Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » An unconventional carry-on

135

Comments

  • malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    eristdoof said:

    Mango said:


    Why do you think the SNP seats collapsed at the last general election?

    SNIP
    Claiming the SNP vote collapsed in 2017 is like claiming the Labour vote collapsed in 2005
    That is your Scottish unionist for you , like other bitter Scots Scottp, Carlotta , etc s. Bet none of them could come up with a policy for Scotland from the unionist parties.
    Morning Malc.

    This strongly pro union Ruth Davidson supporter acknowledges the SNP have been good for Scotland in many ways, especially in making labour irrelevant, but for family ties and the belief Scotland as part of a devolved UK is stronger than divorcing itself from 60% of it's trade I think they are wrong. Additionally creating a border from Carlisle to Berwick, putting thousands of jobs at risk particularly in the RAF and defence industry threatening the viability of RAF Lossiemouth, and ending up being ruled by Brussels

    And of course not getting Scotland out of the CFP is unacceptable to Scotlands fishermen
    G, we have differing opinions but at least you don't just parrot SNPBAD. I personally don't see why Scotland being independent would make any difference to family ties, trade etc unless one side wanted to be vindictive. We cannot continue with Westminster treating Scotland like it does and I cannot see there ever being proper devolution of powers that would allow a Scottish government to be able to implement policies to improve Scotland's problems. We will always get what is good for London and South East which is useless for Scotland.
    What amazes me is that the "have nots" cannot see it. Brexit will focus their minds for sure and you can be certain the Tories will sell out Scottish fishing yet again to help the south, as always.
    I do agree that this family would never be vindictive as the Scots are our family

    However, Scotland is stronger as part of the UK then sailing off on its own into the hands of Brussels. That is not to say that I do not understand the growing clamour for independence as Scotland voted remain (as did my wife and I ) but the present disaster that is the EU referendum could envelope Scotland as huge issues over the divorce would turn into as much a problem as we have now with the EU.

    The border problem would make the Irish border look like a 'walk in the park'
    It would be much simpler , we have a handful of roads at most between Scotland and England and only two of these are main arteries , extremely simple to manage.
    And the volume across the border daily is ?????
  • Nigelb said:

    What'll happen:

    1. The HoC will VONC Johnson and install a Conservative remainer. Why? Because it's the only way the tories will vote it through. The pay-back to keep Corbyn on board will be the agreement that its sole purpose is to Extend Article 50 and call an immediate General Election.

    2. Seeing this, Johnson will attempt to cling to power by pre-empting and calling for an election for mid-October election on a 2/3rds vote.

    So the election will be before Oct 31st and it will be Brexit or bust.

    Simples, really.

    End of speculative post.

    There has been a lot of discussion in the media over this and several labour mps seemed to acknowledge that there is not a path for Corbyn to be able to form a government, and the main hope of those opposed to a no deal is to coalesce around a candidate that could gain majority backing under a GONU

    However, that too is doubtful, and all the time there is no clear successor Boris remains PM

    Indeed there seems to be a consensus growing that a vonc is not the right process and that attempts are needed to continue to try to wrestle back control through Parliamentary procedures as a vonc could well play directly into Boris's hand
    Such a consensus seems an illusion, Big_G.

    If they can’t agree on an caretaker PM, how is a narrow majority of MPs to be corralled together to oversee a complex, ill-defined and certainly unprecedented procedure, in order to attempt to legislate an attempt to tie the PM’s hands ?

    It would be like the meaningful votes, only messier. And with far less time left.
    I agree and more alarmingly points to Boris no dealing
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 23,285

    algarkirk said:

    All this discussion is only happening because Boris is negotiating in exactly the way TM was criticised for not doing. Where did that get her? His position remains that he wants a deal. If you want peace, prepare for war and all that...Speculation is running way ahead of events.

    That’s not true. Britain currently has no negotiating position, reasonable or not.
    Yes it does. The position is drop the backstop and we can talk.

    That is not a negotiating position. It is a demand. Negotiations involve compromise. What will the UK offer to make removing the backstop it previously asked for from the EU palatable?

    This government never previously asked for it. May did, that is history.

    The EU has 3 requirements: The Irish border, money and citizens rights.

    Without a backstop we can offer to undergo a transition period which keeps the Irish border open while we negotiate a long term solutiont to the border, it will offer to guarantee citizens rights and an agreement on money.

    Then let’s see the government suggest that and put the detail in it. For example, how does it propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no FTA within the agreed transition timeframe?

    That's up to the future negotiations.

    How does the EU propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no deal before 31 October?

    It doesn’t. The EU will decide what changes there will be and over what timeframe if there is No Deal. The UK will lose any any say. As we know, No Deal puts the UK entirely at the mercy of the goodwill of others.

    So be it.

    Yep - for you being entirely dependent on the goodwill of others is freedom. I am happy to admit I just don’t get that.

    You are arguing with someone who takes the proposition of Brexit=Freedom as axiomatic.
    It is a waste of effort.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 29,307

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Additionally creating a border from Carlisle to Berwick, putting thousands of jobs at risk particularly in the RAF and defence industry threatening the viability of RAF Lossiemouth, and ending up being ruled by Brussels

    Lossiemouth will be fine as there will almost certainly be a NATO (or perhaps EU!) air policing mission based there after Scottish Independence. The GIUK gap is strategically very important and the emergent Scottish Air Force won't have and probably won't want the capability of 24/7 QRA.

    HMNB Clyde would not survive in anything like its current form so the prostitutes and drug dealers of Dumbarton are in for hard times.
    Maybe but it does put doubt over the UK service personal based there
    G, we pay a fortune for UK forces we do not need or want. The money could be better spent on real jobs. These are all just temporary posts for English forces and best they do is provide a few cleaning jobs other than as Dura Ace states encourage crime..
    Now on that we do disagree Malc.

    The value to the NE Scotland economy is millions and many thousands of mainly good jobs
    They would be replaced with Scottish forces jobs G. Permanent real jobs for Scotland.
    Really !!!!
    Why not , we would have a Scottish Army , just like other small nations, we would be in NATO etc. We currently pay a fair share of UK costs and have an unfair share of UK forces. We are being fleeced.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 29,307

    malcolmg said:

    What'll happen:

    1. The HoC will VONC Johnson and install a Conservative remainer. Why? Because it's the only way the tories will vote it through. The pay-back to keep Corbyn on board will be the agreement that its sole purpose is to Extend Article 50 and call an immediate General Election.

    2. Seeing this, Johnson will attempt to cling to power by pre-empting and calling for an election for mid-October election on a 2/3rds vote.

    So the election will be before Oct 31st and it will be Brexit or bust.

    Simples, really.

    End of speculative post.

    There has been a lot of discussion in the media over this and several labour mps seemed to acknowledge that there is not a path for Corbyn to be able to form a government, and the main hope of those opposed to a no deal is to coalesce around a candidate that could gain majority backing under a GONU

    However, that too is doubtful, and all the time there is no clear successor Boris remains PM

    Indeed there seems to be a consensus growing that a vonc is not the right process and that attempts are needed to continue to try to wrestle back control through Parliamentary procedures as a vonc could well play directly into Boris's hand
    Given the arses will only be working for a week or two maximum between now and November , how will that happen.
    That is the media for you
    I was talking about politicians. They come back for one week and then have another month off for holidays/jollies
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 34,887
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Additionally creating a border from Carlisle to Berwick, putting thousands of jobs at risk particularly in the RAF and defence industry threatening the viability of RAF Lossiemouth, and ending up being ruled by Brussels

    Lossiemouth will be fine as there will almost certainly be a NATO (or perhaps EU!) air policing mission based there after Scottish Independence. The GIUK gap is strategically very important and the emergent Scottish Air Force won't have and probably won't want the capability of 24/7 QRA.

    HMNB Clyde would not survive in anything like its current form so the prostitutes and drug dealers of Dumbarton are in for hard times.
    Maybe but it does put doubt over the UK service personal based there
    G, we pay a fortune for UK forces we do not need or want. The money could be better spent on real jobs. These are all just temporary posts for English forces and best they do is provide a few cleaning jobs other than as Dura Ace states encourage crime..
    Now on that we do disagree Malc.

    The value to the NE Scotland economy is millions and many thousands of mainly good jobs
    They would be replaced with Scottish forces jobs G. Permanent real jobs for Scotland.
    Really !!!!
    Why not , we would have a Scottish Army , just like other small nations, we would be in NATO etc. We currently pay a fair share of UK costs and have an unfair share of UK forces. We are being fleeced.
    Yet, it will be nothing compared to the rooking you'll get from the EU....
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 34,475
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    eristdoof said:

    Mango said:


    Why do you think the SNP seats collapsed at the last general election?

    SNIP
    Claiming the SNP vote collapsed in 2017 is like claiming the Labour vote collapsed in 2005
    That is your Scottish unionist for you , like other bitter Scots Scottp, Carlotta , etc s. Bet none of them could come up with a policy for Scotland from the unionist parties.
    Morning Malc.

    This strongly pro union Ruth Davidson supporter acknowledges the SNP have been good for Scotland in many ways, especially in making labour irrelevant, but for family ties and the belief Scotland as part of a devolved UK is stronger than divorcing itself from 60% of it's trade I think they are wrong. Additionally creating a border from Carlisle to Berwick, putting thousands of jobs at risk particularly in the RAF and defence industry threatening the viability of RAF Lossiemouth, and ending up being ruled by Brussels

    And of course not getting Scotland out of the CFP is unacceptable to Scotlands fishermen
    G, we have differing opinions but at least you don't just parrot SNPBAD. I personally don't see why Scotland being independent would make any difference to family ties, trade etc unless one side wanted to be vindictive. We cannot continue with Westminster treating Scotland like it does and I cannot see there ever being proper devolution of powers that would allow a Scottish government to be able to implement policies to improve Scotland's problems. We will always get what is good for London and South East which is useless for Scotland.
    What amazes me is that the "have nots" cannot see it. Brexit will focus their minds for sure and you can be certain the Tories will sell out Scottish fishing yet again to help the south, as always.
    I do agree that this family would never be vindictive as the Scots are our family

    However, Scotland is stronger as part of the UK then sailing off on its own into the hands of Brussels. That is not to say that I do not understand the growing clamour for independence as Scotland voted remain (as did my wife and I ) but the present disaster that is the EU referendum could envelope Scotland as huge issues over the divorce would turn into as much a problem as we have now with the EU.

    The border problem would make the Irish border look like a 'walk in the park'
    It would be much simpler , we have a handful of roads at most between Scotland and England and only two of these are main arteries , extremely simple to manage.

    Plenty of smuggling through Kiedler Forest.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 29,307

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    eristdoof said:

    Mango said:


    Why do you think the SNP seats collapsed at the last general election?

    SNIP
    Claiming the SNP vote collapsed in 2017 is like claiming the Labour vote collapsed in 2005
    That is your Scottish unionist for you , like other bitter Scots Scottp, Carlotta , etc s. Bet none of them could come up with a policy for Scotland from the unionist parties.
    Morning Malc.

    This strongly pro union Ruth Davidson supporter acknowledges the SNP have been good for Scotland in many ways, especially in making labour irrelevant, but for family ties and the belief Scotland as part of a devolved UK is stronger than divorcing itself from 60% of it's trade I think they are wrong. Additionally creating a border from Carlisle to Berwick, putting thousands of jobs at risk particularly in the RAF and defence industry threatening the viability of RAF Lossiemouth, and ending up being ruled by Brussels

    And of course not getting Scotland out of the CFP is unacceptable to Scotlands fishermen
    G, we have differing opinions but at least you don't just parrot SNPBAD. I personally don't see why Scotland being independent would make any difference to family ties, trade etc unless one side wanted to be vindictive. We cannot continue with Westminster treating Scotland like it does and I cannot see there ever being proper devolution of powers that would allow a Scottish government to be able to implement policies to improve Scotland's problems. We will always get what is good for London and South East which is useless for Scotland.
    What amazes me is that the "have nots" cannot see it. Brexit will focus their minds for sure and you can be certain the Tories will sell out Scottish fishing yet again to help the south, as always.
    I do agree that this family would never be vindictive as the Scots are our family

    SNIP


    The border problem would make the Irish border look like a 'walk in the park'
    It would be much simpler , we have a handful of roads at most between Scotland and England and only two of these are main arteries , extremely simple to manage.
    And the volume across the border daily is ?????
    How many get checked currently at UK borders from the whole of Europe, bet less than 1 in a thousand
  • malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    What'll happen:

    1. The HoC will VONC Johnson and install a Conservative remainer. Why? Because it's the only way the tories will vote it through. The pay-back to keep Corbyn on board will be the agreement that its sole purpose is to Extend Article 50 and call an immediate General Election.

    2. Seeing this, Johnson will attempt to cling to power by pre-empting and calling for an election for mid-October election on a 2/3rds vote.

    So the election will be before Oct 31st and it will be Brexit or bust.

    Simples, really.

    End of speculative post.

    There has been a lot of discussion in the media over this and several labour mps seemed to acknowledge that there is not a path for Corbyn to be able to form a government, and the main hope of those opposed to a no deal is to coalesce around a candidate that could gain majority backing under a GONU

    However, that too is doubtful, and all the time there is no clear successor Boris remains PM

    Indeed there seems to be a consensus growing that a vonc is not the right process and that attempts are needed to continue to try to wrestle back control through Parliamentary procedures as a vonc could well play directly into Boris's hand
    Given the arses will only be working for a week or two maximum between now and November , how will that happen.
    That is the media for you
    I was talking about politicians. They come back for one week and then have another month off for holidays/jollies
    The conference season needs to be cancelled but I cannot think of one politician who has suggested it
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 29,307

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Additionally creating a border from Carlisle to Berwick, putting thousands of jobs at risk particularly in the RAF and defence industry threatening the viability of RAF Lossiemouth, and ending up being ruled by Brussels

    Lossiemouth will be fine as there will almost certainly be a NATO (or perhaps EU!) air policing mission based there after Scottish Independence. The GIUK gap is strategically very important and the emergent Scottish Air Force won't have and probably won't want the capability of 24/7 QRA.

    HMNB Clyde would not survive in anything like its current form so the prostitutes and drug dealers of Dumbarton are in for hard times.
    Maybe but it does put doubt over the UK service personal based there
    G, we pay a fortune for UK forces we do not need or want. The money could be better spent on real jobs. These are all just temporary posts for English forces and best they do is provide a few cleaning jobs other than as Dura Ace states encourage crime..
    Now on that we do disagree Malc.

    The value to the NE Scotland economy is millions and many thousands of mainly good jobs
    They would be replaced with Scottish forces jobs G. Permanent real jobs for Scotland.
    Really !!!!
    Why not , we would have a Scottish Army , just like other small nations, we would be in NATO etc. We currently pay a fair share of UK costs and have an unfair share of UK forces. We are being fleeced.
    Yet, it will be nothing compared to the rooking you'll get from the EU....
    LOL, we will likely be beneficiaries from EU given the state of poverty the UK has put us in. Romania will be sending us aid till we sort out the years of UK misrule.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 21,217
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    eristdoof said:

    Mango said:


    Why do you think the SNP seats collapsed at the last general election?

    Because they freakishly over-performed seat-wise at the previous election.

    They still seem pretty well-placed to me. A few tight races against the Lib Dems, but some soft Tory targets to pick up too.
    Claiming the SNP vote collapsed in 2017 is like claiming the Labour vote collapsed in 2005
    That is your Scottish unionist for you , like other bitter Scots Scottp, Carlotta , etc , Briskin just cannot see past the hatred of the SNP . Rather than address reality they just hurl childish insults and say SNPBAD. Nothing to say about why their parties are languishing and being ignored by the voters. Bet none of them could come up with a policy for Scotland from the unionist parties.
    Morning Malc.

    This strongly pro union Ruth Davidson supporter acknowledges the SNP have been good for Scotland in many ways, especially in making labour irrelevant, but for family ties and the belief Scotland as part of a devolved UK is stronger than divorcing itself from 60% of it's trade I think they are wrong. Additionally creating a border from Carlisle to Berwick, putting thousands of jobs at risk particularly in the RAF and defence industry threatening the viability of RAF Lossiemouth, and ending up being ruled by Brussels

    And of course not getting Scotland out of the CFP is unacceptable to Scotlands fishermen
    G, we have differing opinions but at least you don't just parrot SNPBAD. I personally don't see why Scotland being independent would make any difference to family ties, trade etc unless one side wanted to be vindictive. We cannot continue with Westminster treating Scotland like it does and I cannot see there ever being proper devolution of powers that would allow a Scottish government to be able to implement policies to improve Scotland's problems. We will always get what is good for London and South East which is useless for Scotland.
    What amazes me is that the "have nots" cannot see it. Brexit will focus their minds for sure and you can be certain the Tories will sell out Scottish fishing yet again to help the south, as always.
    There was a Fishing rep on R4 this morning blethering feebly about how the EU will have to come to some sort of deal to preserve access to UK fishing grouns. Not sure that's what the fisher folk will want to hear.

    We have 12 fishery protection vessels to patrol an area 3 times the size of the UK land mass. Apparently drones and satelite tracking (a technical solution!) are going to stop those naughty foreign trawler captains from taking the piss.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 29,307

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    eristdoof said:

    Mango said:


    Why do you think the SNP seats collapsed at the last general election?

    SNIP
    Claiming the SNP vote collapsed in 2017 is like claiming the Labour vote collapsed in 2005
    That is your Scottish unionist for you , like other bitter Scots Scottp, Carlotta , etc s. Bet none of them could come up with a policy for Scotland from the unionist parties.
    Morning Malc.

    This strongly pro union Ruth Davidson supporter acknowledges the SNP have been good for Scotland in many ways, especially in making labour irrelevant, but for family ties and the belief Scotland as part of a devolved UK is stronger than divorcing itself from 60% of it's trade I think they are wrong. Additionally creating a border from Carlisle to Berwick, putting thousands of jobs at risk particularly in the RAF and defence industry threatening the viability of RAF Lossiemouth, and ending up being ruled by Brussels

    And of course not getting Scotland out of the CFP is unacceptable to Scotlands fishermen
    G, we have differing opinions but at least you don't just parrot SNPBAD. I personally don't see why Scotland being independent would make any difference to family ties, trade etc unless one side wanted to be vindictive. We cannot continue with Westminster treating Scotland like it does and I cannot see there ever being proper devolution of powers that would allow a Scottish government to be able to implement policies to improve Scotland's problems. We will always get what is good for London and South East which is useless for Scotland.
    What amazes me is that the "have nots" cannot see it. Brexit will focus their minds for sure and you can be certain the Tories will sell out Scottish fishing yet again to help the south, as always.
    I do agree that this family would never be vindictive as the Scots are our family

    SNIP
    The border problem would make the Irish border look like a 'walk in the park'
    It would be much simpler , we have a handful of roads at most between Scotland and England and only two of these are main arteries , extremely simple to manage.

    Plenty of smuggling through Kiedler Forest.
    good for the economy of Scotland though.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 29,307

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    eristdoof said:

    Mango said:


    Why do you think the SNP seats collapsed at the last general election?

    Because they freakishly over-performed seat-wise at the previous election.

    They still seem pretty well-placed to me. A few tight races against the Lib Dems, but some soft Tory targets to pick up too.
    Claiming the SNP vote collapsed in 2017 is like claiming the Labour vote collapsed in 2005
    That is your Scottish unionist for you , like other bitter Scots Scottp, Carlotta , etc , Briskin just cannot see past the hatred of the SNP . Rather than address reality they just hurl childish insults and say SNPBAD. Nothing to say about why their parties are languishing and being ignored by the voters. Bet none of them could come up with a policy for Scotland from the unionist parties.
    Morning Malc.

    This strongly pro union Ruth Davidson supporter acknowledges the SNP have been good for Scotland in many ways, especially in making labour irrelevant, but for family ties and the belief Scotland as part of a devolved UK is stronger than divorcing itself from 60% of it's trade I think they are wrong. Additionally creating a border from Carlisle to Berwick, putting thousands of jobs at risk particularly in the RAF and defence industry threatening the viability of RAF Lossiemouth, and ending up being ruled by Brussels

    And of course not getting Scotland out of the CFP is unacceptable to Scotlands fishermen
    G, we have differing opinions but at least you don't just parrot SNPBAD. I personally don't see why Scotland being independent would make any difference to family ties, trade etc unless one side wanted to be vindictive. We cannot continue with Westminster treating Scotland like it does and I cannot see there SNIP
    There was a Fishing rep on R4 this morning blethering feebly about how the EU will have to come to some sort of deal to preserve access to UK fishing grouns. Not sure that's what the fisher folk will want to hear.

    We have 12 fishery protection vessels to patrol an area 3 times the size of the UK land mass. Apparently drones and satelite tracking (a technical solution!) are going to stop those naughty foreign trawler captains from taking the piss.
    Exactly will be a sellout as per all other previous occasions.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 34,887
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Additionally creating a border from Carlisle to Berwick, putting thousands of jobs at risk particularly in the RAF and defence industry threatening the viability of RAF Lossiemouth, and ending up being ruled by Brussels

    Lossiemouth will be fine as there will almost certainly be a NATO (or perhaps EU!) air policing mission based there after Scottish Independence. The GIUK gap is strategically very important and the emergent Scottish Air Force won't have and probably won't want the capability of 24/7 QRA.

    HMNB Clyde would not survive in anything like its current form so the prostitutes and drug dealers of Dumbarton are in for hard times.
    Maybe but it does put doubt over the UK service personal based there
    G, we pay a fortune for UK forces we do not need or want. The money could be better spent on real jobs. These are all just temporary posts for English forces and best they do is provide a few cleaning jobs other than as Dura Ace states encourage crime..
    Now on that we do disagree Malc.

    The value to the NE Scotland economy is millions and many thousands of mainly good jobs
    They would be replaced with Scottish forces jobs G. Permanent real jobs for Scotland.
    Really !!!!
    Why not , we would have a Scottish Army , just like other small nations, we would be in NATO etc. We currently pay a fair share of UK costs and have an unfair share of UK forces. We are being fleeced.
    Yet, it will be nothing compared to the rooking you'll get from the EU....
    LOL, we will likely be beneficiaries from EU given the state of poverty the UK has put us in. Romania will be sending us aid till we sort out the years of UK misrule.
    So that's what Scottish Independence boils down to:

    "Vote Yes to Independence - for Food Parcels from Romania"

    lol.......
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,265

    algarkirk said:

    All this discussion is only happening because Boris is negotiating in exactly the way TM was criticised for not doing. Where did that get her? His position remains that he wants a deal. If you want peace, prepare for war and all that...Speculation is running way ahead of events.

    That’s not true. Britain currently has no negotiating position, reasonable or not.
    Yes it does. The position is drop the backstop and we can talk.
    It has no alternative proposal to talk about.
    Because there is no alternative proposal. The alternative is that we enter the transition and discuss what happens in the future during the future negotiations. A perfectly rational suggestion.
    You’re entitled to your opinions but not your facts. That is not the British government’s position.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 34,475
    New Remain alliance set to announce 100 anti-Brexit candidates for a snap general election

    https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/unite-to-remain-candidates-1-6208750
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    New Remain alliance set to announce 100 anti-Brexit candidates for a snap general election

    https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/unite-to-remain-candidates-1-6208750

    Our manifesto is to close the stable door despite the horse having bolted - hilarious 😆.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 34,475
    I gather Jezza is holidaying in Romania.

    He knows it is no longer communist right?
  • Nigelb said:

    algarkirk said:

    All this discussion is only happening because Boris is negotiating in exactly the way TM was criticised for not doing. Where did that get her? His position remains that he wants a deal. If you want peace, prepare for war and all that...Speculation is running way ahead of events.

    That’s not true. Britain currently has no negotiating position, reasonable or not.
    Yes it does. The position is drop the backstop and we can talk.

    That is not a negotiating position. It is a demand. Negotiations involve compromise. What will the UK offer to make removing the backstop it previously asked for from the EU palatable?

    This government never previously asked for it. May did, that is history.

    The EU has 3 requirements: The Irish border, money and citizens rights.

    Without a backstop we can offer to undergo a transition period which keeps the Irish border open while we negotiate a long term solutiont to the border, it will offer to guarantee citizens rights and an agreement on money.

    Then let’s see the government suggest that and put the detail in it. For example, how does it propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no FTA within the agreed transition timeframe?

    That's up to the future negotiations.

    How does the EU propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no deal before 31 October?

    It doesn’t. The EU will decide what changes there will be and over what timeframe if there is No Deal. The UK will lose any any say. As we know, No Deal puts the UK entirely at the mercy of the goodwill of others.

    So be it.

    Yep - for you being entirely dependent on the goodwill of others is freedom. I am happy to admit I just don’t get that.

    You are arguing with someone who takes the proposition of Brexit=Freedom as axiomatic.
    It is a waste of effort.

    I believe that I am a free person living in a free country right now. All I see from No Deal is less freedom for me, my family, my business and my country. I would love to understand what I am missing. I guess that is why I engage. But I never seem to get an answer.

  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 5,236

    malcolmg said:


    They would be replaced with Scottish forces jobs G. Permanent real jobs for Scotland.

    Really !!!!
    Defence jobs would probably be a net gain for Scotland as there would be no economies of scale as enjoyed by the UK forces now.

    Naval shipbuilding at Govan and Clydebank would be right in the shit. Of that, there is no doubt.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,098

    German Employers Federation demands help in the face of an economic slowdown. "Nobody knows whats happening" says head of german EEF as export industries face falling orders.


    https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/wirtschaft-fordert-politische-massnahmen-fuer-den-notfall-16327000.html
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 15,319
    I see Wings has decided to go even more full on mentalist.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 6,166

    Mr. Observer, that's true, but the EU's also wretched. "We're always ready to talk. We won't change anything." That's not exactly negotiating either.

    How can they change anything without there being proposals for change? If the UK wants to renegotiate the deal the UK needs to suggest how it can be done. It’s the UK’s red lines that the WA was built around.

    Strip out the backstop, enter transition and start the future negotiations which would cover the Irish border. Job done.

    How long does the transition last? What happens if there is no FTA at the end of it?

    The transition lasts I believe to the end of 2020 but can be extended if both parties agree to extend it. If there is no FTA at the end of it we are back to where we are now and no worse off than we are now. That is an issue for the future not today.
    The transition would need to continue until the FTA or until both parties agreed that arrangements were in place to avoid a hard border. That would work.
  • Nigelb said:



    That’s not true. Britain currently has no negotiating position, reasonable or not.

    Yes it does. The position is drop the backstop and we can talk.

    That is not a negotiating position. It is a demand. Negotiations involve compromise. What will the UK offer to make removing the backstop it previously asked for from the EU palatable?

    This government never previously asked for it. May did, that is history.

    The EU has 3 requirements: The Irish border, money and citizens rights.

    Without a backstop we can offer to undergo a transition period which keeps the Irish border open while we negotiate a long term solutiont to the border, it will offer to guarantee citizens rights and an agreement on money.

    Then let’s see the government suggest that and put the detail in it. For example, how does it propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no FTA within the agreed transition timeframe?

    That's up to the future negotiations.

    How does the EU propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no deal before 31 October?

    It doesn’t. The EU will decide what changes there will be and over what timeframe if there is No Deal. The UK will lose any any say. As we know, No Deal puts the UK entirely at the mercy of the goodwill of others.

    So be it.

    Yep - for you being entirely dependent on the goodwill of others is freedom. I am happy to admit I just don’t get that.

    You are arguing with someone who takes the proposition of Brexit=Freedom as axiomatic.
    It is a waste of effort.

    I believe that I am a free person living in a free country right now. All I see from No Deal is less freedom for me, my family, my business and my country. I would love to understand what I am missing. I guess that is why I engage. But I never seem to get an answer.

    What does Rotherham gain from from thousands of East European Roma moving there.

    I've asked that many times yet there never seems to be an answer.
  • fox327fox327 Posts: 203
    I think the real question at the moment is whether a vote of no confidence in the government will be passed before 31st October. If it is then there will probably be a change of government within a few weeks. It is highly unlikely that the government would then be able to win a vote of confidence within the next 14 days so a general election would follow. I would expect this to lead to a new government being formed. If a caretaker government takes over there is a new government anyway.

    If the vote of no confidence does not pass then the UK will almost certainly (99.99%+) leave the EU without a deal on 31st October. This will lead to such a shock to the country that there will soon be an election called.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 34,887
    edited August 2019

    I gather Jezza is holidaying in Romania.

    He knows it is no longer communist right?

    He's gone canvassing his voters.....

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47865369
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 133
    Alistair said:

    I see Wings has decided to go even more full on mentalist.

    Wings has always been a nut. No matter where I stand on independence he'll always be "that cybernat arsehole" to me.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Alistair said:

    I see Wings has decided to go even more full on mentalist.

    This is apparently "great news for the SNP"
  • kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I really am so pissed off at our MPs. None of this was necessary. If they were determined to leave or remain they could have showed some godsdamned spine much much earlier than this and made a decision that meant we were not in this horrific limbo right now.

    To compound matters the one decision they did make definitively, triggering article 50, they falsely profess to not understand given their phoney surprise that it means we leave unless they decide something else.

    Seriously, I'm at my wits end with these idiots. The reasoning of so many of them is still party focused. BoJo and the clowns are pillorying an agreement they voted for and pretending they are not pursuing the option they are, only caring about looking tough ahead of a GE. You have Grieve and co posturing about doing anything to stop no deal when that clearly is not the case since they wont vote for a deal not so far support someone they dont like to do so. You have Corbynista central who dont seem to care what Brexit option occurs so long as they get to blame the Tories. You have the Nandyites who love to bemoan everything from everyone while using every excuse as to why they cannot back anything.

    It is deeply concerning that no price is to high to win for all sides of this now. They dont care about achieving Brexit or stopping Brexit - we could have done both if they wanted that above all else. No, they want to achieve it in the way they want and no other way, making anger at not leaving or tears at leaving a spot in our faces.

    BoJo, Corbyn, that arse Grieve and all the rest, they truly believe we are all really stupid. And the worst part is they are probably right.

    Grieve only got involved once May started talking up no-deal - in other words when parliament, or specifically the governing party's internal discipline in parliament, had already failed.
    When he was involved is irrelevant. His reasoning is against Brexit entirely yet he hid his true feelings and now self righteously swans about with arcane procedural matters when if he actually cared about avoiding no deal he could have backed up his words and sought to avoid it. He actively opposed preventing it. He doesnt see it that way, but I've said before I think he gets away with it because he us smart and remainers love him. But hes as bad as the Bakers of the world and more false, just less stupid. The LDs and SNP have more honour than him.
    Indeed.

    On either side of the issue the Conservative party has the worst people most willing to damage the country.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 5,236

    Nigelb said:



    That’s not true. Britain currently has no negotiating position, reasonable or not.

    Yes it does. The position is drop the backstop and we can talk.

    That is not a negotiating position. It is a demand. Negotiations involve compromise. What will the UK offer to make removing the backstop it previously asked for from the EU palatable?

    This government never previously asked for it. May did, that is history.

    The EU has 3 requirements: The Irish border, money and citizens rights.

    Without a backstop we can offer to undergo a transition period which keeps the Irish border open while we negotiate a long term solutiont to the border, it will offer to guarantee citizens rights and an agreement on money.

    Then let’s see the government suggest that and put the detail in it. For example, how does it propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no FTA within the agreed transition timeframe?

    That's up to the future negotiations.

    How does the EU propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no deal before 31 October?

    It doesn’t. The EU will decide what changes there will be and over what timeframe if there is No Deal. The UK will lose any any say. As we know, No Deal puts the UK entirely at the mercy of the goodwill of others.

    So be it.

    Yep - for you being entirely dependent on the goodwill of others is freedom. I am happy to admit I just don’t get that.

    You are arguing with someone who takes the proposition of Brexit=Freedom as axiomatic.
    It is a waste of effort.

    I believe that I am a free person living in a free country right now. All I see from No Deal is less freedom for me, my family, my business and my country. I would love to understand what I am missing. I guess that is why I engage. But I never seem to get an answer.

    What does Rotherham gain from from thousands of East European Roma moving there.

    I've asked that many times yet there never seems to be an answer.

    It increases the average intelligence of both Rotherham and Romania.
  • Nigelb said:



    That’s not true. Britain currently has no negotiating position, reasonable or not.

    Yes it does. The position is drop the backstop and we can talk.

    That is not a negotiating position. It is a demand. Negotiations involve compromise. What will the UK offer to make removing the backstop it previously asked for from the EU palatable?

    This government never previously asked for it. May did, that is history.

    The EU has 3 requirements: The Irish border, money and citizens rights.

    Without a backstop we can offer to undergo a transition period which keeps the Irish border open while we negotiate a long term solutiont to the border, it will offer to guarantee citizens rights and an agreement on money.

    Then let’s see the government suggest that and put the detail in it. For example, how does it propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no FTA within the agreed transition timeframe?

    That's up to the future negotiations.

    How does the EU propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no deal before 31 October?

    It doesn’t. The EU will decide what changes there will be and over what timeframe if there is No Deal. The UK will lose any any say. As we know, No Deal puts the UK entirely at the mercy of the goodwill of others.

    So be it.

    Yep - for you being entirely dependent on the goodwill of others is freedom. I am happy to admit I just don’t get that.

    You are arguing with someone who takes the proposition of Brexit=Freedom as axiomatic.
    It is a waste of effort.

    I believe that I am a free person living in a free country right now. All I see from No Deal is less freedom for me, my family, my business and my country. I would love to understand what I am missing. I guess that is why I engage. But I never seem to get an answer.

    What does Rotherham gain from from thousands of East European Roma moving there.

    I've asked that many times yet there never seems to be an answer.

    Specifically not that much. What does Rotherham gain from the EU membership that involves freedom of movement - quite a bit, I'd argue. We'll soon find out, of course.

  • justin124justin124 Posts: 10,090

    Some added spice might be added by the party conferences running through the likely VONC season and run-up to Brexit.

    Lib Dems: 14 to 17/9
    Labour: 21 to 25/9
    Conservatives: 29/9 to 2/10
    SNP: 13 to 15/10
    DUP: could not see anything on their web site.

    The Cabinet Manual (see 2.19 on page 15 for VONCs and resignations) can be found at:
    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60641/cabinet-manual.pdf

    And a Select Committee review of it, including complaints that remind us the Cabinet Manual is not handed down on tablets of stone, as does DH's header:
    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpolcon/233/233.pdf

    If necessary, the party conferences can be abandoned - or delayed - as happened in 1959 - 1964 - and 1974.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 34,475
    "A really unexpected thing happened to me this week. I felt a slight but measurable twinge of hope. For the first time, I heard a speech that, while measured and well-balanced, homed in relentlessly — and with passion and authority — on the core moral unfitness of Donald Trump to be president of the United States. Joe Biden’s Iowa address last Wednesday finally did what needs to be done: Leaving questions of policy aside for a moment, it framed next year’s presidential and congressional campaigns as a battle for the soul of America."

    "I don’t think Biden’s age matters that much..."

    http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/andrew-sullivan-biden-can-make-the-moral-case-against-trump.html?utm_source=tw

    This article has helped calm my nerves over Biden.
  • Am I the only person who thinks Moeen Ali has been hard done by ?

    Okay he played crap in the Edgbaston Test but he was far from being the only one and his record is good over the last year.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 19,259
    fox327 said:

    I think the real question at the moment is whether a vote of no confidence in the government will be passed before 31st October. If it is then there will probably be a change of government within a few weeks. It is highly unlikely that the government would then be able to win a vote of confidence within the next 14 days so a general election would follow. I would expect this to lead to a new government being formed. If a caretaker government takes over there is a new government anyway.

    If the vote of no confidence does not pass then the UK will almost certainly (99.99%+) leave the EU without a deal on 31st October. This will lead to such a shock to the country that there will soon be an election called.

    There will indeed be an election. At which Boris and his acolytes will wrap themselves in Union Jacks and campaign as 'fighting for plucky little Britain' against the evil Europeans in Brussels and Berlin.
    Just like 1940, as the Express and Mail will howl!
    Only this time the Americans won't being coming in on our side, apart from to pick up the pieces, and charge us heavily for it, and our friends and allies in the Commonwealth will be looking on aghast at the mess we've created for ourselves.
    The Nationalist Tories will win.
    However by about Easter our economic situation will be so bad that there will be yet another election which a Rejoin party will win handsomely.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 29,307
    Dura_Ace said:

    malcolmg said:


    They would be replaced with Scottish forces jobs G. Permanent real jobs for Scotland.

    Really !!!!
    Defence jobs would probably be a net gain for Scotland as there would be no economies of scale as enjoyed by the UK forces now.

    Naval shipbuilding at Govan and Clydebank would be right in the shit. Of that, there is no doubt.
    It is in the shit as it is , dwindling to nothing in any event. They are building next to nothing and now plan all the support ships abroad to "save" money. What is left could build ships required for Scotland to patrol its own waters etc.
    Hard to see it not being a win-win.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 1,818
    algarkirk said:

    kjh said:

    algarkirk said:

    kjh said:

    Very good article David.

    If we are in the land of a successful VONC and there is an alternative and the PM fails to resign we are in dictator territory, which would be very worrying.

    Most frustrating would be if we had a successful VONC and the minor parties and Tory rebels have their act together and the leadership of the Labour party screws it up, which seems very possible.

    Speculation running wild in paragraph 2.
    I don't think so. There have been umpteen interviews with Labour so far, one just the other day on the Today programme, which implied just that. Corbyn wants to be PM. That currently is their position if there is a VONC. The leadership refuses to discuss anything else. Does not bode well.

    How is that speculation running wild?
    The speculation running wild is the suggestion that a UK PM would fail to resign following losing a VONC if and when it is clear that an alternative person would command the confidence of the commons.

    Ah. Sorry I can't count my paragraphs.

    I wasn't speculating it. I was picking it up as a hypothesise that was in David's article.
  • blutherupblutherup Posts: 2
    edited August 2019
    This piece by Vernon Bogdanor in yesterday's Times was interesting, especially:

    "... were an anti no-deal majority or Remain majority returned in November, a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."

    In other words, Johnson & Cummings should know that if they set an election date after the October 31st Brexit date, a new government could press the rewind button if so minded.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
  • RattersRatters Posts: 44
    When Parliament returns in September, it should focus on taking as much control as possible over proceedings before moving to a confidence vote. I would say the order of priorities should be:

    1) Take control over the order papers: this will surely be possible as Grieve, Cooper et al have shown themselves to be very capable of taking advantage of the grey areas in our constitution, and Bercow has shown himself to be an umpire that favours Parliament over the government

    2) Attempt to get primary legislation passed that ties the government's hands, e.g. forcing an extension. Learn the lessons from the ambiguity in the previous law where May was not forced to accept the EU counter-offer

    3) Remove the Recess for party conferences: taking three weeks off for parties to discuss policy when we will be only six weeks from a major crisis would be rightly seen as highly irresponsible. Use the time to continue working on the primary legislation needed.

    The VONC should then be the final effort in early October if the above does not succeed. This would mean the options have narrowed completely to "government of national unity to extend" or "have an election a month after no-deal Brexit", which should focus minds substantially.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 29,307
    OnboardG1 said:

    Alistair said:

    I see Wings has decided to go even more full on mentalist.

    Wings has always been a nut. No matter where I stand on independence he'll always be "that cybernat arsehole" to me.
    Not the best but he certainly fillets the unionists and upsets them greatly. Especially the tame unionist media.
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 1,040
    TGOHF said:

    New Remain alliance set to announce 100 anti-Brexit candidates for a snap general election

    https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/unite-to-remain-candidates-1-6208750

    Our manifesto is to close the stable door despite the horse having bolted - hilarious 😆.
    If I were Dominic Cummins I'd be looking to get papped having dinner with a BXP bigwig today, and then spend Sunday denying there's a plan for an electoral pact in the event of a pre-brexit election.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 55,492
    Scott_P said:
    I don't think whether they are bluffing or not really matters. Even if it is intended to be a bluff, things have been set in motion which are difficult to prevent even if the tough talk was intended to be just tough talk.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 29,307
    Alistair said:

    I see Wings has decided to go even more full on mentalist.

    hard to knock the amount of money he has raised and the publicity he gets , plenty of green cheese about from the so called intelligentsia as they struggle to raise piddling amounts.
  • Nigelb said:



    Then let’s see the government suggest that and put the detail in it. For example, how does it propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no FTA within the agreed transition timeframe?

    That's up to the future negotiations.

    How does the EU propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no deal before 31 October?

    It doesn’t. The EU will decide what changes there will be and over what timeframe if there is No Deal. The UK will lose any any say. As we know, No Deal puts the UK entirely at the mercy of the goodwill of others.

    So be it.

    Yep - for you being entirely dependent on the goodwill of others is freedom. I am happy to admit I just don’t get that.

    You are arguing with someone who takes the proposition of Brexit=Freedom as axiomatic.
    It is a waste of effort.

    I believe that I am a free person living in a free country right now. All I see from No Deal is less freedom for me, my family, my business and my country. I would love to understand what I am missing. I guess that is why I engage. But I never seem to get an answer.

    What does Rotherham gain from from thousands of East European Roma moving there.

    I've asked that many times yet there never seems to be an answer.

    Specifically not that much. What does Rotherham gain from the EU membership that involves freedom of movement - quite a bit, I'd argue. We'll soon find out, of course.

    Well argue it then.

    How many people from Rotherham are working elsewhere in the EU compared with how many from elsewhere are working in Rotherham.

    And what sort of people are doing so.

    There's a whole different reality to freedom of movement in working class areas as there is in upper middle class safezones.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 55,492
    justin124 said:

    Some added spice might be added by the party conferences running through the likely VONC season and run-up to Brexit.

    Lib Dems: 14 to 17/9
    Labour: 21 to 25/9
    Conservatives: 29/9 to 2/10
    SNP: 13 to 15/10
    DUP: could not see anything on their web site.

    The Cabinet Manual (see 2.19 on page 15 for VONCs and resignations) can be found at:
    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60641/cabinet-manual.pdf

    And a Select Committee review of it, including complaints that remind us the Cabinet Manual is not handed down on tablets of stone, as does DH's header:
    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpolcon/233/233.pdf

    If necessary, the party conferences can be abandoned - or delayed - as happened in 1959 - 1964 - and 1974.
    A good time for it, but the self entitled party memberships would presumably flip out if they don't get their annual talking to each other sessions, even though we're in a national crisis right now.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    If any extension to article 50 requires unanimity, what happens if any of the EU 27 don’t have a Government?

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 19,259

    Nigelb said:



    Then let’s see the government suggest that and put the detail in it. For example, how does it propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no FTA within the agreed transition timeframe?

    That's up to the future negotiations.

    How does the EU propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no deal before 31 October?

    It doesn’t. The EU will decide what changes there will be and over what timeframe if there is No Deal. The UK will lose any any say. As we know, No Deal puts the UK entirely at the mercy of the goodwill of others.

    So be it.

    Yep - for you being entirely dependent on the goodwill of others is freedom. I am happy to admit I just don’t get that.

    You are arguing with someone who takes the proposition of Brexit=Freedom as axiomatic.
    It is a waste of effort.

    I believe that I am a free person living in a free country right now. All I see from No Deal is less freedom for me, my family, my business and my country. I would love to understand what I am missing. I guess that is why I engage. But I never seem to get an answer.

    What does Rotherham gain from from thousands of East European Roma moving there.

    I've asked that many times yet there never seems to be an answer.

    Specifically not that much. What does Rotherham gain from the EU membership that involves freedom of movement - quite a bit, I'd argue. We'll soon find out, of course.

    Well argue it then.

    How many people from Rotherham are working elsewhere in the EU compared with how many from elsewhere are working in Rotherham.

    And what sort of people are doing so.

    There's a whole different reality to freedom of movement in working class areas as there is in upper middle class safezones.
    Auf Wiedersehen, lass?
  • algarkirk said:

    All this discussion is only happening because Boris is negotiating in exactly the way TM was criticised for not doing. Where did that get her? His position remains that he wants a deal. If you want peace, prepare for war and all that...Speculation is running way ahead of events.

    That’s not true. Britain currently has no negotiating position, reasonable or not.
    Yes it does. The position is drop the backstop and we can talk.
    It has no alternative proposal to talk about.
    Because there is no alternative proposal. The alternative is that we enter the transition and discuss what happens in the future during the future negotiations. A perfectly rational suggestion.
    You’re entitled to your opinions but not your facts. That is not the British government’s position.
    It's not? What is then? Seems like it to me.

  • German Employers Federation demands help in the face of an economic slowdown. "Nobody knows whats happening" says head of german EEF as export industries face falling orders.


    https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/wirtschaft-fordert-politische-massnahmen-fuer-den-notfall-16327000.html

    Or, more accurately translated, "Nobody currently knows what will happen if production should also falter here in Germany - for example after a hard Brexit", expressed in the context of a request to streamline preparations for the possible introduction of short-time working (as happened during the financial crisis).
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:



    That’s not true. Britain currently has no negotiating position, reasonable or not.

    Yes it does. The position is drop the backstop and we can talk.



    This government never previously asked for it. May did, that is history.

    The EU has 3 requirements: The Irish border, money and citizens rights.

    Without a backstop we can offer to undergo a transition period which keeps the Irish border open while we negotiate a long term solutiont to the border, it will offer to guarantee citizens rights and an agreement on money.

    Then let’s see the government suggest that and put the detail in it. For example, how does it propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no FTA within the agreed transition timeframe?

    That's up to the future negotiations.

    How does the EU propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no deal before 31 October?

    It doesn’t. The EU will decide what changes there will be and over what timeframe if there is No Deal. The UK will lose any any say. As we know, No Deal puts the UK entirely at the mercy of the goodwill of others.

    So be it.

    Yep - for you being entirely dependent on the goodwill of others is freedom. I am happy to admit I just don’t get that.

    You are arguing with someone who takes the proposition of Brexit=Freedom as axiomatic.
    It is a waste of effort.

    I believe that I am a free person living in a free country right now. All I see from No Deal is less freedom for me, my family, my business and my country. I would love to understand what I am missing. I guess that is why I engage. But I never seem to get an answer.

    What does Rotherham gain from from thousands of East European Roma moving there.

    I've asked that many times yet there never seems to be an answer.

    It increases the average intelligence of both Rotherham and Romania.
    Don't you just hate it when someone says something grossly offensive and reprehensible, but in a way that makes you smile.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 34,475
    alex. said:

    If any extension to article 50 requires unanimity, what happens if any of the EU 27 don’t have a Government?

    What happens if we don't have a government :smile:
  • Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    This government never previously asked for it. May did, that is history.

    The EU has 3 requirements: The Irish border, money and citizens rights.

    Without a backstop we can offer to undergo a transition period which keeps the Irish border open while we negotiate a long term solutiont to the border, it will offer to guarantee citizens rights and an agreement on money.

    Then let’s see the government suggest that and put the detail in it. For example, how does it propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no FTA within the agreed transition timeframe?

    That's up to the future negotiations.

    How does the EU propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no deal before 31 October?

    It doesn’t. The EU will decide what changes there will be and over what timeframe if there is No Deal. The UK will lose any any say. As we know, No Deal puts the UK entirely at the mercy of the goodwill of others.

    So be it.

    Yep - for you being entirely dependent on the goodwill of others is freedom. I am happy to admit I just don’t get that.

    You are arguing with someone who takes the proposition of Brexit=Freedom as axiomatic.
    It is a waste of effort.

    I believe that I am a free person living in a free country right now. All I see from No Deal is less freedom for me, my family, my business and my country. I would love to understand what I am missing. I guess that is why I engage. But I never seem to get an answer.

    What does Rotherham gain from from thousands of East European Roma moving there.

    I've asked that many times yet there never seems to be an answer.

    It increases the average intelligence of both Rotherham and Romania.
    You're half right.

    As socioeconomically grim and educationally neglected as old industrial areas tend to be they're still several divisions too high for many of the more recent migrants to play in.
  • Ratters said:

    When Parliament returns in September, it should focus on taking as much control as possible over proceedings before moving to a confidence vote. I would say the order of priorities should be:

    1) Take control over the order papers: this will surely be possible as Grieve, Cooper et al have shown themselves to be very capable of taking advantage of the grey areas in our constitution, and Bercow has shown himself to be an umpire that favours Parliament over the government

    2) Attempt to get primary legislation passed that ties the government's hands, e.g. forcing an extension. Learn the lessons from the ambiguity in the previous law where May was not forced to accept the EU counter-offer

    3) Remove the Recess for party conferences: taking three weeks off for parties to discuss policy when we will be only six weeks from a major crisis would be rightly seen as highly irresponsible. Use the time to continue working on the primary legislation needed.

    The VONC should then be the final effort in early October if the above does not succeed. This would mean the options have narrowed completely to "government of national unity to extend" or "have an election a month after no-deal Brexit", which should focus minds substantially.

    Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind in my earlier post and when I raised the topic last nite.

    It is becoming apparent that there are to routes to stopping a No Deal Brexit - one via the Order Paper, the other by VONC. Is there any reason both cannot pursued? I think not, but we are in uncharted waters here.

    You new around here, or a delurker, or reincarnation? If new, then welcome and please keep contributing.
  • blutherup said:

    This piece by Vernon Bogdanor in yesterday's Times was interesting, especially:

    "... were an anti no-deal majority or Remain majority returned in November, a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."

    In other words, Johnson & Cummings should know that if they set an election date after the October 31st Brexit date, a new government could press the rewind button if so minded.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz

    Yes, that's been mentioned here before. Not sure I buy it.
  • "A really unexpected thing happened to me this week. I felt a slight but measurable twinge of hope. For the first time, I heard a speech that, while measured and well-balanced, homed in relentlessly — and with passion and authority — on the core moral unfitness of Donald Trump to be president of the United States. Joe Biden’s Iowa address last Wednesday finally did what needs to be done: Leaving questions of policy aside for a moment, it framed next year’s presidential and congressional campaigns as a battle for the soul of America."

    "I don’t think Biden’s age matters that much..."

    http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/andrew-sullivan-biden-can-make-the-moral-case-against-trump.html?utm_source=tw

    This article has helped calm my nerves over Biden.

    It should be pretty easy to make a moral case against Trump.

    But Joe Biden isn't the name which springs to mind when making moral cases are called for.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 12,698
    One of those strange BBC discussions you get in August when most of the tried and trusted interviewees are away on holiday.

    Ian Martin mangling the English language to explain why it'll be 'just great I mean just great' leaving the EU without a deal and a retired CEO of BMW explaining in some detail why leaving the biggest free trade area in the world most certainly wouldn't be 'just great'!

    Poor Nick Robinson. It was like chairing a debate on cosmology between Frank Bruno and Stephen Hawking. The highlight was "with all due respect Tim your pubs just serve beer to the locals'
  • Nigelb said:



    Then let’s see the government suggest that and put the detail in it. For example, how does it propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no FTA within the agreed transition timeframe?

    That's up to the future negotiations.

    How does the EU propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no deal before 31 October?

    It doesn’t. The EU will decide what changes there will be and over what timeframe if there is No Deal. The UK will lose any any say. As we know, No Deal puts the UK entirely at the mercy of the goodwill of others.

    So be it.

    Yep - for you being entirely dependent on the goodwill of others is freedom. I am happy to admit I just don’t get that.

    You are arguing with someone who takes the proposition of Brexit=Freedom as axiomatic.
    It is a waste of effort.

    I believe that I am a free person living in a free country right now. All I see from No Deal is less freedom for me, my family, my business and my country. I would love to understand what I am missing. I guess that is why I engage. But I never seem to get an answer.

    What does Rotherham gain from from thousands of East European Roma moving there.

    I've asked that many times yet there never seems to be an answer.

    Specifically not that much. What does Rotherham gain from the EU membership that involves freedom of movement - quite a bit, I'd argue. We'll soon find out, of course.

    Well argue it then.

    How many people from Rotherham are working elsewhere in the EU compared with how many from elsewhere are working in Rotherham.

    And what sort of people are doing so.

    There's a whole different reality to freedom of movement in working class areas as there is in upper middle class safezones.

    OK, my argument would be that being in the EU delivers more jobs and a higher tax take for the UK than leaving it will do. Rotherham benefits directly from both.
  • Am I the only person who thinks Moeen Ali has been hard done by ?

    Okay he played crap in the Edgbaston Test but he was far from being the only one and his record is good over the last year.

    He's a terrific player and I think he has been hard done by in the past but he's out of form with bat and ball now and can have no complaints this time.

    It's no defence to say others should have gone too, even if true. Why isn't Foakes in the side? Neither Bairstow nor Buttler can be justified any longer.
  • Am I the only person who thinks Moeen Ali has been hard done by ?

    Okay he played crap in the Edgbaston Test but he was far from being the only one and his record is good over the last year.

    It has been standard practice for many years for the England selectors to change the bowlers when the batters have failed.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 1,818

    blutherup said:

    This piece by Vernon Bogdanor in yesterday's Times was interesting, especially:

    "... were an anti no-deal majority or Remain majority returned in November, a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."

    In other words, Johnson & Cummings should know that if they set an election date after the October 31st Brexit date, a new government could press the rewind button if so minded.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz

    Yes, that's been mentioned here before. Not sure I buy it.
    Yep, by me. I was shot down in flames by several on here. I had raised it several times before and so when the Prof raised yesterday I posted again. He should know what he is talking about and it seems only to reasonable to me, but the counter arguments on here were consistent.
  • blutherup said:

    This piece by Vernon Bogdanor in yesterday's Times was interesting, especially:

    "... were an anti no-deal majority or Remain majority returned in November, a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."

    In other words, Johnson & Cummings should know that if they set an election date after the October 31st Brexit date, a new government could press the rewind button if so minded.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz

    Yes, that's been mentioned here before. Not sure I buy it.
    What I find fascinating is that nobody know what would despite there being some very knowledgeable people discussing and disagreeing about it.
  • I would argue the money could be spent better in other ways.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Am I the only person who thinks Moeen Ali has been hard done by ?

    Okay he played crap in the Edgbaston Test but he was far from being the only one and his record is good over the last year.

    Yes you are.

    His record vs Oz is dire.

    His batting form has collapsed.

    He bailed out of the last Ashes series as he couldn’t hack it.

    He was dropped during the WC and England then won every game.

    He bowled 2 head height full tosses in the last game.

    He was virtually unselectable.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 1,818

    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:



    That’s not true. Britain currently has no negotiating position, reasonable or not.

    Yes it does. The position is drop the backstop and we can talk.


    This government never previously asked for it. May did, that is history.

    The EU has 3 requirements: The Irish border, money and citizens rights.

    Without a backstop we can offer to undergo a transition period which keeps the Irish border open while we negotiate a long term solutiont to the border, it will offer to guarantee citizens rights and an agreement on money.

    Then let’s see the government suggest that and put the detail in it. For example, how does it propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no FTA within the agreed transition timeframe?

    That's up to the future negotiations.

    How does the EU propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no deal before 31 October?

    It doesn’t. The EU will decide what changes there will be and over what timeframe if there is No Deal. The UK will lose any any say. As we know, No Deal puts the UK entirely at the mercy of the goodwill of others.

    So be it.

    Yep - for you being entirely dependent on the goodwill of others is freedom. I am happy to admit I just don’t get that.

    You are arguing with someone who takes the proposition of Brexit=Freedom as axiomatic.
    It is a waste of effort.

    I believe that I am a free person living in a free country right now. All I see from No Deal is less freedom for me, my family, my business and my country. I would love to understand what I am missing. I guess that is why I engage. But I never seem to get an answer.

    What does Rotherham gain from from thousands of East European Roma moving there.

    I've asked that many times yet there never seems to be an answer.

    It increases the average intelligence of both Rotherham and Romania.
    Don't you just hate it when someone says something grossly offensive and reprehensible, but in a way that makes you smile.
    Dura_Ace always makes posts that both offend me and make me laugh. May he continue.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 34,475

    I would argue the money could be spent better in other ways.

    The public inquiry into this collective clusterf*ck is going to be fascinating.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    The public inquiry into this collective clusterf*ck is going to be fascinating.

    The Home Secretary wants to bring back hanging.

    Maybe not a bad idea for the Brexit showtrials...
  • Nigelb said:



    It doesn’t. The EU will decide what changes there will be and over what timeframe if there is No Deal. The UK will lose any any say. As we know, No Deal puts the UK entirely at the mercy of the goodwill of others.

    So be it.

    Yep - for you being entirely dependent on the goodwill of others is freedom. I am happy to admit I just don’t get that.

    You are arguing with someone who takes the proposition of Brexit=Freedom as axiomatic.
    It is a waste of effort.

    I believe that I am a free person living in a free country right now. All I see from No Deal is less freedom for me, my family, my business and my country. I would love to understand what I am missing. I guess that is why I engage. But I never seem to get an answer.

    What does Rotherham gain from from thousands of East European Roma moving there.

    I've asked that many times yet there never seems to be an answer.

    Specifically not that much. What does Rotherham gain from the EU membership that involves freedom of movement - quite a bit, I'd argue. We'll soon find out, of course.

    Well argue it then.

    How many people from Rotherham are working elsewhere in the EU compared with how many from elsewhere are working in Rotherham.

    And what sort of people are doing so.

    There's a whole different reality to freedom of movement in working class areas as there is in upper middle class safezones.
    Auf Wiedersehen, lass?
    From 35 years ago and the lads all returned home when they were brought under German tax law.

    And that the magnificent seven were working in Germany is a key point - people migrate to countries richer than their own for work purposes.

    So now where do British people who work abroad go to - North America, Australia, UAE, maybe a few to Singapore and Hong Kong ie rich countries with English language use.

    But how many work in the EU ? Far fewer because firstly most of the EU doesn't have the economic opportunities and secondly because British people rarely have the combined skillsets and work ethics needed.
  • Yet some people still claim that the coalition was a golden era of good government.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 17,766
    edited August 2019
    TGOHF said:

    Am I the only person who thinks Moeen Ali has been hard done by ?

    Okay he played crap in the Edgbaston Test but he was far from being the only one and his record is good over the last year.

    Yes you are.

    His record vs Oz is dire.

    His batting form has collapsed.

    He bailed out of the last Ashes series as he couldn’t hack it.

    He was dropped during the WC and England then won every game.

    He bowled 2 head height full tosses in the last game.

    He was virtually unselectable.
    That's nothing to the years of rubbish which John Emburey produced while still being described as an 'automatic choice'.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 34,475
    "Asked in private conversations who would win the [Iowa] caucuses if they were held this month, the vast majority of Iowa Democratic officials and strategists say it would be Ms. Warren."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/09/us/politics/biden-iowa-2020.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 34,475
    edited August 2019
    Scott_P said:
    "Reckless" doesn't come close to capturing the insanity of this self-inflicted idiocy.
  • Scott_P said:
    The former Conservative and Unionist party would have seen it that way, too.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 19,259

    Nigelb said:



    It doesn’t. The EU will decide what changes there will be and over what timeframe if there is No Deal. The UK will lose any any say. As we know, No Deal puts the UK entirely at the mercy of the goodwill of others.

    So be it.

    Yep - for you being entirely dependent on the goodwill of others is freedom. I am happy to admit I just don’t get that.

    You are arguing with someone who takes the proposition of Brexit=Freedom as axiomatic.
    It is a waste of effort.

    I believe that I am a free person living in a free country right now. All I see from No Deal is less freedom for me, my family, my business and my country. I would love to understand what I am missing. I guess that is why I engage. But I never seem to get an answer.

    What does Rotherham gain from from thousands of East European Roma moving there.

    I've asked that many times yet there never seems to be an answer.

    Specifically not that much. What does Rotherham gain from the EU membership that involves freedom of movement - quite a bit, I'd argue. We'll soon find out, of course.

    Well argue it then.

    How many people from Rotherham are working elsewhere in the EU compared with how many from elsewhere are working in Rotherham.

    And what sort of people are doing so.

    There's a whole different reality to freedom of movement in working class areas as there is in upper middle class safezones.
    Auf Wiedersehen, lass?
    From 35 years ago and the lads all returned home when they were brought under German tax law.

    And that the magnificent seven were working in Germany is a key point - people migrate to countries richer than their own for work purposes.

    So now where do British people who work abroad go to - North America, Australia, UAE, maybe a few to Singapore and Hong Kong ie rich countries with English language use.

    But how many work in the EU ? Far fewer because firstly most of the EU doesn't have the economic opportunities and secondly because British people rarely have the combined skillsets and work ethics needed.
    Don't disagree overall; as I and others have posted, generally speaking our knowledge of other people's languages is a national disgrace.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 5,856
    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    ”That’s right, after a no-deal Brexit, we’d be back where we started. The last three years would come to seem like an argument between a husband and wife that’s raged in the kitchen. After 31 October, as my colleague Rafael Behr likes to put it, it’d be the same argument – except now the husband would be standing on the street, the front door slammed in his face, shouting his demands through the letterbox.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/09/no-deal-brexit-negotiations-brussels

    ....but with £39 billion in his back pocket, why would he be the one shouting through the letterbox?
    In the context of governments £39bn is nothing (btw I assume the bill was set in Euros...)
  • RogerRoger Posts: 12,698
    Marina Hyde on Dominic Cummings!!! (I though I'd patented 'Rasputin'!)

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/09/dominic-cummings-boris-johnson-brexit
  • TGOHF said:

    Am I the only person who thinks Moeen Ali has been hard done by ?

    Okay he played crap in the Edgbaston Test but he was far from being the only one and his record is good over the last year.

    Yes you are.

    His record vs Oz is dire.

    His batting form has collapsed.

    He bailed out of the last Ashes series as he couldn’t hack it.

    He was dropped during the WC and England then won every game.

    He bowled 2 head height full tosses in the last game.

    He was virtually unselectable.
    That's nothing to the years of rubbish which John Emburey produced while still being described as an 'automatic choice'.
    Yes, but Embury played for Middlesex so Head Office rules applied.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,911
    blutherup said:

    This piece by Vernon Bogdanor in yesterday's Times was interesting, especially:

    "... were an anti no-deal majority or Remain majority returned in November, a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."

    In other words, Johnson & Cummings should know that if they set an election date after the October 31st Brexit date, a new government could press the rewind button if so minded.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz

    Retrospective legislation makes my skin itch. It really should not happen. However it does. One interesting case (which I did not know of until recently) is the reign of Charles II. In E&W law it started when Charles I was executed, and entirely ignores the laws that were made by Cromwell's Parliaments
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 5,856

    Yet some people still claim that the coalition was a golden era of good government.
    Without it Johnson could go to the palace and ask for a dissolution so that Election Day falls on 31st October.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 1,825

    Yet some people still claim that the coalition was a golden era of good government.
    Parliament has had several years to repeal/amend it. MPs need look nowhere else for responsibility.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 19,259

    TGOHF said:

    Am I the only person who thinks Moeen Ali has been hard done by ?

    Okay he played crap in the Edgbaston Test but he was far from being the only one and his record is good over the last year.

    Yes you are.

    His record vs Oz is dire.

    His batting form has collapsed.

    He bailed out of the last Ashes series as he couldn’t hack it.

    He was dropped during the WC and England then won every game.

    He bowled 2 head height full tosses in the last game.

    He was virtually unselectable.
    That's nothing to the years of rubbish which John Emburey produced while still being described as an 'automatic choice'.
    Yes, but Embury played for Middlesex so Head Office rules applied.
    Saw Embury playing a couple of years ago for the Lashings side. Still a problem for our local club's players.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 2,303

    Yet some people still claim that the coalition was a golden era of good government.
    It generally was, and the spirit of the Act is commendable (doesn’t seem fair that a PM can game the political calendar in a way to always hold elections at a date of his or her choosing) but some of the provisions are a bit ill thought through IMHO.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 1,825
    edited August 2019
    kjh said:

    blutherup said:

    This piece by Vernon Bogdanor in yesterday's Times was interesting, especially:

    "... were an anti no-deal majority or Remain majority returned in November, a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."

    In other words, Johnson & Cummings should know that if they set an election date after the October 31st Brexit date, a new government could press the rewind button if so minded.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz

    Yes, that's been mentioned here before. Not sure I buy it.
    Yep, by me. I was shot down in flames by several on here. I had raised it several times before and so when the Prof raised yesterday I posted again. He should know what he is talking about and it seems only to reasonable to me, but the counter arguments on here were consistent.
    There is no question that the UK parliament has power to make retrospective legislation, in the same way that it has the power to pass an act declaring that the moon is made of green cheese, and that this became true only at a date which has already passed. The trickier question is: Does the EU have the power retrospectively to extend the date and do the necessary deeming? Unless it has it is no use.

  • Nigelb said:



    It doesn’t. The EU will decide what changes there will be and over what timeframe if there is No Deal. The UK will lose any any say. As we know, No Deal puts the UK entirely at the mercy of the goodwill of others.

    So be it.

    Yep - for you being entirely dependent on the goodwill of others is freedom. I am happy to admit I just don’t get that.

    You are arguing with someone who takes the proposition of Brexit=Freedom as axiomatic.
    It is a waste of effort.

    I believe that I am a free person living in a free country right now. All I see from No Deal is less freedom for me, my family, my business and my country. I would love to understand what I am missing. I guess that is why I engage. But I never seem to get an answer.

    What does Rotherham gain from from thousands of East European Roma moving there.

    I've asked that many times yet there never seems to be an answer.

    Specifically not that much. What does Rotherham gain from the EU membership that involves freedom of movement - quite a bit, I'd argue. We'll soon find out, of course.

    Well argue it then.

    How many people from Rotherham are working elsewhere in the EU compared with how many from elsewhere are working in Rotherham.

    And what sort of people are doing so.

    There's a whole different reality to freedom of movement in working class areas as there is in upper middle class safezones.

    OK, my argument would be that being in the EU delivers more jobs and a higher tax take for the UK than leaving it will do. Rotherham benefits directly from both.
    So the Rotherhams must accept the disadvantages so that the Royal Leamington Spas gain the advantages ?

    How about a little redistribution of the advantages and disadvantages.

    Perhaps those less desirable migrants might be rehoused from Rotherham to Royal Leamington Spa.

    I wonder how that would change attitudes in the two towns.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 5,236
    malcolmg said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    malcolmg said:


    They would be replaced with Scottish forces jobs G. Permanent real jobs for Scotland.

    Really !!!!
    Defence jobs would probably be a net gain for Scotland as there would be no economies of scale as enjoyed by the UK forces now.

    Naval shipbuilding at Govan and Clydebank would be right in the shit. Of that, there is no doubt.
    It is in the shit as it is , dwindling to nothing in any event. They are building next to nothing and now plan all the support ships abroad to "save" money. What is left could build ships required for Scotland to patrol its own waters etc.
    Hard to see it not being a win-win.
    8 x Type 26 and 5 x Type 31 are planned to be built in Govan/Clydebank over the next 15 years. That's over 10bn quid/75,000 tons of very high tech naval shipbuilding. There is no way a Scottish Navy could replace even 10% of that activity.
  • RattersRatters Posts: 44

    Ratters said:

    When Parliament returns in September, it should focus on taking as much control as possible over proceedings before moving to a confidence vote. I would say the order of priorities should be:

    1) Take control over the order papers: this will surely be possible as Grieve, Cooper et al have shown themselves to be very capable of taking advantage of the grey areas in our constitution, and Bercow has shown himself to be an umpire that favours Parliament over the government

    2) Attempt to get primary legislation passed that ties the government's hands, e.g. forcing an extension. Learn the lessons from the ambiguity in the previous law where May was not forced to accept the EU counter-offer

    3) Remove the Recess for party conferences: taking three weeks off for parties to discuss policy when we will be only six weeks from a major crisis would be rightly seen as highly irresponsible. Use the time to continue working on the primary legislation needed.

    The VONC should then be the final effort in early October if the above does not succeed. This would mean the options have narrowed completely to "government of national unity to extend" or "have an election a month after no-deal Brexit", which should focus minds substantially.

    Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind in my earlier post and when I raised the topic last nite.

    It is becoming apparent that there are to routes to stopping a No Deal Brexit - one via the Order Paper, the other by VONC. Is there any reason both cannot pursued? I think not, but we are in uncharted waters here.

    You new around here, or a delurker, or reincarnation? If new, then welcome and please keep contributing.
    Agreed - you have the highest likelihood of success if you attempt both routes. The biggest tactical mistake the opponents to No Deal could make would be a VONC too early given that this would remove Parliament's chance to succeed via the Order Paper; and also probably make the VONC less likely than if it happens closer to the deadline.

    Delurker - I don't tend to have too much time to post, but will try to when I can!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 27,214
    algarkirk said:

    kjh said:

    blutherup said:

    This piece by Vernon Bogdanor in yesterday's Times was interesting, especially:

    "... were an anti no-deal majority or Remain majority returned in November, a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."

    In other words, Johnson & Cummings should know that if they set an election date after the October 31st Brexit date, a new government could press the rewind button if so minded.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz

    Yes, that's been mentioned here before. Not sure I buy it.
    Yep, by me. I was shot down in flames by several on here. I had raised it several times before and so when the Prof raised yesterday I posted again. He should know what he is talking about and it seems only to reasonable to me, but the counter arguments on here were consistent.
    There is no question that the UK parliament has power to make retrospective legislation, in the same way that it has the power to pass an act declaring that the moon is made of green cheese, and that this became true only at a date which has already passed. The trickier question is: Does the EU have the power retrospectively to extend the date and do the necessary deeming? Unless it has it is no use.

    I imagine the EU would offer (and therefore agree) the extension during the election campaign, and depending on the outcome the new government could then confirm.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 3,463
    edited August 2019

    I would argue the money could be spent better in other ways.

    The public inquiry into this collective clusterf*ck is going to be fascinating.
    I thought Brexit was meant to SAVE money? I seem to recall that we are meant to be £350m a week better off. I am sure it was on the side of a bus somewhere....
  • Am I the only person who thinks Moeen Ali has been hard done by ?

    Okay he played crap in the Edgbaston Test but he was far from being the only one and his record is good over the last year.

    He's a terrific player and I think he has been hard done by in the past but he's out of form with bat and ball now and can have no complaints this time.

    It's no defence to say others should have gone too, even if true. Why isn't Foakes in the side? Neither Bairstow nor Buttler can be justified any longer.
    Its been said before that for some players its harder to be dropped from the England side than it is to be selected in the first place.

    Whereas for others its different - I'll add Sam Curran to Ben Foakes in that category.
  • Nigelb said:



    It doesn’t. The EU will decide what changes there will be and over what timeframe if there is No Deal. The UK will lose any any say. As we know, No Deal puts the UK entirely at the mercy of the goodwill of others.

    So be it.

    Yep - for you being entirely dependent on the goodwill of others is freedom. I am happy to admit I just don’t get that.

    You are arguing with someone who takes the proposition of Brexit=Freedom as axiomatic.
    It is a waste of effort.

    I believe that I am a free person living in a free country right now. All I see from No Deal is less freedom for me, my family, my business and my country. I would love to understand what I am missing. I guess that is why I engage. But I never seem to get an answer.

    What does Rotherham gain from from thousands of East European Roma moving there.

    I've asked that many times yet there never seems to be an answer.

    Specifically not that much. What does Rotherham gain from the EU membership that involves freedom of movement - quite a bit, I'd argue. We'll soon find out, of course.

    Well argue it then.

    How many people from Rotherham are working elsewhere in the EU compared with how many from elsewhere are working in Rotherham.

    And what sort of people are doing so.

    There's a whole different reality to freedom of movement in working class areas as there is in upper middle class safezones.

    OK, my argument would be that being in the EU delivers more jobs and a higher tax take for the UK than leaving it will do. Rotherham benefits directly from both.
    So the Rotherhams must accept the disadvantages so that the Royal Leamington Spas gain the advantages ?

    How about a little redistribution of the advantages and disadvantages.

    Perhaps those less desirable migrants might be rehoused from Rotherham to Royal Leamington Spa.

    I wonder how that would change attitudes in the two towns.

    How does Rotherham not benefit from public spending or job creation? Could it benefit more? Absolutely. But that has nothing to do with EU membership. That is about government spending priorities.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 27,214
    edited August 2019

    I would argue the money could be spent better in other ways.

    The public inquiry into this collective clusterf*ck is going to be fascinating.

    Bozo’s motivation in calling an election is likely as much to postpone the day of reckoning for the consequences Brexit as to help in getting it done.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Roger said:

    Marina Hyde on Dominic Cummings!!! (I though I'd patented 'Rasputin'!)

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/09/dominic-cummings-boris-johnson-brexit

    Her tears are like sweet nectar to the country. Entitled bovine grazer, too cowardly to make the weather.
  • Dura_Ace said:

    malcolmg said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    malcolmg said:


    They would be replaced with Scottish forces jobs G. Permanent real jobs for Scotland.

    Really !!!!
    Defence jobs would probably be a net gain for Scotland as there would be no economies of scale as enjoyed by the UK forces now.

    Naval shipbuilding at Govan and Clydebank would be right in the shit. Of that, there is no doubt.
    It is in the shit as it is , dwindling to nothing in any event. They are building next to nothing and now plan all the support ships abroad to "save" money. What is left could build ships required for Scotland to patrol its own waters etc.
    Hard to see it not being a win-win.
    8 x Type 26 and 5 x Type 31 are planned to be built in Govan/Clydebank over the next 15 years. That's over 10bn quid/75,000 tons of very high tech naval shipbuilding. There is no way a Scottish Navy could replace even 10% of that activity.
    How big a navy would an independent Scotland need ?

    The Danish and Norwegian navies seem quite sizeable.
  • Am I the only person who thinks Moeen Ali has been hard done by ?

    Okay he played crap in the Edgbaston Test but he was far from being the only one and his record is good over the last year.

    He's a terrific player and I think he has been hard done by in the past but he's out of form with bat and ball now and can have no complaints this time.

    It's no defence to say others should have gone too, even if true. Why isn't Foakes in the side? Neither Bairstow nor Buttler can be justified any longer.
    Its been said before that for some players its harder to be dropped from the England side than it is to be selected in the first place.

    Whereas for others its different - I'll add Sam Curran to Ben Foakes in that category.
    Twas ever thus. Go back through the history of the game and you will find dozens of great players who remained uncapped, and others who had long Test careers without conspicuous success. The principle applies as much today as ever.

    Why has James Hidreth never been capped?

    Who outside Head Office ever thought Dawid Malan and Toby Roland-Jones were Test standard?
This discussion has been closed.