No Deal is an operation of EU law, not that of the UK Parliament.
The UK Parliament can prevent it happening, and can legislate to make allowing it happen illegal.
No they can't. They cannot require the EU to agree a deal that is acceptable to the HoC. They cannot require the EU to grant another extension. They cannot require the UK government to agree a deal. All they can do is revoke or vote for the deal that the EU is offering. If they do neither then we have no deal.
Exactly
Is it going to become obvious quite soon that for sane leavers and sane remainers the only safe course is to accept TMs deal, which at the very least buys quite a lot of time for thoughtful consideration of our past errors? In terms of the realities of political and civil order revocation is not an option.
The deal is dead. It was stillborn.
And that's the problem. the only sane means of departure is via a deal, without it we will have a disaster of errors until we give in to the EU and accept the terms within the Deal.
I'm sorry if I missed the intense discussion on this - I've been away in Boston and therefore out the loop, but the recent You Gov poll was fascinating.
Which of the flowing comes closer to your view on the role of an MP?
They are elected to act according to …
Their own judgement, even when this goes against the wishes of their constituents, or, The wishes of their constituents, even when this goes against their own judgement
MPs believed by 80% to 13% that it's the first. The voters believed by 63% to 7% it was the second.
Why are MPs so deluded? That could explains the current anger with them, and the ongoing log-jam in Parliament over Brexit. You have been given your orders, MPs, do what you're told. Leave the EU.
I politely suggest you refer to Erskin May regarding the responsibilities of MPs
No Deal is an operation of EU law, not that of the UK Parliament.
The UK Parliament can prevent it happening, and can legislate to make allowing it happen illegal.
No they can't. They cannot require the EU to agree a deal that is acceptable to the HoC. They cannot require the EU to grant another extension. They cannot require the UK government to agree a deal. All they can do is revoke or vote for the deal that the EU is offering. If they do neither then we have no deal.
Exactly
Is it going to become obvious quite soon that for sane leavers and sane remainers the only safe course is to accept TMs deal, which at the very least buys quite a lot of time for thoughtful consideration of our past errors? In terms of the realities of political and civil order revocation is not an option.
The deal is dead. It was stillborn.
A real shame. May couldn't sell water in the desert but she put the country first.
No Deal is an operation of EU law, not that of the UK Parliament.
The UK Parliament can prevent it happening, and can legislate to make allowing it happen illegal.
No they can't. They cannot require the EU to agree a deal that is acceptable to the HoC. They cannot require the EU to grant another extension. They cannot require the UK government to agree a deal. All they can do is revoke or vote for the deal that the EU is offering. If they do neither then we have no deal.
Exactly
Is it going to become obvious quite soon that for sane leavers and sane remainers the only safe course is to accept TMs deal, which at the very least buys quite a lot of time for thoughtful consideration of our past errors? In terms of the realities of political and civil order revocation is not an option.
The deal is dead. It was stillborn.
And that's the problem. the only sane means of departure is via a deal, without it we will have a disaster of errors until we give in to the EU and accept the terms within the Deal.
Live and Let x Tomorrow Never x s x Another Day No Time to x
From the other thread... Yes you are right. I was thinking about this at 1am too when Live and Love merged into one: From Russia with Love Spy Who Loved Me Live and Let Die Living Daylights You Only Live Twice
No Deal is an operation of EU law, not that of the UK Parliament.
The UK Parliament can prevent it happening, and can legislate to make allowing it happen illegal.
No they can't. They cannot require the EU to agree a deal that is acceptable to the HoC. They cannot require the EU to grant another extension. They cannot require the UK government to agree a deal. All they can do is revoke or vote for the deal that the EU is offering. If they do neither then we have no deal.
Exactly
Is it going to become obvious quite soon that for sane leavers and sane remainers the only safe course is to accept TMs deal, which at the very least buys quite a lot of time for thoughtful consideration of our past errors? In terms of the realities of political and civil order revocation is not an option.
I voted remain and only support leave as to do anything else would be a disaster for democracy. It is not my choice but I have always supported TM deal and it is to the shame of all our mps that for different reasons they played a high stakes game with the deal without realising that all 498 of them had voted to leave with no deal without accepting TM deal
As I commented last night the vindictive posting by opposing supporters on this wonderful site is truely depressing
I'm worried that 80% of MPs are so deluded as to think they represent only themselves, yet claim that is democracy. Did they say on their GE literature they will make their own decisions and ignore the referendum result in the constituency?
Hmm. Just seen the tweet about Johnson's bilateral proposal.
I'd be fascinated to know if he actually thinks that has a cat in hell's chance of actually happening. Is it serious? Is it part of a blame game strategy? Is the PM a moron? I can only answer one of those questions, alas.
Ireland aligning with the UK partially outside the SM has been discreetly (because of Irish sensibilities) but seriously discussed within the EU as a way of preserving a soft border in a No Deal. But there's a huge difference between a coping mechanism and an agreed treaty. The backstop is the reddest of the EU:s red lines.
I am not a great Boris fan but why is it offensive and if it offends you why post it?
You can stick "Vote Conservative" on the end of that clip... The soft focus optimism and upbeat music makes it a decent PPB. The Lib Dems can do something similar with a pro European message. What on earth will Labour produce ?
I hope that in the next few weeks the polls move to put the Lib Dems in second place. Labour deserve to be hammered for their nonsense over brexit and their idiotic leader
I'm worried that 80% of MPs are so deluded as to think they represent only themselves, yet claim that is democracy. Did they say on their GE literature they will make their own decisions and ignore the referendum result in the constituency?
That's why some Northern Labour MPs are worried.
The Leave campaign insisted Britain would Leave with a deal. There is no mandate for anything else. So if Britain is not going to Leave with a deal, a fresh mandate is needed.
No Deal is an operation of EU law, not that of the UK Parliament.
The UK Parliament can prevent it happening, and can legislate to make allowing it happen illegal.
No they can't. They cannot require the EU to agree a deal that is acceptable to the HoC. They cannot require the EU to grant another extension. They cannot require the UK government to agree a deal. All they can do is revoke or vote for the deal that the EU is offering. If they do neither then we have no deal.
Exactly
Is it going to become obvious quite soon that for sane leavers and sane remainers the only safe course is to accept TMs deal, which at the very least buys quite a lot of time for thoughtful consideration of our past errors? In terms of the realities of political and civil order revocation is not an option.
The deal is dead. It was stillborn.
And that's the problem. the only sane means of departure is via a deal, without it we will have a disaster of errors until we give in to the EU and accept the terms within the Deal.
Or decide to stay in the EU after all.
Yes, let's reward the toddler having a screaming fit in aisle 3 because he can't have chocolate for breakfast lunch and dinner with a Fucking Big Chocolate Cake.....
I'm worried that 80% of MPs are so deluded as to think they represent only themselves, yet claim that is democracy. Did they say on their GE literature they will make their own decisions and ignore the referendum result in the constituency?
That's why some Northern Labour MPs are worried.
They are there to represent the best interests of their constituents and only when that criteria has been fulfilled should they represent their views. If an MP thinks leaving the EU is not in the best interests of a majority of his constituents he should not facilitate that happening.
No Deal is an operation of EU law, not that of the UK Parliament.
The UK Parliament can prevent it happening, and can legislate to make allowing it happen illegal.
No they can't. They cannot require the EU to agree a deal that is acceptable to the HoC. They cannot require the EU to grant another extension. They cannot require the UK government to agree a deal. All they can do is revoke or vote for the deal that the EU is offering. If they do neither then we have no deal.
Exactly
Is it going to become obvious quite soon that for sane leavers and sane remainers the only safe course is to accept TMs deal, which at the very least buys quite a lot of time for thoughtful consideration of our past errors? In terms of the realities of political and civil order revocation is not an option.
The deal is dead. It was stillborn.
And that's the problem. the only sane means of departure is via a deal, without it we will have a disaster of errors until we give in to the EU and accept the terms within the Deal.
Or decide to stay in the EU after all.
Yes, let's reward the toddler having a screaming fit in aisle 3 because he can't have chocolate for breakfast lunch and dinner with a Fucking Big Chocolate Cake.....
It is hardly Remainers’ fault that Leavers are not only malign but clueless. Since they have abandoned their mandate, a new one is required.
I'm worried that 80% of MPs are so deluded as to think they represent only themselves, yet claim that is democracy. Did they say on their GE literature they will make their own decisions and ignore the referendum result in the constituency?
That's why some Northern Labour MPs are worried.
The Leave campaign insisted Britain would Leave with a deal. There is no mandate for anything else. So if Britain is not going to Leave with a deal, a fresh mandate is needed.
The ballot paper asked 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?' not 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union but only with a Deal with the EU?'
A Deal was agreed by May, MPs rejected it 3 times so No Deal is likely inevitable now.
In fact by asking the EU to remove the backstop from the Withdrawal Agreement Boris is still pushing for the only Deal MPs will vote for as the Brady amendment showed
Disney asked for 50% revshare and for non Spider-Man marvel characters to be included. It was only ever going to end one way. I expect Disney will come back with a much more realistic demand and this gets sorted before the next Spider-Man movie goes into production.
TBF Disney also offered 50% of the financing but I can see why Sony wouldn’t want to entangle their IP
I'm worried that 80% of MPs are so deluded as to think they represent only themselves, yet claim that is democracy. Did they say on their GE literature they will make their own decisions and ignore the referendum result in the constituency?
That's why some Northern Labour MPs are worried.
The Leave campaign insisted Britain would Leave with a deal. There is no mandate for anything else. So if Britain is not going to Leave with a deal, a fresh mandate is needed.
The ballot paper asked 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?' not 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union but only with a Deal with the EU?'
A Deal was agreed by May, MPs rejected it 3 times so No Deal is likely inevitable now
"I politely suggest you refer to Erskin May regarding the responsibilities of MPs."
And I politely suggest you look at the polling. If the voters think he's a twat, he is.
Parliament is a means for the people to be heard, not for them to be ignored.
It’s why we have a parliamentary democracy that elects and pays MPs to make decisions on our behalf believing that complex decisions are better made after thoughtful and considered debate not by the slogans on the side of a bus.
I'm worried that 80% of MPs are so deluded as to think they represent only themselves, yet claim that is democracy. Did they say on their GE literature they will make their own decisions and ignore the referendum result in the constituency?
I'm worried that 80% of MPs are so deluded as to think they represent only themselves, yet claim that is democracy. Did they say on their GE literature they will make their own decisions and ignore the referendum result in the constituency?
That's why some Northern Labour MPs are worried.
The Leave campaign insisted Britain would Leave with a deal. There is no mandate for anything else. So if Britain is not going to Leave with a deal, a fresh mandate is needed.
The ballot paper asked 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?' not 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union but only with a Deal with the EU?'
The referendum was formally advisory only. In reality, it could not be ignored.
In exactly the same way, the ballot paper asked one question. But the entire prospectus of Leave was built around a proposal that explicitly disavowed no deal Brexit. It is just as preposterous to claim a mandate for no deal Brexit as to claim the referendum was advisory only.
I'm worried that 80% of MPs are so deluded as to think they represent only themselves, yet claim that is democracy. Did they say on their GE literature they will make their own decisions and ignore the referendum result in the constituency?
That's why some Northern Labour MPs are worried.
Blame the voting system that immunises the majority of MPs against swings in the views of their local electorate.
I am not a great Boris fan but why is it offensive and if it offends you why post it?
You can stick "Vote Conservative" on the end of that clip... The soft focus optimism and upbeat music makes it a decent PPB. The Lib Dems can do something similar with a pro European message. What on earth will Labour produce ?
Does it work for you? The coming together message should resonate with me as a Scot that supports the Union but it comes across as completely false.
I am not a great Boris fan but why is it offensive and if it offends you why post it?
You can stick "Vote Conservative" on the end of that clip... The soft focus optimism and upbeat music makes it a decent PPB. The Lib Dems can do something similar with a pro European message. What on earth will Labour produce ?
I hope that in the next few weeks the polls move to put the Lib Dems in second place. Labour deserve to be hammered for their nonsense over brexit and their idiotic leader
Though the 21% voteshare with Yougov today would already be the lowest Labour vote since 1918
I am not a great Boris fan but why is it offensive and if it offends you why post it?
You can stick "Vote Conservative" on the end of that clip... The soft focus optimism and upbeat music makes it a decent PPB. The Lib Dems can do something similar with a pro European message. What on earth will Labour produce ?
Does it work for you? The coming together message should resonate with me as a Scot that supports the Union but it comes across as completely false.
There is an inherent contradiction between a policy that splits the country down the middle, and threatens the Union, and a message of coming together.
I am not a great Boris fan but why is it offensive and if it offends you why post it?
You can stick "Vote Conservative" on the end of that clip... The soft focus optimism and upbeat music makes it a decent PPB. The Lib Dems can do something similar with a pro European message. What on earth will Labour produce ?
Does it work for you? The coming together message should resonate with me as a Scot that supports the Union but it comes across as completely false.
It seems to have been produced by someone with only the vaguest notion of the United Kingdom.
I'm worried that 80% of MPs are so deluded as to think they represent only themselves, yet claim that is democracy. Did they say on their GE literature they will make their own decisions and ignore the referendum result in the constituency?
That's why some Northern Labour MPs are worried.
The Leave campaign insisted Britain would Leave with a deal. There is no mandate for anything else. So if Britain is not going to Leave with a deal, a fresh mandate is needed.
The ballot paper asked 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?' not 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union but only with a Deal with the EU?'
A Deal was agreed by May, MPs rejected it 3 times so No Deal is likely inevitable now
So the ERG's excuse is....?
They wanted No Deal, like diehard Remainers they were the extreme, what is not understandable was Labour moderates like Nandy and Kinnock who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement despite wanting a Deal and representing Leave seats solely as a Tory PM agreed it, especially as the political declaration on the future relationship was not legally binding unlike the Withdrawal Agreement itself
I am not a great Boris fan but why is it offensive and if it offends you why post it?
You can stick "Vote Conservative" on the end of that clip... The soft focus optimism and upbeat music makes it a decent PPB. The Lib Dems can do something similar with a pro European message. What on earth will Labour produce ?
Does it work for you? The coming together message should resonate with me as a Scot that supports the Union but it comes across as completely false.
There is an inherent contradiction between a policy that splits the country down the middle, and threatens the Union, and a message of coming together.
But all Boris has is a message and hope as his plan clearly isn't working.
What's then left is an attempt for a general election which Boris might achieve in getting but it would be saner for Labour to let the clock run down and see Boris panic...
According to FiveThirtyEight, Biden has only led in two of the last five Iowa polls, with Warren getting two, and Buttigieg one. Biden's *highest* polling number is 28%, with two sub 20% numbers.
Since the beginning of July, RCP has only found two polls, so it's a bit misleading.
I would also say that Iowa Caucuses work so that if a candidate doesn't get 15% they pick between those who do. So I think the suggestion is Warren will win Iowa as she will be the more "unifying" candidate, picking up caucus goers from Bernie and Harris at higher rates.
Iowa is weird because it isn't just voting in a box. The caucus involves lots of conversation, people trying to convince people to vote for their candidate, etc. Biden may have the polling figures he has due to name recognition, but he doesn't have Warren's ground game. I think she'll come first, Biden second or even third, as I think his support is softer than other candidates.
In the last 24 hours Donald Trump has revealed he is anti-Semitic and pulled out of a trip to Denmark because the Danes won’t sell him Greenland. Our bestest friend in the whole wide world really is on a role right now.
I'm worried that 80% of MPs are so deluded as to think they represent only themselves, yet claim that is democracy. Did they say on their GE literature they will make their own decisions and ignore the referendum result in the constituency?
That's why some Northern Labour MPs are worried.
The Leave campaign insisted Britain would Leave with a deal. There is no mandate for anything else. So if Britain is not going to Leave with a deal, a fresh mandate is needed.
The ballot paper asked 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?' not 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union but only with a Deal with the EU?'
The referendum was formally advisory only. In reality, it could not be ignored.
In exactly the same way, the ballot paper asked one question. But the entire prospectus of Leave was built around a proposal that explicitly disavowed no deal Brexit. It is just as preposterous to claim a mandate for no deal Brexit as to claim the referendum was advisory only.
The only mandate the referendum had was to leave the EU, nothing to do with Deal or No Deal and I do not remember many Leave campaigners explicitly ruling out No Deal in all circumstances
In the last 24 hours Donald Trump has revealed he is anti-Semitic and pulled out of a trip to Denmark because the Danes won’t sell him Greenland. Our bestest friend in the whole wide world really is on a role right now.
The role being that of the sartorially challenged Emperor.
In the last 24 hours Donald Trump has revealed he is anti-Semitic and pulled out of a trip to Denmark because the Danes won’t sell him Greenland. Our bestest friend in the whole wide world really is on a role right now.
But he likes Isreal. So the most powerful people will still back him
(And I'm not talking g about Jews, mainly evangelical Christians).
I am not a great Boris fan but why is it offensive and if it offends you why post it?
You can stick "Vote Conservative" on the end of that clip... The soft focus optimism and upbeat music makes it a decent PPB. The Lib Dems can do something similar with a pro European message. What on earth will Labour produce ?
Does it work for you? The coming together message should resonate with me as a Scot that supports the Union but it comes across as completely false.
There is an inherent contradiction between a policy that splits the country down the middle, and threatens the Union, and a message of coming together.
But all Boris has is a message and hope as his plan clearly isn't working.
What's then left is an attempt for a general election which Boris might achieve in getting but it would be saner for Labour to let the clock run down and see Boris panic...
Why should Boris panic? He has a 9% lead with Yougov today with the LDs just 1% behind Labour splitting the anti Tory vote
I'm worried that 80% of MPs are so deluded as to think they represent only themselves, yet claim that is democracy. Did they say on their GE literature they will make their own decisions and ignore the referendum result in the constituency?
That's why some Northern Labour MPs are worried.
The Leave campaign insisted Britain would Leave with a deal. There is no mandate for anything else. So if Britain is not going to Leave with a deal, a fresh mandate is needed.
The ballot paper asked 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?' not 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union but only with a Deal with the EU?'
The referendum was formally advisory only. In reality, it could not be ignored.
In exactly the same way, the ballot paper asked one question. But the entire prospectus of Leave was built around a proposal that explicitly disavowed no deal Brexit. It is just as preposterous to claim a mandate for no deal Brexit as to claim the referendum was advisory only.
The only mandate the referendum had was to leave the EU, nothing to do with Deal or No Deal and I do not remember many Leave campaigners explicitly ruling out No Deal in all circumstances
The only mandate the referendum had was for the UK to leave the EU. I don't remember many Leave campaigners explicitly ruling out No UK as the way to deliver that.
I am not a great Boris fan but why is it offensive and if it offends you why post it?
You can stick "Vote Conservative" on the end of that clip... The soft focus optimism and upbeat music makes it a decent PPB. The Lib Dems can do something similar with a pro European message. What on earth will Labour produce ?
Does it work for you? The coming together message should resonate with me as a Scot that supports the Union but it comes across as completely false.
There is an inherent contradiction between a policy that splits the country down the middle, and threatens the Union, and a message of coming together.
But all Boris has is a message and hope as his plan clearly isn't working.
What's then left is an attempt for a general election which Boris might achieve in getting but it would be saner for Labour to let the clock run down and see Boris panic...
Why should Boris panic? He has a 9% lead with Yougov today with the LDs just 1% behind Labour splitting the anti Tory vote
Because in my example he is sat in Parliament unable to hold an election watching time drain away.
I'm worried that 80% of MPs are so deluded as to think they represent only themselves, yet claim that is democracy. Did they say on their GE literature they will make their own decisions and ignore the referendum result in the constituency?
That's why some Northern Labour MPs are worried.
The Leave campaign insisted Britain would Leave with a deal. There is no mandate for anything else. So if Britain is not going to Leave with a deal, a fresh mandate is needed.
The ballot paper asked 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?' not 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union but only with a Deal with the EU?'
The referendum was formally advisory only. In reality, it could not be ignored.
In exactly the same way, the ballot paper asked one question. But the entire prospectus of Leave was built around a proposal that explicitly disavowed no deal Brexit. It is just as preposterous to claim a mandate for no deal Brexit as to claim the referendum was advisory only.
The only mandate the referendum had was to leave the EU, nothing to do with Deal or No Deal and I do not remember many Leave campaigners explicitly ruling out No Deal in all circumstances
The only mandate the referendum had was for the UK to leave the EU. I don't remember many Leave campaigners explicitly ruling out No UK as the way to deliver that.
I do, everytime the Remain campaign said we could leave without a deal.
In the last 24 hours Donald Trump has revealed he is anti-Semitic and pulled out of a trip to Denmark because the Danes won’t sell him Greenland. Our bestest friend in the whole wide world really is on a role right now.
I'm worried that 80% of MPs are so deluded as to think they represent only themselves, yet claim that is democracy. Did they say on their GE literature they will make their own decisions and ignore the referendum result in the constituency?
That's why some Northern Labour MPs are worried.
The Leave campaign insisted Britain would Leave with a deal. There is no mandate for anything else. So if Britain is not going to Leave with a deal, a fresh mandate is needed.
The ballot paper asked 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?' not 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union but only with a Deal with the EU?'
A Deal was agreed by May, MPs rejected it 3 times so No Deal is likely inevitable now
So the ERG's excuse is....?
They wanted No Deal, like diehard Remainers they were the extreme, what is not understandable was Labour moderates like Nandy and Kinnock who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement despite wanting a Deal and representing Leave seats solely as a Tory PM agreed it, especially as the political declaration on the future relationship was not legally binding unlike the Withdrawal Agreement itself
I'm worried that 80% of MPs are so deluded as to think they represent only themselves, yet claim that is democracy. Did they say on their GE literature they will make their own decisions and ignore the referendum result in the constituency?
That's why some Northern Labour MPs are worried.
The Leave campaign insisted Britain would Leave with a deal. There is no mandate for anything else. So if Britain is not going to Leave with a deal, a fresh mandate is needed.
The ballot paper asked 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?' not 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union but only with a Deal with the EU?'
The referendum was formally advisory only. In reality, it could not be ignored.
In exactly the same way, the ballot paper asked one question. But the entire prospectus of Leave was built around a proposal that explicitly disavowed no deal Brexit. It is just as preposterous to claim a mandate for no deal Brexit as to claim the referendum was advisory only.
The only mandate the referendum had was to leave the EU, nothing to do with Deal or No Deal and I do not remember many Leave campaigners explicitly ruling out No Deal in all circumstances
The only mandate the referendum had was for the UK to leave the EU. I don't remember many Leave campaigners explicitly ruling out No UK as the way to deliver that.
I do, everytime the Remain campaign said we could leave without a deal.
a) Why do 20% of remainers not want a GONU and more mysterious 12% of leavers do.
b) Presenting just the % of who support each person as PM under a GONU is misleading. The bars showing the don't knows and against is more informative. Lots of don't knows (understandably) and clearly most leavers won't want anyone leading a GONU. The key figure seems to be the 63% opposed to Corbyn.
No Deal is an operation of EU law, not that of the UK Parliament.
The UK Parliament can prevent it happening, and can legislate to make allowing it happen illegal.
No they can't. They cannot require the EU to agree a deal that is acceptable to the HoC. They cannot require the EU to grant another extension. They cannot require the UK government to agree a deal. All they can do is revoke or vote for the deal that the EU is offering. If they do neither then we have no deal.
Exactly
Is it going to become obvious quite soon that for sane leavers and sane remainers the only safe course is to accept TMs deal, which at the very least buys quite a lot of time for thoughtful consideration of our past errors? In terms of the realities of political and civil order revocation is not an option.
The deal is dead. It was stillborn.
And that's the problem. the only sane means of departure is via a deal, without it we will have a disaster of errors until we give in to the EU and accept the terms within the Deal.
Or decide to stay in the EU after all.
Yes, let's reward the toddler having a screaming fit in aisle 3 because he can't have chocolate for breakfast lunch and dinner with a Fucking Big Chocolate Cake.....
It is hardly Remainers’ fault that Leavers are not only malign but clueless. Since they have abandoned their mandate, a new one is required.
It is hardly the fault of Leave voters that MPs gave us the the power to vote to leave the EU, said they would implement that decision, implemented that decision by triggering Article 50, stood on manifestos in 2017 saying yep, they really would implement Brexit, honest. And are then found out to be a bunch of lying, conniving cheating arseholes.
Since the current one has abandoned any pretence of principles, a new Parliament is required.
I am not a great Boris fan but why is it offensive and if it offends you why post it?
You can stick "Vote Conservative" on the end of that clip... The soft focus optimism and upbeat music makes it a decent PPB. The Lib Dems can do something similar with a pro European message. What on earth will Labour produce ?
I hope that in the next few weeks the polls move to put the Lib Dems in second place. Labour deserve to be hammered for their nonsense over brexit and their idiotic leader
Though the 21% voteshare with Yougov today would already be the lowest Labour vote since 1918
Yeh, but Jeremy hasn't started campaigning yet etc etc.
I am not a great Boris fan but why is it offensive and if it offends you why post it?
You can stick "Vote Conservative" on the end of that clip... The soft focus optimism and upbeat music makes it a decent PPB. The Lib Dems can do something similar with a pro European message. What on earth will Labour produce ?
I hope that in the next few weeks the polls move to put the Lib Dems in second place. Labour deserve to be hammered for their nonsense over brexit and their idiotic leader
Though the 21% voteshare with Yougov today would already be the lowest Labour vote since 1918
Yeh, but Jeremy hasn't started campaigning yet etc etc.
The LDs were nowhere near 20% even at the start of 2017 and diehard Remainers will not vote for Corbyn Labour again and there will be no repeat of the dementia tax under Boris
Hmm. Just seen the tweet about Johnson's bilateral proposal.
I'd be fascinated to know if he actually thinks that has a cat in hell's chance of actually happening. Is it serious? Is it part of a blame game strategy? Is the PM a moron? I can only answer one of those questions, alas.
Ireland aligning with the UK partially outside the SM has been discreetly (because of Irish sensibilities) but seriously discussed within the EU as a way of preserving a soft border in a No Deal. But there's a huge difference between a coping mechanism and an agreed treaty. The backstop is the reddest of the EU:s red lines.
More than that, if we have No Deal and Britain and Ireland continue with the No Hard Border line, some realignment is the only other way to meet the MFN ruleset. I've been banging on about this for a long time, because I simply can't see another method by which it can be done.
So, at very least, NI goods passing into the EU via RoI would need to be identified and checked and, of course, rules of origin do not make things simple in that respect.
And the UK would need to true up RoI goods by Larne / Holyhead &c to meet the rules too. There might be no additional formal divergence between NI rules and GB rules, but the elephant in the room if we don't impose a hard border is that we will have, very quickly, something that looks, feels and behaves very much like the backstop, just several years before it might have happened (or not) and with a lot less ruleset agreement in place, this frontstop will most likely be harsher in operation than the theoretical backstop would have been.
How will that go down?
Of course the UK could just ignore the rulesets. I wonder though: Trump is no longer of rulesets and is soft soaping us at the moment, but the UK ignoring rules.... could he do a bad cop cycle and impose punitive tarriffs on us for "taking advantage", to soften us up further for an asymmetric deal. That's a speculation, of course, but not wildly improbable and it would hit the Atlanticist flag wavers like a Pearl.Harbour event.
I am not a great Boris fan but why is it offensive and if it offends you why post it?
You can stick "Vote Conservative" on the end of that clip... The soft focus optimism and upbeat music makes it a decent PPB. The Lib Dems can do something similar with a pro European message. What on earth will Labour produce ?
Does it work for you? The coming together message should resonate with me as a Scot that supports the Union but it comes across as completely false.
There is an inherent contradiction between a policy that splits the country down the middle, and threatens the Union, and a message of coming together.
Johnson is not speaking to the country, he is speaking to that narrow demographic he needs to win an election. It’s a 35% strategy. Post-Brexit, UK citizens will be less free and ruled by a government the majority has rejected, while the UK itself will be entirely dependent on the goodwill of others to keep on trading. This is the future. Do those uplands get more sunlit?
I'm worried that 80% of MPs are so deluded as to think they represent only themselves, yet claim that is democracy. Did they say on their GE literature they will make their own decisions and ignore the referendum result in the constituency?
That's why some Northern Labour MPs are worried.
The Leave campaign insisted Britain would Leave with a deal. There is no mandate for anything else. So if Britain is not going to Leave with a deal, a fresh mandate is needed.
The ballot paper asked 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?' not 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union but only with a Deal with the EU?'
The referendum was formally advisory only. In reality, it could not be ignored.
In exactly the same way, the ballot paper asked one question. But the entire prospectus of Leave was built around a proposal that explicitly disavowed no deal Brexit. It is just as preposterous to claim a mandate for no deal Brexit as to claim the referendum was advisory only.
The only mandate the referendum had was to leave the EU, nothing to do with Deal or No Deal and I do not remember many Leave campaigners explicitly ruling out No Deal in all circumstances
The only mandate the referendum had was for the UK to leave the EU. I don't remember many Leave campaigners explicitly ruling out No UK as the way to deliver that.
No need to, the DUP still the largest party in Northern Ireland, the SNP still well below 2015 levels in current polls and Wales voted Leave anyway
I am not a great Boris fan but why is it offensive and if it offends you why post it?
You can stick "Vote Conservative" on the end of that clip... The soft focus optimism and upbeat music makes it a decent PPB. The Lib Dems can do something similar with a pro European message. What on earth will Labour produce ?
Does it work for you? The coming together message should resonate with me as a Scot that supports the Union but it comes across as completely false.
There is an inherent contradiction between a policy that splits the country down the middle, and threatens the Union, and a message of coming together.
But all Boris has is a message and hope as his plan clearly isn't working.
What's then left is an attempt for a general election which Boris might achieve in getting but it would be saner for Labour to let the clock run down and see Boris panic...
Why should Boris panic? He has a 9% lead with Yougov today with the LDs just 1% behind Labour splitting the anti Tory vote
Because in my example he is sat in Parliament unable to hold an election watching time drain away.
No problems for Boris, he refuses an extension, we Brexit with No Deal on October 31st, Brexit Party vote collapses to Tories, MPs cannot stop him
I'm worried that 80% of MPs are so deluded as to think they represent only themselves, yet claim that is democracy. Did they say on their GE literature they will make their own decisions and ignore the referendum result in the constituency?
That's why some Northern Labour MPs are worried.
The Leave campaign insisted Britain would Leave with a deal. There is no mandate for anything else. So if Britain is not going to Leave with a deal, a fresh mandate is needed.
The ballot paper asked 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?' not 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union but only with a Deal with the EU?'
The referendum was formally advisory only. In reality, it could not be ignored.
In exactly the same way, the ballot paper asked one question. But the entire prospectus of Leave was built around a proposal that explicitly disavowed no deal Brexit. It is just as preposterous to claim a mandate for no deal Brexit as to claim the referendum was advisory only.
The only mandate the referendum had was to leave the EU, nothing to do with Deal or No Deal and I do not remember many Leave campaigners explicitly ruling out No Deal in all circumstances
So far was no deal from the contemplation of Leavers that a year after the referendum, the current Prime Minister (in his role at the time of Foreign Secretary) told Parliament:
"There is no plan for no deal, because we're going to get a great deal".
I'm sorry if I missed the intense discussion on this - I've been away in Boston and therefore out the loop, but the recent You Gov poll was fascinating.
Which of the flowing comes closer to your view on the role of an MP?
They are elected to act according to …
Their own judgement, even when this goes against the wishes of their constituents, or, The wishes of their constituents, even when this goes against their own judgement
MPs believed by 80% to 13% that it's the first. The voters believed by 63% to 7% it was the second.
Why are MPs so deluded? That could explains the current anger with them, and the ongoing log-jam in Parliament over Brexit. You have been given your orders, MPs, do what you're told. Leave the EU.
I politely suggest you refer to Erskin May regarding the responsibilities of MPs
I mean, this is the problem facing modern democracy. Now more people have access to more information (true or false) they think they are as informed as their "betters". This creates a tension: if I am as well informed as my MP, why do I need an MP? We can question the "who is better informed" part of the question, but with education levels and the internet most people could, if they wished, be as informed (or more informed) on issues than their MP.
Back in the day I am willing to admit this was not the case (even if the ruling elite often acted poorly on the information they had). I feel right and left wing populism in the modern era is a product of the belief the voter knows more than their representative.
In times gone by the point was "the average Joe and Joanne shouldn't need to know these things, so let's pick someone we trust to have this information and make decisions on our behalf with that information". Now it's "I know better, but the system means I need a representative, so that representative should do what I want, or what is the point of them". The "what is the point of them" is populist breaking point, where we realise that maybe the way our representative democracy works isn't very good.
I am not a great Boris fan but why is it offensive and if it offends you why post it?
You can stick "Vote Conservative" on the end of that clip... The soft focus optimism and upbeat music makes it a decent PPB. The Lib Dems can do something similar with a pro European message. What on earth will Labour produce ?
Does it work for you? The coming together message should resonate with me as a Scot that supports the Union but it comes across as completely false.
There is an inherent contradiction between a policy that splits the country down the middle, and threatens the Union, and a message of coming together.
Johnson is not speaking to the country, he is speaking to that narrow demographic he needs to win an election. It’s a 35% strategy. Post-Brexit, UK citizens will be less free and ruled by a government the majority has rejected, while the UK itself will be entirely dependent on the goodwill of others to keep on trading. This is the future. Do those uplands get more sunlit?
That 2005 general election. PM Tony Blair got 35.2%.
Enough for him to pass the baton to Gordon Brown and his sunlit uplands.....
Mr. Jessop, I'd be delighted to hear how I'm responsible for the actions of Dominic Grieve, or the decision of pro-EU MPs to repeatedly reject the deal, having voted to leave the EU, making no deal the course we're currently on.
(Snip)
You are doing it again: you point your finger at the remainers and scream that they're the ones who have caused this mess. You don't point at the ERG who gave remainers cover by repeatedly emptying their bowels over anything that wasn't hard no-deal brexit. Why should moderate remainers have voted for it when the very people who wanted Brexit were screeching about how bad it was?
The ERGers set the mood about the WA.
Yet in the eyes of the Brexiteers, it's all someone else's fault. In realty, we are all to blame to some extent.
But the biggest shovel of ordure needs pouring over the brexiteers, and those who wanted Brexit over every other consideration about the good of the country and its people.
I am not a great Boris fan but why is it offensive and if it offends you why post it?
You can stick "Vote Conservative" on the end of that clip... The soft focus optimism and upbeat music makes it a decent PPB. The Lib Dems can do something similar with a pro European message. What on earth will Labour produce ?
Does it work for you? The coming together message should resonate with me as a Scot that supports the Union but it comes across as completely false.
There is an inherent contradiction between a policy that splits the country down the middle, and threatens the Union, and a message of coming together.
But all Boris has is a message and hope as his plan clearly isn't working.
What's then left is an attempt for a general election which Boris might achieve in getting but it would be saner for Labour to let the clock run down and see Boris panic...
Why should Boris panic? He has a 9% lead with Yougov today with the LDs just 1% behind Labour splitting the anti Tory vote
I think BXP and Farage may be preying on his mind.....
I am not a great Boris fan but why is it offensive and if it offends you why post it?
You can stick "Vote Conservative" on the end of that clip... The soft focus optimism and upbeat music makes it a decent PPB. The Lib Dems can do something similar with a pro European message. What on earth will Labour produce ?
Does it work for you? The coming together message should resonate with me as a Scot that supports the Union but it comes across as completely false.
There is an inherent contradiction between a policy that splits the country down the middle, and threatens the Union, and a message of coming together.
Johnson is not speaking to the country, he is speaking to that narrow demographic he needs to win an election. It’s a 35% strategy. Post-Brexit, UK citizens will be less free and ruled by a government the majority has rejected, while the UK itself will be entirely dependent on the goodwill of others to keep on trading. This is the future. Do those uplands get more sunlit?
That 2005 general election. PM Tony Blair got 35.2%.
Enough for him to pass the baton to Gordon Brown and his sunlit uplands.....
I've also expressed contempt for Boris Johnson's latest idiotic utterance.
Why should moderate remainers, as you describe them, take a voting cue from the ERG, whose opinion is the opposite of their own? It's like vegans taking the same line as pork butchers when it comes to a menu.
There is, as you suggest, plenty of blame to go around. It's certainly not confined to one side.
I am not a great Boris fan but why is it offensive and if it offends you why post it?
You can stick "Vote Conservative" on the end of that clip... The soft focus optimism and upbeat music makes it a decent PPB. The Lib Dems can do something similar with a pro European message. What on earth will Labour produce ?
Does it work for you? The coming together message should resonate with me as a Scot that supports the Union but it comes across as completely false.
There is an inherent contradiction between a policy that splits the country down the middle, and threatens the Union, and a message of coming together.
Johnson is not speaking to the country, he is speaking to that narrow demographic he needs to win an election. It’s a 35% strategy. Post-Brexit, UK citizens will be less free and ruled by a government the majority has rejected, while the UK itself will be entirely dependent on the goodwill of others to keep on trading. This is the future. Do those uplands get more sunlit?
That 2005 general election. PM Tony Blair got 35.2%.
Enough for him to pass the baton to Gordon Brown and his sunlit uplands.....
The noteworthy thing about Boris Johnson's sub-Churchillian tweeted video is how he doesn't even pretend to have anything to say to those who do not support Brexit and how he expressly sets up London and the south east as the enemy. Considering he has a London seat himself, that's quite brave.
Mr. Jessop, I'd be delighted to hear how I'm responsible for the actions of Dominic Grieve, or the decision of pro-EU MPs to repeatedly reject the deal, having voted to leave the EU, making no deal the course we're currently on.
(Snip)
You are doing it again: you point your finger at the remainers and scream that they're the ones who have caused this mess. You don't point at the ERG who gave remainers cover by repeatedly emptying their bowels over anything that wasn't hard no-deal brexit. Why should moderate remainers have voted for it when the very people who wanted Brexit were screeching about how bad it was?
The ERGers set the mood about the WA.
Yet in the eyes of the Brexiteers, it's all someone else's fault. In realty, we are all to blame to some extent.
But the biggest shovel of ordure needs pouring over the brexiteers, and those who wanted Brexit over every other consideration about the good of the country and its people.
I don't see how you can conclude other than those MPs who want to remain or leave with a deal have (collectively) been stupid beyond all belief.
The ERG want to leave without a deal. They're very. very likely to get their way.
They're getting their way, despite being only 50 or 60 strong in Parliament. The other 600 odd MPs have been comprehensively outwitted.
I am not a great Boris fan but why is it offensive and if it offends you why post it?
You can stick "Vote Conservative" on the end of that clip... The soft focus optimism and upbeat music makes it a decent PPB. The Lib Dems can do something similar with a pro European message. What on earth will Labour produce ?
Does it work for you? The coming together message should resonate with me as a Scot that supports the Union but it comes across as completely false.
There is an inherent contradiction between a policy that splits the country down the middle, and threatens the Union, and a message of coming together.
Johnson is not speaking to the country, he is speaking to that narrow demographic he needs to win an election. It’s a 35% strategy. Post-Brexit, UK citizens will be less free and ruled by a government the majority has rejected, while the UK itself will be entirely dependent on the goodwill of others to keep on trading. This is the future. Do those uplands get more sunlit?
That 2005 general election. PM Tony Blair got 35.2%.
Enough for him to pass the baton to Gordon Brown and his sunlit uplands.....
And your point is?
OK, for the dim amongst us - you weren't bitching when Tony Blair got Labour 5 more years on a 35% strategy, back when it suited your politics.
You are doing it again: you point your finger at the remainers and scream that they're the ones who have caused this mess. You don't point at the ERG who gave remainers cover by repeatedly emptying their bowels over anything that wasn't hard no-deal brexit. Why should moderate remainers have voted for it when the very people who wanted Brexit were screeching about how bad it was?
The ERGers set the mood about the WA.
Yet in the eyes of the Brexiteers, it's all someone else's fault. In realty, we are all to blame to some extent.
But the biggest shovel of ordure needs pouring over the brexiteers, and those who wanted Brexit over every other consideration about the good of the country and its people.
Let's please not forget the DUP. They are getting off lightly in the blame game when they shouldn't be.
Took the shilling and then torpedoed their government's flagship policy (a negotiated Brexit) out of pure sectarian intransigence.
I am not a great Boris fan but why is it offensive and if it offends you why post it?
You can stick "Vote Conservative" on the end of that clip.
I hope that in the next few weeks the polls move to put the Lib Dems in second place. Labour deserve to be hammered for their nonsense over brexit and their idiotic leader
Though the 21% voteshare with Yougov today would already be the lowest Labour vote since 1918
Yeh, but Jeremy hasn't started campaigning yet etc etc.
I'm sorry if I missed the intense discussion on this - I've been away in Boston and therefore out the loop, but the recent You Gov poll was fascinating.
I politely suggest you refer to Erskin May regarding the responsibilities of MPs
I mean, this is the problem facing modern democracy. Now more people have access to more information (true or false) they think they are as informed as their "betters". This creates a tension: if I am as well informed as my MP, why do I need an MP? We can question the "who is better informed" part of the question, but with education levels and the internet most people could, if they wished, be as informed (or more informed) on issues than their MP.
Back in the day I am willing to admit this was not the case (even if the ruling elite often acted poorly on the information they had). I feel right and left wing populism in the modern era is a product of the belief the voter knows more than their representative.
In times gone by the point was "the average Joe and Joanne shouldn't need to know these things, so let's pick someone we trust to have this information and make decisions on our behalf with that information". Now it's "I know better, but the system means I need a representative, so that representative should do what I want, or what is the point of them". The "what is the point of them" is populist breaking point, where we realise that maybe the way our representative democracy works isn't very good.
I agree. What has made modern populism the force that it has become is mass communication in a way that previous generations could never achieve. Newspapers led to the birth of modern political parties, but internet and social media may be their death. An era where I can tweet the POTUS or the PM is a different world.
The good thing about tech is that it is easily transportable. Those who do not support Tory FC, but are actually interested in what is best for the country, will note what the report says about a No Deal Brexit and access to talent.
No Deal is an operation of EU law, not that of the UK Parliament.
The UK Parliament can prevent it happening, and can legislate to make allowing it happen illegal.
No they can't. They cannot require the EU to agree a deal that is acceptable to the HoC. They cannot require the EU to grant another extension. They cannot require the UK government to agree a deal. All they can do is revoke or vote for the deal that the EU is offering. If they do neither then we have no deal.
Exactly
Is it going to become obvious quite soon that for sane leavers and sane remainers the only safe course is to accept TMs deal, which at the very least buys quite a lot of time for thoughtful consideration of our past errors? In terms of the realities of political and civil order revocation is not an option.
The deal is dead. It was stillborn.
Possibly, but I notice that Boris's criticisms of it are confined to the backstop, while at the time lots of others issues emerged as problems. I think Boris's policy is TM deal + figleaf - in which case it is premature but not stillborn.
You are doing it again: you point your finger at the remainers and scream that they're the ones who have caused this mess. You don't point at the ERG who gave remainers cover by repeatedly emptying their bowels over anything that wasn't hard no-deal brexit. Why should moderate remainers have voted for it when the very people who wanted Brexit were screeching about how bad it was?
The ERGers set the mood about the WA.
Yet in the eyes of the Brexiteers, it's all someone else's fault. In realty, we are all to blame to some extent.
But the biggest shovel of ordure needs pouring over the brexiteers, and those who wanted Brexit over every other consideration about the good of the country and its people.
Let's please not forget the DUP. They are getting off lightly in the blame game when they shouldn't be.
Took the shilling and then torpedoed their government's flagship policy (a negotiated Brexit) out of pure sectarian intransigence.
They get off lightly because our expectations of the DUP are already so, so very low.
I am not a great Boris fan but why is it offensive and if it offends you why post it?
You can stick "Vote Conservative" on the end of that clip... The soft focus optimism and upbeat music makes it a decent PPB. The Lib Dems can do something similar with a pro European message. What on earth will Labour produce ?
Does it work for you? The coming together message should resonate with me as a Scot that supports the Union but it comes across as completely false.
There is an inherent contradiction between a policy that splits the country down the middle, and threatens the Union, and a message of coming together.
Johnson is not speaking to the country, he is speaking to that narrow demographic he needs to win an election. It’s a 35% strategy. Post-Brexit, UK citizens will be less free and ruled by a government the majority has rejected, while the UK itself will be entirely dependent on the goodwill of others to keep on trading. This is the future. Do those uplands get more sunlit?
For the people hiding their money in tax havens and the disaster capitalists it will be wonderful.
This is the real reason why Ireland won't concede, ever, on the backstop. Yes it can follow the UK by diverging from the EU in step. But it goes against its economic interest to do so, and more importantly, against their idea of who they are. It doesn't see why it automatically should be making the concession rather than the UK whose project this is, and which is hostile to Ireland anyway. It thinks, thanks to the backing of the EU, it can face the UK down on this issue.
--------
I should add. Ireland temporarily aligning with the UK and partially derogating from the Single Market is a seriously discussed unilateral move, despite the responses to the suggestion in the Twitter thread.
Ireland needs that soft border. (Northern Ireland needs it many times more but nobody in HMG cares about THEM). But the backstop will be the number 1 EU requirement for the mini-est of deals with the UK. The backstop will be on unless the UK never wants to have anything to do, ever, with the rest of Europe.
I don’t get the logic of that.
I can see why they are digging in their heels now, because they think that the U.K. will fold
I can see why they are saying today that nothing will change after No Deal (increases the pressure on the U.K. to fold)
AIUI, a correctly structured FTA replaces a need for the backstop. So once we are in a hard border situation why would the U.K. ever agree to the backstop? All it does is release the pressure on the EU to agree an FTA. Isn’t the logical thing to do to live with a hard border (assuming there is no other solution) and negotiate an FTA to make the problem go away?
You are doing it again: you point your finger at the remainers and scream that they're the ones who have caused this mess. You don't point at the ERG who gave remainers cover by repeatedly emptying their bowels over anything that wasn't hard no-deal brexit. Why should moderate remainers have voted for it when the very people who wanted Brexit were screeching about how bad it was?
The ERGers set the mood about the WA.
Yet in the eyes of the Brexiteers, it's all someone else's fault. In realty, we are all to blame to some extent.
But the biggest shovel of ordure needs pouring over the brexiteers, and those who wanted Brexit over every other consideration about the good of the country and its people.
Let's please not forget the DUP. They are getting off lightly in the blame game when they shouldn't be.
Took the shilling and then torpedoed their government's flagship policy (a negotiated Brexit) out of pure sectarian intransigence.
The DUP made a monumental strategic mistake backing Brexit. They forgot about their number one priority. As a result, the position of Northern Ireland in the UK has been substantially weakened.
This is the real reason why Ireland won't concede, ever, on the backstop. Yes it can follow the UK by diverging from the EU in step. But it goes against its economic interest to do so, and more importantly, against their idea of who they are. It doesn't see why it automatically should be making the concession rather than the UK whose project this is, and which is hostile to Ireland anyway. It thinks, thanks to the backing of the EU, it can face the UK down on this issue.
Yes, and under May they were probably right.
I don’t think Boris will back down (you can argue about his motives)
Unfortunately Varadkar decided to try and strong arm the U.K. for party political benefit.
No Deal is an operation of EU law, not that of the UK Parliament.
The UK Parliament can prevent it happening, and can legislate to make allowing it happen illegal.
No they can't. They cannot require the EU to agree a deal that is acceptable to the HoC. They cannot require the EU to grant another extension. They cannot require the UK government to agree a deal. All they can do is revoke or vote for the deal that the EU is offering. If they do neither then we have no deal.
Exactly
Is it going to become obvious quite soon that for sane leavers and sane remainers the only safe course is to accept TMs deal, which at the very least buys quite a lot of time for thoughtful consideration of our past errors? In terms of the realities of political and civil order revocation is not an option.
The deal is dead. It was stillborn.
Possibly, but I notice that Boris's criticisms of it are confined to the backstop, while at the time lots of others issues emerged as problems. I think Boris's policy is TM deal + figleaf - in which case it is premature but not stillborn.
This is too big an issue to get away with a figleaf to cover something that he has previously trashed, and that the insurgent party he is trying to fight off will paint as a new Versailles.
You are doing it again: you point your finger at the remainers and scream that they're the ones who have caused this mess. You don't point at the ERG who gave remainers cover by repeatedly emptying their bowels over anything that wasn't hard no-deal brexit. Why should moderate remainers have voted for it when the very people who wanted Brexit were screeching about how bad it was?
The ERGers set the mood about the WA.
Yet in the eyes of the Brexiteers, it's all someone else's fault. In realty, we are all to blame to some extent.
But the biggest shovel of ordure needs pouring over the brexiteers, and those who wanted Brexit over every other consideration about the good of the country and its people.
Let's please not forget the DUP. They are getting off lightly in the blame game when they shouldn't be.
Took the shilling and then torpedoed their government's flagship policy (a negotiated Brexit) out of pure sectarian intransigence.
They get off lightly because our expectations of the DUP are already so, so very low.
The most duplicitous party in the UK, gold medal winner in a tough contest. And their very existence is the best reason for supporting the backstop.
Mr. Jessop, I'd be delighted to hear how I'm responsible for the actions of Dominic Grieve, or the decision of pro-EU MPs to repeatedly reject the deal, having voted to leave the EU, making no deal the course we're currently on.
(Snip)
You are doing it again: you point your finger at the remainers and scream that they're the ones who have caused this mess. You don't point at the ERG who gave remainers cover by repeatedly emptying their bowels over anything that wasn't hard no-deal brexit. Why should moderate remainers have voted for it when the very people who wanted Brexit were screeching about how bad it was?
The ERGers set the mood about the WA.
Yet in the eyes of the Brexiteers, it's all someone else's fault. In realty, we are all to blame to some extent.
But the biggest shovel of ordure needs pouring over the brexiteers, and those who wanted Brexit over every other consideration about the good of the country and its people.
Why point at the ERG? The ERG are getting what they wanted.
Grieve and co scream that they don't want no deal, but they were the ERGs useful idiots voting with the ERG to reject the deal.
The ERG have no blame in voting consistently for what they wanted. They voted to invoke Article 50, they voted to reject May's awful deal, they voted to reject an extension.
Grieve and co voted to invoke Article 50, voted to reject the deal, but then claim they wanted a deal and not no deal. They're the idiots not the ERG.
The ERG didn't "give remainers cover" since we're not remaining. The ERG used remainers in order to ensure we left without a deal - well done remainers!
You are doing it again: you point your finger at the remainers and scream that they're the ones who have caused this mess. You don't point at the ERG who gave remainers cover by repeatedly emptying their bowels over anything that wasn't hard no-deal brexit. Why should moderate remainers have voted for it when the very people who wanted Brexit were screeching about how bad it was?
The ERGers set the mood about the WA.
Yet in the eyes of the Brexiteers, it's all someone else's fault. In realty, we are all to blame to some extent.
But the biggest shovel of ordure needs pouring over the brexiteers, and those who wanted Brexit over every other consideration about the good of the country and its people.
Let's please not forget the DUP. They are getting off lightly in the blame game when they shouldn't be.
Took the shilling and then torpedoed their government's flagship policy (a negotiated Brexit) out of pure sectarian intransigence.
They get off lightly because our expectations of the DUP are already so, so very low.
No Deal is an operation of EU law, not that of the UK Parliament.
The UK Parliament can prevent it happening, and can legislate to make allowing it happen illegal.
No they can't. They cannot require the EU to agree a deal that is acceptable to the HoC. They cannot require the EU to grant another extension. They cannot require the UK government to agree a deal. All they can do is revoke or vote for the deal that the EU is offering. If they do neither then we have no deal.
Exactly
Is it going to become obvious quite soon that for sane leavers and sane remainers the only safe course is to accept TMs deal, which at the very least buys quite a lot of time for thoughtful consideration of our past errors? In terms of the realities of political and civil order revocation is not an option.
The deal is dead. It was stillborn.
Possibly, but I notice that Boris's criticisms of it are confined to the backstop, while at the time lots of others issues emerged as problems. I think Boris's policy is TM deal + figleaf - in which case it is premature but not stillborn.
This is too big an issue to get away with a figleaf to cover something that he has previously trashed, and that the insurgent party he is trying to fight off will paint as a new Versailles.
True in logic but this is politics. Not long to wait till we find out.
@Charles, you may recall I remarked to you previously about the inadequacy of reasonableness. Specifically the battleplans of many of the Leavers seemed to proceed along the lines of "we will do this, then they will do that because that's reasonable"[1], without giving any thought to how to persuade other people to do the reasonable thing, or even whether the other people might consider it reasonable in the first place. To continue this theme for the moment, although I realise we are on opposing sides on this, may I ask you politely to consider that if the UK PM is seriously considering asking another country to stop obeying its own rules for a period to help the UK out, for no payment nor consideration nor reason, then we might perhaps have bigger problems than we thought...
[1] I criticised Hannan frequently for this, although no doubt there were others less prominent with similar sins
I don’t recall your post, sorry, but I don’t think that this suggestion is reasonable. It may be that a “locked box” - as someone else suggested - could work with goodwill but I think we are beyond that stage now unfortunately
This is the real reason why Ireland won't concede, ever, on the backstop. Yes it can follow the UK by diverging from the EU in step. But it goes against its economic interest to do so, and more importantly, against their idea of who they are. It doesn't see why it automatically should be making the concession rather than the UK whose project this is, and which is hostile to Ireland anyway. It thinks, thanks to the backing of the EU, it can face the UK down on this issue.
Yes, and under May they were probably right.
I don’t think Boris will back down (you can argue about his motives)
Unfortunately Varadkar decided to try and strong arm the U.K. for party political benefit.
Ireland can face down the UK even if Boris doesn't back down. This is perhaps the crux of the question about where the balance of power lies that many people don't get.
No problems for Boris, he refuses an extension, we Brexit with No Deal on October 31st, Brexit Party vote collapses to Tories, MPs cannot stop him
I keep posing this but with (as yet) no answer that satisfies me - let's try you.
If the Johnson plan is to No Deal and then fight an election because those circumstances are the ones which are most favourable to him smashing Corbyn at the polls, how come this is (supposedly) also Corbyn's secret wish/plan?
This is the real reason why Ireland won't concede, ever, on the backstop. Yes it can follow the UK by diverging from the EU in step. But it goes against its economic interest to do so, and more importantly, against their idea of who they are. It doesn't see why it automatically should be making the concession rather than the UK whose project this is, and which is hostile to Ireland anyway. It thinks, thanks to the backing of the EU, it can face the UK down on this issue.
--------
I should add. Ireland temporarily aligning with the UK and partially derogating from the Single Market is a seriously discussed unilateral move, despite the responses to the suggestion in the Twitter thread.
Ireland needs that soft border. (Northern Ireland needs it many times more but nobody in HMG cares about THEM). But the backstop will be the number 1 EU requirement for the mini-est of deals with the UK. The backstop will be on unless the UK never wants to have anything to do, ever, with the rest of Europe.
I don’t get the logic of that.
I can see why they are digging in their heels now, because they think that the U.K. will fold
I can see why they are saying today that nothing will change after No Deal (increases the pressure on the U.K. to fold)
AIUI, a correctly structured FTA replaces a need for the backstop. So once we are in a hard border situation why would the U.K. ever agree to the backstop? All it does is release the pressure on the EU to agree an FTA. Isn’t the logical thing to do to live with a hard border (assuming there is no other solution) and negotiate an FTA to make the problem go away?
"live with a hard border" is to betray your lack of understanding of the NI situation.
Although I appreciate the NI thread was yesterday.
You are doing it again: you point your finger at the remainers and scream that they're the ones who have caused this mess. You don't point at the ERG who gave remainers cover by repeatedly emptying their bowels over anything that wasn't hard no-deal brexit. Why should moderate remainers have voted for it when the very people who wanted Brexit were screeching about how bad it was?
The ERGers set the mood about the WA.
Yet in the eyes of the Brexiteers, it's all someone else's fault. In realty, we are all to blame to some extent.
But the biggest shovel of ordure needs pouring over the brexiteers, and those who wanted Brexit over every other consideration about the good of the country and its people.
Let's please not forget the DUP. They are getting off lightly in the blame game when they shouldn't be.
Took the shilling and then torpedoed their government's flagship policy (a negotiated Brexit) out of pure sectarian intransigence.
The DUP made a monumental strategic mistake backing Brexit. They forgot about their number one priority. As a result, the position of Northern Ireland in the UK has been substantially weakened.
If that assists a long term united, non-sectarian single Ireland then good will come out of this sorry tale.
This is the real reason why Ireland won't concede, ever, on the backstop. Yes it can follow the UK by diverging from the EU in step. But it goes against its economic interest to do so, and more importantly, against their idea of who they are. It doesn't see why it automatically should be making the concession rather than the UK whose project this is, and which is hostile to Ireland anyway. It thinks, thanks to the backing of the EU, it can face the UK down on this issue.
Yes, and under May they were probably right.
I don’t think Boris will back down (you can argue about his motives)
Unfortunately Varadkar decided to try and strong arm the U.K. for party political benefit.
No, Charles, Varadkar has done what any Irish leader would have done. That is why his stance on Brexit enjoys such strong cross-party support in Ireland.
This is the real reason why Ireland won't concede, ever, on the backstop. Yes it can follow the UK by diverging from the EU in step. But it goes against its economic interest to do so, and more importantly, against their idea of who they are. It doesn't see why it automatically should be making the concession rather than the UK whose project this is, and which is hostile to Ireland anyway. It thinks, thanks to the backing of the EU, it can face the UK down on this issue.
Yes, and under May they were probably right.
I don’t think Boris will back down (you can argue about his motives)
Unfortunately Varadkar decided to try and strong arm the U.K. for party political benefit.
Ireland can face down the UK even if Boris doesn't back down. This is perhaps the crux of the question about where the balance of power lies that many people don't get.
He can face us down all the way to a no backstop Brexit. Well done!
Mr. Jessop, I'd be delighted to hear how I'm responsible for the actions of Dominic Grieve, or the decision of pro-EU MPs to repeatedly reject the deal, having voted to leave the EU, making no deal the course we're currently on.
(Snip)
You are doing it again: you point your finger at the remainers and scream that they're the ones who have caused this mess. You don't point at the ERG who gave remainers cover by repeatedly emptying their bowels over anything that wasn't hard no-deal brexit. Why should moderate remainers have voted for it when the very people who wanted Brexit were screeching about how bad it was?
The ERGers set the mood about the WA.
Yet in the eyes of the Brexiteers, it's all someone else's fault. In realty, we are all to blame to some extent.
But the biggest shovel of ordure needs pouring over the brexiteers, and those who wanted Brexit over every other consideration about the good of the country and its people.
I don't see how you can conclude other than those MPs who want to remain or leave with a deal have (collectively) been stupid beyond all belief.
The ERG want to leave without a deal. They're very. very likely to get their way.
They're getting their way, despite being only 50 or 60 strong in Parliament. The other 600 odd MPs have been comprehensively outwitted.
In that case why does Johnson (and by implication yourself also) blame those wanting a deal for the No Deal he himself imposes on the country, after having voted against the deal twice before? Why doesn't he just say, No Deal is cool?
This is the real reason why Ireland won't concede, ever, on the backstop. Yes it can follow the UK by diverging from the EU in step. But it goes against its economic interest to do so, and more importantly, against their idea of who they are. It doesn't see why it automatically should be making the concession rather than the UK whose project this is, and which is hostile to Ireland anyway. It thinks, thanks to the backing of the EU, it can face the UK down on this issue.
Yes, and under May they were probably right.
I don’t think Boris will back down (you can argue about his motives)
Unfortunately Varadkar decided to try and strong arm the U.K. for party political benefit.
Ireland can face down the UK even if Boris doesn't back down. This is perhaps the crux of the question about where the balance of power lies that many people don't get.
Can it? GFA counts for little if Ireland puts up a border; backstop counts for nothing if they don't.
This is the real reason why Ireland won't concede, ever, on the backstop. Yes it can follow the UK by diverging from the EU in step. But it goes against its economic interest to do so, and more importantly, against their idea of who they are. It doesn't see why it automatically should be making the concession rather than the UK whose project this is, and which is hostile to Ireland anyway. It thinks, thanks to the backing of the EU, it can face the UK down on this issue.
Yes, and under May they were probably right.
I don’t think Boris will back down (you can argue about his motives)
Unfortunately Varadkar decided to try and strong arm the U.K. for party political benefit.
No, Charles, Varadkar has done what any Irish leader would have done. That is why his stance on Brexit enjoys such strong cross-party support in Ireland.
Its not what his predecessor was doing. His predecessor was working on technological solutions. There's cross-party support to 'back Ireland' as there should be but isn't in this country.
I am not a great Boris fan but why is it offensive and if it offends you why post it?
You can stick "Vote Conservative" on the end of that clip... The soft focus optimism and upbeat music makes it a decent PPB. The Lib Dems can do something similar with a pro European message. What on earth will Labour produce ?
Does it work for you? The coming together message should resonate with me as a Scot that supports the Union but it comes across as completely false.
There is an inherent contradiction between a policy that splits the country down the middle, and threatens the Union, and a message of coming together.
Johnson is not speaking to the country, he is speaking to that narrow demographic he needs to win an election. It’s a 35% strategy. Post-Brexit, UK citizens will be less free and ruled by a government the majority has rejected, while the UK itself will be entirely dependent on the goodwill of others to keep on trading. This is the future. Do those uplands get more sunlit?
That 2005 general election. PM Tony Blair got 35.2%.
Enough for him to pass the baton to Gordon Brown and his sunlit uplands.....
And your point is?
OK, for the dim amongst us - you weren't bitching when Tony Blair got Labour 5 more years on a 35% strategy, back when it suited your politics.
Er, yes I was. I have been a consistent supporter of PR for decades.
Mr. Jessop, I'd be delighted to hear how I'm responsible for the actions of Dominic Grieve, or the decision of pro-EU MPs to repeatedly reject the deal, having voted to leave the EU, making no deal the course we're currently on.
(Snip)
You are doing it again: you point your finger at the remainers and scream that they're the ones who have caused this mess. You don't point at the ERG who gave remainers cover by repeatedly emptying their bowels over anything that wasn't hard no-deal brexit. Why should moderate remainers have voted for it when the very people who wanted Brexit were screeching about how bad it was?
The ERGers set the mood about the WA.
Yet in the eyes of the Brexiteers, it's all someone else's fault. In realty, we are all to blame to some extent.
But the biggest shovel of ordure needs pouring over the brexiteers, and those who wanted Brexit over every other consideration about the good of the country and its people.
I don't see how you can conclude other than those MPs who want to remain or leave with a deal have (collectively) been stupid beyond all belief.
The ERG want to leave without a deal. They're very. very likely to get their way.
They're getting their way, despite being only 50 or 60 strong in Parliament. The other 600 odd MPs have been comprehensively outwitted.
In that case why is Johnson (and implication yourself also) blaming those wanting a deal for the No Deal he himself imposes on the country, after having voted against the deal twice before? Why doesn't he just say, No Deal is cool?
On his people's PMQs I wish someone had asked Boris for a fiver at one millions against no deal
This is the real reason why Ireland won't concede, ever, on the backstop. Yes it can follow the UK by diverging from the EU in step. But it goes against its economic interest to do so, and more importantly, against their idea of who they are. It doesn't see why it automatically should be making the concession rather than the UK whose project this is, and which is hostile to Ireland anyway. It thinks, thanks to the backing of the EU, it can face the UK down on this issue.
Yes, and under May they were probably right.
I don’t think Boris will back down (you can argue about his motives)
Unfortunately Varadkar decided to try and strong arm the U.K. for party political benefit.
Ireland can face down the UK even if Boris doesn't back down. This is perhaps the crux of the question about where the balance of power lies that many people don't get.
Can it? GFA counts for little if Ireland puts up a border; backstop counts for nothing if they don't.
If the UK chooses to leave with No Deal, it does not absolve the UK of its responsibilities under the GFA. The UK will just have to face the consequences of its choice.
This is the real reason why Ireland won't concede, ever, on the backstop. Yes it can follow the UK by diverging from the EU in step. But it goes against its economic interest to do so, and more importantly, against their idea of who they are. It doesn't see why it automatically should be making the concession rather than the UK whose project this is, and which is hostile to Ireland anyway. It thinks, thanks to the backing of the EU, it can face the UK down on this issue.
Yes, and under May they were probably right.
I don’t think Boris will back down (you can argue about his motives)
Unfortunately Varadkar decided to try and strong arm the U.K. for party political benefit.
Ireland can face down the UK even if Boris doesn't back down. This is perhaps the crux of the question about where the balance of power lies that many people don't get.
Can it? GFA counts for little if Ireland puts up a border; backstop counts for nothing if they don't.
Precisely. The second we Brexit Schrodinger's Irish border gets resolved.
Currently there is said to be both a need for a border and a need not to have a border, the cat is said to be alive and dead. Once we Brexit we open the box and find if the border cat is alive or dead and the backstop vanishes.
Comments
Love Gold - It Never Dies.
As I commented last night the vindictive posting by opposing supporters on this wonderful site is truely depressing
That's why some Northern Labour MPs are worried.
"I politely suggest you refer to Erskin May regarding the responsibilities of MPs."
And I politely suggest you look at the polling. If the voters think he's a twat, he is.
Parliament is a means for the people to be heard, not for them to be ignored.
A Deal was agreed by May, MPs rejected it 3 times so No Deal is likely inevitable now.
In fact by asking the EU to remove the backstop from the Withdrawal Agreement Boris is still pushing for the only Deal MPs will vote for as the Brady amendment showed
https://tracker.borisherrmannracing.com/
https://tinyurl.com/y49m9zqd
In exactly the same way, the ballot paper asked one question. But the entire prospectus of Leave was built around a proposal that explicitly disavowed no deal Brexit. It is just as preposterous to claim a mandate for no deal Brexit as to claim the referendum was advisory only.
What's then left is an attempt for a general election which Boris might achieve in getting but it would be saner for Labour to let the clock run down and see Boris panic...
Iowa is weird because it isn't just voting in a box. The caucus involves lots of conversation, people trying to convince people to vote for their candidate, etc. Biden may have the polling figures he has due to name recognition, but he doesn't have Warren's ground game. I think she'll come first, Biden second or even third, as I think his support is softer than other candidates.
(And I'm not talking g about Jews, mainly evangelical Christians).
a) Why do 20% of remainers not want a GONU and more mysterious 12% of leavers do.
b) Presenting just the % of who support each person as PM under a GONU is misleading. The bars showing the don't knows and against is more informative. Lots of don't knows (understandably) and clearly most leavers won't want anyone leading a GONU. The key figure seems to be the 63% opposed to Corbyn.
It's offensive because post Brexit Britain (or England) will only be the best place in the World to live if you were born here with white skin.
Since the current one has abandoned any pretence of principles, a new Parliament is required.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49413186
So, at very least, NI goods passing into the EU via RoI would need to be identified and checked and, of course, rules of origin do not make things simple in that respect.
And the UK would need to true up RoI goods by Larne / Holyhead &c to meet the rules too. There might be no additional formal divergence between NI rules and GB rules, but the elephant in the room if we don't impose a hard border is that we will have, very quickly, something that looks, feels and behaves very much like the backstop, just several years before it might have happened (or not) and with a lot less ruleset agreement in place, this frontstop will most likely be harsher in operation than the theoretical backstop would have been.
How will that go down?
Of course the UK could just ignore the rulesets. I wonder though: Trump is no longer of rulesets and is soft soaping us at the moment, but the UK ignoring rules.... could he do a bad cop cycle and impose punitive tarriffs on us for "taking advantage", to soften us up further for an asymmetric deal. That's a speculation, of course, but not wildly improbable and it would hit the Atlanticist flag wavers like a Pearl.Harbour event.
"There is no plan for no deal, because we're going to get a great deal".
There is no mandate for no deal Brexit.
Back in the day I am willing to admit this was not the case (even if the ruling elite often acted poorly on the information they had). I feel right and left wing populism in the modern era is a product of the belief the voter knows more than their representative.
In times gone by the point was "the average Joe and Joanne shouldn't need to know these things, so let's pick someone we trust to have this information and make decisions on our behalf with that information". Now it's "I know better, but the system means I need a representative, so that representative should do what I want, or what is the point of them". The "what is the point of them" is populist breaking point, where we realise that maybe the way our representative democracy works isn't very good.
Enough for him to pass the baton to Gordon Brown and his sunlit uplands.....
The ERGers set the mood about the WA.
Yet in the eyes of the Brexiteers, it's all someone else's fault. In realty, we are all to blame to some extent.
But the biggest shovel of ordure needs pouring over the brexiteers, and those who wanted Brexit over every other consideration about the good of the country and its people.
Pillock.
I've also expressed contempt for Boris Johnson's latest idiotic utterance.
Why should moderate remainers, as you describe them, take a voting cue from the ERG, whose opinion is the opposite of their own? It's like vegans taking the same line as pork butchers when it comes to a menu.
There is, as you suggest, plenty of blame to go around. It's certainly not confined to one side.
The ERG want to leave without a deal. They're very. very likely to get their way.
They're getting their way, despite being only 50 or 60 strong in Parliament. The other 600 odd MPs have been comprehensively outwitted.
Took the shilling and then torpedoed their government's flagship policy (a negotiated Brexit) out of pure sectarian intransigence.
I can see why they are digging in their heels now, because they think that the U.K. will fold
I can see why they are saying today that nothing will change after No Deal (increases the pressure on the U.K. to fold)
AIUI, a correctly structured FTA replaces a need for the backstop. So once we are in a hard border situation why would the U.K. ever agree to the backstop? All it does is release the pressure on the EU to agree an FTA. Isn’t the logical thing to do to live with a hard border (assuming there is no other solution) and negotiate an FTA to make the problem go away?
I don’t think Boris will back down (you can argue about his motives)
Unfortunately Varadkar decided to try and strong arm the U.K. for party political benefit.
Grieve and co scream that they don't want no deal, but they were the ERGs useful idiots voting with the ERG to reject the deal.
The ERG have no blame in voting consistently for what they wanted. They voted to invoke Article 50, they voted to reject May's awful deal, they voted to reject an extension.
Grieve and co voted to invoke Article 50, voted to reject the deal, but then claim they wanted a deal and not no deal. They're the idiots not the ERG.
The ERG didn't "give remainers cover" since we're not remaining. The ERG used remainers in order to ensure we left without a deal - well done remainers!
Germany has been fucking the PIGS for 20 years with no sign of that changing
Why would they give that up to compete in the U.K.?
If the Johnson plan is to No Deal and then fight an election because those circumstances are the ones which are most favourable to him smashing Corbyn at the polls, how come this is (supposedly) also Corbyn's secret wish/plan?
Although I appreciate the NI thread was yesterday.
Currently there is said to be both a need for a border and a need not to have a border, the cat is said to be alive and dead. Once we Brexit we open the box and find if the border cat is alive or dead and the backstop vanishes.