All this talk of GNU is fanciful, it would be almost entirely without Tory support.
80%+ of it's support would be from labour mps, with backing from the snp, a handful of lib Dems and sub 10 Tories. Making Ken Clark PM doesn't suddenly make it a GNU, it'd be wildly partizan.
Nothing without the support of 100 Tories could claim the name honesty
Clarke himself is talking about negotiating a softer Brexit. His GNU is a far more extensive project than Corbyn's splash and dash, extension and election.
Clarke would be talking about a softer Brexit than May's Shit Deal.
He is the most extreme EU fanatic in the House, with a decades-long track record and three failed bids to be Tory leader to back that up. His view of the EU is suported by well below 10% of the public. The idea of putting him in charge of implementing something voted for by 52% of the public is frankly risible.
Rather than Brexit, he'd no doubt love to sign us up to the Euro in a hearbeat.
You want the ultimate in broken politics? Prime Minister Ken Clarke is that ultimate. A man with no mandate whatsoever, it would also only be a short term fix for the EU. Because PM Farage would follow on in short order, with a mandate and the MPs to rip us out of the EU, whatever Clarke had signed up to.
To be fair, Mr M, Kenneth Clarke three times voted for Brexit.
Quite. It should be those who voted against a deal to leave the EU in parliament who should have any death as a result of no deal,on their conscience.
We are leaving the EU. No ifs or buts. Parliament rejected the smooth transition, not the Government.
Of course it’s the government who are responsible for how we leave no where is there an obligation to a date apart from Johnson’s election campaign but it’s in his hands now and he must take the credit or blame for the outcome.
No, Gina Miller's court case specifically took the decision out of the Government's hands and gave the decision to Parliament.
Who was the last Speaker to become PM? I've got a feeling it was Henry Addington in 1801, although Charles Manners-Sutton was considered for it in the 1830s.
So we're going back a very long way indeed...
Is it necessary for the Speaker to be PM? Is it not sufficient for Parliament to give authority to the Speaker over A50 matters, to extend or revoke, during an election period?
All this talk of GNU is fanciful, it would be almost entirely without Tory support.
80%+ of it's support would be from labour mps, with backing from the snp, a handful of lib Dems and sub 10 Tories. Making Ken Clark PM doesn't suddenly make it a GNU, it'd be wildly partizan.
Nothing without the support of 100 Tories could claim the name honesty
Clarke himself is talking about negotiating a softer Brexit. His GNU is a far more extensive project than Corbyn's splash and dash, extension and election.
Clarke would be talking about a softer Brexit than May's Shit Deal.
He is the most extreme EU fanatic in the House, with a decades-long track record and three failed bids to be Tory leader to back that up. His view of the EU is suported by well below 10% of the public. The idea of putting him in charge of implementing something voted for by 52% of the public is frankly risible.
Rather than Brexit, he'd no doubt love to sign us up to the Euro in a hearbeat.
You want the ultimate in broken politics? Prime Minister Ken Clarke is that ultimate. A man with no mandate whatsoever, it would also only be a short term fix for the EU. Because PM Farage would follow on in short order, with a mandate and the MPs to rip us out of the EU, whatever Clarke had signed up to.
To be fair, Mr M, Kenneth Clarke three times voted for Brexit.
Quite. It should be those who voted against a deal to leave the EU in parliament who should have any death as a result of no deal,on their conscience.
We are leaving the EU. No ifs or buts. Parliament rejected the smooth transition, not the Government.
The current government has no mandate for no deal Brexit. It was not the prospectus. Those, like you, who give them a free pass to damage the country in this way working to an artificial deadline that the public has never been consulted on are deranged.
Has the matter of his (alleged) abuse of his staff been resolved. Or is it being quietly brushed under the carpet for the sake of remainer political convenience?
If we have a GE, which looks all too likely, is Bercow really going to stand again? He's already been Speaker for substantially longer than he promised. If he did stand again I suggest that the Tories should stand against him and take it seriously. The man is a part of the problem rather than part of the solution. It's long past time that he went.
Martin was also an appalling Speaker but I don't think that the case for the HoC regulating itself by one of its members has been rendered untenable. They just need to choose more carefully.
All this talk of GNU is fanciful, it would be almost entirely without Tory support.
80%+ of it's support would be from labour mps, with backing from the snp, a handful of lib Dems and sub 10 Tories. Making Ken Clark PM doesn't suddenly make it a GNU, it'd be wildly partizan.
Nothing without the support of 100 Tories could claim the name honesty
Clarke himself is talking about negotiating a softer Brexit. His GNU is a far more extensive project than Corbyn's splash and dash, extension and election.
Clarke would be talking about a softer Brexit than May's Shit Deal.
He is the most extreme EU fanatic in the House, with a decades-long track record and three failed bids to be Tory leader to back that up. His view of the EU is suported by well below 10% of the public. The idea of putting him in charge of implementing something voted for by 52% of the public is frankly risible.
Rather than Brexit, he'd no doubt love to sign us up to the Euro in a hearbeat.
You want the ultimate in broken politics? Prime Minister Ken Clarke is that ultimate. A man with no mandate whatsoever, it would also only be a short term fix for the EU. Because PM Farage would follow on in short order, with a mandate and the MPs to rip us out of the EU, whatever Clarke had signed up to.
To be fair, Mr M, Kenneth Clarke three times voted for Brexit.
Quite. It should be those who voted against a deal to leave the EU in parliament who should have any death as a result of no deal,on their conscience.
We are leaving the EU. No ifs or buts. Parliament rejected the smooth transition, not the Government.
The current government has no mandate for no deal Brexit. It was not the prospectus. Those, like you, who give them a free pass to damage the country in this way working to an artificial deadline that the public has never been consulted on are deranged.
The deadline was fixed by the HoC when it resolved overwhelmingly to serve the Article 50 notice. The fact that that 2 year period was then extended to little purpose (other than finally getting rid of an incompetent PM) does not change that.
"The EU agreed a deal with us. The deal was - basically - a good one. Could it have been better? Yes."
Who rejected the deal? MPs. Most of the MPs who voted against were Labour and the militant Remainers. The Leave voters had no say.
Are you arguing that the May deal should have gone through on the basis of opposition votes? With most government backbenchers voting against? Really?
The ERG trashed the May plan within minutes of its publication, before they could possibly have read it. They celebrated the failure of MV1 with a champagne reception. Key ERG types are in charge of government now. This is what they've wanted all along. Any narrative that blames others will be seen as self-serving tosh.
Not true. Brexit has changed how friends and family behave towards each other IRL, and not for the better.
I was out with a friend from Ulster last night, who I had not met for many years. He has lived his entire post-university life in England, and has a UUP, then Con, background. In passing I mentioned the “B” word, and he immediately became serious and just said that that was not a topic he was willing to talk about.
He explained his refusal by drawing a parallel with his childhood/youth during The Troubles. For the NI adults around him, the “T” word back then was like the “B” word is now in England: you only talk about it openly and honestly with very close friends and family, and even then, only whispering behind net-curtains. In other words, there is a virtual civil-war going on out there in his previously tranquil patch of Merrie Olde southern England. It was quite perturbing to see his otherwise jolly and relaxed demeanour become instantly so anguished at the passing mention of a word.
That sense of menace is a fraction of what will happen if brexit is ultimately stopped though.
Or indeed if we No Deal and it turns out as bad as many fear and predict.
What many people "feared and predicted" turns out (Sunday Times) to be the Govenment's "base planning scenario".
The worst case is still unleaked.
Over and over I’ve made the point about the dangers of shortages of medical supplies. People will die as a result. I still await the number of avoidable deaths that will make no dealers decide that Brexit wasn’t worth it.
Read a follow-up comment on one of the twitter feeds that it's shaping up to be an incredibly bad flu season.
Yes, it looks to be a very bad flu season, as we get the strain that is causing problems in Australia a few months later. Even in August we have been cancelling elective surgery for no beds. Last week the Nottingham hospitals were on black alert,and in Leicester not much better.
All this talk of GNU is fanciful, it would be almost entirely without Tory support.
80%+ of it's support would be from labour mps, with backing from the snp, a handful of lib Dems and sub 10 Tories. Making Ken Clark PM doesn't suddenly make it a GNU, it'd be wildly partizan.
Nothing without the support of 100 Tories could claim the name honesty
Clarke himself is talking about negotiating a softer Brexit. His GNU is a far more extensive project than Corbyn's splash and dash, extension and election.
Clarke would be talking about a softer Brexit than May's Shit Deal.
He is the most extreme EU fanatic in the House, with a decades-long track record and three failed bids to be Tory leader to back that up. His view of the EU is suported by well below 10% of the public. The idea of putting him in charge of implementing something voted for by 52% of the public is frankly risible.
Rather than Brexit, he'd no doubt love to sign us up to the Euro in a hearbeat.
You want the ultimate in broken politics? Prime Minister Ken Clarke is that ultimate. A man with no mandate whatsoever, it would also only be a short term fix for the EU. Because PM Farage would follow on in short order, with a mandate and the MPs to rip us out of the EU, whatever Clarke had signed up to.
To be fair, Mr M, Kenneth Clarke three times voted for Brexit.
Quite. It should be those who voted against a deal to leave the EU in parliament who should have any death as a result of no deal,on their conscience.
We are leaving the EU. No ifs or buts. Parliament rejected the smooth transition, not the Government.
The current government has no mandate for no deal Brexit. It was not the prospectus. Those, like you, who give them a free pass to damage the country in this way working to an artificial deadline that the public has never been consulted on are deranged.
I didn’t want no deal. I urged my MP to vote for a deal, which he did. The decision to leave was made three years ago. It has to be honoured. Any further delay is not designed to result in a better deal to leave but to lengthen the time since the vote was taken and reduce its legitimacy.
The game is up. We leave on Oct 31st. Full stop. We know who is to blame for leaving without a deal. And hopefully they will get a reckoning proportionate to the harm done as a result.
Is it necessary for the Speaker to be PM? Is it not sufficient for Parliament to give authority to the Speaker over A50 matters, to extend or revoke, during an election period?
Good question. If they can do it that way there's no particular need for it to be the Speaker, and Jeremy Corbyn's claim goes away. I guess the obvious person to nominate would be the chair of the relevant select committee, Hilary Benn.
All this talk of GNU is fanciful, it would be almost entirely without Tory support.
80%+ of it's support would be from labour mps, with backing from the snp, a handful of lib Dems and sub 10 Tories. Making Ken Clark PM doesn't suddenly make it a GNU, it'd be wildly partizan.
Nothing without the support of 100 Tories could claim the name honesty
Clarke himself is talking about negotiating a softer Brexit. His GNU is a far more extensive project than Corbyn's splash and dash, extension and election.
Clarke would be talking about a softer Brexit than May's Shit Deal.
He is the most extreme EU fanatic in the House, with a decades-long track record and three failed bids to be Tory leader to back that up. His view of the EU is suported by well below 10% of the public. The idea of putting him in charge of implementing something voted for by 52% of the public is frankly risible.
Rather than Brexit, he'd no doubt love to sign us up to the Euro in a hearbeat.
You want the ultimate in broken politics? Prime Minister Ken Clarke is that ultimate. A man with no mandate whatsoever, it would also only be a short term fix for the EU. Because PM Farage would follow on in short order, with a mandate and the MPs to rip us out of the EU, whatever Clarke had signed up to.
To be fair, Mr M, Kenneth Clarke three times voted for Brexit.
Quite. It should be those who voted against a deal to leave the EU in parliament who should have any death as a result of no deal,on their conscience.
We are leaving the EU. No ifs or buts. Parliament rejected the smooth transition, not the Government.
The current government has no mandate for no deal Brexit. It was not the prospectus. Those, like you, who give them a free pass to damage the country in this way working to an artificial deadline that the public has never been consulted on are deranged.
The deadline was fixed by the HoC when it resolved overwhelmingly to serve the Article 50 notice. The fact that that 2 year period was then extended to little purpose (other than finally getting rid of an incompetent PM) does not change that.
There is nothing stopping the government seeking to change the deadline to achieve an orderly Brexit. But it prefers to risk serious disruption, suffering and in all probability death.
All this talk of GNU is fanciful, it would be almost entirely without Tory support.
80%+ of it's support would be from labour mps, with backing from the snp, a handful of lib Dems and sub 10 Tories. Making Ken Clark PM doesn't suddenly make it a GNU, it'd be wildly partizan.
Nothing without the support of 100 Tories could claim the name honesty
Clarke himself is talking about negotiating a softer Brexit. His GNU is a far more extensive project than Corbyn's splash and dash, extension and election.
Clarke would be talking about a softer Brexit than May's Shit Deal.
He is the most extreme EU fanatic in the House, with a decades-long track record and three failed bids to be Tory leader to back that up. His view of the EU is suported by well below 10% of the public. The idea of putting him in charge of implementing something voted for by 52% of the public is frankly risible.
Rather than Brexit, he'd no doubt love to sign us up to the Euro in a hearbeat.
You want the ultimate in broken politics? Prime Minister Ken Clarke is that ultimate. A man with no mandate whatsoever, it would also only be a short term fix for the EU. Because PM Farage would follow on in short order, with a mandate and the MPs to rip us out of the EU, whatever Clarke had signed up to.
To be fair, Mr M, Kenneth Clarke three times voted for Brexit.
Quite. It should be those who voted against a deal to leave the EU in parliament who should have any death as a result of no deal,on their conscience.
We are leaving the EU. No ifs or buts. Parliament rejected the smooth transition, not the Government.
The current government has no mandate for no deal Brexit. It was not the prospectus. Those, like you, who give them a free pass to damage the country in this way working to an artificial deadline that the public has never been consulted on are deranged.
I didn’t want no deal. I urged my MP to vote for a deal, which he did. The decision to leave was made three years ago. It has to be honoured. Any further delay is not designed to result in a better deal to leave but to lengthen the time since the vote was taken and reduce its legitimacy.
The game is up. We leave on Oct 31st. Full stop. We know who is to blame for leaving without a deal. And hopefully they will get a reckoning proportionate to the harm done as a result.
So you inflict suffering and perhaps death for a fake deadline? You are utterly contemptible.
All this talk of GNU is fanciful, it would be almost entirely without Tory support.
80%+ of it's support would be from labour mps, with backing from the snp, a handful of lib Dems and sub 10 Tories. Making Ken Clark PM doesn't suddenly make it a GNU, it'd be wildly partizan.
Nothing without the support of 100 Tories could claim the name honesty
Clarke himself is talking about negotiating a softer Brexit. His GNU is a far more extensive project than Corbyn's splash and dash, extension and election.
Clarke would be talking about a softer Brexit than May's Shit Deal.
He is the most extreme EU fanatic in the House, with a decades-long track record and three failed bids to be Tory leader to back that up. His view of the EU is suported by well below 10% of the public. The idea of putting him in charge of implementing something voted for by 52% of the public is frankly risible.
Rather than Brexit, he'd no doubt love to sign us up to the Euro in a hearbeat.
You want the ultimate in broken politics? Prime Minister Ken Clarke is that ultimate. A man with no mandate whatsoever, it would also only be a short term fix for the EU. Because PM Farage would follow on in short order, with a mandate and the MPs to rip us out of the EU, whatever Clarke had signed up to.
To be fair, Mr M, Kenneth Clarke three times voted for Brexit.
Quite. It should be those who voted against a deal to leave the EU in parliament who should have any death as a result of no deal,on their conscience.
We are leaving the EU. No ifs or buts. Parliament rejected the smooth transition, not the Government.
The current government has no mandate for no deal Brexit. It was not the prospectus. Those, like you, who give them a free pass to damage the country in this way working to an artificial deadline that the public has never been consulted on are deranged.
I didn’t want no deal. I urged my MP to vote for a deal, which he did. The decision to leave was made three years ago. It has to be honoured. Any further delay is not designed to result in a better deal to leave but to lengthen the time since the vote was taken and reduce its legitimacy.
The game is up. We leave on Oct 31st. Full stop. We know who is to blame for leaving without a deal. And hopefully they will get a reckoning proportionate to the harm done as a result.
To be fair, Mr M, Kenneth Clarke three times voted for Brexit.
Quite. It should be those who voted against a deal to leave the EU in parliament who should have any death as a result of no deal,on their conscience.
We are leaving the EU. No ifs or buts. Parliament rejected the smooth transition, not the Government.
The current government has no mandate for no deal Brexit. It was not the prospectus. Those, like you, who give them a free pass to damage the country in this way working to an artificial deadline that the public has never been consulted on are deranged.
The deadline was fixed by the HoC when it resolved overwhelmingly to serve the Article 50 notice. The fact that that 2 year period was then extended to little purpose (other than finally getting rid of an incompetent PM) does not change that.
There is nothing stopping the government seeking to change the deadline to achieve an orderly Brexit. But it prefers to risk serious disruption, suffering and in all probability death.
And your evidence that yet more time would allow an orderly Brexit is? I don't have a fetish about 31st October but delay for delays sake is the worst of all worlds. If it was a further short delay to allow May's deal (give or take) to be implemented fine, but we have still to see any evidence that that has sufficient support even facing a no deal deadline.
All this talk of GNU is fanciful, it would be almost entirely without Tory support.
80%+ of it's support would be from labour mps, with backing from the snp, a handful of lib Dems and sub 10 Tories. Making Ken Clark PM doesn't suddenly make it a GNU, it'd be wildly partizan.
Nothing without the support of 100 Tories could claim the name honesty
Clarke himself is talking about negotiating a softer Brexit. His GNU is a far more extensive project than Corbyn's splash and dash, extension and election.
Clarke would be talking about a softer Brexit than May's Shit Deal.
He is the most extreme EU fanatic in the House, with a decades-long track record and three failed bids to be Tory leader to back that up. His view of the EU is suported by well below 10% of the public. The idea of putting him in charge of implementing something voted for by 52% of the public is frankly risible.
Rather than Brexit, he'd no doubt love to sign us up to the Euro in a hearbeat.
You want the ultimate in broken politics? Prime Minister Ken Clarke is that ultimate. A man with no mandate whatsoever, it would also only be a short term fix for the EU. Because PM Farage would follow on in short order, with a mandate and the MPs to rip us out of the EU, whatever Clarke had signed up to.
To be fair, Mr M, Kenneth Clarke three times voted for Brexit.
Quite. It should be those who voted against a deal to leave the EU in parliament who should have any death as a result of no deal,on their conscience.
We are leaving the EU. No ifs or buts. Parliament rejected the smooth transition, not the Government.
The current government has no mandate for no deal Brexit. It was not the prospectus. Those, like you, who give them a free pass to damage the country in this way working to an artificial deadline that the public has never been consulted on are deranged.
I didn’t want no deal. I urged my MP to vote for a deal, which he did. The decision to leave was made three years ago. It has to be honoured. Any further delay is not designed to result in a better deal to leave but to lengthen the time since the vote was taken and reduce its legitimacy.
The game is up. We leave on Oct 31st. Full stop. We know who is to blame for leaving without a deal. And hopefully they will get a reckoning proportionate to the harm done as a result.
This is just mad. You are prepared to see people potentially dying through medicine shortages in order to hit a particular date in the calendar.
Who was the last Speaker to become PM? I've got a feeling it was Henry Addington in 1801, although Charles Manners-Sutton was considered for it in the 1830s.
So we're going back a very long way indeed...
Is it necessary for the Speaker to be PM? Is it not sufficient for Parliament to give authority to the Speaker over A50 matters, to extend or revoke, during an election period?
Would a vote by parliament give him executive authority ? I may be wrong, but it's HM's government not Parliaments, no?
All this talk of GNU is fanciful, it would be almost entirely without Tory support.
80%+ of it's support would be from labour mps, with backing from the snp, a handful of lib Dems and sub 10 Tories. Making Ken Clark PM doesn't suddenly make it a GNU, it'd be wildly partizan.
Nothing without the support of 100 Tories could claim the name honesty
Clarke himself is talking about negotiating a softer Brexit. His GNU is a far more extensive project than Corbyn's splash and dash, extension and election.
Clarke would be talking about a softer Brexit than May's Shit Deal.
He is the most extreme EU fanatic in the House, with a decades-long track record and three failed bids to be Tory leader to back that up. His view of the EU is suported by well below 10% of the public. The idea of putting him in charge of implementing something voted for by 52% of the public is frankly risible.
Rather than Brexit, he'd no doubt love to sign us up to the Euro in a hearbeat.
You want the ultimate in broken politics? Prime Minister Ken Clarke is that ultimate. A man with no mandate whatsoever, it would also only be a short term fix for the EU. Because PM Farage would follow on in short order, with a mandate and the MPs to rip us out of the EU, whatever Clarke had signed up to.
To be fair, Mr M, Kenneth Clarke three times voted for Brexit.
Quite. It should be those who voted against a deal to leave the EU in parliament who should have any death as a result of no deal,on their conscience.
We are leaving the EU. No ifs or buts. Parliament rejected the smooth transition, not the Government.
The current government has no mandate for no deal Brexit. It was not the prospectus. Those, like you, who give them a free pass to damage the country in this way working to an artificial deadline that the public has never been consulted on are deranged.
The deadline was fixed by the HoC when it resolved overwhelmingly to serve the Article 50 notice. The fact that that 2 year period was then extended to little purpose (other than finally getting rid of an incompetent PM) does not change that.
There is nothing stopping the government seeking to change the deadline to achieve an orderly Brexit. But it prefers to risk serious disruption, suffering and in all probability death.
You don’t want an orderly brexit. You want no brexit. Delay increases the chance of that happening.
To be fair, Mr M, Kenneth Clarke three times voted for Brexit.
Quite. It should be those who voted against a deal to leave the EU in parliament who should have any death as a result of no deal,on their conscience.
We are leaving the EU. No ifs or buts. Parliament rejected the smooth transition, not the Government.
The current government has no mandate for no deal Brexit. It was not the prospectus. Those, like you, who give them a free pass to damage the country in this way working to an artificial deadline that the public has never been consulted on are deranged.
The deadline was fixed by the HoC when it resolved overwhelmingly to serve the Article 50 notice. The fact that that 2 year period was then extended to little purpose (other than finally getting rid of an incompetent PM) does not change that.
There is nothing stopping the government seeking to change the deadline to achieve an orderly Brexit. But it prefers to risk serious disruption, suffering and in all probability death.
And your evidence that yet more time would allow an orderly Brexit is? I don't have a fetish about 31st October but delay for delays sake is the worst of all worlds. If it was a further short delay to allow May's deal (give or take) to be implemented fine, but we have still to see any evidence that that has sufficient support even facing a no deal deadline.
The government is nowhere near prepared for a no deal exit on 31 October yet it plans for it, “do or die”. But it won’t be them dying.
At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious there is a world of difference between a government serious about carrying out its policy taking precautions to cover the faint risk of any disruption and the supposed inevitability of that disruption. Had May done something similar we would have left months ago and now be talking about something more interesting.
Not true. Brexit has changed how friends and family behave towards each other IRL, and not for the better.
I was out with a friend from Ulster last night, who I had not met for many years. He has lived his entire post-university life in England, and has a UUP, then Con, background. In passing I mentioned the “B” word, and he immediately became serious and just said that that was not a topic he was willing to talk about.
He explained his refusal by drawing a parallel with his childhood/youth during The Troubles. For the NI adults around him, the “T” word back then was like the “B” word is now in England: you only talk about it openly and honestly with very close friends and family, and even then, only whispering behind net-curtains. In other words, there is a virtual civil-war going on out there in his previously tranquil patch of Merrie Olde southern England. It was quite perturbing to see his otherwise jolly and relaxed demeanour become instantly so anguished at the passing mention of a word.
That sense of menace is a fraction of what will happen if brexit is ultimately stopped though.
Or indeed if we No Deal and it turns out as bad as many fear and predict.
What many people "feared and predicted" turns out (Sunday Times) to be the Govenment's "base planning scenario".
The worst case is still unleaked.
Over and over I’ve made the point about the dangers of shortages of medical supplies. People will die as a result. I still await the number of avoidable deaths that will make no dealers decide that Brexit wasn’t worth it.
Read a follow-up comment on one of the twitter feeds that it's shaping up to be an incredibly bad flu season.
Yes, it looks to be a very bad flu season, as we get the strain that is causing problems in Australia a few months later. Even in August we have been cancelling elective surgery for no beds. Last week the Nottingham hospitals were on black alert,and in Leicester not much better.
All this talk of GNU is fanciful, it would be almost entirely without Tory support.
80%+ of it's support would be from labour mps, with backing from the snp, a handful of lib Dems and sub 10 Tories. Making Ken Clark PM doesn't suddenly make it a GNU, it'd be wildly partizan.
Nothing without the support of 100 Tories could claim the name honesty
Clarke himself is talking about negotiating a softer Brexit. His GNU is a far more extensive project than Corbyn's splash and dash, extension and election.
Clarke would be talking about a softer Brexit than May's Shit Deal.
He is the most extreme EU fanatic in the House, with a decades-long track record and three failed bids to be Tory leader to back that up. His view of the EU is suported by well below 10% of the public. The idea of putting him in charge of implementing something voted for by 52% of the public is frankly risible.
Rather than Brexit, he'd no doubt love to sign us up to the Euro in a hearbeat.
You want the ultimate in broken politics? Prime Minister Ken Clarke is that ultimate. A man with no mandate whatsoever, it would also only be a short term fix for the EU. Because PM Farage would follow on in short order, with a mandate and the MPs to rip us out of the EU, whatever Clarke had signed up to.
To be fair, Mr M, Kenneth Clarke three times voted for Brexit.
Quite. It should be those who voted against a deal to leave the EU in parliament who should have any death as a result of no deal,on their conscience.
We are leaving the EU. No ifs or buts. Parliament rejected the smooth transition, not the Government.
The current government has no mandate for no deal Brexit. It was not the prospectus. Those, like you, who give them a free pass to damage the country in this way working to an artificial deadline that the public has never been consulted on are deranged.
I didn’t want no deal. I urged my MP to vote for a deal, which he did. The decision to leave was made three years ago. It has to be honoured. Any further delay is not designed to result in a better deal to leave but to lengthen the time since the vote was taken and reduce its legitimacy.
The game is up. We leave on Oct 31st. Full stop. We know who is to blame for leaving without a deal. And hopefully they will get a reckoning proportionate to the harm done as a result.
Which will be Johnson’s government.
It might. It might not. I would hazard a guess on him having a slicker PR operation to apply blame where it should go.
Clarke himself is talking about negotiating a softer Brexit. His GNU is a far more extensive project than Corbyn's splash and dash, extension and election.
Clarke would be talking about a softer Brexit than May's Shit Deal.
He is the most extreme EU fanatic in the House, with a decades-long track record and three failed bids to be Tory leader to back that up. His view of the EU is suported by well below 10% of the public. The idea of putting him in charge of implementing something voted for by 52% of the public is frankly risible.
Rather than Brexit, he'd no doubt love to sign us up to the Euro in a hearbeat.
You want the ultimate in broken politics? Prime Minister Ken Clarke is that ultimate. A man with no mandate whatsoever, it would also only be a short term fix for the EU. Because PM Farage would follow on in short order, with a mandate and the MPs to rip us out of the EU, whatever Clarke had signed up to.
To be fair, Mr M, Kenneth Clarke three times voted for Brexit.
Quite. It should be those who voted against a deal to leave the EU in parliament who should have any death as a result of no deal,on their conscience.
We are leaving the EU. No ifs or buts. Parliament rejected the smooth transition, not the Government.
The current government has no mandate for no deal Brexit. It was not the prospectus. Those, like you, who give them a free pass to damage the country in this way working to an artificial deadline that the public has never been consulted on are deranged.
The deadline was fixed by the HoC when it resolved overwhelmingly to serve the Article 50 notice. The fact that that 2 year period was then extended to little purpose (other than finally getting rid of an incompetent PM) does not change that.
There is nothing stopping the government seeking to change the deadline to achieve an orderly Brexit. But it prefers to risk serious disruption, suffering and in all probability death.
You don’t want an orderly brexit. You want no brexit. Delay increases the chance of that happening.
I am getting bored of saying it, but yet again a death cult Leaver lies about me. I have repeatedly said I would have voted for the withdrawal agreement.
At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious there is a world of difference between a government serious about carrying out its policy taking precautions to cover the faint risk of any disruption and the supposed inevitability of that disruption. Had May done something similar we would have left months ago and now be talking about something more interesting.
It is not a faint risk. It is a clear and present and very high risk. So much depends on Dover and that is clearly going to be chaos.
To be fair, Mr M, Kenneth Clarke three times voted for Brexit.
Quite. It should be those who voted against a deal to leave the EU in parliament who should have any death as a result of no deal,on their conscience.
We are leaving the EU. No ifs or buts. Parliament rejected the smooth transition, not the Government.
The current government has no mandate for no deal Brexit. It was not the prospectus. Those, like you, who give them a free pass to damage the country in this way working to an artificial deadline that the public has never been consulted on are deranged.
The deadline was fixed by the HoC when it resolved overwhelmingly to serve the Article 50 notice. The fact that that 2 year period was then extended to little purpose (other than finally getting rid of an incompetent PM) does not change that.
There is nothing stopping the government seeking to change the deadline to achieve an orderly Brexit. But it prefers to risk serious disruption, suffering and in all probability death.
And your evidence that yet more time would allow an orderly Brexit is? I don't have a fetish about 31st October but delay for delays sake is the worst of all worlds. If it was a further short delay to allow May's deal (give or take) to be implemented fine, but we have still to see any evidence that that has sufficient support even facing a no deal deadline.
The government is nowhere near prepared for a no deal exit on 31 October yet it plans for it, “do or die”. But it won’t be them dying.
There is a limit to what can be done for a no deal Brexit since the solutions are generally bilateral rather than unilateral. But that is (a) why no deal is not optimal and (b) no different in October than it would be on any subsequent date.
All this talk of GNU is fanciful, it would be almost entirely without Tory support.
80%+ of it's support would be from labour mps, with backing from the snp, a handful of lib Dems and sub 10 Tories. Making Ken Clark PM doesn't suddenly make it a GNU, it'd be wildly partizan.
Nothing without the support of 100 Tories could claim the name honesty
Clarke himself is talking about negotiating a softer Brexit. His GNU is a far more extensive project than Corbyn's splash and dash, extension and election.
Clarke would be talking about a softer Brexit than May's Shit Deal.
He is the most extreme EU fanatic in the House, with a decades-long track record and three failed bids to be Tory leader to back that up. His view of the EU is suported by well below 10% of the public. The idea of putting him in charge of implementing something voted for by 52% of the public is frankly risible.
Rather than Brexit, he'd no doubt love to sign us up to the Euro in a hearbeat.
You want the ultimate in broken politics? Prime Minister Ken Clarke is that ultimate. A man with no mandate whatsoever, it would also only be a short term fix for the EU. Because PM Farage would follow on in short order, with a mandate and the MPs to rip us out of the EU, whatever Clarke had signed up to.
To be fair, Mr M, Kenneth Clarke three times voted for Brexit.
snip We are leaving the EU. No ifs or buts. Parliament rejected the smooth transition, not the Government.
The current government has no mandate for no deal Brexit. It was not the prospectus. Those, like you, who give them a free pass to damage the country in this way working to an artificial deadline that the public has never been consulted on are deranged.
I didn’t want no deal. I urged my MP to vote for a deal, which he did. The decision to leave was made three years ago. It has to be honoured. Any further delay is not designed to result in a better deal to leave but to lengthen the time since the vote was taken and reduce its legitimacy.
The game is up. We leave on Oct 31st. Full stop. We know who is to blame for leaving without a deal. And hopefully they will get a reckoning proportionate to the harm done as a result.
Which will be Johnson’s government.
It might. It might not. I would hazard a guess on him having a slicker PR operation to apply blame where it should go.
All this talk of GNU is fanciful, it would be almost entirely without Tory support.
80%+ of it's support would be from labour mps, with backing from the snp, a handful of lib Dems and sub 10 Tories. Making Ken Clark PM doesn't suddenly make it a GNU, it'd be wildly partizan.
Nothing without the support of 100 Tories could claim the name honesty
Clarke himself is talking about negotiating a softer Brexit. His GNU is a far more extensive project than Corbyn's splash and dash, extension and election.
Clarke would be talking about a softer Brexit than May's Shit Deal.
He is the most extreme EU fanatic in the House, with a decades-long track record and three failed bids to be Tory leader to back that up. His view of the EU is suported by well below 10% of the public. The idea of putting him in charge of implementing something voted for by 52% of the public is frankly risible.
Rather than Brexit, he'd no doubt love to sign us up to the Euro in a hearbeat.
You want the ultimate in broken politics? Prime Minister Ken Clarke is that ultimate. A man with no mandate whatsoever, it would also only be a short term fix for the EU. Because PM Farage would follow on in short order, with a mandate and the MPs to rip us out of the EU, whatever Clarke had signed up to.
Your rant is demonstrably untrue and idiotic as a result - Clarke is not the most extreme EU fanatic in the House because he has actually voted to leave the EU against his own inclination, despite not having voted for A50. There are plenty of others including other Tories who have refused to do that.
Its a silly season idea that he should be PM and obviously his preference would be we remain, but his actions voting for the WA prove your bitter bitter words that he is the most extreme are an absolute and provable lie.
What a silly comment to make when tha general point, that he is not suited to the role people are suggested because his general views are so unpopular, is much more reasonable.
You've made your entire post essentially invalid because you open with a lie.
This is like that faux surprise the other day that politicians are not bound by anything they say. Entirely phoney.
Clarke himself is talking about negotiating a softer Brexit. His GNU is a far more extensive project than Corbyn's splash and dash, extension and election.
Clarke would be talking about a softer Brexit than May's Shit Deal.
He is the most extreme EU fanatic in the House, with a decades-long track record and three failed bids to be Tory leader to back that up. His view of the EU is suported by well below 10% of the public. The idea of putting him in charge of implementing something voted for by 52% of the public is frankly risible.
Rather than Brexit, he'd no doubt love to sign us up to the Euro in a hearbeat.
You want the ultimate in broken politics? Prime Minister Ken Clarke is that ultimate. A man with no mandate whatsoever, it would also only be a short term fix for the EU. Because PM Farage would follow on in short order, with a mandate and the MPs to rip us out of the EU, whatever Clarke had signed up to.
To be fair, Mr M, Kenneth Clarke three times voted for Brexit.
Quite. It should be those who voted against a deal to leave the EU in parliament who should have any death as a result of no deal,on their conscience.
We are leaving the EU. No ifs or buts. Parliament rejected the smooth transition, not the Government.
The current government has no mandate for no deal Brexit. It was not the prospectus. Those, like you, who give them a free pass to damage the country in this way working to an artificial deadline that the public has never been consulted on are deranged.
The deadline was fixed by the HoC when it resolved overwhelmingly to serve the Article 50 notice. The fact that that 2 year period was then extended to little purpose (other than finally getting rid of an incompetent PM) does not change that.
There is nothing stopping the government seeking to change the deadline to achieve an orderly Brexit. But it prefers to risk serious disruption, suffering and in all probability death.
You don’t want an orderly brexit. You want no brexit. Delay increases the chance of that happening.
I am getting bored of saying it, but yet again a death cult Leaver lies about me. I have repeatedly said I would have voted for the withdrawal agreement.
I apologise. I haven’t read you say you would have voted for the WA.
Clarke himself is talking about negotiating a softer Brexit. His GNU is a far more extensive project than Corbyn's splash and dash, extension and election.
Clarke would be talking about a softer Brexit than May's Shit Deal.
He is the most extreme EU fanatic in the House, with a decades-long track record and three failed bids to be Tory leader to back that up. His view of the EU is suported by well below 10% of the public. The idea of putting him in charge of implementing something voted for by 52% of the public is frankly risible.
Rather than Brexit, he'd no doubt love to sign us up to the Euro in a hearbeat.
You want the ultimate in broken politics? Prime Minister Ken Clarke is that ultimate. A man with no mandate whatsoever, it would also only be a short term fix for the EU. Because PM Farage would follow on in short order, with a mandate and the MPs to rip us out of the EU, whatever Clarke had signed up to.
To be fair, Mr M, Kenneth Clarke three times voted for Brexit.
Quite. It should be those who voted against a deal to leave the EU in parliament who should have any death as a result of no deal,on their conscience.
We are leaving the EU. No ifs or buts. Parliament rejected the smooth transition, not the Government.
The current government has no mandate for no deal Brexit. It was not the prospectus. Those, like you, who give them a free pass to damage the country in this way working to an artificial deadline that the public has never been consulted on are deranged.
The deadline was fixed by the HoC when it resolved overwhelmingly to serve the Article 50 notice. The fact that that 2 year period was then extended to little purpose (other than finally getting rid of an incompetent PM) does not change that.
There is nothing stopping the government seeking to change the deadline to achieve an orderly Brexit. But it prefers to risk serious disruption, suffering and in all probability death.
You don’t want an orderly brexit. You want no brexit. Delay increases the chance of that happening.
I am getting bored of saying it, but yet again a death cult Leaver lies about me. I have repeatedly said I would have voted for the withdrawal agreement.
I apologise. I haven’t read you say you would have voted for the WA.
Don’t make up facts. No wonder you’re so blasé about no deal. You simply tune out what you don’t want to hear.
All this talk of GNU is fanciful, it would be almost entirely without Tory support.
80%+ of it's support would be from labour mps, with backing from the snp, a handful of lib Dems and sub 10 Tories. Making Ken Clark PM doesn't suddenly make it a GNU, it'd be wildly partizan.
Nothing without the support of 100 Tories could claim the name honesty
Clarke himself is talking about negotiating a softer Brexit. His GNU is a far more extensive project than Corbyn's splash and dash, extension and election.
Clarke would be talking about a softer Brexit than May's Shit Deal.
He is the most extreme EU fanatic in the House, with a decades-long track record and three failed bids to be Tory leader to back that up. His view of the EU is suported by well below 10% of the public. The idea of putting him in charge of implementing something voted for by 52% of the public is frankly risible.
Rather than Brexit, he'd no doubt love to sign us up to the Euro in a hearbeat.
You want the ultimate in broken politics? Prime Minister Ken Clarke is that ultimate. A man with no mandate whatsoever, it would also only be a short term fix for the EU. Because PM Farage would follow on in short order, with a mandate and the MPs to rip us out of the EU, whatever Clarke had signed up to.
To be fair, Mr M, Kenneth Clarke three times voted for Brexit.
Quite. It should be those who voted against a deal to leave the EU in parliament who should have any death as a result of no deal,on their conscience.
We are leaving the EU. No ifs or buts. Parliament rejected the smooth transition, not the Government.
The current government has no mandate for no deal Brexit. It was not the prospectus. Those, like you, who give them a free pass to damage the country in this way working to an artificial deadline that the public has never been consulted on are deranged.
I didn’t want no deal. I urged my MP to vote for a deal, which he did. The decision to leave was made three years ago. It has to be honoured. Any further delay is not designed to result in a better deal to leave but to lengthen the time since the vote was taken and reduce its legitimacy.
The game is up. We leave on Oct 31st. Full stop. We know who is to blame for leaving without a deal. And hopefully they will get a reckoning proportionate to the harm done as a result.
Just idiotic. The Oct 31 data is entirely artificial.
All this talk of GNU is fanciful, it would be almost entirely without Tory support.
80%+ of it's support would be from labour mps, with backing from the snp, a handful of lib Dems and sub 10 Tories. Making Ken Clark PM doesn't suddenly make it a GNU, it'd be wildly partizan.
Nothing without the support of 100 Tories could claim the name honesty
Clarke himself is talking about negotiating a softer Brexit. His GNU is a far more extensive project than Corbyn's splash and dash, extension and election.
Clarke would be talking about a softer Brexit than May's Shit Deal.
He is the most extreme EU fanatic in the House, with a decades-long track record and three failed bids to be Tory leader to back that up. His view of the EU is suported by well below 10% of the public. The idea of putting him in charge of implementing something voted for by 52% of the public is frankly risibo.
To be fair, Mr M, Kenneth Clarke three times voted for Brexit.
Quite. It should be those who voted against a deal to leave the EU in parliament who should have any death as a result of no deal,on their conscience.
We are leaving the EU. No ifs or buts. Parliament rejected the smooth transition, not the Government.
The current government has no mandate for no deal Brexit. It was not the prospectus. Those, like you, who give them a free pass to damage the country in this way working to an artificial deadline that the public has never been consulted on are deranged.
The deadline was fixed by the HoC when it resolved overwhelmingly to serve the Article 50 notice. The fact that that 2 year period was then extended to little purpose (other than finally getting rid of an incompetent PM) does not change that.
There is nothing stopping the government seeking to change the deadline to achieve an orderly Brexit. But it prefers to risk serious disruption, suffering and in all probability death.
I don't see much point in an extension unless there is either a GE or a #peoplesvote.
If we are going to No Deal with Bozo at the wheel, a car crash into this tree on 31 October, is the same as a different tree on another day.
I don't expect it will be as bad as so many are saying, but an outcome supported by a rapidly shrinking third of the population is not going to be popular. @Stuart_Dickson s conversation with his Ulsterman has the ominous ring of truth. Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan.
All this talk of GNU is fanciful, it would be almost entirely without Tory support.
80%+ of it's support would be from labour mps, with backing from the snp, a handful of lib Dems and sub 10 Tories. Making Ken Clark PM doesn't suddenly make it a GNU, it'd be wildly partizan.
Nothing without the support of 100 Tories could claim the name honesty
Clarke himself is talking about negotiating a softer Brexit. His GNU is a far more extensive project than Corbyn's splash and dash, extension and election.
Clarke would be talking about a softer Brexit than May's Shit Deal.
He is the most extreme EU fanatic in the House, with a decades-long track record and three failed bids to be Tory leader to back that up. His view of the EU is suported by well below 10% of the public. The idea of putting him in charge of implementing something voted for by 52% of the public is frankly risible.
Rather than Brexit, he'd no doubt love to sign us up to the Euro in a hearbeat.
You want the ultimate in broken politics? Prime Minister Ken Clarke is that ultimate. A man with no mandate whatsoever, it would also only be a short term fix for the EU. Because PM Farage would follow on in short order, with a mandate and the MPs to rip us out of the EU, whatever Clarke had signed up to.
To be fair, Mr M, Kenneth Clarke three times voted for Brexit.
Quite. It should be those who voted against a deal to leave the EU in parliament who should have any death as a result of no deal,on their conscience.
We are leaving the EU. No ifs or buts. Parliament rejected the smooth transition, not the Government.
The current government has no mandate for no deal Brexit. It was not the prospectus. Those, like you, who give them a free pass to damage the country in this way working to an artificial deadline that the public has never been consulted on are deranged.
I didn’t want no deal. I urged my MP to vote for a deal, which he did. The decision to leave was made three gitimacy.
The game is up. We leave on Oct 31st. Full stop. We know who is to blame for leaving without a deal. And hopefully they will get a reckoning proportionate to the harm done as a result.
Just idiotic. The Oct 31 data is entirely artificial.
Quite. And we know for a fact people saying Brexit do or die dont accept non optimal Brexits as they voted down the WA. So if they can reject non optimal brexits why is no one else allowed to?
At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious there is a world of difference between a government serious about carrying out its policy taking precautions to cover the faint risk of any disruption and the supposed inevitability of that disruption. Had May done something similar we would have left months ago and now be talking about something more interesting.
It is not a faint risk. It is a clear and present and very high risk. So much depends on Dover and that is clearly going to be chaos.
It's like arguing with the flat earth society.
Jesus, the concept of contingency planning seems to be utterly unknown to the Chicken Licken brigade.
You identify weaknesses - then plan to avoid those weaknesses. And if that planning fails, you fire Michael Gove. Michael Gove has no intention of being fired and the fall guy for any of No Deal Brexit's short-comings.
A cynical person might think that a Govt. minister who is planning for civil contingencies might like to have the worst case scenarios out there - comfortable that the planning is in place to ensure that they won't come about. And when the worst doesn't come about, they can look a hero for making sure the worst never happened.
But that wouldn't describe Michael Gove, now would it.....much!
Any policy supported do or die explicitly accepts it is going to do it even if they themselves have a better option (say even a week extra to prepare). That's crazy. Its an admission even if the great new deal was imminent theyd not delay among other things.
"The EU agreed a deal with us. The deal was - basically - a good one. Could it have been better? Yes."
Who rejected the deal? MPs. Most of the MPs who voted against were Labour and the militant Remainers. The Leave voters had no say.
Are you arguing that the May deal should have gone through on the basis of opposition votes? With most government backbenchers voting against? Really?
The ERG trashed the May plan within minutes of its publication, before they could possibly have read it. They celebrated the failure of MV1 with a champagne reception. Key ERG types are in charge of government now. This is what they've wanted all along. Any narrative that blames others will be seen as self-serving tosh.
Suck it up, winners.
If the opposition wished to stop a no deal Brexit they should have.
As someone who'd rather no deal than May's deal I'm grateful for the opposition facilitating our victory. We couldn't have done this without you.
Quite. It should be those who voted against a deal to leave the EU in parliament who should have any death as a result of no deal,on their conscience.
We are leaving the EU. No ifs or buts. Parliament rejected the smooth transition, not the Government.
The current government has no mandate for no deal Brexit. It was not the prospectus. Those, like you, who give them a free pass to damage the country in this way working to an artificial deadline that the public has never been consulted on are deranged.
The deadline was fixed by the HoC when it resolved overwhelmingly to serve the Article 50 notice. The fact that that 2 year period was then extended to little purpose (other than finally getting rid of an incompetent PM) does not change that.
There is nothing stopping the government seeking to change the deadline to achieve an orderly Brexit. But it prefers to risk serious disruption, suffering and in all probability death.
I don't see much point in an extension unless there is either a GE or a #peoplesvote.
If we are going to No Deal with Bozo at the wheel, a car crash into this tree on 31 October, is the same as a different tree on another day.
I don't expect it will be as bad as so many are saying, but an outcome supported by a rapidly shrinking third of the population is not going to be popular. @Stuart_Dickson s conversation with his Ulsterman has the ominous ring of truth. Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan.
This is where I am with the faint hope that if MPs appreciate that the new PM really means it (unlike the last one) some sort of sanity will break out and we will go back to the deal.
Quite. It should be those who voted against a deal to leave the EU in parliament who should have any death as a result of no deal,on their conscience.
We are leaving the EU. No ifs or buts. Parliament rejected the smooth transition, not the Government.
The current government has no mandate for no deal Brexit. It was not the prospectus. Those, like you, who give them a free pass to damage the country in this way working to an artificial deadline that the public has never been consulted on are deranged.
The deadline was fixed by the HoC when it resolved overwhelmingly to serve the Article 50 notice. The fact that that 2 year period was then extended to little purpose (other than finally getting rid of an incompetent PM) does not change that.
There is nothing stopping the government seeking to change the deadline to achieve an orderly Brexit. But it prefers to risk serious disruption, suffering and in all probability death.
I don't see much point in an extension unless there is either a GE or a #peoplesvote.
If we are going to No Deal with Bozo at the wheel, a car crash into this tree on 31 October, is the same as a different tree on another day.
I don't expect it will be as bad as so many are saying, but an outcome supported by a rapidly shrinking third of the population is not going to be popular. @Stuart_Dickson s conversation with his Ulsterman has the ominous ring of truth. Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan.
This is where I am with the faint hope that if MPs appreciate that the new PM really means it (unlike the last one) some sort of sanity will break out and we will go back to the deal.
According to the BBC News website Owen Jones claims he has been attacked by "far right activists" outside a pub in the early hours.
Yes and he correctly blames the right wing press. Looking at tomorrow's Mail you can see why. It's reverted to being a rag and a dangerous one. Words like 'saboteurs' are not a good idea . Next comes enemies within
1. Sympathies to OJ and I hope he's not too badly hurt.
2. I see you have seen the completed Police investigation and convictions which prove his claim that organs of the press were responsible for the attack.
3. I know you would wish to avoid wild unsubtantiated allegations without a scintilla of actual evidence to back them up .... would you?
Owen Jones knew they were targetting him not the six friends he was with though they too got beaten up. He believed it was provoked by press hounding and a brief glance at the Mail any day of the week including this morning suggests he is correct
Quite. It should be those who voted against a deal to leave the EU in parliament who should have any death as a result of no deal,on their conscience.
We are leaving the EU. No ifs or buts. Parliament rejected the smooth transition, not the Government.
The current government has no mandate for no deal Brexit. It was not the prospectus. Those, like you, who give them a free pass to damage the country in this way working to an artificial deadline that the public has never been consulted on are deranged.
The deadline was fixed by the HoC when it resolved overwhelmingly to serve the Article 50 notice. The fact that that 2 year period was then extended to little purpose (other than finally getting rid of an incompetent PM) does not change that.
There is nothing stopping the government seeking to change the deadline to achieve an orderly Brexit. But it prefers to risk serious disruption, suffering and in all probability death.
I don't see much point in an extension unless there is either a GE or a #peoplesvote.
If we are going to No Deal with Bozo at the wheel, a car crash into this tree on 31 October, is the same as a different tree on another day.
I don't expect it will be as bad as so many are saying, but an outcome supported by a rapidly shrinking third of the population is not going to be popular. @Stuart_Dickson s conversation with his Ulsterman has the ominous ring of truth. Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan.
This is where I am with the faint hope that if MPs appreciate that the new PM really means it (unlike the last one) some sort of sanity will break out and we will go back to the deal.
The deal is dead.
May's deal is dead. Boris' super improved but remarkably similar deal is yet to be born. And its birth is both uncertain and possibly still born. But I can hope.
A few possible , maybe ships in the 2030's if they can afford them , that will seal it right enough PS: only 2 guaranteed and they are already being done less than 7000 jobs and expectation that Brexit will cost 100,000
At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious there is a world of difference between a government serious about carrying out its policy taking precautions to cover the faint risk of any disruption and the supposed inevitability of that disruption. Had May done something similar we would have left months ago and now be talking about something more interesting.
It is not a faint risk. It is a clear and present and very high risk. So much depends on Dover and that is clearly going to be chaos.
It's like arguing with the flat earth society.
Jesus, the concept of contingency planning seems to be utterly unknown to the Chicken Licken brigade.
You identify weaknesses - then plan to avoid those weaknesses. And if that planning fails, you fire Michael Gove. Michael Gove has no intention of being fired and the fall guy for any of No Deal Brexit's short-comings.
A cynical person might think that a Govt. minister who is planning for civil contingencies might like to have the worst case scenarios out there - comfortable that the planning is in place to ensure that they won't come about. And when the worst doesn't come about, they can look a hero for making sure the worst never happened.
But that wouldn't describe Michael Gove, now would it.....much!
That’s true. But the Times report isn’t “Worst Case” but “planning assumption”.
Quite. It should be those who voted against a deal to leave the EU in parliament who should have any death as a result of no deal,on their conscience.
We are leaving the EU. No ifs or buts. Parliament rejected the smooth transition, not the Government.
The current government has no mandate for no deal Brexit. It was not the prospectus. Those, like you, who give them a free pass to damage the country in this way working to an artificial deadline that the public has never been consulted on are deranged.
The deadline was fixed by the HoC when it resolved overwhelmingly to serve the Article 50 notice. The fact that that 2 year period was then extended to little purpose (other than finally getting rid of an incompetent PM) does not change that.
There is nothing stopping the government seeking to change the deadline to achieve an orderly Brexit. But it prefers to risk serious disruption, suffering and in all probability death.
I don't see much point in an extension unless there is either a GE or a #peoplesvote.
If we are going to No Deal with Bozo at the wheel, a car crash into this tree on 31 October, is the same as a different tree on another day.
I don't expect it will be as bad as so many are saying, but an outcome supported by a rapidly shrinking third of the population is not going to be popular. @Stuart_Dickson s conversation with his Ulsterman has the ominous ring of truth. Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan.
This is where I am with the faint hope that if MPs appreciate that the new PM really means it (unlike the last one) some sort of sanity will break out and we will go back to the deal.
Passing May's Deal is the most obvious way to prevent No Deal.
Or more likely, was. Who is going to push it as our Last Best Hope, having seen the ignominous fate of the last person who did that?
At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious there is a world of difference between a government serious about carrying out its policy taking precautions to cover the faint risk of any disruption and the supposed inevitability of that disruption. Had May done something similar we would have left months ago and now be talking about something more interesting.
It is not a faint risk. It is a clear and present and very high risk. So much depends on Dover and that is clearly going to be chaos.
It's like arguing with the flat earth society.
Jesus, the concept of contingency planning seems to be utterly unknown to the Chicken Licken brigade.
You identify weaknesses - then plan to avoid those weaknesses. And if that planning fails, you fire Michael Gove. Michael Gove has no intention of being fired and the fall guy for any of No Deal Brexit's short-comings.
A cynical person might think that a Govt. minister who is planning for civil contingencies might like to have the worst case scenarios out there - comfortable that the planning is in place to ensure that they won't come about. And when the worst doesn't come about, they can look a hero for making sure the worst never happened.
But that wouldn't describe Michael Gove, now would it.....much!
That’s true. But the Times report isn’t “Worst Case” but “planning assumption”.
Planning assumption about what the risks are. Not what will happen. And prior to government actions to fixing those risks.
Any policy supported do or die explicitly accepts it is going to do it even if they themselves have a better option (say even a week extra to prepare). That's crazy. Its an admission even if the great new deal was imminent theyd not delay among other things.
The whole world can see that this government is crazy. It is prepared to drive the car over a cliff unless ... what? Or is it simply suicidal?
Someone needs to grab the wheel or the driver of car needs to do a last minute swerve. I suspect the driver wants someone else to grab the wheel.
One for the forthcoming Public inquiry on Brexit deaths.
The most likely cause of "Brexit deaths" will be some headcase Remainer losing it after he has failed in his plans to thwart the outcome of the Referendum.
Seriously what does no deal give us that May's deal didn't?
It doesn't give us a transition period but this is a bad thing.
It means we don't have the backstop but we have all the problems the backstop is supposed to address with no time to find an alternative solution. And if we leave and the transition period comes to an end how exactly are we going to be made to implement the backstop anyway? How do they hold us to it? They can't. Of course there would be a price for not doing so but that would be our choice.
Are we really not going to pay money we have agreed was due? Of course we are. It creates unnecessary uncertainty about future access to the SM particularly in regulatory equivalence.
Its really stupid but our political class have demonstrated their stupidity repeatedly.
At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious there is a world of difference between a government serious about carrying out its policy taking precautions to cover the faint risk of any disruption and the supposed inevitability of that disruption. Had May done something similar we would have left months ago and now be talking about something more interesting.
It is not a faint risk. It is a clear and present and very high risk. So much depends on Dover and that is clearly going to be chaos.
It's like arguing with the flat earth society.
Jesus, the concept of contingency planning seems to be utterly unknown to the Chicken Licken brigade.
You identify weaknesses - then plan to avoid those weaknesses. And if that planning fails, you fire Michael Gove. Michael Gove has no intention of being fired and the fall guy for any of No Deal Brexit's short-comings.
A cynical person might think that a Govt. minister who is planning for civil contingencies might like to have the worst case scenarios out there - comfortable that the planning is in place to ensure that they won't come about. And when the worst doesn't come about, they can look a hero for making sure the worst never happened.
But that wouldn't describe Michael Gove, now would it.....much!
That’s true. But the Times report isn’t “Worst Case” but “planning assumption”.
Again, how do you plan to avoid outcomes without those planning assumptions? The Govt. has assessed what could happen - without intervention. Then it plans interventions to mitigate those. Of course, better to do this over three years than three months *cough* Hammond you pillock *cough*.
According to the BBC News website Owen Jones claims he has been attacked by "far right activists" outside a pub in the early hours.
Yes and he correctly blames the right wing press. Looking at tomorrow's Mail you can see why. It's reverted to being a rag and a dangerous one. Words like 'saboteurs' are not a good idea . Next comes enemies within
1. Sympathies to OJ and I hope he's not too badly hurt.
2. I see you have seen the completed Police investigation and convictions which prove his claim that organs of the press were responsible for the attack.
3. I know you would wish to avoid wild unsubtantiated allegations without a scintilla of actual evidence to back them up .... would you?
Owen Jones knew they were targetting him not the six friends he was with though they too got beaten up. He believed it was provoked by press hounding and a brief glance at the Mail any day of the week including this morning suggests he is correct
Using the case to whip up hysteria against a free press without any investigation and based only on the belief of a non-neutral victim of an assault? Let's see what the Police say first before closing down newspapers should we? This is still a free country and a free press is an important part of that.
Jesus, the concept of contingency planning seems to be utterly unknown to the Chicken Licken brigade.
You identify weaknesses - then plan to avoid those weaknesses. And if that planning fails, you fire Michael Gove. Michael Gove has no intention of being fired and the fall guy for any of No Deal Brexit's short-comings.
According to the BBC News website Owen Jones claims he has been attacked by "far right activists" outside a pub in the early hours.
Yes and he correctly blames the right wing press. Looking at tomorrow's Mail you can see why. It's reverted to being a rag and a dangerous one. Words like 'saboteurs' are not a good idea . Next comes enemies within
1. Sympathies to OJ and I hope he's not too badly hurt.
2. I see you have seen the completed Police investigation and convictions which prove his claim that organs of the press were responsible for the attack.
3. I know you would wish to avoid wild unsubtantiated allegations without a scintilla of actual evidence to back them up .... would you?
Owen Jones knew they were targetting him not the six friends he was with though they too got beaten up. He believed it was provoked by press hounding and a brief glance at the Mail any day of the week including this morning suggests he is correct
Using the case to whip up hysteria against a free press without any investigation and based only on the belief of a non-neutral victim of an assault? Let's see what the Police say first before closing down newspapers should we? This is still a free country and a free press is an important part of that.
I am not sure that I could pick out Owen Jones in a line up, let alone a bar, and I am far more politically engaged than the average.
The most likely cause of "Brexit deaths" will be some headcase Remainer losing it after he has failed in his plans to thwart the outcome of the Referendum.
Any policy supported do or die explicitly accepts it is going to do it even if they themselves have a better option (say even a week extra to prepare). That's crazy. Its an admission even if the great new deal was imminent theyd not delay among other things.
The whole world can see that this government is crazy. It is prepared to drive the car over a cliff unless ... what? Or is it simply suicidal?
Someone needs to grab the wheel or the driver of car needs to do a last minute swerve. I suspect the driver wants someone else to grab the wheel.
But with Boris's positive can-do attitude, the car can turn into a jet plane!!!
The most likely cause of "Brexit deaths" will be some headcase Remainer losing it after he has failed in his plans to thwart the outcome of the Referendum.
Seriously what does no deal give us that May's deal didn't?
It doesn't give us a transition period but this is a bad thing.
It means we don't have the backstop but we have all the problems the backstop is supposed to address with no time to find an alternative solution. And if we leave and the transition period comes to an end how exactly are we going to be made to implement the backstop anyway? How do they hold us to it? They can't. Of course there would be a price for not doing so but that would be our choice.
Are we really not going to pay money we have agreed was due? Of course we are. It creates unnecessary uncertainty about future access to the SM particularly in regulatory equivalence.
Its really stupid but our political class have demonstrated their stupidity repeatedly.
It gives us a clean break without a backstop.
Yes the problems with the border are there. That is a good thing as those problems will be brought to the fore and need to be addressed.
It forces the Irish and the EU to be honest brokers in addressing the problems with the Irish border without relying upon the notion that they can thwart Brexit so don't need to bother or compromise.
Necessity is the mother of invention and once a technological solution to the border has been found that solution would work after a future deal (which will by that point bringing us closer together not further apart). So the backstop issue becomes moot.
Seriously what does no deal give us that May's deal didn't?
It doesn't give us a transition period but this is a bad thing.
It means we don't have the backstop but we have all the problems the backstop is supposed to address with no time to find an alternative solution. And if we leave and the transition period comes to an end how exactly are we going to be made to implement the backstop anyway? How do they hold us to it? They can't. Of course there would be a price for not doing so but that would be our choice.
Are we really not going to pay money we have agreed was due? Of course we are. It creates unnecessary uncertainty about future access to the SM particularly in regulatory equivalence.
Its really stupid but our political class have demonstrated their stupidity repeatedly.
It gives us a clean break without a backstop.
Yes the problems with the border are there. That is a good thing as those problems will be brought to the fore and need to be addressed.
It forces the Irish and the EU to be honest brokers in addressing the problems with the Irish border without relying upon the notion that they can thwart Brexit so don't need to bother or compromise.
Necessity is the mother of invention and once a technological solution to the border has been found that solution would work after a future deal (which will by that point bringing us closer together not further apart). So the backstop issue becomes moot.
That is what it gives us.
We can do all of that in the transition period. With more time and no crisis. It's stupid.
All this talk of GNU is fanciful, it would be almost entirely without Tory support.
80%+ of it's support would be from labour mps, with backing from the snp, a handful of lib Dems and sub 10 Tories. Making Ken Clark PM doesn't suddenly make it a GNU, it'd be wildly partizan.
Nothing without the support of 100 Tories could claim the name honesty
Clarke himself is talking about negotiating a softer Brexit. His GNU is a far more extensive project than Corbyn's splash and dash, extension and election.
Clarke would be talking about a softer Brexit than May's Shit Deal.
Rather than Brexit, he'd no doubt love to sign us up to the Euro in a hearbeat.
You want the ultimate in broken politics? Prime Minister Ken Clarke is that ultimate. A man with no mandate whatsoever, it would also only be a short term fix for the EU. Because PM Farage would follow on in short order, with a mandate and the MPs to rip us out of the EU, whatever Clarke had signed up to.
To be fair, Mr M, Kenneth Clarke three times voted for Brexit.
Quite. It should be those who voted against a deal to leave the EU in parliament who should have any death as a result of no deal,on their conscience.
We are leaving the EU. No ifs or buts. Parliament rejected the smooth transition, not the Government.
The current government has no mandate for no deal Brexit. It was not the prospectus. Those, like you, who give them a free pass to damage the country in this way working to an artificial deadline that the public has never been consulted on are deranged.
I didn’t want no deal. I urged my MP to vote for a deal, which he did. The decision to leave was made three years ago. It has to be honoured. Any further delay is not designed to result in a better deal to leave but to lengthen the time since the vote was taken and reduce its legitimacy.
The game is up. We leave on Oct 31st. Full stop. We know who is to blame for leaving without a deal. And hopefully they will get a reckoning proportionate to the harm done as a result.
This is just mad. You are prepared to see people potentially dying through medicine shortages in order to hit a particular date in the calendar.
A date set by the French to be awkward! So much for taking back control from the EU.
W'ere in another phase in which the leavers and remainers are polarised with an ever-increasing crescendo of hyperbolic claims of what the future may bring. Very frustrating for most of the public who simply see two groups of squabbling children while the country is without effective government.
It is true that the RoW look on in disbelief but wrong to think that is all one-sided. A plague on both houses is what I hear most with politicians and press held in pretty equal contempt. The inability to compromise on both sides is utterly contemptible.
At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious there is a world of difference between a government serious about carrying out its policy taking precautions to cover the faint risk of any disruption and the supposed inevitability of that disruption. Had May done something similar we would have left months ago and now be talking about something more interesting.
It is not a faint risk. It is a clear and present and very high risk. So much depends on Dover and that is clearly going to be chaos.
It's like arguing with the flat earth society.
Jesus, the concept of contingency planning seems to be utterly unknown to the Chicken Licken brigade.
You identify weaknesses - then plan to avoid those weaknesses. And if that planning fails, you fire Michael Gove. Michael Gove has no intention of being fired and the fall guy for any of No Deal Brexit's short-comings.
A cynical person might think that a Govt. minister who is planning for civil contingencies might like to have the worst case scenarios out there - comfortable that the planning is in place to ensure that they won't come about. And when the worst doesn't come about, they can look a hero for making sure the worst never happened.
But that wouldn't describe Michael Gove, now would it.....much!
That’s true. But the Times report isn’t “Worst Case” but “planning assumption”.
Again, how do you plan to avoid outcomes without those planning assumptions? The Govt. has assessed what could happen - without intervention. Then it plans interventions to mitigate those. Of course, better to do this over three years than three months *cough* Hammond you pillock *cough*.
I'm doubtful what can be planned for. On a trip to Nice last month I was in a queue for over an hour because there was one person checking the passports of 150 people. It normally takes ten minutes max. Whether this was just a freak organisational problem or whether it was someone making a point I have no idea. Towards the end there was some obvious anger in the queue. Imagine this multiplied by several thousand and in a thousand different situations and we'll end up with some angry people which no 'no deal' planning can sort out.
"The European Communities Act has meant that if there is a clash between an act of the British Parliament and EU law, EU law prevails. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has interpreted EU law and delivered judgments that were binding on the UK and other member states. The repeal Bill will end ECJ jurisdiction in the UK."
Well, personally, I still believe Sovereignty isn’t like something you have, give away, and get back again after a vote to repatriate it. Sovereignty operates like a currency, you have 100 in the bank, put 20 to work to your advantage. Such as membership of the world’s largest trading bloc with over 500 million consumers, representing 23% of global GDP. Removal of trade barriers and greater trade efficiency’s to 44% of all UK exports.
and that this smug looking man in the photograph is deluded.
At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious there is a world of difference between a government serious about carrying out its policy taking precautions to cover the faint risk of any disruption and the supposed inevitability of that disruption. Had May done something similar we would have left months ago and now be talking about something more interesting.
It is not a faint risk. It is a clear and present and very high risk. So much depends on Dover and that is clearly going to be chaos.
It's like arguing with the flat earth society.
Jesus, the concept of contingency planning seems to be utterly unknown to the Chicken Licken brigade.
You identify weaknesses - then plan to avoid those weaknesses. And if that planning fails, you fire Michael Gove. Michael Gove has no intention of being fired and the fall guy for any of No Deal Brexit's short-comings.
A cynical person might think that a Govt. minister who is planning for civil contingencies might like to have the worst case scenarios out there - comfortable that the planning is in place to ensure that they won't come about. And when the worst doesn't come about, they can look a hero for making sure the worst never happened.
But that wouldn't describe Michael Gove, now would it.....much!
That’s true. But the Times report isn’t “Worst Case” but “planning assumption”.
Again, how do you plan to avoid outcomes without those planning assumptions? The Govt. has assessed what could happen - without intervention. Then it plans interventions to mitigate those. Of course, better to do this over three years than three months *cough* Hammond you pillock *cough*.
I'm doubtful what can be planned for. On a trip to Nice last month I was in a queue for over an hour because there was one person checking the passports of 150 people. It normally takes ten minutes max. Whether this was just a freak organisational problem or whether it was someone making a point I have no idea. Towards the end there was some obvious anger in the queue. Imagine this multiplied by several thousand and in a thousand different situations and we'll end up with some angry people which no 'no deal' planning can sort out.
This is happening whilst we are inside the EU and will not change however we leave. French indifference to customer service is allegedly part of their charm.
Seriously what does no deal give us that May's deal didn't?
It doesn't give us a transition period but this is a bad thing.
It means we don't have the backstop but we have all the problems the backstop is supposed to address with no time to find an alternative solution. And if we leave and the transition period comes to an end how exactly are we going to be made to implement the backstop anyway? How do they hold us to it? They can't. Of course there would be a price for not doing so but that would be our choice.
Are we really not going to pay money we have agreed was due? Of course we are. It creates unnecessary uncertainty about future access to the SM particularly in regulatory equivalence.
Its really stupid but our political class have demonstrated their stupidity repeatedly.
It gives us a clean break without a backstop.
Yes the problems with the border are there. That is a good thing as those problems will be brought to the fore and need to be addressed.
It forces the Irish and the EU to be honest brokers in addressing the problems with the Irish border without relying upon the notion that they can thwart Brexit so don't need to bother or compromise.
Necessity is the mother of invention and once a technological solution to the border has been found that solution would work after a future deal (which will by that point bringing us closer together not further apart). So the backstop issue becomes moot.
That is what it gives us.
If you ripped your arm off without an anaesthetic would that also count as a ‘clean break’?
We can do all of that in the transition period. With more time and no crisis. It's stupid.
No we can not.
The Irish border problems won't come to the fore and the EU and Ireland will have zero incentive or necessity to be honest brokers if we have ratified the backstop. They would have even less reason to do so than they do now when Parliament has thrice rejected it.
At the moment we are being held to ransom by the border and fear of no deal. At the moment the EU's attitude is that we are Leaving so the border problems are our fault and we have to pay the price to fix it.
If we realise the fears and realise the problems in the border then the problems will be as much theirs as ours. If we hold firm and refuse the backstop they will no longer be able to hold us to ransom and will be forced to compromise if they want the problems fixed ... something we can not do in transition.
If we enter transition now without a solution we intend to honour it's little different to agreeing an 18 month extension without a deal we intend to honour.
W'ere in another phase in which the leavers and remainers are polarised with an ever-increasing crescendo of hyperbolic claims of what the future may bring. Very frustrating for most of the public who simply see two groups of squabbling children while the country is without effective government.
It is true that the RoW look on in disbelief but wrong to think that is all one-sided. A plague on both houses is what I hear most with politicians and press held in pretty equal contempt. The inability to compromise on both sides is utterly contemptible.
At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious there is a world of difference between a government serious about carrying out its policy taking precautions to cover the faint risk of any disruption and the supposed inevitability of that disruption. Had May done something similar we would have left months ago and now be talking about something more interesting.
It is not a faint risk. It is a clear and present and very high risk. So much depends on Dover and that is clearly going to be chaos.
It's like arguing with the flat earth society.
Jesus, the concept of contingency planning seems to be utterly unknown to the Chicken Licken brigade.
You identify weaknesses - then plan to avoid those weaknesses. And if that planning fails, you fire Michael Gove. Michael Gove has no intention of being fired and the fall guy for any of No Deal Brexit's short-comings.
A cynical person might think that a Govt. minister who is planning for civil contingencies might like to have the worst case scenarios out there - comfortable that the planning is in place to ensure that they won't come about. And when the worst doesn't come about, they can look a hero for making sure the worst never happened.
But that wouldn't describe Michael Gove, now would it.....much!
The Sunday Times report today isn't the "worst case scenario". It is its base case scenario. The things it most expects to happen. And just because they are planning for something, doesn't mean the consequences can be averted. Apart from anything else, as the Sunday Times documents point out, a great deal of the problems are likely to be because things are likely to be out of the Government's control and dependent on the actions of others - businesses, individuals, other countries etc etc.
Voting to trigger A50 then not follow through by voting through ANY WA (I don't care if it was May, Corbyn or anyone elses) was the equivalent of leaping out a plane (A50), removing your parachute on the basis it was told to you by others heading down the dive that it was an awful idea on the basis that you'll be able to either land in a giant net (Successful no deal) or someone else with a better parachute will be able to grab you and that you'll be able to complete the dive as a sort of tandem. Now you've heard the net may or may not be there, and hitting it is tricky and though the experienced diver with the definitely working parachute will definitely see you ok, you've ditched your own parachute on the basis you were either a) Intending to go for the net all along or b) You've heard nasty things about your parachute and don't like the colour.
Re Paris - This from today's Observer is going too far: A customer fatally shot a waiter at a pizzeria on the outskirts of Paris, apparently enraged at being made to wait for a sandwich, according to witnesses.
The waiter’s colleagues called police after he was shot in the shoulder with a handgun in the Noisy-le-Grand suburb, 15km east of Paris’s city centre on Friday night.
Attempts to revive the 28-year-old failed and he died at the scene.
The gunman, who a witness said lost his temper “as his sandwich wasn’t prepared quickly enough”, fled the scene.
According to the BBC News website Owen Jones claims he has been attacked by "far right activists" outside a pub in the early hours.
Yes and he correctly blames the right wing press. Looking at tomorrow's Mail you can see why. It's reverted to being a rag and a dangerous one. Words like 'saboteurs' are not a good idea . Next comes enemies within
1. Sympathies to OJ and I hope he's not too badly hurt.
2. I see you have seen the completed Police investigation and convictions which prove his claim that organs of the press were responsible for the attack.
3. I know you would wish to avoid wild unsubtantiated allegations without a scintilla of actual evidence to back them up .... would you?
Owen Jones knew they were targetting him not the six friends he was with though they too got beaten up. He believed it was provoked by press hounding and a brief glance at the Mail any day of the week including this morning suggests he is correct
Actually it is one of the little mentioned points that the Mail these days is "relatively" moderate - it is the Mail on Sunday that has gone batshit crazy. So the "day of the week" isn't a coincidence. The Mail on Sunday of course was pro-remain, with their then editor who is now the editor of the Daily Mail.
Seriously what does no deal give us that May's deal didn't?
It doesn't give us a transition period but this is a bad thing.
It means we don't have the backstop but we have all the problems the backstop is supposed to address with no time to find an alternative solution. And if we leave and the transition period comes to an end how exactly are we going to be made to implement the backstop anyway? How do they hold us to it? They can't. Of course there would be a price for not doing so but that would be our choice.
Are we really not going to pay money we have agreed was due? Of course we are. It creates unnecessary uncertainty about future access to the SM particularly in regulatory equivalence.
Its really stupid but our political class have demonstrated their stupidity repeatedly.
It gives us a clean break without a backstop.
Yes the problems with the border are there. That is a good thing as those problems will be brought to the fore and need to be addressed.
It forces the Irish and the EU to be honest brokers in addressing the problems with the Irish border without relying upon the notion that they can thwart Brexit so don't need to bother or compromise.
Necessity is the mother of invention and once a technological solution to the border has been found that solution would work after a future deal (which will by that point bringing us closer together not further apart). So the backstop issue becomes moot.
That is what it gives us.
If you ripped your arm off without an anaesthetic would that also count as a ‘clean break’?
Why have MPs written to Johnson asking him to recall parliament? To recall parliament in an emergency the PM asks the Speaker to recall the Commons. The MPs should have written the letter to Bercow.
Apparently, only the PM canrequest the Speaker to do it - he can't do it himserlf, or I'm sure he would. I gave the link to the Commons website on this yesterday.
The Sunday Times report today isn't the "worst case scenario". It is its base case scenario. The things it most expects to happen. And just because they are planning for something, doesn't mean the consequences can be averted. Apart from anything else, as the Sunday Times documents point out, a great deal of the problems are likely to be because things are likely to be out of the Government's control and dependent on the actions of others - businesses, individuals, other countries etc etc.
Correct Yellowhammer is the "most likely" scenario. The worst case scenario is dealt with by Operation Black Swan.
The government has completely lost the plot that they are willingly heading towards such events.
It's going to be so nice when we find we're all still alive with all extremities intact on November 1. It will probably be rainy. Trains will probably be late. Wonderful life will continue.
Though only 1 in 6 Unionists in Northern Ireland back the backstop in the same poll
NI's populace doesn't consist solely of Unionists...
Its largest county, Antrim, is still 2/3 Unionist
Really? The population of Northern Ireland support the backstop by nearly 3:2, but it's fine to ignore their wishes because 5 out of 6 people, who make up 2 out of 3 people in one part of NI are opposed?
I'm glad you aren't involved in drawing up constituency boundaries.
Comments
Martin was also an appalling Speaker but I don't think that the case for the HoC regulating itself by one of its members has been rendered untenable. They just need to choose more carefully.
The ERG trashed the May plan within minutes of its publication, before they could possibly have read it. They celebrated the failure of MV1 with a champagne reception. Key ERG types are in charge of government now. This is what they've wanted all along. Any narrative that blames others will be seen as self-serving tosh.
Suck it up, winners.
https://www.hsj.co.uk/nottingham-university-hospitals-nhs-trust/black-alert-declared-at-midlands-teaching-trust/7025747.article
The game is up. We leave on Oct 31st. Full stop. We know who is to blame for leaving without a deal. And hopefully they will get a reckoning proportionate to the harm done as a result.
Tell me it isn't 1st November.
It's like arguing with the flat earth society.
Its a silly season idea that he should be PM and obviously his preference would be we remain, but his actions voting for the WA prove your bitter bitter words that he is the most extreme are an absolute and provable lie.
What a silly comment to make when tha general point, that he is not suited to the role people are suggested because his general views are so unpopular, is much more reasonable.
You've made your entire post essentially invalid because you open with a lie.
This is like that faux surprise the other day that politicians are not bound by anything they say. Entirely phoney.
If we are going to No Deal with Bozo at the wheel, a car crash into this tree on 31 October, is the same as a different tree on another day.
I don't expect it will be as bad as so many are saying, but an outcome supported by a rapidly shrinking third of the population is not going to be popular. @Stuart_Dickson s conversation with his Ulsterman has the ominous ring of truth. Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan.
You identify weaknesses - then plan to avoid those weaknesses. And if that planning fails, you fire Michael Gove. Michael Gove has no intention of being fired and the fall guy for any of No Deal Brexit's short-comings.
A cynical person might think that a Govt. minister who is planning for civil contingencies might like to have the worst case scenarios out there - comfortable that the planning is in place to ensure that they won't come about. And when the worst doesn't come about, they can look a hero for making sure the worst never happened.
But that wouldn't describe Michael Gove, now would it.....much!
"It's all someone else's fault!"
"It'd all have gone better if (insert name of someone of pure leaver heart) had been in charge!"
Both are bullshit. Leavers need to man up and accept responsibility for this mess.
As someone who'd rather no deal than May's deal I'm grateful for the opposition facilitating our victory. We couldn't have done this without you.
PS: only 2 guaranteed and they are already being done less than 7000 jobs and expectation that Brexit will cost 100,000
If there is a delay is anything realistically going to change? If no, delay is pointless.
Over 400 MPs in Parliament chose to invoke Article 50 so we leave. Over 400 MPs Parliament chose to reject a deal.
Parliament has not chosen anything else. Therefore we leave no deal because of over 400 MPs choosing that.
Or more likely, was. Who is going to push it as our Last Best Hope, having seen the ignominous fate of the last person who did that?
Someone needs to grab the wheel or the driver of car needs to do a last minute swerve. I suspect the driver wants someone else to grab the wheel.
It doesn't give us a transition period but this is a bad thing.
It means we don't have the backstop but we have all the problems the backstop is supposed to address with no time to find an alternative solution. And if we leave and the transition period comes to an end how exactly are we going to be made to implement the backstop anyway? How do they hold us to it? They can't. Of course there would be a price for not doing so but that would be our choice.
Are we really not going to pay money we have agreed was due? Of course we are.
It creates unnecessary uncertainty about future access to the SM particularly in regulatory equivalence.
Its really stupid but our political class have demonstrated their stupidity repeatedly.
It's still gonna hurt
https://twitter.com/seanjonesqc/status/1163004327306436609
Could not the same thing be said of all leave voters
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/preparing-brexit-no-deal-final_0.pdf
http://twitter.com/albiondumsday/status/1163009812101312512
Yes the problems with the border are there. That is a good thing as those problems will be brought to the fore and need to be addressed.
It forces the Irish and the EU to be honest brokers in addressing the problems with the Irish border without relying upon the notion that they can thwart Brexit so don't need to bother or compromise.
Necessity is the mother of invention and once a technological solution to the border has been found that solution would work after a future deal (which will by that point bringing us closer together not further apart). So the backstop issue becomes moot.
That is what it gives us.
Also due to the fondness of the leave voting demographics for Benny Hedgehogs and Kronenbourg 1664 large numbers of them are now dead.
I haven't been keeping up.....
It is true that the RoW look on in disbelief but wrong to think that is all one-sided. A plague on both houses is what I hear most with politicians and press held in pretty equal contempt. The inability to compromise on both sides is utterly contemptible.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-announces-end-of-european-communities-act
Parliament will now have to pass new legislation to have EU law regain supremacy.
and that this smug looking man in the photograph is deluded.
The Irish border problems won't come to the fore and the EU and Ireland will have zero incentive or necessity to be honest brokers if we have ratified the backstop. They would have even less reason to do so than they do now when Parliament has thrice rejected it.
At the moment we are being held to ransom by the border and fear of no deal. At the moment the EU's attitude is that we are Leaving so the border problems are our fault and we have to pay the price to fix it.
If we realise the fears and realise the problems in the border then the problems will be as much theirs as ours. If we hold firm and refuse the backstop they will no longer be able to hold us to ransom and will be forced to compromise if they want the problems fixed ... something we can not do in transition.
If we enter transition now without a solution we intend to honour it's little different to agreeing an 18 month extension without a deal we intend to honour.
A customer fatally shot a waiter at a pizzeria on the outskirts of Paris, apparently enraged at being made to wait for a sandwich, according to witnesses.
The waiter’s colleagues called police after he was shot in the shoulder with a handgun in the Noisy-le-Grand suburb, 15km east of Paris’s city centre on Friday night.
Attempts to revive the 28-year-old failed and he died at the scene.
The gunman, who a witness said lost his temper “as his sandwich wasn’t prepared quickly enough”, fled the scene.
The government has completely lost the plot that they are willingly heading towards such events.
I'm glad you aren't involved in drawing up constituency boundaries.