Lots more arguments here yesterday about what's constitutional in a country with no written constitution. And on telly a bunch of political nobodies signing a big board that is surely the 2019 equivalent of the Ed Stone.
What's constitutional in a long embedded parliamentary democracy such as the UK, is whatever has popular consent. And the mechanism for finding that out is a general election. The rest is noise.
The Ed Stone v.2 crowd, along with Stewart, Hammond and Co might be able to get a 90 days or 180 days extension through with some convention breaking practice. But if there's popular consent to Leave, it shall in the end be so.
The only reason the election isn't happening now is because Tory Remainers and anti-Corbyn Labourites want to indulge in both eating and having cake. Fair enough. Why have a cake if you aren't allowed to eat it.
But my message to such cake scoffers would be to put up or shut up and call a VONC, because all they are doing right now is delaying the inevitability of the decision and extending the period of uncertainty and rancour.
Meanwhile while they play their pointless games, the rest of us can sit back and get excited about the ticking countdown clock, which now stands at only 76 days. I talk of course about the launch of Disney+ and The Mandalorian, starring the irrepressible Pedro Pascal!
Pointless games? All of those MPs who met yesterday to oppose No Deal are sat on the same side of the negotiating table as the EU. In the biggest negotiation of this country's commercial interests in many, many decades. A negotiation brought about by 17.4m people deciding that is what they wanted.
Aha! The old “Quisling” gambit.
This is why Brexshit will never end: you guys truly despise each other. Cheers Dave!
You may well have a point about the effect of some of the EU's policies. But that does not mean that Brexit - let alone Brexit on the basis on which it is now being offered - is the answer. Dislike of the EU is not enough to come up with a sensible alternative. And yet that seems to be the entire basis of the government's current policy.
The point you fail to register is the threat people like you see to your incomes has been the reality for loads of people outside the prosperity of London and the South East for years.
For these people the choice is the the guaranteed continued disintegration of their communities ( no hope ) versus the chance that things might improve with a shock to the system. Its a perfectly rational choice from where they sit.
I don't dislike the Brexit we have on offer because of the threat to my income. I dislike it, inter alia, because it threatens the very survival of my daughter's business (employing 4 people at the age of 24 and currently profitable with a hell of a lot of work) in precisely one of those forgotten areas that the Brexiteers claim to be speaking for.
The Brexiteers are using them and will dump them. Of that I have no doubt. The sheep farmers know they are going to be sold down the river by the Brexiteers. The people who are keenest on this hard Brexit are precisely the hedge funders and others in London and the South-East who will take advantage and who then hope to deregulate and remove whatever protections the poor and left-behind still have so that they can create their free market nirvana.
There is a tension between those who voted for Brexit because they hoped for something better (a return to a more stable, protected, guaranteed life, which I sympathise with) - and those who want it because they want to complete an ultra-Thatcherite revolution. That tension has not resolved itself and when it does the results will not be pretty for the disintegrating communities you talk about.
Yes, the divide between the footsoldiers of Leave in neglected areas of the country, and the Cummings tendency who want to smash the state is going to click into focus in time.
Are we going to get an extra £350 million per week for the NHS, or cast the NHS into a free market furnace of US interests?
Foxy: "Though almost certainly they have voted to disrupt their communities further. The cold winds of globalism will blow much harder with No Deal."
Please explain the mechanism that supports your statement. Brexit is intrinsically a partial unwinding of globalism. It's Alice and Wonderland stuff here today so far.
Ive been on an unlevel plating field for years, thats the point. Ive had to move UK contracts to continental factories because the board decided its cheaper to sack the brits. It sticks in my craw.
I watched the Parliamentary committe on Bridgend yesterday and the chief weasel from Ford simply summed up again the problem we face.
Easier to hit the brits so lets dump them and their taxpayers cxan pick up the bill.
Well done Alan. I'd like Alistair or any other arch Europhile to please explain why they think there has been stagnant real (and nominal!) wage growth in most socioeconomic bands in the UK, despite a very long period of full employment.
Do you think it might have anything to do with the free trade regime of goods/capital/people the UK has had with much lower income countries, as required by three of four of the EU's famous pillars?
Do you think the fourth pillar (free services) is something that primarily helps a) the low skilled in Sunderland, or b) lawyers in London?
I wish for just a day everyone on both sides would just stop and try and understand why half the country voted in the opposite way to them. There are nuanced economic and political driving forces behind this whole thing, this language of cultists is just so one dimensional.
What the concern now is that the precise form of Brexit the government is hell-bent on heading for will make the position very much worse for those people and regions who felt left behind rather than better.
One of the most damaging things economically is uncertainty. By extending Art 50 with the Cooper Letwin motion Parliament wished another 6 months of uncertainty upon us with adverse economic effects including delayed investment. It really would be a gross dereliction of duty of the Commons to do that again. But they probably will. At that point Boris will seek his election and rightly so. Whether he will get it is another question. Many of the members of this Parliament face unemployment once that election is held. Not enough, regrettably.
If all that the Commons can agree on is a further extension, then a further extension it will be. If that helps prompt the death cult into considering what compromises they are prepared to make to secure a majority in the House of Commons, perhaps that would be a start.
Holding a general election is a bit like pulling the handle of a fruit machine. You’d have thought the Conservatives would have learned from 2017 that they can end up with two lemons and a cherry. But perhaps they need a refresher.
Hopefully Boris will be able to come to the Commons with some sort of a revised deal with some sort of a mechanism to replace the backstop but time is incredibly tight and there is no guarantee that this most useless of Parliaments would vote even for that. We need to get back to the compromise of May's deal with the options that gives us to agree the future relationship with the EU during the transition period. The decision of whether that should include permanent SM membership, CU, even free movement are best determined by a GE.
This Parliament is not particularly useless. It accurately reflects the divisions in the society it represents. Given the epic mistake that Britain made in 2016, there is a lot to be said for allowing a lengthy fermentation process before uncorking the next step.
That sort of self indulgence comes at a heavy price.
That price being dictatorship in England for the first time since their Civil War.
Ive been on an unlevel plating field for years, thats the point. Ive had to move UK contracts to continental factories because the board decided its cheaper to sack the brits. It sticks in my craw.
I watched the Parliamentary committe on Bridgend yesterday and the chief weasel from Ford simply summed up again the problem we face.
Easier to hit the brits so lets dump them and their taxpayers cxan pick up the bill.
Well done Alan. I'd like Alistair or any other arch Europhile to please explain why they think there has been stagnant real (and nominal!) wage growth in most socioeconomic bands in the UK, despite a very long period of full employment.
Do you think it might have anything to do with the free trade regime of goods/capital/people the UK has had with much lower income countries, as required by three of four of the EU's famous pillars?
Do you think the fourth pillar (free services) is something that primarily helps a) the low skilled in Sunderland, or b) lawyers in London?
I wish for just a day everyone on both sides would just stop and try and understand why half the country voted in the opposite way to them. There are nuanced economic and political driving forces behind this whole thing, this language of cultists is just so one dimensional.
What the concern now is that the precise form of Brexit the government is hell-bent on heading for will make the position very much worse for those people and regions who felt left behind rather than better.
You can fool yourself but you're not fooling anyone else. The true concern now is that Brexit is upon us and looks like it can't be stopped.
Yes, the divide between the footsoldiers of Leave in neglected areas of the country, and the Cummings tendency who want to smash the state is going to click into focus in time.
Are we going to get an extra £350 million per week for the NHS, or cast the NHS into a free market furnace of US interests?
Questions to which the answer is What Do You Reckon?
Oh cry me a river. You and the other cultists are completely casual about the job losses and real suffering a disorderly no deal Brexit would cause. But you don’t care about that because of your mad obsession.
werent you casual as the jobs went in Cadbury, Peugeot, Bombardier ? Suck it up you cried. Maybe if youd paid more attention you would have seen how it was changing the political landscape. Brexit was completely avoidable but you cheer led it causes.
Bingo! We’ve now reached the point that it’s Remainers’ fault that Leavers voted for Brexit. We’ve reached peak Leaver today.
Double Bingo, Meeks has no answer but diversion.
As it happens, one of my upcoming thread headersrow) and more disruption of communities.
Brexit just accelerates existing trends and makes the problem worse.
Yes, of course its disruption of communities and the feeling when the major employer has gone that there is no hope. HMG has no policies for these places bar handouts and migrartion. it's hardly a surprise when desperate people move to desperate politicans.
So your solution is what? Because I dons which depend in part on that sector?
As far as I can
The point you fail to register is the threat people lwhere they sit.
Though almost certainly they have voted to disrupt their communities further. The cold winds of globalism will blow much harder with No Deal.
last week I was in deepest Leaverstan. I was chatting to the owner of a fish and chip shop in Rayleigh as he cooked the fish. His take on Brexit was it will have no impact on him. He fries fish and potatoes and people buy them.
On this board we tend to be people who are the exception to the UK average rather than the rule. Most people just dont care that much.
I agree, a lot of the Leave vote was made up of people who could safely be against the EU, because it barely affects them, so are not bothered either way. The plurality of the retired voting Leave is a further example.
Mr. L, it is slightly perverse that those who chose to vote against a deal three times now seek to legislate to make no deal impossible.
Their hearts seek to remain (or at least pretend thus) but they pussyfoot around.
Exactly so. The reason Cooper Letwin was a disgrace is that it was a road to nowhere, a refusal to make a decision. Had Parliament resolved to revoke Article 50 or even hold a second referendum there would have been a purpose to it but to simply delay because it was somehow too hard to reach a consensus was a dereliction of duty. Nothing achieved, more damage done, they should hang their heads in shame.
I agree, and it was cowardly to boot, but demanding a further extension is closer to being ok if they at the same time make a decision on referendum etc. Thst option does not resolve things either but at least extension would be for a purpose not simply avoidance.
One of the most damaging things economically is uncertainty. By extending Art 50 with the Cooper Letwin motion Parliament wished another 6 months of uncertainty upon us with adverse economic effects including delayed investment. It really would be a gross dereliction of duty of the Commons to do that again. But they probably will. At that point Boris will seek his election and rightly so. Whether he will get it is another question. Many of the members of this Parliament face unemployment once that election is held. Not enough, regrettably.
There is a huge economic cost, not down to Brexit per se, but the uncertainty around when/what/how we implment it. It is costing economic growth, it is costing jobs. Boris needs to shout very loudly that those losses lie at the door of those Remain MPs continually dicking around with extensions.
No Deal is not an end state and so will not end uncertainty. We need a settled and agreed path to a settled and agreed future. That’s the only way this ends in anything like a positive manner from here.
So how do we get back to May's deal? That's the challenge and its a hard one.
My guess is that a soft Brexit that - initially, at least - saw the UK move to EFTA status would get through the House of Commons quite easily and be acceptable to a majority in the country. It would, though, split the Tories and end Johnson’s Premiership, so will never happen. If we want significant progress we need a referendum. That won’t happen either. Thus, we are left with No Deal and years more uncertainty during which Brexit dominates everything. In the end, businesses will take a view and those that have used the UK as a bridge into the single market will move elsewhere, while those (like us) that sell into the single market will divert investments from the UK into opening offices in an EU member state to ensure maximum access.
No, as MPs voted against the Eustice amendment to stay in the EEA and join EFTA, the Boles amendment to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union and the Kyle amendment for EUref2 in the indicative votes.
The only Brexit solution to have got a majority in the Commons is the Brady amendment for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop which is exactly what Boris is aiming for with the Withdrawal Agreement replaced by a technical solution
One of the most damaging things economically is uncertainty. By extending Art 50 with the Cooper Letwin motion Parliament wished another 6 months of uncertainty upon us with adverse economic effects including delayed investment. It really would be a gross dereliction of duty of the Commons to do that again. But they probably will. At that point Boris will seek his election and rightly so. Whether he will get it is another question. Many of the members of this Parliament face unemployment once that election is held. Not enough, regrettably.
And will you be canvassing for the Ruth Davidson Party or the Boris The Clown Party?
The stupidity of no deal is that it takes uncertainty to the max for businesses involved in trade. About 70% of our export markets become difficult. By the time things recover our remaining industrial sector might be finished. This may affect only a few people in the population but they are highly important as they generate the fx the country needs to buy things like the medicine and bananas the brexiters promised us.
One of the most damaging things economically is uncertainty. By extending Art 50 with the Cooper Letwin motion Parliament wished another 6 months of uncertainty upon us with adverse economic effects including delayed investment. It really would be a gross dereliction of duty of the Commons to do that again. But they probably will. At that point Boris will seek his election and rightly so. Whether he will get it is another question. Many of the members of this Parliament face unemployment once that election is held. Not enough, regrettably.
If all that the Commons can agree on is a further extension, then a further extension it will be. If that helps prompt the death cult into considering what compromises they are prepared to make to secure a majority in the House of Commons, perhaps that would be a start.
Holding a general election is a bit like pulling the handle of a fruit machine. You’d have thought the Conservatives would have learned from 2017 that they can end up with two lemons and a cherry. But perhaps they need a refresher.
Hopefully Boris will be able to come to the Commons with some sort of a revised deal with some sort of a mechanism to replace the backstop but time is incredibly tight and there is no guarantee that this most useless of Parliaments would vote even for that. We need to get back to the compromise of May's deal with the options that gives us to agree the future relationship with the EU during the transition period. The decision of whether that should include permanent SM membership, CU, even free movement are best determined by a GE.
This Parliament is not particularly useless. It accurately reflects the divisions in the society it represents. Given the epic mistake that Britain made in 2016, there is a lot to be said for allowing a lengthy fermentation process before uncorking the next step.
That sort of self indulgence comes at a heavy price.
That price being dictatorship in England for the first time since their Civil War.
One of the most damaging things economically is uncertainty. By extending Art 50 with the Cooper Letwin motion Parliament wished another 6 months of uncertainty upon us with adverse economic effects including delayed investment. It really would be a gross dereliction of duty of the Commons to do that again. But they probably will. At that point Boris will seek his election and rightly so. Whether he will get it is another question. Many of the members of this Parliament face unemployment once that election is held. Not enough, regrettably.
There is a huge economic cost, not down to Brexit per se, but the uncertainty around when/what/how we implment it. It is costing economic growth, it is costing jobs. Boris needs to shout very loudly that those losses lie at the door of those Remain MPs continually dicking around with extensions.
No Deal is not an end state and so will not end uncertainty. We need a settled and agreed path to a settled and agreed future. That’s the only way this ends in anything like a positive manner from here.
So how do we get back to May's deal? That's the challenge and its a hard one.
My guess is that a soft Brexit that - initially, at least - saw the UK move to EFTA status would get through the House of Commons quite easily and be acceptable to a majority in the country. It would, though, split the Tories and end Johnson’s Premiership, so will never happen. If we want significant progress we need a referendum. That won’t happen either. Thus, we are left with No Deal and years more uncertainty during which Brexit dominates everything. In the end, businesses will take a view and those that have used the UK as a bridge into the single market will move elsewhere, while those (like us) that sell into the single market will divert investments from the UK into opening offices in an EU member state to ensure maximum access.
No, as MPs voted against the Eustice amendment to stay in the EEA and join EFTA, the Boles amendment to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union and the Kyle amendment for EUref2 in the indicative votes.
The only Brexit solution to have got a majority in the Commons is the Brady amendment for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop which is exactly what Boris is aiming for with the Withdrawal Agreement replaced by a technical solution
There will be no technical solution by October 31st. That is the whole point of the backstop. The fact that the Commons had a majority for the Brady amendment is irrelevant.
You generally given the impression that you know something about the world and then you write this. It's now people in London and the South East that are the keenest on a hard Brexit??
That’s a warped ridiculous reading of the post and you know it unless you think the whole of the SE and London are hedge fund managers and off shore investors desperate to avoid the Financial Transparency regulations coming in 2020.
There has been no strategy at the heart of the parties' offerings for some time now. It's why the country is bouncing around from wall to wall just getting battered and bruised.
For what it's worth, Labour has a coherent strategy, which people may not like and which may not prove possible but is intellectually cohesive.
1. Get an election and win it. 2. Scrap May's red lines and negotiate a deal including customs union and not too fussed about free movement - effectively Norway. 3. Offer it to the people in a new referendum as a reasonable option, with Remain as the other reasonable option. Accept either outcome without quibbling. Face down the extremists who want a damaging No Deal or other lunacies. 4. Conduct a socialist government.
And some additional points which matter. Don't flirt with suspending Parliament to get our way. Don't treat opponents as traitors, merely as people we disagree with but will work with as the Parliamentary arithmetic dictates.
Does it mean left-wing policies? Sure. Would it mean a cooler relationship with the US? Under Trump, yes. Might it have all kinds of problems? Undoubtedly. But it's a coherent democratic socialist alternative, and not one that treats Parliament as a suspendible annoyance or obsesses with Brexit while the country rots. It seems to me *obviously* better than what we have now.
It might be labour policy to renegotiate a new deal but do you really honestly believe that can be done when 75% or whatever of labour mps want to remain come what may? They have no interest in following the official policy and say so openly.
There has been no strategy at the heart of the parties' offerings for some time now. It's why the country is bouncing around from wall to wall just getting battered and bruised.
For what it's worth, Labour has a coherent strategy, which people may not like and which may not prove possible but is intellectually cohesive.
1. Get an election and win it. 2. Scrap May's red lines and negotiate a deal including customs union and not too fussed about free movement - effectively Norway. 3. Offer it to the people in a new referendum as a reasonable option, with Remain as the other reasonable option. Accept either outcome without quibbling. Face down the extremists who want a damaging No Deal or other lunacies. 4. Conduct a socialist government.
And some additional points which matter. Don't flirt with suspending Parliament to get our way. Don't treat opponents as traitors, merely as people we disagree with but will work with as the Parliamentary arithmetic dictates.
Does it mean left-wing policies? Sure. Would it mean a cooler relationship with the US? Under Trump, yes. Might it have all kinds of problems? Undoubtedly. But it's a coherent democratic socialist alternative, and not one that treats Parliament as a suspendible annoyance or obsesses with Brexit while the country rots. It seems to me *obviously* better than what we have now.
It might be labour policy to renegotiate a new deal but do you really honestly believe that can be done when 75% or whatever of labour mps want to remain come what may? They have no interest in following the official policy and say so openly.
I think they would. I'm a "diehard remainer" as @HYUFD likes to call me but would accept EEA/EFTA.
Foxy: "Though almost certainly they have voted to disrupt their communities further. The cold winds of globalism will blow much harder with No Deal."
Please explain the mechanism that supports your statement. Brexit is intrinsically a partial unwinding of globalism. It's Alice and Wonderland stuff here today so far.
Brexit could be an unwinding of globalism, if it was about tariff barriers and import substitution (might get some WTO trouble though!), but the vision that this government has is not that Peronist approach, but rather a low tariff low regulation world. The plan is for more globalisation, not less.
One of the most damaging things economically is uncertainty. By extending Art 50 with the Cooper Letwin motion Parliament wished another 6 months of uncertainty upon us with adverse economic effects including delayed investment. It really would be a gross dereliction of duty of the Commons to do that again. But they probably will. At that point Boris will seek his election and rightly so. Whether he will get it is another question. Many of the members of this Parliament face unemployment once that election is held. Not enough, regrettably.
There is a huge economic cost, not down to Brexit per se, but the uncertainty around when/what/how we implment it. It is costing economic growth, it is costing jobs. Boris needs to shout very loudly that those losses lie at the door of those Remain MPs continually dicking around with extensions.
No Deal is not an end state and so will not end uncertainty. We need a settled and agreed path to a settled and agreed future. That’s the only way this ends in anything like a positive manner from here.
So how do we get back to May's deal? That's the challenge and its a hard one.
My guess is that a soft Brexit that - initially, at least - saw the UK move to EFTA status would get through the House of Commons quite easily and be acceptable to a majority in the country. It would, though, split the Tories and end Johnson’s Premiership, so will never happen. If we want significant progress we need he UK into opening offices in an EU member state to ensure maximum access.
No, as MPs voted against the Eustice amendment to stay in the EEA and join EFTA, the Boles amendment to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union and the Kyle amendment for EUref2 in the indicative votes.
The only Brexit solution to have got a majority in the Commons is the Brady amendment for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop which is exactly what Boris is aiming for with the Withdrawal Agreement replaced by a technical solution
There will be no technical solution by October 31st. That is the whole point of the backstop. The fact that the Commons had a majority for the Brady amendment is irrelevant.
Neither Macron nor Merkel ruled out a technical solution in 30 days and the fact the Brady amendment is the only No Deal alternative to have got a majority is pivotal as No Deal is the default on October 31st but Boris is trying the only No Deal alternative MPs will vote for
Foxy: "Though almost certainly they have voted to disrupt their communities further. The cold winds of globalism will blow much harder with No Deal."
Please explain the mechanism that supports your statement. Brexit is intrinsically a partial unwinding of globalism. It's Alice and Wonderland stuff here today so far.
Brexit could be an unwinding of globalism, if it was about tariff barriers and import substitution (might get some WTO trouble though!), but the vision that this government has is not that Peronist approach, but rather a low tariff low regulation world. The plan is for more globalisation, not less.
One of the interesting things Brexit is exposing is just how fragile global supply chains can be. I suspect we will have a drift to greater localism as a result.
There has been no strategy at the heart of the parties' offerings for some time now. It's why the country is bouncing around from wall to wall just getting battered and bruised.
For what it's worth, Labour has a coherent strategy, which people may not like and which may not prove possible but is intellectually cohesive.
1. Get an election and win it. 2. Scrap May's red lines and negotiate a deal including customs union and not too fussed about free movement - effectively Norway. 3. Offer it to the people in a new referendum as a reasonable option, with Remain as the other reasonable option. Accept either outcome without quibbling. Face down the extremists who want a damaging No Deal or other lunacies. 4. Conduct a socialist government.
And some additional points which matter. Don't flirt with suspending Parliament to get our way. Don't treat opponents as traitors, merely as people we disagree with but will work with as the Parliamentary arithmetic dictates.
Does it mean left-wing policies? Sure. Would it mean a cooler relationship with the US? Under Trump, yes. Might it have all kinds of problems? Undoubtedly. But it's a coherent democratic socialist alternative, and not one that treats Parliament as a suspendible annoyance or obsesses with Brexit while the country rots. It seems to me *obviously* better than what we have now.
It might be labour policy to renegotiate a new deal but do you really honestly believe that can be done when 75% or whatever of labour mps want to remain come what may? They have no interest in following the official policy and say so openly.
I think they would. I'm a "diehard remainer" as @HYUFD likes to call me but would accept EEA/EFTA.
In a decade maybe but we have to end free movement and bring EU immigration under control first as Vote Leave promised in the campaign
One of the most damaging things economically is uncertainty. By extending Art 50 with the Cooper Letwin motion Parliament wished another 6 months of uncertainty upon us with adverse economic effects including delayed investment. It really would be a gross dereliction of duty of the Commons to do that again. But they probably will. At that point Boris will seek his election and rightly so. Whether he will get it is another question. Many of the members of this Parliament face unemployment once that election is held. Not enough, regrettably.
There is a huge economic cost, not down to Brexit per se, but the uncertainty around when/what/how we implment it. It is costing economic growth, it is costing jobs. Boris needs to shout very loudly that those losses lie at the door of those Remain MPs continually dicking around with extensions.
No Deal is not an end state and so will not end uncertainty. We need a settled and agreed path to a settled and agreed future. That’s the only way this ends in anything like a positive manner from here.
So how do we get back to May's deal? That's the challenge and its a hard one.
My guess is that a soft Brexit that - initially, at least - saw the UK move to EFTA status would get through the House of Commons quite easily and be acceptable to a majority in the country. It would, though, split the Tories and end Johnson’s Premiership, so will never happen. If we want significant progress we need he UK into opening offices in an EU member state to ensure maximum access.
No, as MPs voted against the Eustice amendment to stay in the EEA and join EFTA, the Boles amendment to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union and the Kyle amendment for EUref2 in the indicative votes.
The only Brexit solution to have got a majority in the Commons is the Brady amendment for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop which is exactly what Boris is aiming for with the Withdrawal Agreement replaced by a technical solution
There will be no technical solution by October 31st. That is the whole point of the backstop. The fact that the Commons had a majority for the Brady amendment is irrelevant.
Neither Macron nor Merkel ruled out a technical solution in 30 days and the fact the Brady amendment is the only No Deal alternative to have got a majority is pivotal as No Deal is the default on October 31st but Boris is trying the only No Deal alternative MPs will vote for
Complete fiction. Macron and Merkel know it isn't possible. Tick. Tock.
There has been no strategy at the heart of the parties' offerings for some time now. It's why the country is bouncing around from wall to wall just getting battered and bruised.
For what it's worth, Labour has a coherent strategy, which people may not like and which may not prove possible but is intellectually cohesive.
1. Get an election and win it. 2. Scrap May's red lines and negotiate a deal including customs union and not too fussed about free movement - effectively Norway. 3. Offer it to the people in a new referendum as a reasonable option, with Remain as the other reasonable option. Accept either outcome without quibbling. Face down the extremists who want a damaging No Deal or other lunacies. 4. Conduct a socialist government.
And some additional points which matter. Don't flirt with suspending Parliament to get our way. Don't treat opponents as traitors, merely as people we disagree with but will work with as the Parliamentary arithmetic dictates.
Does it mean left-wing policies? Sure. Would it mean a cooler relationship with the US? Under Trump, yes. Might it have all kinds of problems? Undoubtedly. But it's a coherent democratic socialist alternative, and not one that treats Parliament as a suspendible annoyance or obsesses with Brexit while the country rots. It seems to me *obviously* better than what we have now.
It might be labour policy to renegotiate a new deal but do you really honestly believe that can be done when 75% or whatever of labour mps want to remain come what may? They have no interest in following the official policy and say so openly.
I think they would. I'm a "diehard remainer" as @HYUFD likes to call me but would accept EEA/EFTA.
In a decade maybe but we have to end free movement and bring EU immigration under control first as Vote Leave promised in the campaign
One of the most damaging things economically is uncertainty. By extending Art 50 with the Cooper Letwin motion Parliament wished another 6 months of uncertainty upon us with adverse economic effects including delayed investment. It really would be a gross dereliction of duty of the Commons to do that again. But they probably will. At that point Boris will seek his election and rightly so. Whether he will get it is another question. Many of the members of this Parliament face unemployment once that election is held. Not enough, regrettably.
There is a huge economic cost, not down to Brexit per se, but the uncertainty around when/what/how we implment it. It is costing economic growth, it is costing jobs. Boris needs to shout very loudly that those losses lie at the door of those Remain MPs continually dicking around with extensions.
No Deal is not an end state and so will not end uncertainty. We need a settled and agreed path to a settled and agreed future. That’s the only way this ends in anything like a positive manner from here.
So how do we get back to May's deal? That's the challenge and its a hard one.
I thought the multi-faced unprincipled second class demagogue who now occupies the position of British PM had eventually decided that May's deal was unacceptable. Or was that the decision before last?
He voted for it before. At the moment he thinks he can't get that deal through the Commons because remainers continue to block it. If there was significant movement there I am sure he would grab it but all we heard yesterday, once again, is what the opposition is against.
No he wouldnt. He has pegged his survival on leaving do or die...except leaving that way (again proving yet another liar claiming to be willing to do anything to stop/get X). Yes hes voted for it before but hes been so clear how terrible the deal is, likely to forestall attempts to bring it back, that BXP and its circa 2 dozen mps would destroy him if he tried - that lot didn't accept voting for it to prevent the extension and they wont now, with added viciousness because BoJo has ruled it out very strongly. Add to that the self righteous Grievers still wont back it and the labour leavers will be as ephemeral as ever, and it wouldn't even work.
Hed rather be prevented leaving and play the martyr at election than get a brexit his members hate. They dont want Brexit, they want dream brexit. He knows that and wont offer anything else
"1. Get an election and win it. 2. Scrap May's red lines and negotiate a deal including customs union and not too fussed about free movement - effectively Norway. 3. Offer it to the people in a new referendum as a reasonable option, with Remain as the other reasonable option. Accept either outcome without quibbling. Face down the extremists who want a damaging No Deal or other lunacies. 4. Conduct a socialist government."
I suspect number one and four are Jezza's main aim. Two and three seem to entirely ignore the referendum result. But you'd have a fighting chance were it not for the voters.
You'd be offering a choice of Remain or Leave in name only - and I think you know that. Such a pity that although MPs think they can vote any way they like, their voters believe they are there to represent their constituent's views.
That is the real great divide and unless MPs recognise that, they're stirring up even more trouble for themselves.
Foxy: "Though almost certainly they have voted to disrupt their communities further. The cold winds of globalism will blow much harder with No Deal."
Please explain the mechanism that supports your statement. Brexit is intrinsically a partial unwinding of globalism. It's Alice and Wonderland stuff here today so far.
Brexit could be an unwinding of globalism, if it was about tariff barriers and import substitution (might get some WTO trouble though!), but the vision that this government has is not that Peronist approach, but rather a low tariff low regulation world. The plan is for more globalisation, not less.
One of the interesting things Brexit is exposing is just how fragile global supply chains can be. I suspect we will have a drift to greater localism as a result.
Lots more arguments here yesterday about what's constitutional in a country with no written constitution. And on telly a bunch of political nobodies signing a big board that is surely the 2019 equivalent of the Ed Stone.
What's constitutional in a long embedded parliamentary democracy such as the UK, is whatever has popular consent. And the mechanism for finding that out is a general election. The rest is noise.
The Ed Stone v.2 crowd, along with Stewart, Hammond and Co might be able to get a 90 days or 180 days extension through with some convention breaking practice. But if there's popular consent to Leave, it shall in the end be so.
The only reason the election isn't happening now is because Tory Remainers and anti-Corbyn Labourites want to indulge in both eating and having cake. Fair enough. Why have a cake if you aren't allowed to eat it.
But my message to such cake scoffers would be to put up or shut up and call a VONC, because all they are doing right now is delaying the inevitability of the decision and extending the period of uncertainty and rancour.
Meanwhile while they play their pointless games, the rest of us can sit back and get excited about the ticking countdown clock, which now stands at only 76 days. I talk of course about the launch of Disney+ and The Mandalorian, starring the irrepressible Pedro Pascal!
Pointless games? All of those MPs who met yesterday to oppose No Deal are sat on the same side of the negotiating table as the EU. In the biggest negotiation of this country's commercial interests in many, many decades. A negotiation brought about by 17.4m people deciding that is what they wanted.
Aha! The old “Quisling” gambit.
This is why Brexshit will never end: you guys truly despise each other. Cheers Dave!
The only thing which is less edifying is the thought that the Brexiteers despise each other only slightly less than they despise Remainers. The entire edifice of competing hopes and aspirations will come apart shortly after we leave as natural oppositionists return to their natural behaviour of carping from the sidelines.
Meanwhile the ultra-free market Brexiteers will come demanding the support of the centrists when they put the leftwing Brexiteers up against the wall shortly after ramming through Brexit. Corbyn knows this. Without the left there is no majority for Brexit. So around and around we go.
There has been no strategy at the heart of the parties' offerings for some time now. It's why the country is bouncing around from wall to wall just getting battered and bruised.
For what it's worth, Labour has a coherent strategy, which people may not like and which may not prove possible but is intellectually cohesive.
1. Get an election and win it. 2. Scrap May's red lines and negotiate a deal including customs union and not too fussed about free movement - effectively Norway. 3. Offer it to the people in a new referendum as a reasonable option, with Remain as the other reasonable option. Accept either outcome without quibbling. Face down the extremists who want a damaging No Deal or other lunacies. 4. Conduct a socialist government.
And some additional points which matter. Don't flirt with suspending Parliament to get our way. Don't treat opponents as traitors, merely as people we disagree with but will work with as the Parliamentary arithmetic dictates.
Does it mean left-wing policies? Sure. Would it mean a cooler relationship with the US? Under Trump, yes. Might it have all kinds of problems? Undoubtedly. But it's a coherent democratic socialist alternative, and not one that treats Parliament as a suspendible annoyance or obsesses with Brexit while the country rots. It seems to me *obviously* better than what we have now.
It might be labour policy to renegotiate a new deal but do you really honestly believe that can be done when 75% or whatever of labour mps want to remain come what may? They have no interest in following the official policy and say so openly.
I think they would. I'm a "diehard remainer" as @HYUFD likes to call me but would accept EEA/EFTA.
In a decade maybe but we have to end free movement and bring EU immigration under control first as Vote Leave promised in the campaign
As I recall, Vote Leave’s worry about EU immigration was because of the urgent threat to the British curry. As that threat has clearly abated, we could avoid all this hassle.
One of the most damaging things economically is uncertainty. By extending Art 50 with the Cooper Letwin motion Parliament wished another 6 months of uncertainty upon us with adverse economic effects including delayed investment. It really would be a gross dereliction of duty of the Commons to do that again. But they probably will. At that point Boris will seek his election and rightly so. Whether he will get it is another question. Many of the members of this Parliament face unemployment once that election is held. Not enough, regrettably.
If all that the Commons can agree on is a further extension, then a further extension it will be. If that helps prompt the death cult into considering what compromises they are prepared to make to secure a majority in the House of Commons, perhaps that would be a start.
Holding a general election is a bit like pulling the handle of a fruit machine. You’d have thought the Conservatives would have learned from 2017 that they can end up with two lemons and a cherry. But perhaps they need a refresher.
Hopefully Boris will be able to come to the Commons with some sort of a revised deal with some sort of a mechanism to replace the backstop but time is incredibly tight and there is no guarantee that this most useless of Parliaments would vote even for that. We need to get back to the compromise of May's deal with the options that gives us to agree the future relationship with the EU during the transition period. The decision of whether that should include permanent SM membership, CU, even free movement are best determined by a GE.
This Parliament is not particularly useless. It accurately reflects the divisions in the society it represents. Given the epic mistake that Britain made in 2016, there is a lot to be said for allowing a lengthy fermentation process before uncorking the next step.
That sort of self indulgence comes at a heavy price.
That price being dictatorship in England for the first time since their Civil War.
Well at least they wont be banning Christmas I guess.
Foxy: "Though almost certainly they have voted to disrupt their communities further. The cold winds of globalism will blow much harder with No Deal."
Please explain the mechanism that supports your statement. Brexit is intrinsically a partial unwinding of globalism. It's Alice and Wonderland stuff here today so far.
Brexit could be an unwinding of globalism, if it was about tariff barriers and import substitution (might get some WTO trouble though!), but the vision that this government has is not that Peronist approach, but rather a low tariff low regulation world. The plan is for more globalisation, not less.
And what of the unwinding of free movement of unskilled labour?
One of the most damaging things economically is uncertainty. By extending Art 50 with the Cooper Letwin motion Parliament wished another 6 months of uncertainty upon us with adverse economic effects including delayed investment. It really would be a gross dereliction of duty of the Commons to do that again. But they probably will. At that point Boris will seek his election and rightly so. Whether he will get it is another question. Many of the members of this Parliament face unemployment once that election is held. Not enough, regrettably.
There is a huge economic cost, not down to Brexit per se, but the uncertainty around when/what/how we implment it. It is costing economic growth, it is costing jobs. Boris needs to shout very loudly that those losses lie at the door of those Remain MPs continually dicking around with extensions.
No Deal is not an end state and so will not end uncertainty. We need a settled and agreed path to a settled and agreed future. That’s the only way this ends in anything like a positive manner from here.
So how do we get back to May's deal? That's the challenge and its a hard one.
My guess is that a soft Brexit that - initially, at least - saw the UK move to EFTA status would get through the House of Commons quite easily and be acceptable to s.
No, as MPs voted against the Eustice amendment to stay in the EEA and join EFTA, the Boles amendment to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union and the Kyle amendment for EUref2 in the indicative votes.
The only Brexit solution to have got a majority in the Commons is the Brady amendment for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop which is exactly what Boris is aiming for with the Withdrawal Agreement replaced by a technical solution
There will be no technical solution by October 31st. That is the whole point of the backstop. The fact that the Commons had a majority for the Brady amendment is irrelevant.
Neither Macron nor Merkel ruled out a technical solution in 30 days and the fact the Brady amendment is the only No Deal alternative to have got a majority is pivotal as No Deal is the default on October 31st but Boris is trying the only No Deal alternative MPs will vote for
Complete fiction. Macron and Merkel know it isn't possible. Tick. Tock.
Then No Deal it must be to deliver Brexit on October 31st.
There has been no strategy at the heart of the parties' offerings for some time now. It's why the country is bouncing around from wall to wall just getting battered and bruised.
For what it's worth, Labour has a coherent strategy, which people may not like and which may not prove possible but is intellectually cohesive.
1. Get an election and win it. 2. Scrap May's red lines and negotiate a deal including customs union and not too fussed about free movement - effectively Norway. 3. Offer it to the people in a new referendum as a reasonable option, with Remain as the other reasonable option. Accept either outcome without quibbling. Face down the extremists who want a damaging No Deal or other lunacies. 4. Conduct a socialist government.
And some additional points which matter. Don't flirt with suspending Parliament to get our way. Don't treat opponents as traitors, merely as people we disagree with but will work with as the Parliamentary arithmetic dictates.
Does it mean left-wing policies? Sure. Would it mean a cooler relationship with the US? Under Trump, yes. Might it have all kinds of problems? Undoubtedly. But it's a coherent democratic socialist alternative, and not one that treats Parliament as a suspendible annoyance or obsesses with Brexit while the country rots. It seems to me *obviously* better than what we have now.
With the shadow Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary and Brexit Secretary all saying they would campaign for Remain in any referendum, who will negotiate Labour’s new deal with the EU and who will decide the negotiating positions?
Oh cry me a river. You and the other cultists are completely casual about the job losses and real suffering a disorderly no deal Brexit would cause. But you don’t care about that because of your mad obsession.
werent you casual as the jobs went in Cadbury, Peugeot, Bombardier ? Suck it up you cried. Maybe if youd paid more attention you would have seen how it was changing the political landscape. Brexit was completely avoidable but you cheer led it causes.
Bingo! We’ve now reached the point that it’s Remainers’ fault that Leavers voted for Brexit. We’ve reached peak Leaver today.
Double Bingo, Meeks has no answer but diversion.
As it happens, one of my upcoming thread headersrow) and more disruption of communities.
Brexit just accelerates existing trends and makes the problem worse.
Yes, of course itspoliticans.
So your solution is what? Because I dons which depend in part on that sector?
As far as I can see, the Brexite EU was in charge. Plus ca change, eh......
You may well have a pot policy.
The point you fail to register is the threat people like you see to your incomes has been the reality for loads of people outside the prosperity of London and the South East for years.
For these people the choice is the the guaranteed continued disintegration of their communities ( no hope ) versus the chance that things might improve with a shock to the system. Its a perfectly rational choice from where they sit.
So your answer is that you have no answer, other than kick over all the tables.
And no, that is not rational.
Personally I have lots of things Id llike to see implemented post Brexit but it appears to have escaped your notice that I dont lead any political party so my wishlist is likely to remain just that...
Says the guy who asked, "So your solution is what?".
There has been no strategy at the heart of the parties' offerings for some time now. It's why the country is bouncing around from wall to wall just getting battered and bruised.
For what it's worth, Labour has a coherent strategy, which people may not like and which may not prove possible but is intellectually cohesive.
1. Get an election and win it. 2. Scrap May's red lines and negotiate a deal including customs union and not too fussed about free movement - effectively Norway. 3. Offer it to the people in a new referendum as a reasonable option, with Remain as the other reasonable option. Accept either outcome without quibbling. Face down the extremists who want a damaging No Deal or other lunacies. 4. Conduct a socialist government.
And some additional points which matter. Don't flirt with suspending Parliament to get our way. Don't treat opponents as traitors, merely as people we disagree with but will work with as the Parliamentary arithmetic dictates.
Does it mean left-wing policies? Sure. Would it mean a cooler relationship with the US? Under Trump, yes. Might it have all kinds of problems? Undoubtedly. But it's a coherent democratic socialist alternative, and not one that treats Parliament as a suspendible annoyance or obsesses with Brexit while the country rots. It seems to me *obviously* better than what we have now.
It might be labour policy to renegotiate a new deal but do you really honestly believe that can be done when 75% or whatever of labour mps want to remain come what may? They have no interest in following the official policy and say so openly.
I think they would. I'm a "diehard remainer" as @HYUFD likes to call me but would accept EEA/EFTA.
In a decade maybe but we have to end free movement and bring EU immigration under control first as Vote Leave promised in the campaign
There has been no strategy at the heart of the parties' offerings for some time now. It's why the country is bouncing around from wall to wall just getting battered and bruised.
For what it's worth, Labour has a coherent strategy, which people may not like and which may not prove possible but is intellectually cohesive.
1. Get an election and win it. 2. Scrap May's red lines and negotiate a deal including customs union and not too fussed about free movement - effectively Norway. 3. Offer it to the people in a new referendum as a reasonable option, with Remain as the other reasonable option. Accept either outcome without quibbling. Face down the extremists who want a damaging No Deal or other lunacies. 4. Conduct a socialist government.
And some additional points which matter. Don't flirt with suspending Parliament to get our way. Don't treat opponents as traitors, merely as people we disagree with but will work with as the Parliamentary arithmetic dictates.
Does it mean left-wing policies? Sure. Would it mean a cooler relationship with the US? Under Trump, yes. Might it have all kinds of problems? Undoubtedly. But it's a coherent democratic socialist alternative, and not one that treats Parliament as a suspendible annoyance or obsesses with Brexit while the country rots. It seems to me *obviously* better than what we have now.
So Nick you are in favour of treating everyone who voted to leave as worthless just to get a Labour Government?
There has been no strategy at the heart of the parties' offerings for some time now. It's why the country is bouncing around from wall to wall just getting battered and bruised.
For what it's worth, Labour has a coherent strategy, which people may not like and which may not prove possible but is intellectually cohesive.
1. Get an election and win it. 2. Scrap May's red lines and negotiate a deal including customs union and not too fussed about free movement - effectively Norway. 3. Offer it to the people in a new referendum as a reasonable option, with Remain as the other reasonable option. Accept either outcome without quibbling. Face down the extremists who want a damaging No Deal or other lunacies. 4. Conduct a socialist government.
And some additional points which matter. Don't flirt with suspending Parliament to get our way. Don't treat opponents as traitors, merely as people we disagree with but will work with as the Parliamentary arithmetic dictates.
Does it mean left-wing policies? Sure. Would it mean a cooler relationship with the US? Under Trump, yes. Might it have all kinds of problems? Undoubtedly. But it's a coherent democratic socialist alternative, and not one that treats Parliament as a suspendible annoyance or obsesses with Brexit while the country rots. It seems to me *obviously* better than what we have now.
It might be labour policy to renegotiate a new deal but do you really honestly believe that can be done when 75% or whatever of labour mps want to remain come what may? They have no interest in following the official policy and say so openly.
I think they would. I'm a "diehard remainer" as @HYUFD likes to call me but would accept EEA/EFTA.
At the start maybe a few would. But the remain and reform gang appear to have no interest in that.
Foxy: "Though almost certainly they have voted to disrupt their communities further. The cold winds of globalism will blow much harder with No Deal."
Please explain the mechanism that supports your statement. Brexit is intrinsically a partial unwinding of globalism. It's Alice and Wonderland stuff here today so far.
Brexit could be an unwinding of globalism, if it was about tariff barriers and import substitution (might get some WTO trouble though!), but the vision that this government has is not that Peronist approach, but rather a low tariff low regulation world. The plan is for more globalisation, not less.
One of the interesting things Brexit is exposing is just how fragile global supply chains can be. I suspect we will have a drift to greater localism as a result.
Foxy: "Though almost certainly they have voted to disrupt their communities further. The cold winds of globalism will blow much harder with No Deal."
Please explain the mechanism that supports your statement. Brexit is intrinsically a partial unwinding of globalism. It's Alice and Wonderland stuff here today so far.
Brexit could be an unwinding of globalism, if it was about tariff barriers and import substitution (might get some WTO trouble though!), but the vision that this government has is not that Peronist approach, but rather a low tariff low regulation world. The plan is for more globalisation, not less.
And what of the unwinding of free movement of unskilled labour?
And how do you:-
1) Encourage other countries to sign trade deals with you when there is no incentive (due to lack of tariffs on our side) for them to do so. South Korea have high tariffs to ensure there is a reason to sign a trade deal with them 2) Stop countries dumping their products on our market (at or below cost) to destroy our industry.
Foxy: "Though almost certainly they have voted to disrupt their communities further. The cold winds of globalism will blow much harder with No Deal."
Please explain the mechanism that supports your statement. Brexit is intrinsically a partial unwinding of globalism. It's Alice and Wonderland stuff here today so far.
Brexit could be an unwinding of globalism, if it was about tariff barriers and import substitution (might get some WTO trouble though!), but the vision that this government has is not that Peronist approach, but rather a low tariff low regulation world. The plan is for more globalisation, not less.
One of the interesting things Brexit is exposing is just how fragile global supply chains can be. I suspect we will have a drift to greater localism as a result.
Intra-EU supply chains are not global, any more than intra-US ones. De-globalisation equals regionalisation. The original Brexiteer James Goldsmith criticised the EU for being too open to global trade and thought Europe should be more protectionist.
One of the most damaging things economically is uncertainty. By extending Art 50 with the Cooper Letwin motion Parliament wished another 6 months of uncertainty upon us with adverse economic effects including delayed investment. It really would be a gross dereliction of duty of the Commons to do that again. But they probably will. At that point Boris will seek his election and rightly so. Whether he will get it is another question. Many of the members of this Parliament face unemployment once that election is held. Not enough, regrettably.
There is a huge economic cost, not down to Brexit per se, but the uncertainty around when/what/how we implment it. It is costing economic growth, it is costing jobs. Boris needs to shout very loudly that those losses lie at the door of those Remain MPs continually dicking around with extensions.
Oh cry me a river. You and the other cultists are completely casual about the job losses and real suffering a disorderly no deal Brexit would cause. But you don’t care about that because of your mad obsession.
werent you casual as the jobs went in Cadbury, Peugeot, Bombardier ? Suck it up you cried. Maybe if youd paid more attention you would have seen how it was changing the political landscape. Brexit was completely avoidable but you cheer led it causes.
Bingo! We’ve now reached the point that it’s Remainers’ fault that Leavers voted for Brexit. We’ve reached peak Leaver today.
Double Bingo, Meeks has no answer but diversion.
On the contrary, Mr Meeks (like others) would be OK with us leaving with a Deal (despite preferring to Remain), in line with what the Leavers promised in the referendum and in line with the manifesto on which this government was - just about - elected.
He takes the view - as I and others do - that there is no mandate for Leave on a No Deal basis and that if this is what the Government should do it should get an explicit mandate to do so at a GE and spell out exactly what No Deal means and what happens afterwards i.e. in the weeks, months, years afterwards not just in the first 24 hours. That it should be honest about what it is offering, something the ultra-Leavers have singularly failed to do.
There was a vote to leave
You don’t get to define what the voters did or did not intend by that
If you need clarification a deal vs no deal referendum would be legitimate. But should have occurred in the last 6 months
Anything else is just another attempt to ignore the democratically expressed views of a majority of people who voted in the referendum
One of the most damaging things economically is uncertainty. By extending Art 50 with the Cooper Letwin motion Parliament wished another 6 months of uncertainty upon us with adverse economic effects including delayed investment. It really would be a gross dereliction of duty of the Commons to do that again. But they probably will. At that point Boris will seek his election and rightly so. Whether he will get it is another question. Many of the members of this Parliament face unemployment once that election is held. Not enough, regrettably.
There is a huge economic cost, not down to Brexit per se, but the uncertainty around when/what/how we implment it. It is costing economic growth, it is costing jobs. Boris needs to shout very loudly that those losses lie at the door of those Remain MPs continually dicking around with extensions.
No Deal is not an end state and so will not end uncertainty. We need a settled and agreed path to a settled and agreed future. That’s the only way this ends in anything like a positive manner from here.
So how do we get back to May's deal? That's the challenge and its a hard one.
My guess is that a soft Brexit that - initially, at least - saw the UK move to EFTA status would get through the House of Commons quite easily and be acceptable to s.
No, as MPs voted against the Eustice amendment to stay in the EEA and join EFTA, the Boles amendment to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union and the Kyle amendment for EUref2 in the indicative votes.
The only Brexit solution to have got a majority in the Commons is the Brady amendment for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop which is exactly what Boris is aiming for with the Withdrawal Agreement replaced by a technical solution
There will be no technical solution by October 31st. That is the whole point of the backstop. The fact that the Commons had a majority for the Brady amendment is irrelevant.
Neither Macron nor Merkel ruled out a technical solution in 30 days and the fact the Brady amendment is the only No Deal alternative to have got a majority is pivotal as No Deal is the default on October 31st but Boris is trying the only No Deal alternative MPs will vote for
Complete fiction. Macron and Merkel know it isn't possible. Tick. Tock.
Then No Deal it must be to deliver Brexit on October 31st.
Tick Tock
On Johnson’s shoulders be it, and he’s bluffing and frit.
Foxy: "Though almost certainly they have voted to disrupt their communities further. The cold winds of globalism will blow much harder with No Deal."
Please explain the mechanism that supports your statement. Brexit is intrinsically a partial unwinding of globalism. It's Alice and Wonderland stuff here today so far.
Brexit could be an unwinding of globalism, if it was about tariff barriers and import substitution (might get some WTO trouble though!), but the vision that this government has is not that Peronist approach, but rather a low tariff low regulation world. The plan is for more globalisation, not less.
One of the interesting things Brexit is exposing is just how fragile global supply chains can be. I suspect we will have a drift to greater localism as a result.
Yes, Tariff wars are us...
Well there you go Doc Fox. If we were to stop moving products half way round the world, reduce one way packaging, create local jobs and say it was environmental youd applaud. If the same thing happened as a result of Brexit youd scream. But either way the effect will be the same.
One of the most damaging things economically is uncertainty. By extending Art 50 with the Cooper Letwin motion Parliament wished another 6 months of uncertainty upon us with adverse economic effects including delayed investment. It really would be a gross dereliction of duty of the Commons to do that again. But they probably will. At that point Boris will seek his election and rightly so. Whether he will get it is another question. Many of the members of this Parliament face unemployment once that election is held. Not enough, regrettably.
There is a huge economic cost, not down to Brexit per se, but the uncertainty around when/what/how we implment it. It is costing economic growth, it is costing jobs. Boris needs to shout very loudly that those losses lie at the door of those Remain MPs continually dicking around with extensions.
No Deal is not an end state and so will not end uncertainty. We need a settled and agreed path to a settled and agreed future. That’s the only way this ends in anything like a positive manner from here.
So how do we get back to May's deal? That's the challenge and its a hard one.
My guess is that a soft Brexit that - initially, at least - saw the UK move to EFTA status would get through the House of Commons quite easily and be acceptable to nsure maximum access.
No, as MPs voted against the Eustice amendment to stay in the EEA and join EFTA, the Boles amendment to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union and the Kyle amendment for EUref2 in the indicative votes.
The only Brexit solution to have got olution
There will be no technical solution by October 31st. That is the whole point of the backstop. The fact that the Commons had a majority for the Brady amendment is irrelevant.
Neither Macron nor Merkel ruled out a technical solution in 30 days and the fact the Brady amendment is the only No Deal alternative to have got a majority is pivotal as No Deal is the default on October 31st but Boris is trying the only No Deal alternative MPs will vote for
A great many things can be not ruled out while being completely unfeasible. Itd be nice if Boris can come up with something but I'm far from convinced that even if it is possible they care to hear it. They're always willing to listen and like many technically open to suggestions but that doesnt mean they have to be receptive.
There has been no strategy at the heart of the parties' offerings for some time now. It's why the country is bouncing around from wall to wall just getting battered and bruised.
For what it's worth, Labour has a coherent strategy, which people may not like and which may not prove possible but is intellectually cohesive.
1. Get an election and win it. 2. Scrap May's red lines and negotiate a deal including customs union and not too fussed about free movement - effectively Norway. 3. Offer it to the people in a new referendum as a reasonable option, with Remain as the other reasonable option. Accept either outcome without quibbling. Face down the extremists who want a damaging No Deal or other lunacies. 4. Conduct a socialist government.
And some additional points which matter. Don't flirt with suspending Parliament to get our way. Don't treat opponents as traitors, merely as people we disagree with but will work with as the Parliamentary arithmetic dictates.
Does it mean left-wing policies? Sure. Would it mean a cooler relationship with the US? Under Trump, yes. Might it have all kinds of problems? Undoubtedly. But it's a coherent democratic socialist alternative, and not one that treats Parliament as a suspendible annoyance or obsesses with Brexit while the country rots. It seems to me *obviously* better than what we have now.
It might be labour policy to renegotiate a new deal but do you really honestly believe that can be done when 75% or whatever of labour mps want to remain come what may? They have no interest in following the official policy and say so openly.
I think they would. I'm a "diehard remainer" as @HYUFD likes to call me but would accept EEA/EFTA.
In a decade maybe but we have to end free movement and bring EU immigration under control first as Vote Leave promised in the campaign
We have to do nothing of the sort.
We do as Leave won the EU referendum
No we don’t we could leave EU join EEA/EFTA the next day respecting all four freedoms and have met the requirement of the referendum result. So where on the ballot paper did it say leave and doing anything else?
"1. Get an election and win it. 2. Scrap May's red lines and negotiate a deal including customs union and not too fussed about free movement - effectively Norway. 3. Offer it to the people in a new referendum as a reasonable option, with Remain as the other reasonable option. Accept either outcome without quibbling. Face down the extremists who want a damaging No Deal or other lunacies. 4. Conduct a socialist government."
I suspect number one and four are Jezza's main aim. Two and three seem to entirely ignore the referendum result. But you'd have a fighting chance were it not for the voters.
You'd be offering a choice of Remain or Leave in name only - and I think you know that. Such a pity that although MPs think they can vote any way they like, their voters believe they are there to represent their constituent's views.
That is the real great divide and unless MPs recognise that, they're stirring up even more trouble for themselves.
Leave didn't win a 80% majority. The referendum was won 52-48% and we know (from even on here) that that 52% consisted of people who wanted to leave the political organisation but like Norway keep a very good relationship with the EU.
A No Deal Brexit will initially annoy 70% of the country and the rest will follow as the truth dawns on everyone what the consequences were.
One of the most damaging things economically is uncertainty. By extending Art 50 with the Cooper Letwin motion Parliament wished another 6 months of uncertainty upon ly.
There is a huge economic cost, not down to Brexit per se, but the uncertainty around when/what/how we implment it. It is costing economic growth, it is costing jobs. Boris needs to shout very loudly that those losses lie at the door of those Remain MPs continually dicking around with extensions.
No Deal is not an end state and so will not end uncertainty. We need a settled and agreed path to a settled and agreed future. That’s the only way this ends in anything like a positive manner from here.
So how do we get back to May's deal? That's the challenge and its a hard one.
My guess is that a soft Brexit that - initially, at least - saw the UK move to EFTA status would get through the House of Commons quite easily and be acceptable to s.
No, as MPs voted against the Eustice amendment to stay in the EEA and join EFTA, the Boles amendment to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union and the Kyle amendment for EUref2 in the indicative votes.
The only Brexit solution to have got a majority in the Commons is the Brady amendment for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop which is exactly what Boris is aiming for with the Withdrawal Agreement replaced by a technical solution
There will be no technical solution by October 31st. That is the whole point of the backstop. The fact that the Commons had a majority for the Brady amendment is irrelevant.
Neither Macron nor Merkel ruled out a technical solution in 30 days and the fact the Brady amendment is the only No Deal alternative to have got a majority is pivotal as No Deal is the default on October 31st but Boris is trying the only No Deal alternative MPs will vote for
Complete fiction. Macron and Merkel know it isn't possible. Tick. Tock.
Then No Deal it must be to deliver Brexit on October 31st.
Tick Tock
On Johnson’s shoulders be it, and he’s bluffing and frit.
No he is going to deliver Brexit as 17 million voted for
There has been no strategy at the heart of the parties' offerings for some time now. It's why the country is bouncing around from wall to wall just getting battered and bruised.
For what it's worth, Labour has a coherent strategy, which people may not like and which may not prove possible but is intellectually cohesive.
1. Get an election and win it. 2. Scrap May's red lines and negotiate a deal including customs union and not too fussed about free movement - effectively Norway. 3. Offer it to the people in a new referendum as a reasonable option, with Remain as the other reasonable option. Accept either outcome without quibbling. Face down the extremists who want a damaging No Deal or other lunacies. 4. Conduct a socialist government.
And some additional points which matter. Don't flirt with suspending Parliament to get our way. Don't treat opponents as traitors, merely as people we disagree with but will work with as the Parliamentary arithmetic dictates.
Does it mean left-wing policies? Sure. Would it mean a cooler relationship with the US? Under Trump, yes. Might it have all kinds of problems? Undoubtedly. But it's a coherent democratic socialist alternative, and not one that treats Parliament as a suspendible annoyance or obsesses with Brexit while the country rots. It seems to me *obviously* better than what we have now.
It might be labour policy to renegotiate a new deal but do you really honestly believe that can be done when 75% or whatever of labour mps want to remain come what may? They have no interest in following the official policy and say so openly.
I think they would. I'm a "diehard remainer" as @HYUFD likes to call me but would accept EEA/EFTA.
In a decade maybe but we have to end free movement and bring EU immigration under control first as Vote Leave promised in the campaign
We have to do nothing of the sort.
We do as Leave won the EU referendum
No we don’t we could leave EU join EEA/EFTA the next day respecting all four freedoms and have met the requirement of the referendum result. So where on the ballot paper did it say leave and doing anything else?
Leave got to 52% in large part through working class voters turning out to vote to end free movement
One of the most damaging things economically is uncertainty. By extending Art 50 with the Cooper Letwin motion Parliament wished another 6
There is a huge economic cost, not down to Brexit per se
Oh cry me a river. You and the other cultists are completely casual about the job losses and real suffering a disorderly no deal Brexit would cause. But you don’t care about that because of your mad obsession.
werent you casual as the jobs went in Cadbury, Peugeot, Bombardier ? Suck it up you cried. Maybe if youd paid more attention you would have seen how it was changing the political landscape. Brexit was completely avoidable but you cheer led it causes.
Bingo! We’ve now reached the point that it’s Remainers’ fault that Leavers voted for Brexit. We’ve reached peak Leaver today.
Double Bingo, Meeks has no answer but diversion.
On the contrary, Mr Meeks (like others) would be OK with us leaving with a Deal (despite preferring to Remain), in line with what the Leavers promised in the referendum and in line with the manifesto on which this government was - just about - elected.
He takes the view - as I and others do - that there is no mandate for Leave on a No Deal basis and that if this is what the Government should do it should get an explicit mandate to do so at a GE and spell out exactly what No Deal means and what happens afterwards i.e. in the weeks, months, years afterwards not just in the first 24 hours. That it should be honest about what it is offering, something the ultra-Leavers have singularly failed to do.
There was a vote to leave
You don’t get to define what the voters did or did not intend by that
If you need clarification a deal vs no deal referendum would be legitimate. But should have occurred in the last 6 months
Anything else is just another attempt to ignore the democratically expressed views of a majority of people who voted in the referendum
If the aim is to clarify what Leavers meant, then this Deal/No Deal referendum should be Leavers only. If the winning option gets less than 16 million, we’ll need a national run off between that option and Remain.
One of the most damaging things economically is uncertainty. By extending Art 50 with the Cooper Letwin motion Parliament wished another 6 months of uncertainty upon us with adverse economic effects including delayed investment. It really would be a gross dereliction of duty of the Commons to do that again. But they probably ttably.
There is a huge economic cost, not down to Brexit per se, but the uncertainty around when/what/how we implment it. It is costing economic growth, it is costing jobs. Boris needs to shout very loudly that those losses lie at the door of those Remain MPs continually dicking around with extensions.
Oh cry me a river. You and the other cultists are completely casual about the job losses and real suffering a disorderly no deal Brexit would cause. But you don’t care about that because of your mad obsession.
werent you casual as the jobs went in Cadbury, Peugeot, Bombardier ? Suck it up you cried. s.
Bingo! We’ve now reached the point that it’s Remainers’ fault that Leavers voted for Brexit. We’ve reached peak Leaver today.
Double Bingo, Meeks has no answer but diversion.
On the contrary, Mr Meeks (like others) would be OK with us leaving with a Deal (despite preferring to Remain), in line with what the Leavers promised in the referendum and in line with the manifesto on which this government was - just about - elected.
He takes the view - as I and others do - that there is no mandate for Leave on a No Deal basis and that if this is what the Government should do it should get an explicit mandate to do so at a GE and spell out exactly what No Deal means and what happens afterwards i.e. in the weeks, months, years afterwards not just in the first 24 hours. That it should be honest about what it is offering, something the ultra-Leavers have singularly failed to do.
There was a vote to leave
You don’t get to define what the voters did or did not intend by that
If you need clarification a deal vs no deal referendum would be legitimate. But should have occurred in the last 6 months
Anything else is just another attempt to ignore the democratically expressed views of a majority of people who voted in the referendum
While I do think at this point we should remain at this point I do have to kind of agree with Charles in the last day or so - I think too many over and misuse the idea of mandate and the arguments on confusion of initial intent.
Hardly news, we know the spartans have such concerns (others too, but they proved they could swallow them, and unicorn though it was a majority proved they could swallow it sans backstop) and will not back it even if the massive concession on the backstop is achieved. IDS is another of the more dishonest ones in this, others are clearer on preferring no deal rather than constantly finding new reasons to say no and pretend they are persuadable .
One of the most damaging things economically is uncertainty. By extending Art 50 with the Cooper Letwin motion Parliament wished another 6 months of uncertainty upon ly.
There is a huge economic cost, not down to Brexit per se, but the uncertainty around when/what/how we implment it. It is costing economic growth, it is costing jobs. Boris needs to shout very loudly that those losses lie at the door of those Remain MPs continually dicking around with extensions.
No Deal is not an end state and so will not end uncertainty. We need a settled and agreed path to a settled and agreed future. That’s the only way this ends in anything like a positive manner from here.
So how do we get back to May's deal? That's the challenge and its a hard one.
My guess is that a soft Brexit that - initially, at least - saw the UK move to EFTA status would get through the House of Commons quite easily and be acceptable to s.
No, as MPs voted against the Eustice amendment to stay in the EEA and join EFTA, the Boles amendment to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union and the Kyle amendment for EUref2 in the indicative votes.
The only Brexit solution to have got a majority in the Commons is the Brady amendment for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop which is exactly what Boris is aiming for with the Withdrawal Agreement replaced by a technical solution
There will be no technical solution by October 31st. That is the whole point of the backstop. The fact that the Commons had a majority for the Brady amendment is irrelevant.
Neither Macron nor Merkel ruled out a technical solution in 30 days and the fact the Brady amendment is the only No Deal alternative to have got a majority is pivotal as No Deal is the default on October 31st but Boris is trying the only No Deal alternative MPs will vote for
Complete fiction. Macron and Merkel know it isn't possible. Tick. Tock.
Then No Deal it must be to deliver Brexit on October 31st.
Tick Tock
On Johnson’s shoulders be it, and he’s bluffing and frit.
No he is going to deliver Brexit as 17 million voted for
Andrea Leadsom voted for sunlit uplands and no impact on the economy.
There has been no strategy at the heart of the parties' offerings for some time now. It's why the country is bouncing around from wall to wall just getting battered and bruised.
For what it's worth, Labour has a coherent strategy, which people may not like and which may not prove possible but is intellectually cohesive.
1. Get an election and win it. 2. Scrap May's red lines and negotiate a deal including customs union and not too fussed about free movement - effectively Norway. 3. Offer it to the people in a new referendum as a reasonable option, with Remain as the other reasonable option. Accept either outcome without quibbling. Face down the extremists who want a damaging No Deal or other lunacies. 4. Conduct a socialist government.
And some additional points which matter. Don't flirt with suspending Parliament to get our way. Don't treat opponents as traitors, merely as people we disagree with but will work with as the Parliamentary arithmetic dictates.
Does it mean left-wing policies? Sure. Would it mean a cooler relationship with the US? Under Trump, yes. Might it have all kinds of problems? Undoubtedly. But it's a coherent democratic socialist alternative, and not one that treats Parliament as a suspendible annoyance or obsesses with Brexit while the country rots. It seems to me *obviously* better than what we have now.
Except Labour is now losing Remainers who want both EUref2 and the party to back Remain in all circumstances to the LDs and Greens and SNP and Leavers who want Brexit to be delivered with No Deal now if necessary to the Brexit Party and a lesser extent the Tories
One of the most damaging things economically is uncertainty. By extending Art 50 with the Cooper Letwin motion Parliament wished another 6 months of uncertainty upon us with adverse economic effects including delayed investment. It really would be a gross dereliction of duty of the Commons to do that again. But they probably will. At that point Boris will seek his election and rightly so. Whether he will get it is another question. Many of the members of this Parliament face unemployment once that election is held. Not enough, regrettably.
There is a huge economic cost, not down to Brexit per se, but the uncertainty around when/what/how we implment it. It is costing economic growth, it is costing jobs. Boris needs to shout very loudly that those losses lie at the door of those Remain MPs continually dicking around with extensions.
No Deal is not an end state and so will not end uncertainty. We need a settled and agreed path to a settled and agreed future. That’s the only way this ends in anything like a positive manner from here.
So how do we get back to May's deal? That's the challenge and its a hard one.
Theresa May’s deal is dead. No flowers, by request.
Whatever solution emerges will have to be on an entirely different basis now. That sea has been rejected on all sides.
Wrong I think. Notice how the backstop alone has been the focus of criticism of the TM deal and the many other issues have faded away. Rory was right on Today this morning that TMs deal with 'alternative arrangements' is the only possibility; wrong in saying that excluding No Deal would be somehow a route to getting there.
There has been no strategy at the heart of the parties' offerings for some time now. It's why the country is bouncing around from wall to wall just getting battered and bruised.
For what it's worth, Labour has a coherent strategy, which people may not like and which may not prove possible but is intellectually cohesive.
1. Get an election and win it. 2. Scrap May's red lines and negotiate a deal including customs union and not too fussed about free movement - effectively Norway. 3. Offer it to the people in a new referendum as a reasonable option, with Remain as the other reasonable option. Accept either outcome without quibbling. Face down the extremists who want a damaging No Deal or other lunacies. 4. Conduct a socialist government.
And some additional points which matter. Don't flirt with suspending Parliament to get our way. Don't treat opponents as traitors, merely as people we disagree with but will work with as the Parliamentary arithmetic dictates.
Does it mean left-wing policies? Sure. Would it mean a cooler relationship with the US? Under Trump, yes. Might it have all kinds of problems? Undoubtedly. But it's a coherent democratic socialist alternative, and not one that treats Parliament as a suspendible annoyance or obsesses with Brexit while the country rots. It seems to me *obviously* better than what we have now.
It might be labour policy to renegotiate a new deal but do you really honestly believe that can be done when 75% or whatever of labour mps want to remain come what may? They have no interest in following the official policy and say so openly.
I think they would. I'm a "diehard remainer" as @HYUFD likes to call me but would accept EEA/EFTA.
In a decade maybe but we have to end free movement and bring EU immigration under control first as Vote Leave promised in the campaign
We have to do nothing of the sort.
We do as Leave won the EU referendum
No we don’t we could leave EU join EEA/EFTA the next day respecting all four freedoms and have met the requirement of the referendum result. So where on the ballot paper did it say leave and doing anything else?
Leave got to 52% in large part through working class voters turning out to vote to end free movement
Largely is not solely. The older people were the more likely they were to vote for Brexit. This applied in all demographics in all parts of the country.
IDS is not in the Government but of course the backstop is the main issue with the Withdrawal Agreement, remove that and as the Brady amendment showed the Withdrawal Agreement has a Commons majority
Is it accurate to say … the MPs view is that they are elected by voters to use their skills and judgement to make a decision on the great issues of the day?
I believe that is their view, and it's at odds with the voters' real intention. That is to have their views heard in Parliament and voted on accordingly. Despite their noble illusions (plus a modicum of arrogance), MPs are deluding themselves.
Were Ken Clarke to switch sides, he'd suddenly become for Remainers 'that fat twat with delusions of grandeur' - what many Leavers believe him to be now.
Ugly facts will always defeat grandiose views on MP's self-regard. Were BoJo to switch sides, he'd become surprisingly popular with some of his current critics.
IDS is not in the Government but of course the backstop is the main issue with the Withdrawal Agreement, remove that and as the Brady amendment showed the Withdrawal Agreement has a Commons majority
People who voted for the Brady amendment are on the record as not supporting the WA minus the backstop.
There has been no strategy at the heart of the parties' offerings for some time now. It's why the country is bouncing around from wall to wall just getting battered and bruised.
For what it's worth, Labour has a coherent strategy, which people may not like and which may not prove possible but is intellectually cohesive.
1. Get an election and win it. 2. Scrap May's red lines and negotiate a deal including customs union and not too fussed about free movement - effectively Norway. 3. Offer it to the people in a new referendum as a reasonable option, with Remain as the other reasonable option. Accept either outcome without quibbling. Face down the extremists who want a damaging No Deal or other lunacies. 4. Conduct a socialist government.
And some additional points which matter. Don't flirt with suspending Parliament to get our way. Don't treat opponents as traitors, merely as people we disagree with but will work with as the Parliamentary arithmetic dictates.
Does it mean left-wing policies? Sure. Would it mean a cooler relationship with the US? Under Trump, yes. Might it have all kinds of problems? Undoubtedly. But it's a coherent democratic socialist alternative, and not one that treats Parliament as a suspendible annoyance or obsesses with Brexit while the country rots. It seems to me *obviously* better than what we have now.
It might be labour policy to renegotiate a new deal but do you really honestly believe that can be done when 75% or whatever of labour mps want to remain come what may? They have no interest in following the official policy and say so openly.
I think they would. I'm a "diehard remainer" as @HYUFD likes to call me but would accept EEA/EFTA.
In a decade maybe but we have to end free movement and bring EU immigration under control first as Vote Leave promised in the campaign
We have to do nothing of the sort.
We do as Leave won the EU referendum
No we don’t we could leave EU join EEA/EFTA the next day respecting all four freedoms and have met the requirement of the referendum result. So where on the ballot paper did it say leave and doing anything else?
Leave got to 52% in large part through working class voters turning out to vote to end free movement
Apart from opinion polls how do you know that for fact it was not on the ballot paper. A large part of the 52% thought it would be a laugh to kick Cameron in the goolies.
Suggestions this morning that Johnson would agree to the deal if the backstop is removed. Pretty sure the backstop's deemed essential by vast majority of RoI opinion, and by all but the DUP in the North.
So does Johnson think the DUP more necessary to his political survival than the Europhiles within the Conservatives?
The Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop has got a Commons majority unlike any other Brexit option so the DUP is in tune with most MPs in this actually
There is nothing at all that the DUP affirmatively wants because its position is impossibilist. Try asking them and see what you get!
One of the most damaging things economically is uncertainty. By extending Art 50 with the Cooper Letwin motion Parliament wished another 6 months of uncertainty upon us with adverse economic effects including delayed investment. It really would be a gross dereliction of duty of the Commons to do that again. But they probably will. At that point Boris will seek his election and rightly so. Whether he will get it is another question. Many of the members of this Parliament face unemployment once that election is held. Not enough, regrettably.
There is a huge economic cost, not down to Brexit per se, but the uncertainty around when/what/how we implment it. It is costing economic growth, it is costing jobs. Boris needs to shout very loudly that those losses lie at the door of those Remain MPs continually dicking around with extensions.
Oh cry me a river. You and the other cultists are completely casual about the job losses and real suffering a disorderly no deal Brexit would cause. But you don’t care about that because of your mad obsession.
werent you casual as the jobs went in Cadbury, Peugeot, Bombardier ? Suck it up you cried. Maybe if youd paid more attention you would have seen how it was changing the political landscape. Brexit was completely avoidable but you cheer led it causes.
Bingo! We’ve now reached the point that it’s Remainers’ fault that Leavers voted for Brexit. We’ve reached peak Leaver today.
Double Bingo, Meeks has no answer but diversion.
On the contrary, Mr Meeks (like others) would be OK with us leaving with a Deal (despite preferring to Remain), in line with what the Leavers promised in the referendum and in line with the manifesto on which this government was - just about - elected.
He takes the view - as something the ultra-Leavers have singularly failed to do.
There was a vote to leave
You don’t get to define what the voters did or did not intend by that
If you need clarification a deal vs no deal referendum would be legitimate. But should have occurred in the last 6 months
Anything else is just another attempt to ignore the democratically expressed views of a majority of people who voted in the referendum
In the general election that followed the referendum a majority of voters supported parties that explicitly rejected a No Deal Brexit.
One of the most damaging things economically is uncertainty. By extending Art 50 with the Cooper Letwin motion Parliament wished another 6 months of uncertainty upon us with adverse economic effects including delayed investment. It really would be a gross dereliction of duty of the Commons to do that again. But they probably will. At that point Boris will seek his election and rightly so. Whether he will get it is another question. Many of the members of this Parliament face unemployment once that election is held. Not enough, regrettably.
And will you be canvassing for the Ruth Davidson Party or the Boris The Clown Party?
The stupidity of no deal is that it takes uncertainty to the max for businesses involved in trade. About 70% of our export markets become difficult. By the time things recover our remaining industrial sector might be finished. This may affect only a few people in the population but they are highly important as they generate the fx the country needs to buy things like the medicine and bananas the brexiters promised us.
Sound economic policy used to be the Tory USP. It’ll take them much longer to retrieve that lost reputation than it took them to (temporarily) shake off the Nasty Party moniker.
One of the most damaging things economically is uncertainty. By uld be a gross dereliction of duty of the Commons to do that again. But they probably will. At that point Boris will seek his election and rightly so. Whether he will get it is another question. Many of the members of this Parliament face unemployment once that election is held. Not enough, regrettably.
There is a huge economic cost, not down to Brexit per se, xtensions.
No Deal is not an end state and so will not end uncertainty. We need a settled and agreed path to a settled and agreed future. That’s the only way this ends in anything like a positive manner from here.
So how do we get back to May's deal? That's the challenge and its a hard one.
My guess is that a soft Brexit that - initially, at least - saw the UK move to EFTA status would get through the House of Commons quite easily and be acceptable to s.
No, as MPs voted against the Eustice amendment to stay in the EEA and join EFTA, the Boles amendment to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union and the Kyle amendment for EUref2 in the indicative votes.
The only Brexit solution to have got a majority in the Commons is the Brady amendment for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop which is exactly what Boris is aiming for with the Withdrawal Agreement replaced by a technical solution
There will be no technical solution by October 31st. That is the whole point of the backstop. The fact that the Commons had a majority for the Brady amendment is irrelevant.
Neither Macron nor Merkel ruled out a technical solution in 30 days and the fact the Brady amendment is the only No Deal alternative to have got a majority is pivotal as No Deal is the default on October 31st but Boris is trying the only No Deal alternative MPs will vote for
Complete fiction. Macron and Merkel know it isn't pos. Tock.
Then No Deal it must be to deliver Brexit on October 31st.
Tick Tock
On Johnson’s shoulders be it, and he’s bluffing and frit.
I dont think he is. Even if it does not win him an election a no deal Brexit keeps the larger part of his party together and mitigates political damage which would arise from delaying. Therefore as frit as he might be about it he wont stop.
Genuine question @HYUFD. Would you rather win the next election, and then never again, or lose the next election, but stay a force in British politics?
It might be labour policy to renegotiate a new deal but do you really honestly believe that can be done when 75% or whatever of labour mps want to remain come what may? They have no interest in following the official policy and say so openly.
Hardly any remainer MPs want to revoke without a referendum, so yes, they'd totally be on board with that. The current government could also almost definitely get the current WA through parliament if it made it subject to a referendum.
That said, if the Labour-led government's majority was very teensy, it's possible they could end up in the same situation as TMay, with the opposition opposing their plan because it's the opposition and a few rebels opposing it for being too brexitty or not brexitty enough or a combination of the two.
There has been no strategy at the heart of the parties' offerings for some time now. It's why the country is bouncing around from wall to wall just getting battered and bruised.
For what it's worth, Labour has a coherent strategy, which people may not like and which may not prove possible but is intellectually cohesive.
1. Get an election and win it. 2. Scrap May's red lines and negotiate a deal including customs union and not too fussed about free movement - effectively Norway. 3. Offer it to the people in a new referendum as a reasonable option, with Remain as the other reasonable option. Accept either outcome without quibbling. Face down the extremists who want a damaging No Deal or other lunacies. 4. Conduct a socialist government.
And some additional points which matter. Don't flirt with suspending Parliament to get our way. Don't treat opponents as traitors, merely as people we disagree with but will work with as the Parliamentary arithmetic dictates.
Does it mean left-wing policies? Sure. Would it mean a cooler relationship with the US? Under Trump, yes. Might it have all kinds of problems? Undoubtedly. But it's a coherent democratic socialist alternative, and not one that treats Parliament as a suspendible annoyance or obsesses with Brexit while the country rots. It seems to me *obviously* better than what we have now.
It might be labour policy to renegotiate a new deal but do you really honestly believe that can be done when 75% or whatever of labour mps want to remain come what may? They have no interest in following the official policy and say so openly.
I think they would. I'm a "diehard remainer" as @HYUFD likes to call me but would accept EEA/EFTA.
In a decade maybe but we have to end free movement and bring EU immigration under control first as Vote Leave promised in the campaign
Says the diehard remainer. So some Vote Leave promises we have to respect (get the foreigners out) while some we can safely ignore (there won't be no deal)?
No wonder the Tory party hates diehard remainers like you.
Foxy: "Though almost certainly they have voted to disrupt their communities further. The cold winds of globalism will blow much harder with No Deal."
Please explain the mechanism that supports your statement. Brexit is intrinsically a partial unwinding of globalism. It's Alice and Wonderland stuff here today so far.
Brexit could be an unwinding of globalism, if it was about tariff barriers and import substitution (might get some WTO trouble though!), but the vision that this government has is not that Peronist approach, but rather a low tariff low regulation world. The plan is for more globalisation, not less.
And what of the unwinding of free movement of unskilled labour?
And how do you:-
1) Encourage other countries to sign trade deals with you when there is no incentive (due to lack of tariffs on our side) for them to do so. South Korea have high tariffs to ensure there is a reason to sign a trade deal with them 2) Stop countries dumping their products on our market (at or below cost) to destroy our industry.
Are we playing the game where we answer questions with totally unrelated questions?
One of the most damaging things economically is uncertainty. By extending Art 50 with the Cooper Letwin motion Parliament wished another 6 months of uncertainty upon us with adverse economic effects including delayed investment. It really would be a gross dereliction of duty of the Commons to do that again. But they probably will. At that point Boris will seek his election and rightly so. Whether he will get it is another question. Many of the members of this Parliament face unemployment once that election is held. Not enough, regrettably.
And will you be canvassing for the Ruth Davidson Party or the Boris The Clown Party?
One of the most damaging things economically is uncertainty. By extending Art 50 with the Cooper Letwin motion Parliament wished another 6 months of uncertainty upon us with adverse economic effects including delayed investment. It really would be a gross dereliction of duty of the Commons to do that again. But they probably will. At that point Boris will seek his election and rightly so. Whether he will get it is another question. Many of the members of this Parliament face unemployment once that election is held. Not enough, regrettably.
If all that the Commons can agree on is a further extension, then a further extension it will be. If that helps prompt the death cult into considering what compromises they are prepared to make to secure a majority in the House of Commons, perhaps that would be a start.
Holding a general election is a bit like pulling the handle of a fruit machine. You’d have thought the Conservatives would have learned from 2017 that they can end up with two lemons and a cherry. But perhaps they need a refresher.
Hopefully Boris will be able to come to the Commons with some sort of a revised deal with some sort of a mechanism to replace the backstop but time is incredibly tight and there is no guarantee that this most useless of Parliaments would vote even for that. We need to get back to the compromise of May's deal with the options that gives us to agree the future relationship with the EU during the transition period. The decision of whether that should include permanent SM membership, CU, even free movement are best determined by a GE.
This Parliament is not particularly useless. It accurately reflects the divisions in the society it represents. Given the epic mistake that Britain made in 2016, there is a lot to be said for allowing a lengthy fermentation process before uncorking the next step.
That sort of self indulgence comes at a heavy price.
That price being dictatorship in England for the first time since their Civil War.
kukhuvud
The Swedish for Roundhead is rundhuvud, but a brave effort.
Ra ra ra! Jolly hockey sticks! Proroguing parliament will be a jolly wheeze, what!
You'd be offering a choice of Remain or Leave in name only - and I think you know that. Such a pity that although MPs think they can vote any way they like, their voters believe they are there to represent their constituent's views.
That is the real great divide and unless MPs recognise that, they're stirring up even more trouble for themselves.
I'm sure you're right. But that's the constitutional issue here. I think - and British tradition holds - that MPs are elected to do what they think right, and not to implement something (or offer a choice of something) that they think is extremely damaging for Britain. The voters' recourse is to replace them. An alternative is direct democracy where the voters in principle decide everything directly, with its advantages and drawbacks. We could introduce that. But it's not what we've got.
It might be labour policy to renegotiate a new deal but do you really honestly believe that can be done when 75% or whatever of labour mps want to remain come what may? They have no interest in following the official policy and say so openly.
Hardly any remainer MPs want to revoke without a referendum, so yes, they'd totally be on board with that. The current government could also almost definitely get the current WA through parliament if it made it subject to a referendum.
That said, if the Labour-led government's majority was very teensy, it's possible they could end up in the same situation as TMay, with the opposition opposing their plan because it's the opposition and a few rebels opposing it for being too brexitty or not brexitty enough or a combination of the two.
By on board I meant with genuinely renegotiating. Yes theyd stand under the plan while openly stating they will back remain, dozens of them at least, making the renegotiation part pointless .
There has been no strategy at the heart of the parties' offerings for some time now. It's why the country is bouncing around from wall to wall just getting battered and bruised.
For what it's worth, Labour has a coherent strategy, which people may not like and which may not prove possible but is intellectually cohesive.
Does it mean left-wing policies? Sure. Would it mean a cooler relationship with the US? Under Trump, yes. Might it have all kinds of problems? Undoubtedly. But it's a coherent democratic socialist alternative, and not one that treats Parliament as a suspendible annoyance or obsesses with Brexit while the country rots. It seems to me *obviously* better than what we have now.
It might be labour policy to renegotiate a new deal but do you really honestly believe that can be done when 75% or whatever of labour mps want to remain come what may? They have no interest in following the official policy and say so openly.
I think they would. I'm a "diehard remainer" as @HYUFD likes to call me but would accept EEA/EFTA.
In a decade maybe but we have to end free movement and bring EU immigration under control first as Vote Leave promised in the campaign
We have to do nothing of the sort.
We do as Leave won the EU referendum
No we don’t we could leave EU join EEA/EFTA the next day respecting all four freedoms and have met the requirement of the referendum result. So where on the ballot paper did it say leave and doing anything else?
Leave got to 52% in large part through working class voters turning out to vote to end free movement
That is possibly true, but it is certainly not the same thing as saying everyone who voted leave wished to end freedom of movement (something which is demonstrably untrue). Whereas the 48% who voted remain voted to retain freedom of movement.
The division of opinion is more or less maintained in current opinion polling, with a majority of the electorate favouring either remain or EEA/EFTA.
Mr. B, not my area, but it seems really counter-intuitive that two free market capitalist democracies in an area that includes North Korea and China should have such poor relations.
Dont forget that according to people on here the referendum was just advisory and the ruling class can just ignore it
The referendum was advisory in the same way that the ballot question was the ballot question. If you argue that the referendum wasn't really advisory, you have to accept that the ballot question had to be understood in context too.
If it was advisory, and it was, there must be circumstances in which the advice can be disregarded. What might those be? The answer must be, where events have moved on such that the advice can no longer be safely relied upon.
No one seriously argues that Leave would have won on a no-deal platform. So we are in those circumstances.
Dont forget that according to people on here the referendum was just advisory and the ruling class can just ignore it
Thats not according to here it is legally true, it would just be very very silly to ignore it. I dont know why people get so upset at the advisory referendum stuff, it is legal fact, it's just politically suicidal to oppose without cover hence so few MPs backing revoke without further democratic involvement.
Neither Macron nor Merkel ruled out a technical solution in 30 days and the fact the Brady amendment is the only No Deal alternative to have got a majority is pivotal as No Deal is the default on October 31st but Boris is trying the only No Deal alternative MPs will vote for
So we're at the 'they haven't actually ruled out having cake and eating it yet' stage of the Brexit optimism project. It can only be a matter of time before we're moving Army Detachment Steiner about on a map.
I would be fascinated to know what justification there was to extend the recess. Or what pretext there was, since 'I dont like what parliament will do' is not a reason.
There has been no strategy at the heart of the parties' offerings for some time now. It's why the country is bouncing around from wall to wall just getting battered and bruised.
For what it's worth, Labour has a coherent strategy, which people may not like and which may not prove possible but is intellectually cohesive.
1. Get an election and win it. 2. Scrap May's red lines and negotiate a deal including customs union and not too fussed about free movement - effectively Norway. 3. Offer it to the people in a new referendum as a reasonable option, with Remain as the other reasonable option. Accept either outcome without quibbling. Face down the extremists who want a damaging No Deal or other lunacies. 4. Conduct a socialist government.
And some additional points which matter. Don't flirt with suspending Parliament to get our way. Don't treat opponents as traitors, merely as people we disagree with but will work with as the Parliamentary arithmetic dictates.
Does it mean left-wing policies? Sure. Would it mean a cooler relationship with the US? Under Trump, yes. Might it have all kinds of problems? Undoubtedly. But it's a coherent democratic socialist alternative, and not one that treats Parliament as a suspendible annoyance or obsesses with Brexit while the country rots. It seems to me *obviously* better than what we have now.
It might be labour policy to renegotiate a new deal but do you really honestly believe that can be done when 75% or whatever of labour mps want to remain come what may? They have no interest in following the official policy and say so openly.
I think they would. I'm a "diehard remainer" as @HYUFD likes to call me but would accept EEA/EFTA.
In a decade maybe but we have to end free movement and bring EU immigration under control first as Vote Leave promised in the campaign
If the promises that the leave campaigns made must be honoured then surely No Deal has to be ruled out.
If we can now ditch the assurances that we would leave with a deal and choose No Deal then we can ditch assurances on immigration and opt for EFTA. You cannot have it both ways.
One of the most damaging things economically is uncertainty. By extending Art 50 with the Cooper Letwin motion Parliament wished another 6 months of uncertainty upon us with adverse economic effects including delayed investment. It really would be a gross dereliction of duty of the Commons to do that again. But they probably will. At that point Boris will seek his election and rightly so. Whether he will get it is another question. Many of the members of this Parliament face unemployment once that election is held. Not enough, regrettably.
If all that the Commons can agree on is a further extension, then a further extension it will be. If that helps prompt the death cult into considering what compromises they are prepared to make to secure a majority in the House of Commons, perhaps that would be a start.
Holding a general election is a bit like pulling the handle of a fruit machine. You’d have thought the Conservatives would have learned from 2017 that they can end up with two lemons and a cherry. But perhaps they need a refresher.
Hopefully Boris will be able to come to the Commons with some sort of a revised deal with some sort of a mechanism to replace the backstop but time is incredibly tight and there is no guarantee that this most useless of Parliaments would vote even for that. We need to get back to the compromise of May's deal with the options that gives us to agree the future relationship with the EU during the transition period. The decision of whether that should include permanent SM membership, CU, even free movement are best determined by a GE.
This Parliament is not particularly useless. It accurately reflects the divisions in the society it represents. Given the epic mistake that Britain made in 2016, there is a lot to be said for allowing a lengthy fermentation process before uncorking the next step.
That sort of self indulgence comes at a heavy price.
That price being dictatorship in England for the first time since their Civil War.
Well at least they wont be banning Christmas I guess.
No. Admittedly that was a uniquely Scottish phenomenon. The most remarkable aspect of the Scottish ban is that, even long after the legislation was forgotten, it lived on in popular culture. As recently as my parents generation, Christmas was a working day for most Scots, and Hogmanay was a much bigger annual event.
I think Christmas only became a public holiday in Scotland in the 1960s(?)
With the shadow Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary and Brexit Secretary all saying they would campaign for Remain in any referendum, who will negotiate Labour’s new deal with the EU and who will decide the negotiating positions?
It's perfectly possible to support Remain but negotiate a reasonable alternative for people to consider, just as I can prepare you my favourite meal but offer you an alternative meal if you don't like it. McDonnell, for example, is a Remainer, but he's certainly intelligent enough to help negotiate a Leave deal for people to consider that keeps fairly close to the EU and doesn't wreck the country. What they shouldn't and wouldn't do is prepare a No Deal meal for you which they think is poison.
Dont forget that according to people on here the referendum was just advisory and the ruling class can just ignore it
The referendum was advisory in the same way that the ballot question was the ballot question. If you argue that the referendum wasn't really advisory, you have to accept that the ballot question had to be understood in context too.
If it was advisory, and it was, there must be circumstances in which the advice can be disregarded. What might those be? The answer must be, where events have moved on such that the advice can no longer be safely relied upon.
No one seriously argues that Leave would have won on a no-deal platform. So we are in those circumstances.
New guidance is needed.
Good idea. Why don't your mob call a VONC so we can have a general election then?
One of the most damaging things economically is uncertainty
No Deal is not an end state and so will not end uncertainty. We need a settled and agreed path to a settled and agreed future. That’s the only way this ends in anything like a positive manner from here.
So how do we get back to May's deal? That's the challenge and its a hard one.
I thought the multi-faced unprincipled second class demagogue who now occupies the position of British PM had eventually decided that May's deal was unacceptable. Or was that the decision before last?
He voted for it before. At the moment he thinks he can't get that deal through the Commons because remainers continue to block it. If there was significant movement there I am sure he would grab it but all we heard yesterday, once again, is what the opposition is against.
No he wouldnt. He has pegged his survival on leaving do or die...except leaving that way (again proving yet another liar claiming to be willing to do anything to stop/get X). Yes hes voted for it before but hes been so clear how terrible the deal is, likely to forestall attempts to bring it back, that BXP and its circa 2 dozen mps would destroy him if he tried - that lot didn't accept voting for it to prevent the extension and they wont now, with added viciousness because BoJo has ruled it out very strongly. Add to that the self righteous Grievers still wont back it and the labour leavers will be as ephemeral as ever, and it wouldn't even work.
Hed rather be prevented leaving and play the martyr at election than get a brexit his members hate. They dont want Brexit, they want dream brexit. He knows that and wont offer anything else
I’m not sold on that
I think the EU offers a change (significance or not TBD). The key change is they believe he will go No Deal (which is why the shenanigans at the moment are so damaging)
Then Boris puts it to a free vote
Message is: this is your chance to stop No Deal. If you vote it down that is where we are going.
With the shadow Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary and Brexit Secretary all saying they would campaign for Remain in any referendum, who will negotiate Labour’s new deal with the EU and who will decide the negotiating positions?
It's perfectly possible to support Remain but negotiate a reasonable alternative for people to consider, just as I can prepare you my favourite meal but offer you an alternative meal if you don't like it. McDonnell, for example, is a Remainer, but he's certainly intelligent enough to help negotiate a Leave deal for people to consider that keeps fairly close to the EU and doesn't wreck the country. What they shouldn't and wouldn't do is prepare a No Deal meal for you which they think is poison.
Comments
This is why Brexshit will never end: you guys truly despise each other. Cheers Dave!
Are we going to get an extra £350 million per week for the NHS, or cast the NHS into a free market furnace of US interests?
Please explain the mechanism that supports your statement. Brexit is intrinsically a partial unwinding of globalism. It's Alice and Wonderland stuff here today so far.
What the concern now is that the precise form of Brexit the government is hell-bent on heading for will make the position very much worse for those people and regions who felt left behind rather than better.
The only Brexit solution to have got a majority in the Commons is the Brady amendment for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop which is exactly what Boris is aiming for with the Withdrawal Agreement replaced by a technical solution
The fact that the Commons had a majority for the Brady amendment is irrelevant.
I think that the Rees Mogg will be generous and allow lots...
Hed rather be prevented leaving and play the martyr at election than get a brexit his members hate. They dont want Brexit, they want dream brexit. He knows that and wont offer anything else
"1. Get an election and win it.
2. Scrap May's red lines and negotiate a deal including customs union and not too fussed about free movement - effectively Norway.
3. Offer it to the people in a new referendum as a reasonable option, with Remain as the other reasonable option. Accept either outcome without quibbling. Face down the extremists who want a damaging No Deal or other lunacies.
4. Conduct a socialist government."
I suspect number one and four are Jezza's main aim. Two and three seem to entirely ignore the referendum result. But you'd have a fighting chance were it not for the voters.
You'd be offering a choice of Remain or Leave in name only - and I think you know that. Such a pity that although MPs think they can vote any way they like, their voters believe they are there to represent their constituent's views.
That is the real great divide and unless MPs recognise that, they're stirring up even more trouble for themselves.
Meanwhile the ultra-free market Brexiteers will come demanding the support of the centrists when they put the leftwing Brexiteers up against the wall shortly after ramming through Brexit. Corbyn knows this. Without the left there is no majority for Brexit. So around and around we go.
Tick Tock
Millions of leavers won''t countenance No Deal.
There is no mandate for No Deal
1) Encourage other countries to sign trade deals with you when there is no incentive (due to lack of tariffs on our side) for them to do so. South Korea have high tariffs to ensure there is a reason to sign a trade deal with them
2) Stop countries dumping their products on our market (at or below cost) to destroy our industry.
You don’t get to define what the voters did or did not intend by that
If you need clarification a deal vs no deal referendum would be legitimate. But should have occurred in the last 6 months
Anything else is just another attempt to ignore the democratically expressed views of a majority of people who voted in the referendum
A No Deal Brexit will initially annoy 70% of the country and the rest will follow as the truth dawns on everyone what the consequences were.
You can't pretend that Leave would have won if they had actually campaigned on a prospectus of No Deal
Remain mis sold a defective product to a market it didnt understand.
Sub-samples.
Absabloodylootley disgraceful.
Is it accurate to say … the MPs view is that they are elected by voters to use their skills and judgement to make a decision on the great issues of the day?
I believe that is their view, and it's at odds with the voters' real intention. That is to have their views heard in Parliament and voted on accordingly. Despite their noble illusions (plus a modicum of arrogance), MPs are deluding themselves.
Were Ken Clarke to switch sides, he'd suddenly become for Remainers 'that fat twat with delusions of grandeur' - what many Leavers believe him to be now.
Ugly facts will always defeat grandiose views on MP's self-regard. Were BoJo to switch sides, he'd become surprisingly popular with some of his current critics.
https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/1166618675803303939
Dont forget that according to people on here the referendum was just advisory and the ruling class can just ignore it
That said, if the Labour-led government's majority was very teensy, it's possible they could end up in the same situation as TMay, with the opposition opposing their plan because it's the opposition and a few rebels opposing it for being too brexitty or not brexitty enough or a combination of the two.
No wonder the Tory party hates diehard remainers like you.
http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201908280023.html
Ra ra ra! Jolly hockey sticks! Proroguing parliament will be a jolly wheeze, what!
meanwhile the EU action of the day is in Italy, new government or an election ?
http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/italie-journee-cruciale-pour-la-formation-d-un-nouveau-gouvernement-20190828
Whereas the 48% who voted remain voted to retain freedom of movement.
The division of opinion is more or less maintained in current opinion polling, with a majority of the electorate favouring either remain or EEA/EFTA.
If it was advisory, and it was, there must be circumstances in which the advice can be disregarded. What might those be? The answer must be, where events have moved on such that the advice can no longer be safely relied upon.
No one seriously argues that Leave would have won on a no-deal platform. So we are in those circumstances.
New guidance is needed.
If we can now ditch the assurances that we would leave with a deal and choose No Deal then we can ditch assurances on immigration and opt for EFTA. You cannot have it both ways.
I think Christmas only became a public holiday in Scotland in the 1960s(?)
I think the EU offers a change (significance or not TBD). The key change is they believe he will go No Deal (which is why the shenanigans at the moment are so damaging)
Then Boris puts it to a free vote
Message is: this is your chance to stop No Deal. If you vote it down that is where we are going.