But why would there be such serious hesitation at doing so - given that he could be removed very quickly as soon as an Extension has been requested?
For the same reason Labour MPs who support Leave won't vote for Boris in a VONC: you are asking politicians who have spent their entire political lives in one party to vote the leader of the other main party into No 10, with all the credibility and gravitas that that would give him. That really is one hell of a step, especially in the case of a leader so utterly objectionable as Corbyn.
Presumably in this scenario Corbyn would agree to just get an extension from the EU then immediately call a vote for a GE. If he didn't follow through he'd be VONCed immediately.
So yes, I see why it'd be a big step psychologically, but in the end practicality has to win out if these politicians really believe that crashing out would be so devastating.
That’s cost her two high-salary careers now, hope she knows someone who doesn’t mind giving a low-level admin job to someone with a conviction for dishonesty.
But why would there be such serious hesitation at doing so - given that he could be removed very quickly as soon as an Extension has been requested?
For the same reason Labour MPs who support Leave won't vote for Boris in a VONC: you are asking politicians who have spent their entire political lives in one party to vote the leader of the other main party into No 10, with all the credibility and gravitas that that would give him. That really is one hell of a step, especially in the case of a leader so utterly objectionable as Corbyn.
Even 'If avoiding No Deal is paramount' and Corbyn can be jettisoned very quickly given the parliamentary arithmetic? The Norway Debate of May 1940 comes to mind.
That’s cost her two high-salary careers now, hope she knows someone who doesn’t mind giving a low-level admin job to someone with a conviction for dishonesty.
The EU were always bluffing. Their line was illogical, they are claiming it is so important to avoid a hard border that there must be a backstop. But if they insist on the backstop to the death there will be a hard border.
Meanwhile a transition without a backstop means there won't be a hard border.
Are the EU really so wedded to avoiding a hard border that they will force a hard border to exist this year when they could have a few years more of no hard border and settle the issue in the future? Its a nonsense. The only reason to do it was because they were certain the UK would fold.
The EU bluffed because, to continue the poker analogy, they thought they were dominant chip leader and could bully us. However Boris has just shoved the UK "All In" on no backstop. Now does the EU continue with their bluff to showdown or do they fold?
They are not bluffing. They think, quite rightly, that the UK won't be able to sustain the chaos of a no-deal crash-out for very long, and in any case Boris has no majority to agree anything, and even if he did it can't be concluded by 31st October. So unless parliament takes back control and comes up with a request for an extension, they will just wait for the UK to come back once it comes to its senses. It's not their preferred option, but they actually have no choice now.
I agree with everything you wrote, but this is not a usual circumstance.
I expect that if an alternative is proposed Boris will wait for an indicative vote to be held before resigning, quite reasonably, to prove someone else has a majority. EG if people claim that Corbyn has a majority then an indicative vote on Corbyn, or any alternative proposed can be held. If that vote fails, then Boris won't resign as it will demonstrate there is no alternative. If it passes, then Boris would be obliged to resign. I don't think Boris will resign before the vote is held and I don't think Her Majesty would sack him before a vote is held either - Her Majesty will want to keep her hands off this so a vote should be held first at which point he can resign and she can call whoever won the vote.
Then there will be a formal Vote of Confidence. Yes the formal vote occurs afterwards but there's nothing in law preventing an informal vote first.
It's true that these aren't usual circumstances, but I don't think an indicative vote would be necessary (although it would obviously be one route to demonstrating that a new PM would have the confidence of the House). Suppose for example that a group of Privy Councillors met with the palace officials and told them that Labour, the SNP, the LibDems and 50 Tory MPs had agreed to support a new government led by X. In that scenario, the palace would check with the opposition party leaderships and with key Tory MPs to verify that this looked like a goer, and if it stacked up X would be appointed PM. A Commons vote is not necessary.
Of course the difficulty with all this is identifying X. As soon as you try to put a name to it, it falls apart. That's why I don't think this route will be chosen; I think an Act of Parliament is a more likely route, though still extremely difficult.
We're going to be a net foreign currency purchaser shortly so whilst the sterling pressure was appreciated whilst we acted as a conventional exporter if Grieve and Bercow could now do the necessary parliamentary shenanigans I'd appreciate it !
Do you think no-deal is priced into the currency markets yet?
With Brexit, the US/China trade war, German recession and the goings-on in Hong Kong, at what point does everyone run to JPY, SGD and CHF?
Deutsche says worst-case is 1gbp = 0.95eur and 1gbp = 1.15usd. I'm a bit dubious because they are frequently wrong, but that's the base I'm working on...
But why would there be such serious hesitation at doing so - given that he could be removed very quickly as soon as an Extension has been requested?
Do they remove him and put Boris in at that point? The caretaker PM is only supposed to be there until the next election but given an election with 4 parties on significant scores, the caretaker PM could be taking care for quite a long time after it...
Who cares what Larry Summers thinks, he is an ex Obama adviser and a pro EU Democrat.
The current President is a Republican
The president does not ratify trade agreements, and the House of Representatives is Democrat. When Summers says there are trade agreements which would be good for the UK, and trade agreements which are ratifiable, but none which are both, you should take note.
UK I wanna change my mind. I wanna new withdrawal agreement EU We gave you a new withdrawal agreement! UK I WANNA NEW NEW WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT! EU OK calm down. Now. What do you want? UK NOT TELLING YOU! YOU GOTTA GUESS! EU oh for fucks sake...
(Exeunt, led by Bannon)
The UK has said what it wants as a new agreement. The old agreement without a backstop.
The future relationship with Ireland can be settled during transition when we negotiate the future relationship with the EU.
The small problem with this idea is the EU will not consider the WA without it.
Therefore, we do not have agreement, which is necessary for 'an agreement.'
The EU don't have a choice. We hold all the cards.
They either consider a WA without it, or there is no WA and therefore no backstop. Either way there is no backstop.
Phillip, please never take up poker.
I play Poker.
The EU were bluffing. I have said this for the last year. We are calling their bluff - and about time too!
I would say this scenario is like we are playing Texas Hold'em [version of poker I play] and we are holding a pair of 6's. The EU is holding Ace and King. The flop came down 2 4 7, turn was a Jack and river a 9. The EU was very confident with their Ace and King but they've missed, our pair of 6's have held up.
I don't play a lot of poker, but I always think it is a much easier game when you know both side's hands.
But why would there be such serious hesitation at doing so - given that he could be removed very quickly as soon as an Extension has been requested?
For the same reason Labour MPs who support Leave won't vote for Boris in a VONC: you are asking politicians who have spent their entire political lives in one party to vote the leader of the other main party into No 10, with all the credibility and gravitas that that would give him. That really is one hell of a step, especially in the case of a leader so utterly objectionable as Corbyn.
Presumably in this scenario Corbyn would agree to just get an extension from the EU then immediately call a vote for a GE. If he didn't follow through he'd be VONCed immediately.
So yes, I see why it'd be a big step psychologically, but in the end practicality has to win out if these politicians really believe that crashing out would be so devastating.
Yes, I think it is not quite impossible, but I still think an Act of Parliament is a more likely route, as it avoids this massive step, and is no different to what the ERG did.
I think I solved the riddle of the weird Tory constitutional interpretations. It's not about making waverers think they won't be able to get rid of Boris - if they half-believed it, that wouldn't stop them from trying. It's about making them think maybe they won't be able to get rid of *Jeremy Corbyn*.
The EU were always bluffing. Their line was illogical, they are claiming it is so important to avoid a hard border that there must be a backstop. But if they insist on the backstop to the death there will be a hard border.
Meanwhile a transition without a backstop means there won't be a hard border.
Are the EU really so wedded to avoiding a hard border that they will force a hard border to exist this year when they could have a few years more of no hard border and settle the issue in the future? Its a nonsense. The only reason to do it was because they were certain the UK would fold.
The EU bluffed because, to continue the poker analogy, they thought they were dominant chip leader and could bully us. However Boris has just shoved the UK "All In" on no backstop. Now does the EU continue with their bluff to showdown or do they fold?
I love that ass-covering last line, very smooth. Obviously they don't continue with a bluff to showdown because that doesn't make any sense. If they don't back down, it means they weren't bluffing. If you really believed what you were saying you'd be happy to make an actual prediction rather than trying to cover all your bases with that nonsense.
But why would there be such serious hesitation at doing so - given that he could be removed very quickly as soon as an Extension has been requested?
For the same reason Labour MPs who support Leave won't vote for Boris in a VONC: you are asking politicians who have spent their entire political lives in one party to vote the leader of the other main party into No 10, with all the credibility and gravitas that that would give him. That really is one hell of a step, especially in the case of a leader so utterly objectionable as Corbyn.
Presumably in this scenario Corbyn would agree to just get an extension from the EU then immediately call a vote for a GE. If he didn't follow through he'd be VONCed immediately.
So yes, I see why it'd be a big step psychologically, but in the end practicality has to win out if these politicians really believe that crashing out would be so devastating.
Yes, I think it is not quite impossible, but I still think an Act of Parliament is a more likely route, as it avoids this massive step, and is no different to what the ERG did.
I think I solved the riddle of the weird Tory constitutional interpretations. It's not about making waverers think they won't be able to get rid of Boris - if they half-believed it, that wouldn't stop them from trying. It's about making them think maybe they won't be able to get rid of *Jeremy Corbyn*.
The EU were always bluffing. Their line was illogical, they are claiming it is so important to avoid a hard border that there must be a backstop. But if they insist on the backstop to the death there will be a hard border.
Meanwhile a transition without a backstop means there won't be a hard border.
Are the EU really so wedded to avoiding a hard border that they will force a hard border to exist this year when they could have a few years more of no hard border and settle the issue in the future? Its a nonsense. The only reason to do it was because they were certain the UK would fold.
The EU bluffed because, to continue the poker analogy, they thought they were dominant chip leader and could bully us. However Boris has just shoved the UK "All In" on no backstop. Now does the EU continue with their bluff to showdown or do they fold?
A bluff is something you don't intend to do. Other than your earnest desiring, what evidence is there for this?
UK I wanna change my mind. I wanna new withdrawal agreement EU We gave you a new withdrawal agreement! UK I WANNA NEW NEW WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT! EU OK calm down. Now. What do you want? UK NOT TELLING YOU! YOU GOTTA GUESS! EU oh for fucks sake...
(Exeunt, led by Bannon)
The UK has said what it wants as a new agreement. The old agreement without a backstop.
The future relationship with Ireland can be settled during transition when we negotiate the future relationship with the EU.
The small problem with this idea is the EU will not consider the WA without it.
Therefore, we do not have agreement, which is necessary for 'an agreement.'
The EU don't have a choice. We hold all the cards.
They either consider a WA without it, or there is no WA and therefore no backstop. Either way there is no backstop.
Phillip, please never take up poker.
I play Poker.
The EU were bluffing. I have said this for the last year. We are calling their bluff - and about time too!
I would say this scenario is like we are playing Texas Hold'em [version of poker I play] and we are holding a pair of 6's. The EU is holding Ace and King. The flop came down 2 4 7, turn was a Jack and river a 9. The EU was very confident with their Ace and King but they've missed, our pair of 6's have held up.
I don't play a lot of poker, but I always think it is a much easier game when you know both side's hands.
Good poker players can "read" the other sides cards by their actions.
The EU were always bluffing. Their line was illogical, they are claiming it is so important to avoid a hard border that there must be a backstop. But if they insist on the backstop to the death there will be a hard border.
Meanwhile a transition without a backstop means there won't be a hard border.
Are the EU really so wedded to avoiding a hard border that they will force a hard border to exist this year when they could have a few years more of no hard border and settle the issue in the future? Its a nonsense. The only reason to do it was because they were certain the UK would fold.
The EU bluffed because, to continue the poker analogy, they thought they were dominant chip leader and could bully us. However Boris has just shoved the UK "All In" on no backstop. Now does the EU continue with their bluff to showdown or do they fold?
A bluff is something you don't intend to do. Other than your earnest desiring, what evidence is there for this?
The EU have said they don't intend to have a hard border. That is why it was a bluff.
"Sign this backstop or will force a hard border" is a bluff.
We'll have to see how things develop. Speaking of which, if the EU sticks to their 'no renegotiation line' what does the PM do?
Probably clings mindlessly to no deal. The alternatives remain revocation, referendum, or trying for the deal again.
It slightly amuses that there are people who are criticising Boris for “refusing to negotiate without preconditions” and, at the same time, are applauding the EU for “sticking to their guns” on the backstop
Agreement Do the folk who criticise the stubborn inflexibility of the EU while applauding Boris for sticking to his guns afford you a similar degree of amusement?
Not quite the same thing - it's the difference in views on the acceptability of preconditions.
"Stubborn inflexibility" can be a valid negotiating tactic
Is it valid when used by the EU?
The identity of the party using that tactic is irrelevant.
I think in this specific case it's unhelpful if you want to get a deal.
The UK has been very clear that it is unacceptable. A constructive way would be to work to find a mutual solution, not to cut off the productive discussions that were ongoing and insist that it is up to the UK to come up with an answer on its own.
THOSE PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSIONS IN FULL ====================================
UK I wanna divorce EU okay bye
Pause
UK I wanna withdrawal agreement EU Okay here's a withdrawal agreement UK It's gotta backstop EU Yup UK OK, make it cover the whole country EU OK, here's your new withdrawal agreement. We cool? UK We cool
Pause
UK Can I have an extension? EU Okay here's an extension. Don't waste it, OK? UK Stop worrying
Pause
UK I wanna change my mind. I wanna new withdrawal agreement EU We gave you a new withdrawal agreement! UK I WANNA NEW NEW WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT! EU OK calm down. Now. What do you want? UK NOT TELLING YOU! YOU GOTTA GUESS! EU oh for fucks sake...
(Exeunt, led by Bannon)
I think exeunt should be the new collective noun for the zoomier end of Brexiteers (which now appears to be most of them). Also, rhyming slang possibilities.
Wasn't the precursor to Dignitas called EXIT? Anyhoo, Exeunts. Yes I like it.
[Palpatine mode on] Hereforward we shall refer to the Brexiteers as...Exeunts. Rise, Lord Exeunt... [Palpatine mode off]
I agree with everything you wrote, but this is not a usual circumstance.
I expect that if an alternative is proposed Boris will wait for an indicative vote to be held before resigning, quite reasonably, to prove someone else has a majority. EG if people claim that Corbyn has a majority then an indicative vote on Corbyn, or any alternative proposed can be held. If that vote fails, then Boris won't resign as it will demonstrate there is no alternative. If it passes, then Boris would be obliged to resign. I don't think Boris will resign before the vote is held and I don't think Her Majesty would sack him before a vote is held either - Her Majesty will want to keep her hands off this so a vote should be held first at which point he can resign and she can call whoever won the vote.
Then there will be a formal Vote of Confidence. Yes the formal vote occurs afterwards but there's nothing in law preventing an informal vote first.
It's true that these aren't usual circumstances, but I don't think an indicative vote would be necessary (although it would obviously be one route to demonstrating that a new PM would have the confidence of the House). Suppose for example that a group of Privy Councillors met with the palace officials and told them that Labour, the SNP, the LibDems and 50 Tory MPs had agreed to support a new government led by X. In that scenario, the palace would check with the opposition party leaderships and with key Tory MPs to verify that this looked like a goer, and if it stacked up X would be appointed PM. A Commons vote is not necessary.
Of course the difficulty with all this is identifying X. As soon as you try to put a name to it, it falls apart. That's why I don't think this route will be chosen; I think an Act of Parliament is a more likely route, though still extremely difficult.
We're going to be a net foreign currency purchaser shortly so whilst the sterling pressure was appreciated whilst we acted as a conventional exporter if Grieve and Bercow could now do the necessary parliamentary shenanigans I'd appreciate it !
Do you think no-deal is priced into the currency markets yet?
With Brexit, the US/China trade war, German recession and the goings-on in Hong Kong, at what point does everyone run to JPY, SGD and CHF?
Deutsche says worst-case is 1gbp = 0.95eur and 1gbp = 1.15usd. I'm a bit dubious because they are frequently wrong, but that's the base I'm working on...
Suits me fine, but most of my earnings are in USD and my mortgage is in GBP.
I think there’s a *lot* of volatility coming down the line, and central bankers are going to struggle with the limited tools available to put a dampener on it.
But why would there be such serious hesitation at doing so - given that he could be removed very quickly as soon as an Extension has been requested?
For the same reason Labour MPs who support Leave won't vote for Boris in a VONC: you are asking politicians who have spent their entire political lives in one party to vote the leader of the other main party into No 10, with all the credibility and gravitas that that would give him. That really is one hell of a step, especially in the case of a leader so utterly objectionable as Corbyn.
Even 'If avoiding No Deal is paramount' and Corbyn can be jettisoned very quickly given the parliamentary arithmetic? The Norway Debate of May 1940 comes to mind.
Corbyn would not be jettisoned. Most Labour MP's would far prefer a Labour government, even if under Corbyn, than any alternative.
There are two alternatives to the current government:
Who cares what Larry Summers thinks, he is an ex Obama adviser and a pro EU Democrat.
The current President is a Republican
The president does not ratify trade agreements, and the House of Representatives is Democrat. When Summers says there are trade agreements which would be good for the UK, and trade agreements which are ratifiable, but none which are both, you should take note.
The EU were always bluffing. Their line was illogical, they are claiming it is so important to avoid a hard border that there must be a backstop. But if they insist on the backstop to the death there will be a hard border.
Meanwhile a transition without a backstop means there won't be a hard border.
Are the EU really so wedded to avoiding a hard border that they will force a hard border to exist this year when they could have a few years more of no hard border and settle the issue in the future? Its a nonsense. The only reason to do it was because they were certain the UK would fold.
The EU bluffed because, to continue the poker analogy, they thought they were dominant chip leader and could bully us. However Boris has just shoved the UK "All In" on no backstop. Now does the EU continue with their bluff to showdown or do they fold?
A bluff is something you don't intend to do. Other than your earnest desiring, what evidence is there for this?
The EU have said they don't intend to have a hard border. That is why it was a bluff.
"Sign this backstop or will force a hard border" is a bluff.
Is "Sign this backstop or you won't get a deal" a bluff?
But why would there be such serious hesitation at doing so - given that he could be removed very quickly as soon as an Extension has been requested?
For the same reason Labour MPs who support Leave won't vote for Boris in a VONC: you are asking politicians who have spent their entire political lives in one party to vote the leader of the other main party into No 10, with all the credibility and gravitas that that would give him. That really is one hell of a step, especially in the case of a leader so utterly objectionable as Corbyn.
Presumably in this scenario Corbyn would agree to just get an extension from the EU then immediately call a vote for a GE. If he didn't follow through he'd be VONCed immediately.
So yes, I see why it'd be a big step psychologically, but in the end practicality has to win out if these politicians really believe that crashing out would be so devastating.
If you're a Tory for Corbyn, you have to know that you will be turning old friends into bitter enemies.
The EU were always bluffing. Their line was illogical, they are claiming it is so important to avoid a hard border that there must be a backstop. But if they insist on the backstop to the death there will be a hard border.
Meanwhile a transition without a backstop means there won't be a hard border.
Are the EU really so wedded to avoiding a hard border that they will force a hard border to exist this year when they could have a few years more of no hard border and settle the issue in the future? Its a nonsense. The only reason to do it was because they were certain the UK would fold.
The EU bluffed because, to continue the poker analogy, they thought they were dominant chip leader and could bully us. However Boris has just shoved the UK "All In" on no backstop. Now does the EU continue with their bluff to showdown or do they fold?
I love that ass-covering last line, very smooth. Obviously they don't continue with a bluff to showdown because that doesn't make any sense. If they don't back down, it means they weren't bluffing. If you really believed what you were saying you'd be happy to make an actual prediction rather than trying to cover all your bases with that nonsense.
Actually I've bluffed before then continued with the bluff to showdown. Again continuing the poker analogy it is like having decent card so betting big, but missing the nuts on the flop and turn so betting big to force off your opponent on the turn, but they over the top go All In. Now you are in a bind do you fold and lose everything you've bet now, lose the pot and move on . . . or are you 'pot committed' and call despite the fact you were bluffing and hope you hit an out on the river?
It's true that these aren't usual circumstances, but I don't think an indicative vote would be necessary (although it would obviously be one route to demonstrating that a new PM would have the confidence of the House). Suppose for example that a group of Privy Councillors met with the palace officials and told them that Labour, the SNP, the LibDems and 50 Tory MPs had agreed to support a new government led by X. In that scenario, the palace would check with the opposition party leaderships and with key Tory MPs to verify that this looked like a goer, and if it stacked up X would be appointed PM. A Commons vote is not necessary.
Of course the difficulty with all this is identifying X. As soon as you try to put a name to it, it falls apart. That's why I don't think this route will be chosen; I think an Act of Parliament is a more likely route, though still extremely difficult.
We're going to be a net foreign currency purchaser shortly so whilst the sterling pressure was appreciated whilst we acted as a conventional exporter if Grieve and Bercow could now do the necessary parliamentary shenanigans I'd appreciate it !
Do you think no-deal is priced into the currency markets yet?
With Brexit, the US/China trade war, German recession and the goings-on in Hong Kong, at what point does everyone run to JPY, SGD and CHF?
Deutsche says worst-case is 1gbp = 0.95eur and 1gbp = 1.15usd. I'm a bit dubious because they are frequently wrong, but that's the base I'm working on...
Suits me fine, but most of my earnings are in USD and my mortgage is in GBP.
I think there’s a *lot* of volatility coming down the line, and central bankers are going to struggle with the limited tools available to put a dampener on it.
Could I ask, has anyone altered their positions, or felt that other has caused them. to reconsider?
I have commented previously, that this place is like the WW1 trenches were the initial battles quickly became bogged down in trenches that then stayed (more or less) fixed for the rest of the war.
If anything, some of the stuff I read on here has pushed me further towards a Federal Europe. Pre-Brexit I was a moderate BOO-er. In the run up to the Referendum I looked more closely at the issues and positions of those involved and decided that Better-Off-Out was a fallacy and I voted Remain.
Make of that what you will.
That mirrors my journey. I have been pretty eurosceptic disliking many aspects of the EU’s structure, approach and general tin-earedness. I was relatively relaxed about the result if it was out because I thought, wrongly and naively as it turned out, that both sides would pull back from the brink and negotiate something akin to a form of associate membership / EEA or EFTA or similar. And I thought that ultimately there would be a deal. It was not my ideal. But very little in politics is.
But the way the Brexiteers have behaved has turned me into much more of a Remainer now than I ever was in 2016. The level of hatred and bile directed at the EU and Europeans, the willingness to throw their lot in with the worst aspects of US politics and culture, the ignorance and dishonesty, the sheer indifference to the harm they might cause - not just to the economy or the people who voted to leave - but to our democracy and society - has been eye-opening. The willingness to indulge the DUP, a nasty, bigoted party, and ignore what NI voted for and one of the great achievements of British and Irish diplomacy (the GFA) has been revolting. The condescension to the Irish has shown the Tories at their absolute worst. And the contrast with the grown up, united way the EU has behaved has been a revelation. There have been faults on the EU side. But British politicians have shown themselves to be immature, ignorant and self-interested to a degree which has shocked me. They have not risen to the occasion.
If there were to be sensible deal for withdrawal followed by a long-term agreement with the EU and some semblance of a European strategy, I could live with that.
If we were to Remain now, I think I would go for an all in approach, though that would depend if we stayed as a result of revocation or rejoining. At any event, old verities and assumptions would need to be questioned and rethought.
But a No Deal crash out based on lies, ignorance, dishonesty, stupidity, vainglory: no.
I think this place and the ritual repeats of fantasy by the "beLeavers" have been enough for one day.
The EU were always bluffing. Their line was illogical, they are claiming it is so important to avoid a hard border that there must be a backstop. But if they insist on the backstop to the death there will be a hard border.
Meanwhile a transition without a backstop means there won't be a hard border.
Are the EU really so wedded to avoiding a hard border that they will force a hard border to exist this year when they could have a few years more of no hard border and settle the issue in the future? Its a nonsense. The only reason to do it was because they were certain the UK would fold.
The EU bluffed because, to continue the poker analogy, they thought they were dominant chip leader and could bully us. However Boris has just shoved the UK "All In" on no backstop. Now does the EU continue with their bluff to showdown or do they fold?
A bluff is something you don't intend to do. Other than your earnest desiring, what evidence is there for this?
The EU have said they don't intend to have a hard border. That is why it was a bluff.
"Sign this backstop or will force a hard border" is a bluff.
Is "Sign this backstop or you won't get a deal" a bluff?
Yes, I think so. It is illogical.
Had May called their bluff 12 months ago it would have been a lot easier, now they are quite committed to it and will lose a lot of face folding. I bet you there are some people right now desperately trying to think of a face-saving way of getting out of this mess.
That’s cost her two high-salary careers now, hope she knows someone who doesn’t mind giving a low-level admin job to someone with a conviction for dishonesty.
Nailed on for a £60k job in the "Third Sector".
Sadly possible, if she can find one who won’t run a CRB check.
The EU were always bluffing. Their line was illogical, they are claiming it is so important to avoid a hard border that there must be a backstop. But if they insist on the backstop to the death there will be a hard border.
Meanwhile a transition without a backstop means there won't be a hard border.
Are the EU really so wedded to avoiding a hard border that they will force a hard border to exist this year when they could have a few years more of no hard border and settle the issue in the future? Its a nonsense. The only reason to do it was because they were certain the UK would fold.
The EU bluffed because, to continue the poker analogy, they thought they were dominant chip leader and could bully us. However Boris has just shoved the UK "All In" on no backstop. Now does the EU continue with their bluff to showdown or do they fold?
I love that ass-covering last line, very smooth. Obviously they don't continue with a bluff to showdown because that doesn't make any sense. If they don't back down, it means they weren't bluffing. If you really believed what you were saying you'd be happy to make an actual prediction rather than trying to cover all your bases with that nonsense.
Actually I've bluffed before then continued with the bluff to showdown. Again continuing the poker analogy it is like having decent card so betting big, but missing the nuts on the flop and turn so betting big to force off your opponent on the turn, but they over the top go All In. Now you are in a bind do you fold and lose everything you've bet now, lose the pot and move on . . . or are you 'pot committed' and call despite the fact you were bluffing and hope you hit an out on the river?
I think you need to read up on the sunk cost fallacy before you play again.
But poker is a truly dreadful analogy for the EU/UK negotiations. In poker one side wins and the other loses. Both lose from the Brexit talks.
UK I wanna change my mind. I wanna new withdrawal agreement EU We gave you a new withdrawal agreement! UK I WANNA NEW NEW WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT! EU OK calm down. Now. What do you want? UK NOT TELLING YOU! YOU GOTTA GUESS! EU oh for fucks sake...
(Exeunt, led by Bannon)
The UK has said what it wants as a new agreement. The old agreement without a backstop.
The future relationship with Ireland can be settled during transition when we negotiate the future relationship with the EU.
The small problem with this idea is the EU will not consider the WA without it.
Therefore, we do not have agreement, which is necessary for 'an agreement.'
The EU don't have a choice. We hold all the cards.
They either consider a WA without it, or there is no WA and therefore no backstop. Either way there is no backstop.
Phillip, please never take up poker.
I play Poker.
The EU were bluffing. I have said this for the last year. We are calling their bluff - and about time too!
I would say this scenario is like we are playing Texas Hold'em [version of poker I play] and we are holding a pair of 6's. The EU is holding Ace and King. The flop came down 2 4 7, turn was a Jack and river a 9. The EU was very confident with their Ace and King but they've missed, our pair of 6's have held up.
In your analogy, what events correspond to the flop, turn and river? I can't think of any event that's improved the UK's hand. Certainly not the arrival of Boris as PM: changing the player doesn't change the cards.
Let's face it, the backstop is there for our benefit. No Deal would have some negative impact on Ireland but Ireland stands to gain massively from Brexit, so they'll cope. The EU has always had the best hand, and is not renegotiating with Boris.
The EU were always bluffing. Their line was illogical, they are claiming it is so important to avoid a hard border that there must be a backstop. But if they insist on the backstop to the death there will be a hard border.
Meanwhile a transition without a backstop means there won't be a hard border.
Are the EU really so wedded to avoiding a hard border that they will force a hard border to exist this year when they could have a few years more of no hard border and settle the issue in the future? Its a nonsense. The only reason to do it was because they were certain the UK would fold.
The EU bluffed because, to continue the poker analogy, they thought they were dominant chip leader and could bully us. However Boris has just shoved the UK "All In" on no backstop. Now does the EU continue with their bluff to showdown or do they fold?
The game doesn't end on 31st October, Philip. It just gets harder for the UK to play. On 1st November we will become totally reliant on the goodwill of others to keep our economy moving, our shops fully stocked, our hospitals supplied with medicines, our planes in the air, and so on. The EU and the Irish government will also have the ability to decide how quickly they move to a Hard Border in Ireland in the full knowledge that it is the hard borders created at the Channel ports and at our airports that actually matter to the UK. Once we have thrown our cards onto the table on Halloween everyone will be able to see them and nobody will be able to pretend they are aces when, in fact, they are jokers.
The EU were always bluffing. Their line was illogical, they are claiming it is so important to avoid a hard border that there must be a backstop. But if they insist on the backstop to the death there will be a hard border.
Meanwhile a transition without a backstop means there won't be a hard border.
Are the EU really so wedded to avoiding a hard border that they will force a hard border to exist this year when they could have a few years more of no hard border and settle the issue in the future? Its a nonsense. The only reason to do it was because they were certain the UK would fold.
The EU bluffed because, to continue the poker analogy, they thought they were dominant chip leader and could bully us. However Boris has just shoved the UK "All In" on no backstop. Now does the EU continue with their bluff to showdown or do they fold?
The game doesn't end on 31st October, Philip. It just gets harder for the UK to play. On 1st November we will become totally reliant on the goodwill of others to keep our economy moving, our shops fully stocked, our hospitals supplied with medicines, our planes in the air, and so on. The EU and the Irish government will also have the ability to decide how quickly they move to a Hard Border in Ireland in the full knowledge that it is the hard borders created at the Channel ports and at our airports that actually matter to the UK. Once we have thrown our cards onto the table on Halloween everyone will be able to see them and nobody will be able to pretend they are aces when, in fact, they are jokers.
Your being generous -
it was the two of clubs, Master Bun the bakers son and a few other random cards from other games..
The EU were always bluffing. Their line was illogical, they are claiming it is so important to avoid a hard border that there must be a backstop. But if they insist on the backstop to the death there will be a hard border.
Meanwhile a transition without a backstop means there won't be a hard border.
Are the EU really so wedded to avoiding a hard border that they will force a hard border to exist this year when they could have a few years more of no hard border and settle the issue in the future? Its a nonsense. The only reason to do it was because they were certain the UK would fold.
The EU bluffed because, to continue the poker analogy, they thought they were dominant chip leader and could bully us. However Boris has just shoved the UK "All In" on no backstop. Now does the EU continue with their bluff to showdown or do they fold?
The EU (actually the Irish) line on the border isn't illogical. It might be a miscalculation, which we will come to. If you can't afford a hard border under any circumstances, it is illogical to make a concession on that border. Holding firm means not conceding that point even if you suffer other damage in the (hopefully) short term.
The miscalculation might be that by being hard-line they push the UK into rejecting the Backstop whereas if they were more circumspect, the UK may in practice keep a permanent backstop anyway.
It's a judgment call. The UK hasn't shown a lot of trust on the issue, which undoubtedly feeds into the hard-line.
It would be interesting to see if there were an election prior to October 31st (ie. before we had left the EU and with a theoretical chance of either staying in the EU or leaving with a deal) and the outcome gave Johnson a clear majority for leaving Oct 31st without a deal (with the expectation that he would follow through on this), but the Lib Dem’s gaining, say 100 seats (clearly an enormously hypothetical scenario).
Would the reaction of LibDem politicians be
1) jubilation? 2) despair?
In between, as if they gained a 100 seats but Boris still won a majority Labour would have been decimated by losses to the Tories and Labour and well under 200 seats and the LDs would be in touching distance of replacing Labour as the main party of the centre left if it stuck with Corbynism
I'm planning a trip to Stonehenge for the little 'un, as it's something he's been fascinated by for a couple of years. It looks as though it's going to be a rather sad experience: apparently you have to book a time slot of half an hour for your tour, which is going to be awkward after a 3+ hour drive from home. Then you can't even get near the stones.
It all seems rather sad: what should be a rather magical experience for a 5-year old looks as though it's going to be a highly stage-managed, controlled and anaesthetic trip.
Fortunately, I'm planning to take him to Avebury afterwards to get some real contact with our past.
Stonehenge is a very boring experience
I beg to differ re Stonehenge although I accept it might be very busy this time of year. We went a few years ago on new year's eve and saw the sun set through the stones - very lovely.
The visitor centre is pretty good too. If you are NT members you can get in free (I think English Heritage own the stones and the NT owns the land).
The new visitor centre is a big improvement. I have driven past the stones on the A303 countless times but you only get a glimpse from the road (and you can't really stop). I know it's controversial but the planned A303 improvement will make the road and the site much better imho.
I's love to see EH build a replica of how it would have looked originally, with real stones, close to the visitor centre... that would satisfy half the visitors and the actual stones (half a mile away) would be less busy.
Was better back in the day when you could wander round them, just climb a fence and into the field.
Worth reading - though as the tweet points out the headline is more positive than the substance.
This cannot be repeated enough:
A no-deal Brexit can be prevented only by legislation, not by a mere expression of parliamentary opinion, nor by a motion.....
...But any legislation designed to postpone or prevent Brexit has public spending implications. For were the UK to stay in the EU beyond 31 October it would have to make further budget contributions. But standing order 48 requires any charge on public revenue to be recommended by the crown, which, for practical purposes, means a government minister responsible to parliament and through parliament to the people, not backbenchers. So that standing order too would have to be suspended.
The practical difficulties would be enormous. Backbenchers would have to steer the relevant legislation through all of its stages in the Commons, and deal with a host of amendments in committee together with endless filibustering by enraged Brexiteers.
If backbenchers were to succeed in taking over the legislative timetable, they would in effect be taking over the functions of government. Logic surely requires that they themselves become the government. That would require a no-confidence vote in which enough Conservatives would have to abstain or vote against the government to counter Labour Brexiteers prepared to abstain or vote with the government. But a no-confidence vote can only be moved by the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn.
In the end, the only way they can do it is VONC - but then as we've seen, Boris can hold the GE after Oct31, legally.
Unless a GONU that commands a majority can be put together and advanced early in the 14 day period. It is becoming increasingly obvious that's the only escape route.
Normally when a government resigns the Queen would send for the leader of the opposition. To depart from accepted practice, she would need a cast-iron guarantee in writing from a majority of MPs that they would support a government of national unity under a named prime minister.
As Stuart says, you never ever see a unionist with a vision for Scotland, it is all mealy mouthed whinging about SNP and saying we are spongers, yet the ars**oles are desperate to hang on to us. The regional sockpuppets of the London based unionist parties have no care for Scotland, just greedy grasping self interested whining barstewards.
Lowest retail July figure since records began in 1995. Wonder if that will figure on supplicant BBC and Brexit press. Unlikely.
Records for retail growth go back much further than 1995. The data that's exercising today's papers is retail sales among members of the British Retail Council, which account for about 65% of all sales.
For at least the past two years, growth among these retailers has lagged growth among retailers generally. The data is released about two weeks earlier than the full survey of a proper sample of all retailers carried out by ONS.
But, as a lobbying group for a group of professional whingers, the BRC data is always released with snappier headlines. And once a story saying "July sales worst in centuries" is printed, few papers or broadcasters can be bothered printing "Proper data for July far less dramatically awful than the plonkers at the BRC claimed two weeks ago".
The real data from ONS is due on August 15. If I forget to post a commentary, someone might like to remind me
Comments
So yes, I see why it'd be a big step psychologically, but in the end practicality has to win out if these politicians really believe that crashing out would be so devastating.
When Summers says there are trade agreements which would be good for the UK, and trade agreements which are ratifiable, but none which are both, you should take note.
The Harvard paper, which was the basis for his interview, is interesting. Which of its conclusions do you disagree with ?
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/mrcbg/working.papers/USUK FTA 516 FINAL.pdf
Boris and the Tories clearly don't want a GONU.
Corbyn and Milne clearly believe they can best get what they want if they win an election following a Tory No Deal Brexit.
Sturgeon and the SNP can best get and win a SIndyRef2 if there is a Tory No Deal Brexit.
Starmer, Grieve etc may want one, but lack the numbers to force it.
There are enough people of influence who can prevent a GONU, while insisting it was somebody else's fault.
'Good to see us team up with our real allies, rather than pratting around with the cheese eating surrender monkeys.'
"Sign this backstop or will force a hard border" is a bluff.
I think there’s a *lot* of volatility coming down the line, and central bankers are going to struggle with the limited tools available to put a dampener on it.
There are two alternatives to the current government:
1. General Election
2. Corbyn as PM.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7319427/Group-45-senators-promise-Boris-Johnson-trade-deal-Britain.html
Trade Deals are a matter of negotiation for both sides
https://twitter.com/tianran/status/1157199736232927232?s=20
I think this place and the ritual repeats of fantasy by the "beLeavers" have been enough for one day.
Had May called their bluff 12 months ago it would have been a lot easier, now they are quite committed to it and will lose a lot of face folding. I bet you there are some people right now desperately trying to think of a face-saving way of getting out of this mess.
But poker is a truly dreadful analogy for the EU/UK negotiations. In poker one side wins and the other loses. Both lose from the Brexit talks.
Let's face it, the backstop is there for our benefit. No Deal would have some negative impact on Ireland but Ireland stands to gain massively from Brexit, so they'll cope. The EU has always had the best hand, and is not renegotiating with Boris.
it was the two of clubs, Master Bun the bakers son and a few other random cards from other games..
The miscalculation might be that by being hard-line they push the UK into rejecting the Backstop whereas if they were more circumspect, the UK may in practice keep a permanent backstop anyway.
It's a judgment call. The UK hasn't shown a lot of trust on the issue, which undoubtedly feeds into the hard-line.
The regional sockpuppets of the London based unionist parties have no care for Scotland, just greedy grasping self interested whining barstewards.
For at least the past two years, growth among these retailers has lagged growth among retailers generally. The data is released about two weeks earlier than the full survey of a proper sample of all retailers carried out by ONS.
But, as a lobbying group for a group of professional whingers, the BRC data is always released with snappier headlines. And once a story saying "July sales worst in centuries" is printed, few papers or broadcasters can be bothered printing "Proper data for July far less dramatically awful than the plonkers at the BRC claimed two weeks ago".
The real data from ONS is due on August 15. If I forget to post a commentary, someone might like to remind me