Yes you are an idiot if you ignore everything after the but. Listen to the rest of what he said. It's often said with some truth that you should ignore what people say before but, the idea of ignoring what was said afterwards is exception.
The only reason that we wouldn’t come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics
Politics got in the way. Like he said. Numpty.
You seem a bit angry and it's not even 10am.
Not at all angry. Frustrated such idiocies and blatant lies still get repeated.
This reminds me of the fairly normal quote mines of Remania.
If they didn't say what you wanted them to say - just make something up, or miss something out, then mislead furiously through the social media megaphone.
Was there a similar tactic to get the "Boris breaking the law" S24 debate in the Commons?
Angela Eagle in the Commons:
"The next day he announced that he would rather be dead in a ditch than obey the law."
He said nothing about disobeying the law, rather it was about asking for an extension - for which there remained, and remain, lawful options.
No, that is poor. Both the crass sentiment and the slightly pretentious way in which it is expressed. "I struggle" - not keen on that - and then "oxymoron" is a word in my top 10 to be avoided.
White woman takes umbrage at people of colour for not conforming to stereotype. Who the hell do they think they are, she muses
Following the publication of the Yellowhammer summary - it’s not even a plan for how to deal with the issues raised - we should stop talking about No Deal. It should be described as what it will be - a disorderly withdrawal.
Disorderly because, apart from the issues described in it, we will not even have passed the necessary legislation needed to leave without a transitional agreement. Disorderly because there are no bilateral agreements with any of the member states. Disorderly because in many areas it will be wholly unclear on what basis we will be dealing with people and entities in the EU (and elsewhere) or they with us.
There is nothing “clean” or “hard” about any of this. Messy and confused would be more accurate.
Indeed but I'm fine with it, it's the quickest way for us to Rejoin the EU.
Plus it really does make those that voted for Brexit suffer the most.
I don’t like the fact that the poor will suffer most, to be serious for a moment.
I can understand why many voted to Leave feeling that the existing settlement did little or nothing for them. And if Britain did rejoin there would have to be some hard thinking and action about what to do about those who felt - and feel - left behind. The Remain crowd are foolish to think that things will go back to what they were before if Brexit did not go ahead.
But for a government to claim that it is enacting the Will of the People while deliberately going ahead with something that will harm the poorest in society is a cruel betrayal of them and not something that any decent politician should want. There really does need to be a pause and time to rethink what in earth this is all about and what it is all for.
Following the publication of the Yellowhammer summary - it’s not even a plan for how to deal with the issues raised - we should stop talking about No Deal. It should be described as what it will be - a disorderly withdrawal.
Disorderly because, apart from the issues described in it, we will not even have passed the necessary legislation needed to leave without a transitional agreement. Disorderly because there are no bilateral agreements with any of the member states. Disorderly because in many areas it will be wholly unclear on what basis we will be dealing with people and entities in the EU (and elsewhere) or they with us.
There is nothing “clean” or “hard” about any of this. Messy and confused would be more accurate.
Indeed but I'm fine with it, it's the quickest way for us to Rejoin the EU.
Plus it really does make those that voted for Brexit suffer the most.
Interesting article, but there is of course one very plausible way that the Conservatives fail to form a Government yet Brexit still happens:
Labour win a majority (or get C&S with the SNP/Lib Dems). A second referendum is held. The Remain campaign is terrible again. Leave wins again.
Or no majority for anything and yet another election in early 2020 Or we revoke, Corbyn tanks the economy, Brexit/Tories merge and can gain a majority at that stage Or several other scenarios
It's difficult to see a path to the Speakership for Eleanor Laing. A substantial minority government position doesn't bode well for her chances and there are also sufficient Conservatives who will not vote for the Boris candidate and jealously guard the nature of the election of the Speaker as not in the gift of the government.
It appears to be either Deputy Speaker Lindsay Hoyle or "Mother of the House" Harriet Harman for the job.
I heard an interview with her on 5 Live a couple of days ago, all about how she would be a still small voice of calm. I thought she just sounded feeble and she'd get swept away in the maelstrom of the Commons at the minute. Am I being sexist? I did wonder, but I reckon Harman would be up to the job, and I'm not sure that Laing would be, despite her experience as deputy.
My requirement for the Speaker is not to be an appendage of government. Whatever the merits or otherwise of Speaker Bercow few doubt he put the Commons at the forefront, even arch Brexiteers such as Peter Bone recognise the fact.
The Speaker must be the HoC man - Charles I and all that.
Following the publication of the Yellowhammer summary - it’s not even a plan for how to deal with the issues raised - we should stop talking about No Deal. It should be described as what it will be - a disorderly withdrawal.
Disorderly because, apart from the issues described in it, we will not even have passed the necessary legislation needed to leave without a transitional agreement. Disorderly because there are no bilateral agreements with any of the member states. Disorderly because in many areas it will be wholly unclear on what basis we will be dealing with people and entities in the EU (and elsewhere) or they with us.
There is nothing “clean” or “hard” about any of this. Messy and confused would be more accurate.
Indeed but I'm fine with it, it's the quickest way for us to Rejoin the EU.
Plus it really does make those that voted for Brexit suffer the most.
A very European solution. Dutch combat management system, Danish hull and German CODAD propulsion.
The decision was made after a thorough examination of the Navy's needs which boiled down to, "Which ship is the biggest job creation scheme for Scotland?"
Very little apart from sticking some bits together coming to Scotland, and Govan gets plug pulled, it is a shit sandwich deal for Scotland.
Yes you are an idiot if you ignore everything after the but. Listen to the rest of what he said. It's often said with some truth that you should ignore what people say before but, the idea of ignoring what was said afterwards is exception.
The only reason that we wouldn’t come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics
Politics got in the way. Like he said. Numpty.
Whose politics? May's politics. Not the EU, not the opposition, not Remainers or the Elite. May screwed the pooch. She didn't have a majority, and instead of doing something sensible like setting up a cross party commission etc. she decided instead to try and steamroll parliament and placate the frothing at the mouth wing of her party.
I voted Remain. I would vote, in a confirmatory vote, for a Norwayesque deal. I would accept, as was argued in the referendum, that kind of deal. That kind of deal was ruled out by May's red lines. That was a choice of her own making. That was her politics. Not some outside force like you're making it sound, but the decision of government (which Fox was a part of).
It is and by convention the main parties do not stand against the Speaker, we can just do more general election canvassing in nearby marginal seats instead like Chingford, Thurrock, Colchester and Enfield Southgate
I was wondering if you had considered a trip to East Ham where Stephen Timms is clinging on by his fingertips to his 39,883 majority though I appreciate that might be a big ask for the Conservatives even on Kantar numbers.
More seriously, do you consider Harlow safe with a 7,000 majority for Halfon? I believe he is a very good constituency MP.
Spoiler alert there will be no dementia tax disasters etc under Boris
Because his record of avoiding disasters is 0 for 7 so far...
If Boris gets a deal through the House, do you acept that those 7 losses will be wholly forgotten?
According to Amber Rudd he's not even trying to.
If he comes back with a deal she looks a bit stupid. And yes, big if, but his willingness to get a deal will be shown by whether he comes back with a deal, not by the words of someone who just quit the party and is angling to be the chief GNU
You think he will be waving a piece of paper on his triumphant return
Spoiler alert there will be no dementia tax disasters etc under Boris
Because his record of avoiding disasters is 0 for 7 so far...
If Boris gets a deal through the House, do you acept that those 7 losses will be wholly forgotten?
According to Amber Rudd he's not even trying to.
If he comes back with a deal she looks a bit stupid. And yes, big if, but his willingness to get a deal will be shown by whether he comes back with a deal, not by the words of someone who just quit the party and is angling to be the chief GNU
You think he will be waving a piece of paper on his triumphant return
Following the publication of the Yellowhammer summary - it’s not even a plan for how to deal with the issues raised - we should stop talking about No Deal. It should be described as what it will be - a disorderly withdrawal.
Disorderly because, apart from the issues described in it, we will not even have passed the necessary legislation needed to leave without a transitional agreement. Disorderly because there are no bilateral agreements with any of the member states. Disorderly because in many areas it will be wholly unclear on what basis we will be dealing with people and entities in the EU (and elsewhere) or they with us.
There is nothing “clean” or “hard” about any of this. Messy and confused would be more accurate.
Indeed but I'm fine with it, it's the quickest way for us to Rejoin the EU.
Plus it really does make those that voted for Brexit suffer the most.
I don’t like the fact that the poor will suffer most, to be serious for a moment.
I can understand why many voted to Leave feeling that the existing settlement did little or nothing for them. And if Britain did rejoin there would have to be some hard thinking and action about what to do about those who felt - and feel - left behind. The Remain crowd are foolish to think that things will go back to what they were before if Brexit did not go ahead.
But for a government to claim that it is enacting the Will of the People while deliberately going ahead with something that will harm the poorest in society is a cruel betrayal of them and not something that any decent politician should want. There really does need to be a pause and time to rethink what in earth this is all about and what it is all for.
I know there’s no happy solution from where we find ourselves.
I feel that something happened post not chaos with Ed Miliband that may mean we're waiting for another shoe to drop. Can't quite remember what, off the top of my head...
Following the publication of the Yellowhammer summary - it’s not even a plan for how to deal with the issues raised - we should stop talking about No Deal. It should be described as what it will be - a disorderly withdrawal.
Disorderly because, apart from the issues described in it, we will not even have passed the necessary legislation needed to leave without a transitional agreement. Disorderly because there are no bilateral agreements with any of the member states. Disorderly because in many areas it will be wholly unclear on what basis we will be dealing with people and entities in the EU (and elsewhere) or they with us.
There is nothing “clean” or “hard” about any of this. Messy and confused would be more accurate.
Indeed but I'm fine with it, it's the quickest way for us to Rejoin the EU.
Plus it really does make those that voted for Brexit suffer the most.
I don’t like the fact that the poor will suffer most, to be serious for a moment.
I can understand why many voted to Leave feeling that the existing settlement did little or nothing for them. And if Britain did rejoin there would have to be some hard thinking and action about what to do about those who felt - and feel - left behind. The Remain crowd are foolish to think that things will go back to what they were before if Brexit did not go ahead.
But for a government to claim that it is enacting the Will of the People while deliberately going ahead with something that will harm the poorest in society is a cruel betrayal of them and not something that any decent politician should want. There really does need to be a pause and time to rethink what in earth this is all about and what it is all for.
LOL, Tuba is well named. It does not safeguard 2500 jobs in Scotland, it will likely be a net loss more like.
Hmm, too early to judge, despite the apparent attempt to get people to draw the conclusion that all the jobs will be in Fife. The Grauniad news report doesn't say where the jobs are, and given the prefabrication techniques likely to be involved, they could be all over the UK. Moreover, wherever the hulls are fabricated, much of the value will reside in engineering and electronics equipment produced elsewhere than Rosyth and possibly even overseas. We had similar announcements of £xm of destroyers and frigates being promised for the Clyde in indyref 1 but a lot of the value was elsewhere - and they were mostly cancelled after 2014. What is proposed today is nothing like as much, and I see it is being hinted that BAe who did the Daring class on the Clyde didn't get the contract.
Edit: BBC confirms (a) to be produced across the UK (which is entirely to be expected in the nature of such things) and (b) very cheap - at least at present - compared to the sort of thing that was to hjave been built before.
It will be a NET loss for Scotland, some assembly work at Rosyth , job cuts at Govan and the majority as additional work around England. Yet another lie from 2014 Referendum confirmed for certain.
Indeed. What happened to the Clyde "frigate factory" production line? I do wonder how the unions and their leaders there are feeling - especially given the latter's campaigning in 2014. Poor chaps (the members I mean).
White woman takes umbrage at people of colour for not conforming to stereotype. Who the hell do they think they are, she muses
Yes, 'uncle tom', 'champagne socialist', these type of terms (one from each side to demonstrate my legendary balance) are to be avoided. One should accept that a person's political views are sincere and valid unless there is compelling evidence otherwise.
Mr. grss, don't recall Miliband marching along side hammer and sickle or Lenin, Mao, and Stalin banners.
Still, it's not like Labour's under investigation for anti-Semitism, is it?
I mean, it is and should be, there seem to be antisemites and a culture of not treating that issue with the seriousness required. The problem is (as the thread header discusses) the hypocrisy. Many people (average voters, not party leadership) consider that these claims aren't made in good faith, especially considering the hypocrisy of the Tories, so they feel no urgency to investigate them in good faith.
Can a PM who talked about piccaninies and watermelon smiles really claim moral high ground on the issue of racism? Even "moderate" Cameron was involved with the party when the infamous hang Nelson Mandela posters were produced.
Can a party rife with Islamophobia, who accepted on national TV that they need an investigation into it and have since refused, really claim the moral high ground on hatred of people from specific religions?
Many people want the left to confront the conflation of anti capitalism and anti zionism, things I think are more than acceptable political positions, with anti semitism, which is not. The left should confront that. But the right need to confront their racism and bigotry as well, rather that trying to fashion the AS issue into a stick to beat Labour with and claim moral superiority, something that is obviously untrue.
Mr. grss, the problem with the PM is that he's incompetent and not fit to be in Cabinet.
Islamophobia remains a daft term as it wraps up ideas that are reprehensible (bigotry against Muslims) and essential in a free society (the right to criticise, condemn, inquire, and insult a religion).
Didn't the BBC have questions to answer over its debate 'questioners', who included a Labour candidate and the fellow you mentioned, who I seem to recall had some sort of dubious suggestions made about him?
And none of that washes away the far left lunacy of a man whose best political mate has called himself a Marxist, and who himself, when it comes to combating the anti-Semitism that's arisen on his watch, is present, but not involved.
I don’t like the fact that the poor will suffer most, to be serious for a moment.
I can understand why many voted to Leave feeling that the existing settlement did little or nothing for them. And if Britain did rejoin there would have to be some hard thinking and action about what to do about those who felt - and feel - left behind. The Remain crowd are foolish to think that things will go back to what they were before if Brexit did not go ahead.
But for a government to claim that it is enacting the Will of the People while deliberately going ahead with something that will harm the poorest in society is a cruel betrayal of them and not something that any decent politician should want. There really does need to be a pause and time to rethink what in earth this is all about and what it is all for.
Trying to Brexit is like trying to climb a mountain to catch in impressive view. Now we're halfway up and knackered, and it's getting cold and dark and we didn't even bring a jumper. There are some dangerous crevasses ahead, and some people are really starting to warm to the idea that planning a route would have been a good idea.
Everybody, literally everybody, can see we're in trouble. But the prescriptions are starkly different. The Brexit taliban think that the best way deal with the situation is to cast off our rucksacks and break into a run. Never mind that we won't get that view because it'll be night soon. Never mind that we'll be leaving behind what provisions we brought. Getting to the top -- or falling to our doom trying -- is all that matters. The revokers think we should get off the mountain and never speak of it again. We'll be safer that way. And the middle ground is to stop, turn back, get better prepared and at first light try again.
I'm with the revokers, because I see no evidence that we are even capable of getting properly prepared, ever. We are just not a country that takes strategy seriously enough. We're spoiled brats, whose heritage includes those who've bravely scaled much larger peaks, and that's left us deluded into thinking we've got some innate ability to conquer anything. To that attitude, I have one key question:
What have been our main strategic achievements since the war? Tell me, beleavers, I'm really very keen to know the answer.
Following the publication of the Yellowhammer summary - it’s not even a plan for how to deal with the issues raised - we should stop talking about No Deal. It should be described as what it will be - a disorderly withdrawal.
Disorderly because, apart from the issues described in it, we will not even have passed the necessary legislation needed to leave without a transitional agreement. Disorderly because there are no bilateral agreements with any of the member states. Disorderly because in many areas it will be wholly unclear on what basis we will be dealing with people and entities in the EU (and elsewhere) or they with us.
There is nothing “clean” or “hard” about any of this. Messy and confused would be more accurate.
Indeed but I'm fine with it, it's the quickest way for us to Rejoin the EU.
Plus it really does make those that voted for Brexit suffer the most.
Hang on, doesn't a logical extension of that argument imply that it's now illegal for the government to raise fuel tax? On the grounds that lower paid people will be disproportionately affected?
The Conservative Party hope of attracting Labour votes is just impossible. Mrs. Thatcher managed to do it because of the troubles of the previous government and because of the falklands. In my experience the overwhelming majority of the working class north of London will never vote for them. We have had many years now of Conservative and Conservative led governments and, for the working class, little to show for it. If they don’t want to be totally bombed out in the GE then they need another plan. Mr. Johnson’s government has not worked.
If Boris gets a deal through the House, do you acept that those 7 losses will be wholly forgotten?
I don't think telling lies to the Queen will ever be forgotten
Has Boris Johnson actually lied to the Queen though. I thought the ceremony involved for prorogation was ... Mogg (And two other privy councillors) simply requesting to the Queen that Parliament is prorogued.
Do the privy councillors even have to give a reason ?
I suspect they have to give s reason if the Queen asks. And i suspect the Queen, who takes a keen interest in politics, would ask. Watch out for Johnson being summoned to the palace.
They don't have to give a reason and HM wouldn't ask for one - because it would make her complicit in the decision. Therefore the meme that "Boris lied to the Queen" must be false. Her hands are clean and Boris's hands are clean or sullied, depending on one's point of view.
Mr. grss, the problem with the PM is that he's incompetent and not fit to be in Cabinet.
Islamophobia remains a daft term as it wraps up ideas that are reprehensible (bigotry against Muslims) and essential in a free society (the right to criticise, condemn, inquire, and insult a religion).
Didn't the BBC have questions to answer over its debate 'questioners', who included a Labour candidate and the fellow you mentioned, who I seem to recall had some sort of dubious suggestions made about him?
And none of that washes away the far left lunacy of a man whose best political mate has called himself a Marxist, and who himself, when it comes to combating the anti-Semitism that's arisen on his watch, is present, but not involved.
I'm not a Labour supporter, member or voter. I don't really think Corbyn is going to be able to enact his policy platform, due to his political deficiencies, even if I like lots of that platform. I am not here to perform apologia for Corbyn or the Labour Party.
This is where the hypocrisy comes in. Hand waving away the bad stuff is okay for one side, but the other side has to take it ever so seriously.
Johnson may not be fit for office, but the fact that the members of the Conservative party voted for him, with all the evidence of his unfitness on display, doesn't make people talk about Johnson supporters in the same way they talk about Corbynistas, and they should. 2/3rds of the Conservative membership voted for him as PM and that should be considered as radically unacceptable, and yet it isn't.
If Boris gets a deal through the House, do you acept that those 7 losses will be wholly forgotten?
I don't think telling lies to the Queen will ever be forgotten
Has Boris Johnson actually lied to the Queen though. I thought the ceremony involved for prorogation was ... Mogg (And two other privy councillors) simply requesting to the Queen that Parliament is prorogued.
Do the privy councillors even have to give a reason ?
I suspect they have to give s reason if the Queen asks. And i suspect the Queen, who takes a keen interest in politics, would ask. Watch out for Johnson being summoned to the palace.
Following the publication of the Yellowhammer summary - it’s not even a plan for how to deal with the issues raised - we should stop talking about No Deal. It should be described as what it will be - a disorderly withdrawal.
Disorderly because, apart from the issues described in it, we will not even have passed the necessary legislation needed to leave without a transitional agreement. Disorderly because there are no bilateral agreements with any of the member states. Disorderly because in many areas it will be wholly unclear on what basis we will be dealing with people and entities in the EU (and elsewhere) or they with us.
There is nothing “clean” or “hard” about any of this. Messy and confused would be more accurate.
Indeed but I'm fine with it, it's the quickest way for us to Rejoin the EU.
Plus it really does make those that voted for Brexit suffer the most.
I don’t like the fact that the poor will suffer most, to be serious for a moment.
I can understand why many voted to Leave feeling that the existing settlement did little or nothing for them. And if Britain did rejoin there would have to be some hard thinking and action about what to do about those who felt - and feel - left behind. The Remain crowd are foolish to think that things will go back to what they were before if Brexit did not go ahead.
But for a government to claim that it is enacting the Will of the People while deliberately going ahead with something that will harm the poorest in society is a cruel betrayal of them and not something that any decent politician should want. There really does need to be a pause and time to rethink what in earth this is all about and what it is all for.
I know there’s no happy solution from where we find ourselves.
There isn't - but celebrating the immiseration of a section of the population is unlikely to improve the odds of finding a reasonable one.
Mr. Noo, "We are just not a country that takes strategy seriously enough. "
Au contraire. The political class is one that didn't take strategy around leaving seriously.
They took seriously the continued integration of the UK into the EU, to the extent that leaving is extremely difficult. They took seriously tactics to prevent us leaving (breaking conventions happily until the Prime Clown did likewise).
I agree that, to use the Irish joke, when it comes to directions we wouldn't like to be starting from here.
But I do think revokers (and there's a big difference between with and without a referendum) significantly underestimate the consequences of us staying in.
When it come to flinging powers they'd been entrusted with, temporarily, by the electorate to the EU, the Commons was happy to do so. Now they've voted to endorse the referendum result and are trying everything to stop us actually leaving. How trustworthy does that look?
The Lisbon Treaty passed without murmur from the Lib Dems and Labour despite manifesto pledges to hold a referendum on it. Clegg even had a three line whip abstention on the argument we should have a 'real' referendum on staying in or coming out.
There are major problems with every potential outcome. The withdrawal agreement sounds wretched. Leaving with no deal guarantees significant turbulence, at least in the short term. And with those options looming largest it's understandable that most of the attention has been on those drawbacks.
But those imagining a rosy happy clappy 'healing' of the nation if we end up remaining are deluding themselves. The political polarisation will worsen. Every single step of integration will be salt in the wound of those who had their vote, won it, and saw it thwarted by the will of the political class who had resolved to oppose rather than enact the electorate's decision.
Regardless of where one is on the spectrum of opinion, a long-lasting and unifying result has to be one that can take most people with it.
My suspicion is that if the Lib Dems et al. get their way they'll integrate us as much as possible to reduce the chance that we ever get a say again, and that even if we get one leaving would be practically impossible. That'll be a spur to the anti-EU side.
Following the publication of the Yellowhammer summary - it’s not even a plan for how to deal with the issues raised - we should stop talking about No Deal. It should be described as what it will be - a disorderly withdrawal.
Disorderly because, apart from the issues described in it, we will not even have passed the necessary legislation needed to leave without a transitional agreement. Disorderly because there are no bilateral agreements with any of the member states. Disorderly because in many areas it will be wholly unclear on what basis we will be dealing with people and entities in the EU (and elsewhere) or they with us.
There is nothing “clean” or “hard” about any of this. Messy and confused would be more accurate.
Indeed but I'm fine with it, it's the quickest way for us to Rejoin the EU.
Plus it really does make those that voted for Brexit suffer the most.
I don’t like the fact that the poor will suffer most, to be serious for a moment.
I can understand why many voted to Leave feeling that the existing settlement did little or nothing for them. And if Britain did rejoin there would have to be some hard thinking and action about what to do about those who felt - and feel - left behind. The Remain crowd are foolish to think that things will go back to what they were before if Brexit did not go ahead.
But for a government to claim that it is enacting the Will of the People while deliberately going ahead with something that will harm the poorest in society is a cruel betrayal of them and not something that any decent politician should want. There really does need to be a pause and time to rethink what in earth this is all about and what it is all for.
I know there’s no happy solution from where we find ourselves.
There isn't - but celebrating the immiseration of a section of the population is unlikely to improve the odds of finding a reasonable one.
This is what happens when they regularly denounce and berate me as being a member of metropolitan liberal elite.
They should remember my taxes pay for their benefits like the working tax credits.
If Boris gets a deal through the House, do you acept that those 7 losses will be wholly forgotten?
I don't think telling lies to the Queen will ever be forgotten
Has Boris Johnson actually lied to the Queen though. I thought the ceremony involved for prorogation was ... Mogg (And two other privy councillors) simply requesting to the Queen that Parliament is prorogued.
Do the privy councillors even have to give a reason ?
I suspect they have to give s reason if the Queen asks. And i suspect the Queen, who takes a keen interest in politics, would ask. Watch out for Johnson being summoned to the palace.
They don't have to give a reason and HM wouldn't ask for one - because it would make her complicit in the decision. Therefore the meme that "Boris lied to the Queen" must be false. Her hands are clean and Boris's hands are clean or sullied, depending on one's point of view.
How would we know?
The 5 week period was a bit in-between - it was unusually long but not so long as to nail down No Deal. That suggests a compromise and that suggests discussions and negotitations.
No 10 could put the matter to rest with a short statement but these would have to be consistent with all the information held on all those electronic devices.
Longer term the Clyde should get the Type 45 replacement in the 2030s.
Biggest losers here are 1. Cammell Laird (who were going to build the BAE proposal) 2. BAE who lose their position as sole source combat system supplier for complex RN platforms 3. Longer term Rosyth may be less likely to win the FSS contract
Winners are 1. Thales 2. Possibly Ferguson and H&W (if they get government support as I assume the cost of bringing both out of administration is not part of Babcock's bid...)
Babcock in an interesting position as delivering a Frigate for £250m per may be interesting...
The only way to get Labour support for a deal would be to add a commitment to a referendum with a remain option. And the Tories could not countenance that.
There will not be a deal. And the UK will not leave the EU.
It is and by convention the main parties do not stand against the Speaker, we can just do more general election canvassing in nearby marginal seats instead like Chingford, Thurrock, Colchester and Enfield Southgate
I was wondering if you had considered a trip to East Ham where Stephen Timms is clinging on by his fingertips to his 39,883 majority though I appreciate that might be a big ask for the Conservatives even on Kantar numbers.
More seriously, do you consider Harlow safe with a 7,000 majority for Halfon? I believe he is a very good constituency MP.
Fair point. I referenced the claim for a PV by people who are, some of them, unwilling to accept what the people say, though.
The list of hypocrisies is a long one......
The fact that Swinson has a different policy in 2019 to Clegg in 2008 is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would better describe wanting a second EU referendum whilst opposing a second Scottish Independence referendum at exactly the same time. Policy changes, over time and in response to radically different circumstances, are perfectly allowable.
If he makes a sworn affidavit that he didn’t mislead the Queen but there is info out there that he did and that comes to light then he’s in huge trouble .
End of his political career and contempt of court .
If Boris gets a deal through the House, do you acept that those 7 losses will be wholly forgotten?
I don't think telling lies to the Queen will ever be forgotten
Has Boris Johnson actually lied to the Queen though. I thought the ceremony involved for prorogation was ... Mogg (And two other privy councillors) simply requesting to the Queen that Parliament is prorogued.
Do the privy councillors even have to give a reason ?
I suspect they have to give s reason if the Queen asks. And i suspect the Queen, who takes a keen interest in politics, would ask. Watch out for Johnson being summoned to the palace.
They don't have to give a reason and HM wouldn't ask for one - because it would make her complicit in the decision. Therefore the meme that "Boris lied to the Queen" must be false. Her hands are clean and Boris's hands are clean or sullied, depending on one's point of view.
How would we know?
The 5 week period was a bit in-between - it was unusually long but not so long as to nail down No Deal. That suggests a compromise and that suggests discussions and negotitations.
No 10 could put the matter to rest with a short statement but these would have to be consistent with all the information held on all those electronic devices.
No matter. Its reticence is speaking volumes.
But we do know from Mogg that "there was no debate" at the meeting with HM, which implies it was pretty brief.
If he makes a sworn affidavit that he didn’t mislead the Queen but there is info out there that he did and that comes to light then he’s in huge trouble .
End of his political career and contempt of court .
No advice to the queen will ever enter the public domain though, its hard to see how it could be proven
Following the publication of the Yellowhammer summary - it’s not even a plan for how to deal with the issues raised - we should stop talking about No Deal. It should be described as what it will be - a disorderly withdrawal.
Disorderly because, apart from the issues described in it, we will not even have passed the necessary legislation needed to leave without a transitional agreement. Disorderly because there are no bilateral agreements with any of the member states. Disorderly because in many areas it will be wholly unclear on what basis we will be dealing with people and entities in the EU (and elsewhere) or they with us.
There is nothing “clean” or “hard” about any of this. Messy and confused would be more accurate.
Indeed but I'm fine with it, it's the quickest way for us to Rejoin the EU.
Plus it really does make those that voted for Brexit suffer the most.
I don’t like the fact that the poor will suffer most, to be serious for a moment.
I can understand why many voted to Leave feeling that the existing settlement did little or nothing for them. And if Britain did rejoin there would have to be some hard thinking and action about what to do about those who felt - and feel - left behind. The Remain crowd are foolish to think that things will go back to what they were before if Brexit did not go ahead.
But for a government to claim that it is enacting the Will of the People while deliberately going ahead with something that will harm the poorest in society is a cruel betrayal of them and not something that any decent politician should want. There really does need to be a pause and time to rethink what in earth this is all about and what it is all for.
The poorest being most affected by prices going up is not really that surprising. They were most affected by mass EU immigration too, but no one cared then.
Shame on those who risked no deal in order to remain
Mr. Noo, "We are just not a country that takes strategy seriously enough. "
Au contraire. The political class is one that didn't take strategy around leaving seriously.
They took seriously the continued integration of the UK into the EU, to the extent that leaving is extremely difficult. They took seriously tactics to prevent us leaving (breaking conventions happily until the Prime Clown did likewise).
I agree that, to use the Irish joke, when it comes to directions we wouldn't like to be starting from here.
But I do think revokers (and there's a big difference between with and without a referendum) significantly underestimate the consequences of us staying in.
When it come to flinging powers they'd been entrusted with, temporarily, by the electorate to the EU, the Commons was happy to do so. Now they've voted to endorse the referendum result and are trying everything to stop us actually leaving. How trustworthy does that look?
The Lisbon Treaty passed without murmur from the Lib Dems and Labour despite manifesto pledges to hold a referendum on it. Clegg even had a three line whip abstention on the argument we should have a 'real' referendum on staying in or coming out.
There are major problems with every potential outcome. The withdrawal agreement sounds wretched. Leaving with no deal guarantees significant turbulence, at least in the short term. And with those options looming largest it's understandable that most of the attention has been on those drawbacks.
But those imagining a rosy happy clappy 'healing' of the nation if we end up remaining are deluding themselves. The political polarisation will worsen. Every single step of integration will be salt in the wound of those who had their vote, won it, and saw it thwarted by the will of the political class who had resolved to oppose rather than enact the electorate's decision.
Regardless of where one is on the spectrum of opinion, a long-lasting and unifying result has to be one that can take most people with it.
My suspicion is that if the Lib Dems et al. get their way they'll integrate us as much as possible to reduce the chance that we ever get a say again, and that even if we get one leaving would be practically impossible. That'll be a spur to the anti-EU side.
/endramble
I can't help thinking that we are stuck in a political version of WW1. At times, each side tries a surge to break the deadlock but then gets pushed back. So we are now stuck in a no man's land where we are neither leaving nor remaining. Will anything be clearer in a year's time or will we be on our 5th extension?
I was also thinking last night out how smug the SNP are now with their efforts to block Brexit and yet if Scotland ever votes for independence, the Unionists will pay them back in spades with the same tricks.
Longer term the Clyde should get the Type 45 replacement in the 2030s.
Biggest losers here are 1. Cammell Laird (who were going to build the BAE proposal) 2. BAE who lose their position as sole source combat system supplier for complex RN platforms 3. Longer term Rosyth may be less likely to win the FSS contract
Winners are 1. Thales 2. Possibly Ferguson and H&W (if they get government support as I assume the cost of bringing both out of administration is not part of Babcock's bid...)
Babcock in an interesting position as delivering a Frigate for £250m per may be interesting...
Edit - remove quote mixup
Thank you. I did wonder too about the price and MoD's project management record ...
If Boris gets a deal through the House, do you acept that those 7 losses will be wholly forgotten?
I don't think telling lies to the Queen will ever be forgotten
Has Boris Johnson actually lied to the Queen though. I thought the ceremony involved for prorogation was ... Mogg (And two other privy councillors) simply requesting to the Queen that Parliament is prorogued.
Do the privy councillors even have to give a reason ?
I suspect they have to give s reason if the Queen asks. And i suspect the Queen, who takes a keen interest in politics, would ask. Watch out for Johnson being summoned to the palace.
They don't have to give a reason and HM wouldn't ask for one - because it would make her complicit in the decision. Therefore the meme that "Boris lied to the Queen" must be false. Her hands are clean and Boris's hands are clean or sullied, depending on one's point of view.
How would we know?
The 5 week period was a bit in-between - it was unusually long but not so long as to nail down No Deal. That suggests a compromise and that suggests discussions and negotitations.
No 10 could put the matter to rest with a short statement but these would have to be consistent with all the information held on all those electronic devices.
No matter. Its reticence is speaking volumes.
But we do know from Mogg that "there was no debate" at the meeting with HM, which implies it was pretty brief.
The meeting itself might well have been brief but it would be surprising if there had been no prior communication between the Government and her advisers.
If Boris gets a deal through the House, do you acept that those 7 losses will be wholly forgotten?
I don't think telling lies to the Queen will ever be forgotten
Has Boris Johnson actually lied to the Queen though. I thought the ceremony involved for prorogation was ... Mogg (And two other privy councillors) simply requesting to the Queen that Parliament is prorogued.
Do the privy councillors even have to give a reason ?
I suspect they have to give s reason if the Queen asks. And i suspect the Queen, who takes a keen interest in politics, would ask. Watch out for Johnson being summoned to the palace.
They don't have to give a reason and HM wouldn't ask for one - because it would make her complicit in the decision. Therefore the meme that "Boris lied to the Queen" must be false. Her hands are clean and Boris's hands are clean or sullied, depending on one's point of view.
How would we know?
The 5 week period was a bit in-between - it was unusually long but not so long as to nail down No Deal. That suggests a compromise and that suggests discussions and negotitations.
No 10 could put the matter to rest with a short statement but these would have to be consistent with all the information held on all those electronic devices.
No matter. Its reticence is speaking volumes.
But we do know from Mogg that "there was no debate" at the meeting with HM, which implies it was pretty brief.
The meeting itself might well have been brief but it would be surprising if there had been no communication between the Government and her advisers.
The 5 week period was a bit in-between - it was unusually long but not so long as to nail down No Deal. That suggests a compromise and that suggests discussions and negotitations.
No 10 could put the matter to rest with a short statement but these would have to be consistent with all the information held on all those electronic devices.
No matter. Its reticence is speaking volumes.
Private Eye has some info on the discussions with Brenda
It is and by convention the main parties do not stand against the Speaker, we can just do more general election canvassing in nearby marginal seats instead like Chingford, Thurrock, Colchester and Enfield Southgate
I was wondering if you had considered a trip to East Ham where Stephen Timms is clinging on by his fingertips to his 39,883 majority though I appreciate that might be a big ask for the Conservatives even on Kantar numbers.
More seriously, do you consider Harlow safe with a 7,000 majority for Halfon? I believe he is a very good constituency MP.
Yes, Harlow is safer than Colchester now
So, no trip to East Ham then?
Have you lived in East Ham all your life?
My parents once got talking to an elderly chap in a Devon village, who was telling them about his youth in the area and the changes that had occurred in the village over the decades.
"Have you lived here all your life?" my mother asked.
Following the publication of the Yellowhammer summary - it’s not even a plan for how to deal with the issues raised - we should stop talking about No Deal. It should be described as what it will be - a disorderly withdrawal.
Disorderly because, apart from the issues described in it, we will not even have passed the necessary legislation needed to leave without a transitional agreement. Disorderly because there are no bilateral agreements with any of the member states. Disorderly because in many areas it will be wholly unclear on what basis we will be dealing with people and entities in the EU (and elsewhere) or they with us.
There is nothing “clean” or “hard” about any of this. Messy and confused would be more accurate.
Indeed but I'm fine with it, it's the quickest way for us to Rejoin the EU.
Plus it really does make those that voted for Brexit suffer the most.
Hang on, doesn't a logical extension of that argument imply that it's now illegal for the government to raise fuel tax? On the grounds that lower paid people will be disproportionately affected?
Err, no?
Logical - of, relating to, involving, or being in accordance with logic; formally true or valid; capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion
Spurious might have been the word you are looking for?
If Boris gets a deal through the House, do you acept that those 7 losses will be wholly forgotten?
I don't think telling lies to the Queen will ever be forgotten
Has Boris Johnson actually lied to the Queen though. I thought the ceremony involved for prorogation was ... Mogg (And two other privy councillors) simply requesting to the Queen that Parliament is prorogued.
Do the privy councillors even have to give a reason ?
I suspect they have to give s reason if the Queen asks. And i suspect the Queen, who takes a keen interest in politics, would ask. Watch out for Johnson being summoned to the palace.
They don't have to give a reason and HM wouldn't ask for one - because it would make her complicit in the decision. Therefore the meme that "Boris lied to the Queen" must be false. Her hands are clean and Boris's hands are clean or sullied, depending on one's point of view.
How would we know?
The 5 week period was a bit in-between - it was unusually long but not so long as to nail down No Deal. That suggests a compromise and that suggests discussions and negotitations.
No 10 could put the matter to rest with a short statement but these would have to be consistent with all the information held on all those electronic devices.
No matter. Its reticence is speaking volumes.
But we do know from Mogg that "there was no debate" at the meeting with HM, which implies it was pretty brief.
The meeting itself might well have been brief but it would be surprising if there had been no communication between the Government and her advisers.
The government are her advisers
She has her own advisers too. Don't you watch The Queen?!
Bojo states it is absolutely not true that he lied to the queen Didn't think hed say it was
Am I missing something ? The Privy Council met - a request was made. There would be no discussion and even if there were the minutes are not produced. It would have been inconceivable for the Queen to demand any justification for a request made in Privy Council. The position of the Scottish Judges is straighforwardly perverse.
Fair point. I referenced the claim for a PV by people who are, some of them, unwilling to accept what the people say, though.
The list of hypocrisies is a long one......
The fact that Swinson has a different policy in 2019 to Clegg in 2008 is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would better describe wanting a second EU referendum whilst opposing a second Scottish Independence referendum at exactly the same time. Policy changes, over time and in response to radically different circumstances, are perfectly allowable.
If I remember correctly, the LibDem policy used to be a referendum on EU membership.
But when when it came to legislation for an actual referendum on EU membership, they opposed it.
They then had a policy of having another referendum, because they wanted people to change their minds.
Before having a new policy of not having a referendum, and ignoring the referendum that they didn't vote for.
In my experience the overwhelming majority of the working class north of London will never vote for them.
I think you need to distinguish between Midlands and North there; Mansfield went Tory and that is ex-mining. The Midlands are, at least, mixed.
In Ashfield the Lib Dems were within 300 votes of Lab in 2010, and the Tories were in 2017.
Maybe "North of Sheffield", "North of Leeds", "North of Peak District", or "North of M62". Take your pick.
Perhaps also need to work on "working class" - the Shad Cab is full of millionaire "B" types claiming to be working class.
The miners' strike created a fault line between the East Midlands and the North.
Agree that that is a factor. That would place it where - "North of Rotherham"?
I can't comment of course on West of the Penines. Though arguably the axis through Cotswolds - Gloucs - Staffs - Herts - Salop is not "working class north", whilst Lancs perhaps is.
If he makes a sworn affidavit that he didn’t mislead the Queen but there is info out there that he did and that comes to light then he’s in huge trouble .
End of his political career and contempt of court .
No advice to the queen will ever enter the public domain though, its hard to see how it could be proven
I am not a lawyer but I think the Scottish case was decided on the basis that the government was motivated by a desire to avoid parliamentary scrutiny and not simply a desire to implement the usual pre-session prorogation?
The government's position must be that the advice given to HM was that the prorogation was routine, it could not possibly argue otherwise.
So if the Supreme Court agrees that the government's motivation was not the publicly-stated one then it must follow that it has given HM erroneous and misleading advice.
Or alternatively the Court could say that it has no jurisdiction in matters involving the royal prerogative (which was the English High Court's view) but that would imply that a rogue government could prorogue parliament at will for any length of time under any circumstances. This would be unacceptable in a country that likes to think it is a modern democracy and I guess would be likely to result in parliament changing the law.
Bojo states it is absolutely not true that he lied to the queen Didn't think hed say it was
Am I missing something ? The Privy Council met - a request was made. There would be no discussion and even if there were the minutes are not produced. It would have been inconceivable for the Queen to demand any justification for a request made in Privy Council. The position of the Scottish Judges is straighforwardly perverse.
Even if the first part of your assertion is true, the conclusion doesn't follow.
The Scottish judges' decision is not in the least bit perverse. It may well be reversed by a SC decision which takes a different view of the law around the prorogation prerogative powers, but the point of the Supreme Court hearing the various cases is that the law is not settled - there is no legislation and no directly relevant precedent.
If he makes a sworn affidavit that he didn’t mislead the Queen but there is info out there that he did and that comes to light then he’s in huge trouble .
End of his political career and contempt of court .
No advice to the queen will ever enter the public domain though, its hard to see how it could be proven
The Queen made her views known in the Paul Burrell case. When Queens evidence cleared him at court.
If he makes a sworn affidavit that he didn’t mislead the Queen but there is info out there that he did and that comes to light then he’s in huge trouble .
End of his political career and contempt of court .
No advice to the queen will ever enter the public domain though, its hard to see how it could be proven
I am not a lawyer but I think the Scottish case was decided on the basis that the government was motivated by a desire to avoid parliamentary scrutiny and not simply a desire to implement the usual pre-session prorogation?
The government's position must be that the advice given to HM was that the prorogation was routine, it could not possibly argue otherwise.
So if the Supreme Court agrees that the government's motivation was not the publicly-stated one then it must follow that it has given HM erroneous and misleading advice.
Or alternatively the Court could say that it has no jurisdiction in matters involving the royal prerogative (which was the English High Court's view) but that would imply that a rogue government could prorogue parliament at will for any length of time under any circumstances. This would be unacceptable in a country that likes to think it is a modern democracy and I guess would be likely to result in parliament changing the law.
Is that a fair summary?
Sounds fair yes, I suggested some law changes yesterday that might help in future
If Boris gets a deal through the House, do you acept that those 7 losses will be wholly forgotten?
I don't think telling lies to the Queen will ever be forgotten
Has Boris Johnson actually lied to the Queen though. I thought the ceremony involved for prorogation was ... Mogg (And two other privy councillors) simply requesting to the Queen that Parliament is prorogued.
Do the privy councillors even have to give a reason ?
I suspect they have to give s reason if the Queen asks. And i suspect the Queen, who takes a keen interest in politics, would ask. Watch out for Johnson being summoned to the palace.
They don't have to give a reason and HM wouldn't ask for one - because it would make her complicit in the decision. Therefore the meme that "Boris lied to the Queen" must be false. Her hands are clean and Boris's hands are clean or sullied, depending on one's point of view.
How would we know?
The 5 week period was a bit in-between - it was unusually long but not so long as to nail down No Deal. That suggests a compromise and that suggests discussions and negotitations.
No 10 could put the matter to rest with a short statement but these would have to be consistent with all the information held on all those electronic devices.
No matter. Its reticence is speaking volumes.
But we do know from Mogg that "there was no debate" at the meeting with HM, which implies it was pretty brief.
PtP's assessment sounds credible to me. In pre-discussion Palace said "don't even think about forcing HMQ to say no", Govt then worked out absolute maximum they could get away with asking for on that basis before letter was ever presented. No discussion with JRM as deal was already done.
For HMQ to say no and provoke that kind of crisis, the prorogation request would have needed to be so egregious as to be beyond all doubt. That wasn't quite the case. In the Commonwealth realms there are examples of much more nakedly political prorogations than we had ever seen in the UK, so a high bar has been set for rejection. Holding that thought, if the UK had a Governor General, he'd probably be taking whatever heat is reflecting onto the Queen at the moment, and be facing likely resignation.
If he makes a sworn affidavit that he didn’t mislead the Queen but there is info out there that he did and that comes to light then he’s in huge trouble .
End of his political career and contempt of court .
No advice to the queen will ever enter the public domain though, its hard to see how it could be proven
The Queen made her views known in the Paul Burrell case. When Queens evidence cleared him at court.
No, he was cleared as the info becoming public would be damaging
I suspect they have to give s reason if the Queen asks. And i suspect the Queen, who takes a keen interest in politics, would ask. Watch out for Johnson being summoned to the palace.
They don't have to give a reason and HM wouldn't ask for one - because it would make her complicit in the decision. Therefore the meme that "Boris lied to the Queen" must be false. Her hands are clean and Boris's hands are clean or sullied, depending on one's point of view.
How would we know?
The 5 week period was a bit in-between - it was unusually long but not so long as to nail down No Deal. That suggests a compromise and that suggests discussions and negotitations.
No 10 could put the matter to rest with a short statement but these would have to be consistent with all the information held on all those electronic devices.
No matter. Its reticence is speaking volumes.
But we do know from Mogg that "there was no debate" at the meeting with HM, which implies it was pretty brief.
PtP's assessment sounds credible to me. In pre-discussion Palace said "don't even think about forcing HMQ to say no", Govt then worked out absolute maximum they could get away with asking for on that basis before letter was ever presented. No discussion with JRM as deal was already done.
For HMQ to say no and provoke that kind of crisis, the prorogation request would have needed to be so egregious as to be beyond all doubt. That wasn't quite the case. In the Commonwealth realms there are examples of much more nakedly political prorogations than we had ever seen in the UK, so a high bar has been set for rejection. Holding that thought, if the UK had a Governor General, he'd probably be taking whatever heat is reflecting onto the Queen at the moment, and be facing likely resignation.
In my experience the overwhelming majority of the working class north of London will never vote for them.
I think you need to distinguish between Midlands and North there; Mansfield went Tory and that is ex-mining. The Midlands are, at least, mixed.
Yes. I grew up in Rutland. Large swathes of the Midlands are like Rutland. Whenever I see Westminster journalists talking about "the Midlands" as if it's all Mansfield and (with all due respect to any ex-MPs round here) Broxtowe, I start to believe that Dominic Cummings is right and they should get out of London a bit more.
Rutland & Melton will vote Conservative for evermore, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Harborough were to go Lib Dem, and Nicky Morgan will be very lucky to hang on to Loughborough.
A very European solution. Dutch combat management system, Danish hull and German CODAD propulsion.
The decision was made after a thorough examination of the Navy's needs which boiled down to, "Which ship is the biggest job creation scheme for Scotland?"
Very little apart from sticking some bits together coming to Scotland, and Govan gets plug pulled, it is a shit sandwich deal for Scotland.
Govan is going to be building Type 26s for the next 15 years.
Every British surface warship for the next 20 years will be built in Scotland. What more do you want?
In my experience the overwhelming majority of the working class north of London will never vote for them.
I think you need to distinguish between Midlands and North there; Mansfield went Tory and that is ex-mining. The Midlands are, at least, mixed.
In Ashfield the Lib Dems were within 300 votes of Lab in 2010, and the Tories were in 2017.
Maybe "North of Sheffield", "North of Leeds", "North of Peak District", or "North of M62". Take your pick.
Perhaps also need to work on "working class" - the Shad Cab is full of millionaire "B" types claiming to be working class.
I agree that this can be granular but I think the point generally stands.
As for the Shad cab members claiming to be working class. This is one of the main reasons the traditional Labour supporters the tories are targeting are now less likely to vote. Any party that has the likes of Emily Thornberry in the cabinet and had Mr. Blair and Mr. Mandelson previously has no claim to be supportive of the working class. They all despise the working class and people see it.
This is how the Express reported the interview, on 26 August: The Prime Minister also promised that in the event of a no deal Brexit citizens would still be able to get their medication. After numerous scare stories appeared alleging that Brits could be in danger of not receiving their medicines due to customs problems at ports, Mr Johnson “guaranteed” that would not be the case. He said: "That is certainly a guarantee that we can make." https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1170094/melania-trump-news-latest-FLOTUS-G7-summit-2019-president-donald-trump-boris-johnson
This is what the government's assessment really says:
"The BDG/DfT planning assumption on reduced flow rates describes a pre-mitigation reasonable worst case flow rate that could be as low as 40% D1ND via the short Channel Straits, with significant disruption lasting up to six months. Unmitigated, this will have an impact on the supply of medicines and medical supplies.
The reliance of medicines and medical products' supply chains on the short straits crossing make them particularly vulnerable to severe extended delays; three-quarters of medicines come via the short straits. Supply chains are also highly regulated and require transportation that meets strict Good Distribution Practices. This can include limits on time of transit, or mean product must be transported under temperature controlled conditions. Whilst some products can be stockpiled, others cannot due to short shelf lives - it will also not be practical to stockpile products to cover expected delays of up to six months. DHSC is developing a multi-layered approach to mitigate these risks. (DHSC)"
So in this assessment, the flow of goods along the supply route by which three quarters of medicines are imported could be reduced by more than half for a period of more than six months.
Some products are impossible to stockpile anyway because of their shelf life. And the expected duration of the disruption will make it impractical to stockpile even medicines with a long shelf life.
I am thankful that I don't rely on medication myself.
Well done you highlighted the word unmitigated. Great job.
Solution is to mitigate then it isn't unmitigated.
Funnily enough you forgot to highlight the mitigation plans mentioned after the what would happen if it was unmitigated.
I just wish there were some way of enabling the people who are telling us there aren't going to be any problems, to "put their money where their mouth is," and to volunteer to go without their medication in the event that they are wrong.
Given that this document envisages that the flow of supplies will drop to 40%, if half the population offered to go without, that would go some way - though not all the way - towards helping the rest.
Remainers who so blithely want to Remain - as if it's a decision akin to going back to the pub - need to answer some questions.
How do they think the British people will react, when they are told: "that's it. Brexit is too difficult, because we are in too deep. We have to go back in to the EU, and be subject to EU law, EU courts, and unelected EU politicians, and we will stay in forever, because we have proved that leaving is impossible.
"You are not a sovereign people. You haven't been sovereign for some time. Your nation is over."
That is pretty much the perfect soil in which to grow our first far right populist leader. I cannot imagine a better scenario for the birth of British Fascism. Discuss.
A very European solution. Dutch combat management system, Danish hull and German CODAD propulsion.
The decision was made after a thorough examination of the Navy's needs which boiled down to, "Which ship is the biggest job creation scheme for Scotland?"
Very little apart from sticking some bits together coming to Scotland, and Govan gets plug pulled, it is a shit sandwich deal for Scotland.
Govan is going to be building Type 26s for the next 15 years.
Every British surface warship for the next 20 years will be built in Scotland. What more do you want?
Opinium surverying respondents for party intention (no other political questions) by exact postcode - presumably some sort of constituency survey?
Trying to cheapen off MRP and make it more readily doable on a more frequent basis? UK postcode info is pretty sophisticated, but it'd still be a risky extra stacking of assumptions.
It looks like the issue will now be interpretation of Scottish law. English Law and NI Law are v similar from my understanding whereas Scottish law is its own beastie. But, from my limited understanding, if it is found to be unacceptable under Scots law, prorogment will be nullified.
Comments
If they didn't say what you wanted them to say - just make something up, or miss something out, then mislead furiously through the social media megaphone.
Was there a similar tactic to get the "Boris breaking the law" S24 debate in the Commons?
Angela Eagle in the Commons:
"The next day he announced that he would rather be dead in a ditch than obey the law."
He said nothing about disobeying the law, rather it was about asking for an extension - for which there remained, and remain, lawful options.
I can understand why many voted to Leave feeling that the existing settlement did little or nothing for them. And if Britain did rejoin there would have to be some hard thinking and action about what to do about those who felt - and feel - left behind. The Remain crowd are foolish to think that things will go back to what they were before if Brexit did not go ahead.
But for a government to claim that it is enacting the Will of the People while deliberately going ahead with something that will harm the poorest in society is a cruel betrayal of them and not something that any decent politician should want. There really does need to be a pause and time to rethink what in earth this is all about and what it is all for.
Or we revoke, Corbyn tanks the economy, Brexit/Tories merge and can gain a majority at that stage
Or several other scenarios
The Speaker must be the HoC man - Charles I and all that.
The xenophobe first reply just puts the cherry on top and says it all.
Nevermind Yellowhammer - will be Red Hammer and Sickle.
I voted Remain. I would vote, in a confirmatory vote, for a Norwayesque deal. I would accept, as was argued in the referendum, that kind of deal. That kind of deal was ruled out by May's red lines. That was a choice of her own making. That was her politics. Not some outside force like you're making it sound, but the decision of government (which Fox was a part of).
Source for Norway claims:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY
https://twitter.com/david_cameron/status/595112367358406656?lang=en
https://twitter.com/GerryHassan/status/1172075673290256384?s=20
Still, it's not like Labour's under investigation for anti-Semitism, is it?
Can a PM who talked about piccaninies and watermelon smiles really claim moral high ground on the issue of racism? Even "moderate" Cameron was involved with the party when the infamous hang Nelson Mandela posters were produced.
Can a party rife with Islamophobia, who accepted on national TV that they need an investigation into it and have since refused, really claim the moral high ground on hatred of people from specific religions?
Many people want the left to confront the conflation of anti capitalism and anti zionism, things I think are more than acceptable political positions, with anti semitism, which is not. The left should confront that. But the right need to confront their racism and bigotry as well, rather that trying to fashion the AS issue into a stick to beat Labour with and claim moral superiority, something that is obviously untrue.
Islamophobia remains a daft term as it wraps up ideas that are reprehensible (bigotry against Muslims) and essential in a free society (the right to criticise, condemn, inquire, and insult a religion).
Didn't the BBC have questions to answer over its debate 'questioners', who included a Labour candidate and the fellow you mentioned, who I seem to recall had some sort of dubious suggestions made about him?
And none of that washes away the far left lunacy of a man whose best political mate has called himself a Marxist, and who himself, when it comes to combating the anti-Semitism that's arisen on his watch, is present, but not involved.
Everybody, literally everybody, can see we're in trouble. But the prescriptions are starkly different. The Brexit taliban think that the best way deal with the situation is to cast off our rucksacks and break into a run. Never mind that we won't get that view because it'll be night soon. Never mind that we'll be leaving behind what provisions we brought. Getting to the top -- or falling to our doom trying -- is all that matters.
The revokers think we should get off the mountain and never speak of it again. We'll be safer that way. And the middle ground is to stop, turn back, get better prepared and at first light try again.
I'm with the revokers, because I see no evidence that we are even capable of getting properly prepared, ever. We are just not a country that takes strategy seriously enough. We're spoiled brats, whose heritage includes those who've bravely scaled much larger peaks, and that's left us deluded into thinking we've got some innate ability to conquer anything. To that attitude, I have one key question:
What have been our main strategic achievements since the war? Tell me, beleavers, I'm really very keen to know the answer.
The list of hypocrisies is a long one......
Didn't think hed say it was
In my experience the overwhelming majority of the working class north of London will never vote for them.
We have had many years now of Conservative and Conservative led governments and, for the working class, little to show for it.
If they don’t want to be totally bombed out in the GE then they need another plan. Mr. Johnson’s government has not worked.
This is where the hypocrisy comes in. Hand waving away the bad stuff is okay for one side, but the other side has to take it ever so seriously.
Johnson may not be fit for office, but the fact that the members of the Conservative party voted for him, with all the evidence of his unfitness on display, doesn't make people talk about Johnson supporters in the same way they talk about Corbynistas, and they should. 2/3rds of the Conservative membership voted for him as PM and that should be considered as radically unacceptable, and yet it isn't.
Au contraire. The political class is one that didn't take strategy around leaving seriously.
They took seriously the continued integration of the UK into the EU, to the extent that leaving is extremely difficult. They took seriously tactics to prevent us leaving (breaking conventions happily until the Prime Clown did likewise).
I agree that, to use the Irish joke, when it comes to directions we wouldn't like to be starting from here.
But I do think revokers (and there's a big difference between with and without a referendum) significantly underestimate the consequences of us staying in.
When it come to flinging powers they'd been entrusted with, temporarily, by the electorate to the EU, the Commons was happy to do so. Now they've voted to endorse the referendum result and are trying everything to stop us actually leaving. How trustworthy does that look?
The Lisbon Treaty passed without murmur from the Lib Dems and Labour despite manifesto pledges to hold a referendum on it. Clegg even had a three line whip abstention on the argument we should have a 'real' referendum on staying in or coming out.
There are major problems with every potential outcome. The withdrawal agreement sounds wretched. Leaving with no deal guarantees significant turbulence, at least in the short term. And with those options looming largest it's understandable that most of the attention has been on those drawbacks.
But those imagining a rosy happy clappy 'healing' of the nation if we end up remaining are deluding themselves. The political polarisation will worsen. Every single step of integration will be salt in the wound of those who had their vote, won it, and saw it thwarted by the will of the political class who had resolved to oppose rather than enact the electorate's decision.
Regardless of where one is on the spectrum of opinion, a long-lasting and unifying result has to be one that can take most people with it.
My suspicion is that if the Lib Dems et al. get their way they'll integrate us as much as possible to reduce the chance that we ever get a say again, and that even if we get one leaving would be practically impossible. That'll be a spur to the anti-EU side.
/endramble
They should remember my taxes pay for their benefits like the working tax credits.
The 5 week period was a bit in-between - it was unusually long but not so long as to nail down No Deal. That suggests a compromise and that suggests discussions and negotitations.
No 10 could put the matter to rest with a short statement but these would have to be consistent with all the information held on all those electronic devices.
No matter. Its reticence is speaking volumes.
Longer term the Clyde should get the Type 45 replacement in the 2030s.
Biggest losers here are
1. Cammell Laird (who were going to build the BAE proposal)
2. BAE who lose their position as sole source combat system supplier for complex RN platforms
3. Longer term Rosyth may be less likely to win the FSS contract
Winners are
1. Thales
2. Possibly Ferguson and H&W (if they get government support as I assume the cost of bringing both out of administration is not part of Babcock's bid...)
Babcock in an interesting position as delivering a Frigate for £250m per may be interesting...
Edit - remove quote mixup
There will not be a deal. And the UK will not leave the EU.
Policy changes, over time and in response to radically different circumstances, are perfectly allowable.
If he makes a sworn affidavit that he didn’t mislead the Queen but there is info out there that he did and that comes to light then he’s in huge trouble .
End of his political career and contempt of court .
Shame on those who risked no deal in order to remain
I was also thinking last night out how smug the SNP are now with their efforts to block Brexit and yet if Scotland ever votes for independence, the Unionists will pay them back in spades with the same tricks.
Dear Bozo, feck off you total twat. What do you think happened to the ship yards on the Tyne and the Wear? Idiot.
(P.S. - I just shouted this in stronger terms at the TV)
In Ashfield the Lib Dems were within 300 votes of Lab in 2010, and the Tories were in 2017.
Maybe "North of Sheffield", "North of Leeds", "North of Peak District", or "North of M62". Take your pick.
Perhaps also need to work on "working class" - the Shad Cab is full of millionaire "B" types claiming to be working class.
https://twitter.com/TPGRoberts/status/1171742143817424897?s=20
"Have you lived here all your life?" my mother asked.
To which he replied, "Not yet."
Logical - of, relating to, involving, or being in accordance with logic; formally true or valid; capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion
Spurious might have been the word you are looking for?
But when when it came to legislation for an actual referendum on EU membership, they opposed it.
They then had a policy of having another referendum, because they wanted people to change their minds.
Before having a new policy of not having a referendum, and ignoring the referendum that they didn't vote for.
It seems perfectly clear and logical to me.
Don't listen to Domski
Listen to Domski
Don't listen to Domski
etc
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1172089462924312576?s=20
Confusing times for the nomenklatura.
https://twitter.com/tonyroe/status/1172081042662076417
A few cages might rattle if Williamson loses.
I can't comment of course on West of the Penines. Though arguably the axis through Cotswolds - Gloucs - Staffs - Herts - Salop is not "working class north", whilst Lancs perhaps is.
The government's position must be that the advice given to HM was that the prorogation was routine, it could not possibly argue otherwise.
So if the Supreme Court agrees that the government's motivation was not the publicly-stated one then it must follow that it has given HM erroneous and misleading advice.
Or alternatively the Court could say that it has no jurisdiction in matters involving the royal prerogative (which was the English High Court's view) but that would imply that a rogue government could prorogue parliament at will for any length of time under any circumstances. This would be unacceptable in a country that likes to think it is a modern democracy and I guess would be likely to result in parliament changing the law.
Is that a fair summary?
The Scottish judges' decision is not in the least bit perverse.
It may well be reversed by a SC decision which takes a different view of the law around the prorogation prerogative powers, but the point of the Supreme Court hearing the various cases is that the law is not settled - there is no legislation and no directly relevant precedent.
For HMQ to say no and provoke that kind of crisis, the prorogation request would have needed to be so egregious as to be beyond all doubt. That wasn't quite the case. In the Commonwealth realms there are examples of much more nakedly political prorogations than we had ever seen in the UK, so a high bar has been set for rejection. Holding that thought, if the UK had a Governor General, he'd probably be taking whatever heat is reflecting onto the Queen at the moment, and be facing likely resignation.
Rutland & Melton will vote Conservative for evermore, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Harborough were to go Lib Dem, and Nicky Morgan will be very lucky to hang on to Loughborough.
Every British surface warship for the next 20 years will be built in Scotland. What more do you want?
As for the Shad cab members claiming to be working class. This is one of the main reasons the traditional Labour supporters the tories are targeting are now less likely to vote. Any party that has the likes of Emily Thornberry in the cabinet and had Mr. Blair and Mr. Mandelson previously has no claim to be supportive of the working class. They all despise the working class and people see it.
My apologies.
Given that this document envisages that the flow of supplies will drop to 40%, if half the population offered to go without, that would go some way - though not all the way - towards helping the rest.
How do they think the British people will react, when they are told: "that's it. Brexit is too difficult, because we are in too deep. We have to go back in to the EU, and be subject to EU law, EU courts, and unelected EU politicians, and we will stay in forever, because we have proved that leaving is impossible.
"You are not a sovereign people. You haven't been sovereign for some time. Your nation is over."
That is pretty much the perfect soil in which to grow our first far right populist leader. I cannot imagine a better scenario for the birth of British Fascism. Discuss.
One of which is not entirely unreasonable.
https://audioboom.com/posts/7365661-supreme-caught-david-allen-green-on-the-scottish-court-case-capers