposts established in the coast since 1789 but that doesn’t mean we are like them.
Australia is more alien than Romania?
Can I have some of what you are smoking?
Considering I have never been to Australia, never met an Australian and never dealt with an Australian company but have met plenty of Romanians, have been to Romania and have dealt with Romanian companies - I would agree with DougSeal.
Well you’re both nuts as far as I’m concerned.
Plain bonkers.
Romania’s (relative!) geographical proximity in no way makes them as akin we are to “middle Australia”. Nothing wrong with that, I’m sure there are loads of lovely engaging folk in downtown Bucharest but to claim and agree we are not like Australians? Ludicrous.
(Anyone likely to be opening the batting for Romania at Lord’s anytime soon? Just to be topical).
Comments
It is almost as if the body politic has been infected by a lethal cocktail of plagues contracted from Northern Ireland. I fear that we wait in vain for signs of a cure...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo6aKnRnBxM
People are welcome to mock my knowledge of the negotiations, and indeed have done frequently, but I have been right all along.
I was sorry to note you decision to leave the Conservative Party following the appointment of Boris Johnson as Prime Minister.
I'm sure it was a particular wrench to distance yourself from an organisation that you have supported and worked so assiduously and conscientiously for many decades.
Best wishes.
JackW
May had the option of making the WDA a Confidence motion but she didn't do so. No Deal is already the legal default so if Boris doesn't blink it will take a No Confidence motion to stop him.
Now if you also want to bet against Andy Burnham being next leader, you might lay a £4 bet at the current 100.0. Your liability on that is £396 but you'd only have to deposit an extra £6 because they can't both be losing bets and you have already committed £390.
Conversely if you are backing multiple options you need to put up the stake for each case because they might all be losing bets. So in the above example if it was the same deluded punter backing Miliband and Burnham, he'd have to deposit £10+£4 = £16.
I'll stick to backing (on betfair where I can lay off on the back if I choose).
Some years I've even been known to break even!
A long time ago I used to be the same, not really understanding it and thinking it was somehow like spread betting where you have an uncertain liability. But it isn’t, and you don’t. It’s just like a bet. Indeed it is a bet.
Brexit is an existential crisis for the UK. Irish reunification and Scottish Independence are increasingly close and increasingly certain. No Deal will be the fatal blow, and Scots and Irish know it.
Just as May called an early election by calling a press conference, announcing an election to the world's media and THEN holding the vote, she could have circumvented the FTPA. Announce that she views the WDA as a Confidence motion, that she will remove the whip from anyone that rejects it and if the vote is lost then the next day will hold a vote under the FTPA to call an early election with a three-line-whip to support an early election.
If I wanted to be a bookmaker - err, I'd email shadsy or something.
I've also written repeatedly how a post-FTPA confidence motion can be held. The legal procedure is different but the consequences are the same. Similarly pre-FTPA losing a vote that had been termed a confidence motion didn't automatically trigger an election by itself - there were procedures to follow afterwards. Now there are just different procedures to follow but the consquences are the same.
The League Against Cruel Sports warned the the greyhounds, who will be transported from their kennels and then raced at the tracks, are at risk of heatstroke."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2019/jul/25/heatwave-uk-weather-set-to-break-records-as-europes-cities-await-hottest-day-live
If the Irish or Scots choose to leave that is their choice and good luck to them.
Are you sure you are English? Your manner of phrasing and apparent distance from the English way of thinking would suggest otherwise.
Thanks for the tip
I'm assuming that's not possible when you're backing rather than laying, or is it?
Sure, she could have said "if the WDA doesn't pass, I'll resign" but then what? The Tory party elects a new leader and the government goes on - i.e. exactly what's just happened. Without the threat of a dissolution behind it, any "confidence matter" that's not an actual VONC is an empty threat.
I said "if the WDA doesn't pass I'll remove the whip from anyone who voted against it and call an election".
May has the power to call an election, as she'd already demonstrated. I believe she has the power to remove the whip from people, as has happened in the past.
Give me any ways at all that Romanians are more like the English than Australians are please. They are literally our kin anyway.
I have a vested interest in this country, it is my only nationality and my only country. The UK can exist outside the EU, if the Scots are too frit to go independent once more then we will remain the UK.
EU citizens rights are now just being verbally guaranteed . So Bozo says don’t worry and that’s that .
The UK is fast turning into a Banana Republic and a failed state. Hopefully the EU will have a sympathetic refugee programme.
Heck I think the earliest possible date is now October 10th...
But it's all moot now. Alea iact est as a certain floppy-haired New Yorker might say.
When Theresa May stood in Downing Street and called for an election to the world's gathered media she called the election, not the Commons. The Commons just ratified what she'd already called and the media had already moved into election mode before the Commons even voted. She could have done the same by proxy with the WDA thus making the WDA a confidence vote by proxy.
Can I have some of what you are smoking?
The amount of fun a Labour party could have in September as Boris tries to call an election will be a sight to behold.
Granted we do need an election but I think the pound of flesh required for Boris to get his wish will rather put him off...
Pick anyone random from England, blindfold them and drop them off randomly in either Melbourne or Bucharest. I know which one I think they will find most alike and which one most alien.
Things hit November incredibly early...
I suppose the government could try to use one of the many Henry VIII clauses enacted in recent times to try to repeal or amend the FPTA by fiat, but I suspect they won't want to try that for fear the power being found unconstitutional by the courts.
How many Australians live and work in Nuneaton for example? What about Warsall? Burnley? Sunderland? How many people can afford thousands of pounds for flights to Australia on holiday?
Plain bonkers.
Romania’s (relative!) geographical proximity in no way makes them as akin we are to “middle Australia”. Nothing wrong with that, I’m sure there are loads of lovely engaging folk in downtown Bucharest but to claim and agree we are not like Australians? Ludicrous.
(Anyone likely to be opening the batting for Romania at Lord’s anytime soon? Just to be topical).