It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.
Mrs May has a lot to answer for. If she had gone for a Norway + then, she would have got it through minus the ERG. However, she went for the mythical "party unity" and sowed the seeds for the current disarray. All that nonsense about "No Deal is better than a Bad Deal" was simply spouted to convince the nutters that she was one of them. They would never accept her. They probably would not even accept our HYUFD because he has tainted his soul by having voted Remain.
She wouldn't have got anything through parliament - Norway, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, what have you - had she not initially co-opted the opposition into the process. Without that (ok a big move for any PM) the opposition would have voted down anything the incumbent proposed.
So any PM was right royally fecked !
Not if they had consulted, formed a Brexit Special Committee, proposed multi-party membership of it and they would have made recommendations. Not guaranteed success but nowhere to hide subsequently for any opposers.
As it is the narrative is it's a "Tory Brexit".
And my long-held belief on (one of the many) errors the Conservative Party committed was that they treated the referendum like a GE - ie winner takes all, sod the losers, instead of a whole country collaborative effort.
And here we are.
The problem is that given the contradictions of Brexit, there was a high likelihood that any such Brexit Special Committee would have been unable to form a consensus. Brexiteers would have known this (Vote Leave explicitly steered clear of being too concrete for this reason), so it would have been seen as a way to kick Brexit into the long grass.
Labour slipping in the polls would have ensured that they didn't want that Special Committee to come to a consensus. They'd have feared getting a kicking in the upcoming election (which they would then have had no legimtimate argument to block).
If the best possible deal is no deal at all, due to intransigence from Parliament and Europe, then so be it. In that case no deal is the best possible.
That's bollocks though.
The set of "best possible deals" does not include none.
If you promised your kids the best possible dinner, or holiday, then gave them nothing, you wouldn't get far with "it was the best I could get"
BBC reports that 'High Street bakery chain Greggs is stockpiling pork so that production of its sausage rolls is guaranteed in the event of a no-deal Brexit.'
Thought there were likely to be surpluses of farm products, due to inability of farmers to export after Brexit. Where does Greggs get it's pork from now, I wonder.
Piece also says that 20% of a sausage roll is pork!
OK, so according to Yellowhammer, 75% of medicines come via that route. So the question is, is it practicable to prioritise medicines over other imports, or do we have to do without 35-40% of medicines for a period of three months (actually, up to 6 months according to Yellowhammer) in the event of No Deal?
Has that information been released, or is it something the public aren't allowed to know?
And if 35-40% of medicines are unavailable for 3-6 months, how many people will die as a result?
I'm actually not too worried on that score. I think it is fairly straightforward to prioritise medicines and to use other ports, or air-freight. A lot of planning has gone into it, made easier by the fact that there is already a centralised NHS organisation for ensuring supplies don't get disrupted by other issues.
After all, medicines are relatively low-bulk, high-value items. You can fly them in if necessary.
On whether Brexit meant leaving the single market, this Sun editorial from October 2016 highlights the real problem. Brexit was seen as a defiant challenge to the EU rather than a choice for the UK.
If the best possible deal is no deal at all, due to intransigence from Parliament and Europe, then so be it. In that case no deal is the best possible.
That's bollocks though.
The set of "best possible deals" does not include none.
If you promised your kids the best possible dinner, or holiday, then gave them nothing, you wouldn't get far with "it was the best I could get"
Where 'best' is not conditional it is a meaningless statement. The set of best possible deals can include no deal or revoke. Depends on your starting point really.
BBC reports that 'High Street bakery chain Greggs is stockpiling pork so that production of its sausage rolls is guaranteed in the event of a no-deal Brexit.'
Thought there were likely to be surpluses of farm products, due to inability of farmers to export after Brexit. Where does Greggs get it's pork from now, I wonder.
Piece also says that 20% of a sausage roll is pork!
The main difficulty with a second referendum is that there has been a total breakdown of trust amongst the electorate. I envisage this scenario. Interviewer- So will you implement the result THIS time? Politician-eyes burning with sincerity-Of course. We will honour and respect it. 17 million people vomit with disgust.
BBC reports that 'High Street bakery chain Greggs is stockpiling pork so that production of its sausage rolls is guaranteed in the event of a no-deal Brexit.'
Thought there were likely to be surpluses of farm products, due to inability of farmers to export after Brexit. Where does Greggs get it's pork from now, I wonder.
Piece also says that 20% of a sausage roll is pork!
Vegan sausage rolls are 0% pork
Should be 0% p0rk, typed in the PB time honoured way.
OK, so according to Yellowhammer, 75% of medicines come via that route. So the question is, is it practicable to prioritise medicines over other imports, or do we have to do without 35-40% of medicines for a period of three months (actually, up to 6 months according to Yellowhammer) in the event of No Deal?
Has that information been released, or is it something the public aren't allowed to know?
And if 35-40% of medicines are unavailable for 3-6 months, how many people will die as a result?
I'm actually not too worried on that score. I think it is fairly straightforward to prioritise medicines and to use other ports, or air-freight. A lot of planning has gone into it, made easier by the fact that there is already a centralised NHS organisation for ensuring supplies don't get disrupted by other issues.
After all, medicines are relatively low-bulk, high-value items. You can fly them in if necessary.
Is that based on anything more than what you've just said?
Vote Leave won 52% of the vote on a promise to Leave the EU, leave the Customs Union and do our own trade deals and Leave the Single Market and replace free movement with a points system.
It is diehard Remainers who need to back down and respect democracy not Leavers
And since then they withdrew the mandate by not voting in a party which promised no deal. All parties promised an orderly Brexit at the GE and so you are outvoted (literally) by the vast majority of GE voters. Certainly a larger number than 17.4m people.
80% of voters voted for parties promising to deliver Brexit, they have not
I appreciate you voted Remain but you should at least have read the Conservative Party manifesto: "We need to deliver a smooth and orderly departure from the European Union."
Indeed but that doesn't mean we leave with a deal.
Explicitly in the manifesto it stated that we could leave without a deal. If it happens to be we leave without a deal then it should be as smooth and orderly a no deal as possible - which at least this government is seeking to prepare for, even using the overhead signs on motorways now to help get people prepared - rather than May's kick the can but claim we're doing it approach.
On balance, the Tory manifesto rules out the government agreeing a deal and then leaving without one because it's been rejected by parliament. The key phrase "no deal is better than a bad deal" appears only in the context of negotiations with the EU, not negotiations with the opposition in parliament.
On balance it does absolutely no such thing. Negotiations with the EU aren't over since negotiations with the EU are only over when everything irs ratified. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, hence why the government is currently negotiating with the EU.
If no deal is possible then no deal is possible and the best possible deal is none at all.
Vote Leave won 52% of the vote on a promise to Leave the EU, leave the Customs Union and do our own trade deals and Leave the Single Market and replace free movement with a points system.
It is diehard Remainers who need to back down and respect democracy not Leavers
And since then they withdrew the mandate by not voting in a party which promised no deal. All parties promised an orderly Brexit at the GE and so you are outvoted (literally) by the vast majority of GE voters. Certainly a larger number than 17.4m people.
80% of voters voted for parties promising to deliver Brexit, they have not
I appreciate you voted Remain but you should at least have read the Conservative Party manifesto: "We need to deliver a smooth and orderly departure from the European Union."
Indeed but that doesn't mean we leave with a deal.
Explicitly in the manifesto it stated that we could leave without a deal. If it happens to be we leave without a deal then it should be as smooth and orderly a no deal as possible - which at least this government is seeking to prepare for, even using the overhead signs on motorways now to help get people prepared - rather than May's kick the can but claim we're doing it approach.
Nope. They said they continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal. But the commitment was that they:
"will deliver The best possible deal for Britain as we leave the European Union, delivered by a smooth, orderly Brexit."
They might prefer whisky to whiskey (or neither!) but they promised to deliver a deal and a smooth, orderly Brexit.
You dropped a critical word. They didn't promise to deliver a deal, they promised to deliver the best possible deal.
If the best possible deal is no deal at all, due to intransigence from Parliament and Europe, then so be it. In that case no deal is the best possible.
AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH.
So now the best possible deal is not a deal. What is it then? Is it an elephant? A wicker basket? A trip to Thailand.
Weasel words, Philip, not becoming of you. They promised to deliver a deal of some sort. That was the promise. They also said they believed that no deal was better than a bad deal but they promised not only to deliver a deal but the best possible deal.
There is no way you can read "and that includes no deal whatsoever" into the manifesto promise.
It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.
Mrs May has a lot to answer for. If she had gone for a Norway + then, she would have got it through minus the ERG. However, she went for the mythical "party unity" and sowed the seeds for the current disarray. All that nonsense about "No Deal is better than a Bad Deal" was simply spouted to convince the nutters that she was one of them. They would never accept her. They probably would not even accept our HYUFD because he has tainted his soul by having voted Remain.
She wouldn't have got anything through parliament - Norway, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, what have you - had she not initially co-opted the opposition into the process. Without that (ok a big move for any PM) the opposition would have voted down anything the incumbent proposed.
So any PM was right royally fecked !
Not if they had consulted, formed a Brexit Special Committee, proposed multi-party membership of it and they would have made recommendations. Not guaranteed success but nowhere to hide subsequently for any opposers.
As it is the narrative is it's a "Tory Brexit".
And my long-held belief on (one of the many) errors the Conservative Party committed was that they treated the referendum like a GE - ie winner takes all, sod the losers, instead of a whole country collaborative effort.
And here we are.
The problem is that given the contradictions of Brexit, there was a high likelihood that any such Brexit Special Committee would have been unable to form a consensus. Brexiteers would have known this (Vote Leave explicitly steered clear of being too concrete for this reason), so it would have been seen as a way to kick Brexit into the long grass.
Addressing a ConservativeHome/Port of Dover fringe event at the conference, transport minister George Freeman confirmed that the government was assuming that disruption would roughly halve - a range of 40-60% - the traffic on Britain’s main trading link for three months.
Doug Bannister, the chief executive of Port of Dover, said that the assumed drop in traffic would cut £1bn a trade every week. He said:
"That’s how critical it is. If there’s a no-deal Brexit, it’s not going to be OK. But people are doing all they can to ensure Britain keeps trading."
OK, so according to Yellowhammer, 75% of medicines come via that route. So the question is, is it practicable to prioritise medicines over other imports, or do we have to do without 35-40% of medicines for a period of three months (actually, up to 6 months according to Yellowhammer) in the event of No Deal?
Has that information been released, or is it something the public aren't allowed to know?
And if 35-40% of medicines are unavailable for 3-6 months, how many people will die as a result?
It has already been announced that container ports like Immingham are seeing increased trade that used to go via Dover/Calais.
So do you have any quantitative estimate of how much of the estimated 50% shortfall of trade through the Channel ports will in fact be diverted through other ports? Or specifically the 35-40% potential shortfall of medicines?
OK, so according to Yellowhammer, 75% of medicines come via that route. So the question is, is it practicable to prioritise medicines over other imports, or do we have to do without 35-40% of medicines for a period of three months (actually, up to 6 months according to Yellowhammer) in the event of No Deal?
Has that information been released, or is it something the public aren't allowed to know?
And if 35-40% of medicines are unavailable for 3-6 months, how many people will die as a result?
I'm actually not too worried on that score. I think it is fairly straightforward to prioritise medicines and to use other ports, or air-freight. A lot of planning has gone into it, made easier by the fact that there is already a centralised NHS organisation for ensuring supplies don't get disrupted by other issues.
After all, medicines are relatively low-bulk, high-value items. You can fly them in if necessary.
The Pharmaceutical Journal, read by the people who deal with these things on an hour-by-hour basis, reports that people are worried.
BBC reports that 'High Street bakery chain Greggs is stockpiling pork so that production of its sausage rolls is guaranteed in the event of a no-deal Brexit.'
Thought there were likely to be surpluses of farm products, due to inability of farmers to export after Brexit. Where does Greggs get it's pork from now, I wonder.
Piece also says that 20% of a sausage roll is pork!
Vote Leave won 52% of the vote on a promise to Leave the EU, leave the Customs Union and do our own trade deals and Leave the Single Market and replace free movement with a points system.
It is diehard Remainers who need to back down and respect democracy not Leavers
And since then they withdrew the mandate by not voting in a party which promised no deal. All parties promised an orderly Brexit at the GE and so you are outvoted (literally) by the vast majority of GE voters. Certainly a larger number than 17.4m people.
80% of voters voted for parties promising to deliver Brexit, they have not
I appreciate you voted Remain but you should at least have read the Conservative Party manifesto: "We need to deliver a smooth and orderly departure from the European Union."
Indeed but that doesn't mean we leave with a deal.
Explicitly in the manifesto it stated that we could leave without a deal. If it happens to be we leave without a deal then it should be as smooth and orderly a no deal as possible - which at least this government is seeking to prepare for, even using the overhead signs on motorways now to help get people prepared - rather than May's kick the can but claim we're doing it approach.
Nope. They said they continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal. But the commitment was that they:
"will deliver The best possible deal for Britain as we leave the European Union, delivered by a smooth, orderly Brexit."
They might prefer whisky to whiskey (or neither!) but they promised to deliver a deal and a smooth, orderly Brexit.
You dropped a critical word. They didn't promise to deliver a deal, they promised to deliver the best possible deal.
If the best possible deal is no deal at all, due to intransigence from Parliament and Europe, then so be it. In that case no deal is the best possible.
AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH.
So now the best possible deal is not a deal. What is it then? Is it an elephant? A wicker basket? A trip to Thailand.
Weasel words, Philip, not becoming of you. They promised to deliver a deal of some sort. That was the promise. They also said they believed that no deal was better than a bad deal but they promised not only to deliver a deal but the best possible deal.
There is no way you can read "and that includes no deal whatsoever" into the manifesto promise.
Although the common expectation is that No Deal leads to mini deals to get us to a similar place. However, it may be a rougher journey
BBC reports that 'High Street bakery chain Greggs is stockpiling pork so that production of its sausage rolls is guaranteed in the event of a no-deal Brexit.'
Thought there were likely to be surpluses of farm products, due to inability of farmers to export after Brexit. Where does Greggs get it's pork from now, I wonder.
Piece also says that 20% of a sausage roll is pork!
Vegan sausage rolls are 0% pork
Should be 0% p0rk, typed in the PB time honoured way.
If the best possible deal is no deal at all, due to intransigence from Parliament and Europe, then so be it. In that case no deal is the best possible.
That's bollocks though.
The set of "best possible deals" does not include none.
If you promised your kids the best possible dinner, or holiday, then gave them nothing, you wouldn't get far with "it was the best I could get"
Consider yourself blessed then, I've gone years where the best possible holiday was none at all because for either financial reasons or work obligations I've been unable to take a holiday.
Or the best possible holiday is not a comprehensive foreign two week vacation at an all inclusive resort but a simple domestic weekend away. Equivalent to the mini deals that have been agreed with the EU already. If that's the best possible, its the best possible, don't be greedy.
Vote Leave won 52% of the vote on a promise to Leave the EU, leave the Customs Union and do our own trade deals and Leave the Single Market and replace free movement with a points system.
It is diehard Remainers who need to back down and respect democracy not Leavers
And since then they withdrew the mandate by not voting in a party which promised no deal. All parties promised an orderly Brexit at the GE and so you are outvoted (literally) by the vast majority of GE voters. Certainly a larger number than 17.4m people.
80% of voters voted for parties promising to deliver Brexit, they have not
I appreciate you voted Remain but you should at least have read the Conservative Party manifesto: "We need to deliver a smooth and orderly departure from the European Union."
Indeed but that doesn't mean we leave with a deal.
Explicitly in the manifesto it stated that we could leave without a deal. If it happens to be we leave without a deal then it should be as smooth and orderly a no deal as possible - which at least this government is seeking to prepare for, even using the overhead signs on motorways now to help get people prepared - rather than May's kick the can but claim we're doing it approach.
On balance, the Tory manifesto rules out the government agreeing a deal and then leaving without one because it's been rejected by parliament. The key phrase "no deal is better than a bad deal" appears only in the context of negotiations with the EU, not negotiations with the opposition in parliament.
On balance it does absolutely no such thing. Negotiations with the EU aren't over since negotiations with the EU are only over when everything irs ratified. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, hence why the government is currently negotiating with the EU.
If no deal is possible then no deal is possible and the best possible deal is none at all.
The negotiations will undoubtedly be tough, and there will be give and take on both sides, but we continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal for the UK. But we will enter the negotiations in a spirit of sincere cooperation and committed to getting the best deal for Britain.
The Conservative government declared May's deal the best possible deal. How does this section provide a justification to reject that deal and leave without one?
If the best possible deal is no deal at all, due to intransigence from Parliament and Europe, then so be it. In that case no deal is the best possible.
That's bollocks though.
The set of "best possible deals" does not include none.
If you promised your kids the best possible dinner, or holiday, then gave them nothing, you wouldn't get far with "it was the best I could get"
Consider yourself blessed then, I've gone years where the best possible holiday was none at all because for either financial reasons or work obligations I've been unable to take a holiday.
Or the best possible holiday is not a comprehensive foreign two week vacation at an all inclusive resort but a simple domestic weekend away. Equivalent to the mini deals that have been agreed with the EU already. If that's the best possible, its the best possible, don't be greedy.
In your 'No Holiday' analogy, No Deal = No Brexit.
OK, so according to Yellowhammer, 75% of medicines come via that route. So the question is, is it practicable to prioritise medicines over other imports, or do we have to do without 35-40% of medicines for a period of three months (actually, up to 6 months according to Yellowhammer) in the event of No Deal?
Has that information been released, or is it something the public aren't allowed to know?
And if 35-40% of medicines are unavailable for 3-6 months, how many people will die as a result?
I'm actually not too worried on that score. I think it is fairly straightforward to prioritise medicines and to use other ports, or air-freight. A lot of planning has gone into it, made easier by the fact that there is already a centralised NHS organisation for ensuring supplies don't get disrupted by other issues.
After all, medicines are relatively low-bulk, high-value items. You can fly them in if necessary.
The Pharmaceutical Journal, read by the people who deal with these things on an hour-by-hour basis, reports that people are worried.
Change does that.
If they have put effort into anything, one assumes it is medicines.
You dropped a critical word. They didn't promise to deliver a deal, they promised to deliver the best possible deal.
If the best possible deal is no deal at all, due to intransigence from Parliament and Europe, then so be it. In that case no deal is the best possible.
AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH.
So now the best possible deal is not a deal. What is it then? Is it an elephant? A wicker basket? A trip to Thailand.
Weasel words, Philip, not becoming of you. They promised to deliver a deal of some sort. That was the promise. They also said they believed that no deal was better than a bad deal but they promised not only to deliver a deal but the best possible deal.
There is no way you can read "and that includes no deal whatsoever" into the manifesto promise.
Absolutely I can and did. It was explicitly there in black and white.
If a great deal is possible then great, lets get the best possible deal, but no deal is better than a bad deal and if it comes to no deal being the best possible then so be it. That was covered in the manifesto in explicit writing.
OK, so according to Yellowhammer, 75% of medicines come via that route. So the question is, is it practicable to prioritise medicines over other imports, or do we have to do without 35-40% of medicines for a period of three months (actually, up to 6 months according to Yellowhammer) in the event of No Deal?
Has that information been released, or is it something the public aren't allowed to know?
And if 35-40% of medicines are unavailable for 3-6 months, how many people will die as a result?
I'm actually not too worried on that score. I think it is fairly straightforward to prioritise medicines and to use other ports, or air-freight. A lot of planning has gone into it, made easier by the fact that there is already a centralised NHS organisation for ensuring supplies don't get disrupted by other issues.
After all, medicines are relatively low-bulk, high-value items. You can fly them in if necessary.
The Pharmaceutical Journal, read by the people who deal with these things on an hour-by-hour basis, reports that people are worried.
Change does that.
If they have put effort into anything, one assumes it is medicines.
I agree with Nick Palmer's assessment regarding Portsmouth South having the potential to allow the Tories to come through the middle. However, I can't agree with Nick's view that "the Conservatives merely have to lose a couple of dozen seats to be underwater, even after those frightful leftists like Philip Hammond and Amber Rudd are replaced by loyalists".
Once Scotland and London have been removed from the equation, the great majority of seats in England as well as Wales are Leave inclined, including nearly all of those which are the lowest hanging fruit for the Tories. The potential for Remainer tactical voting is being overstated outside the minority of seats where Remainers are untypically a majority of the electorate but there will still be a lot of churn. Assuming that the Tories could potentially lose 30-40 seats in total, this would not however destroy Johnson's chances.
Leave seats, particularly Labour ones, are those with the potential for a highest swing towards the Tories, based on what we know from the Opinium crossbreaks of Leave supporters. The "Bolsolver strategy" of 2017 may have narrowly failed but it did bring a number of these within range and Labour majorities in the low teen percentages won't all be safe. Seats like Bassetlaw (majority 9%, Leave 68%) would be in the balance even before John Mann's departure. As things stand the Tories have a fair chance of picking up 40 or so seats to offset those they lose elsewhere.
Generally, there seems to be a tsunami of changes in previous voter loyalties in all sorts of directions and as such the amount of churn in seats is going to be at the high range of expectations.
Actually, that article is quite reassuring. Those quoted in the article who are best placed to know seem confident. Those who raise concerns are not saying there's likely to be significant shortages, they are mostly talking about secondary problems.
It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.
What happens after Brexit is canned - is a question remainers cannot answer with honesty.
Yes they can. It will be a disaster, I think pretty much everyone agrees. So what? We are where we are - the country has made a series of bad decisions, which of course means that there will be a bad outcome. That's not a reason to choose an even worse one, if the current best possible option (leaving with a deal, and thus respecting the referendum without trashing the economy too badly) is not available following the trashing of it by the current PM and others.
Any impact on the economy by leaving will likely have been recovered with bells on as long as Jezza doesnt become PM.
Ignoring a referendum will trash our democracy for a generation- and not a SNP generation either.
It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.
What happens after Brexit is canned - is a question remainers cannot answer with honesty.
Yes they can. It will be a disaster, I think pretty much everyone agrees. So what? We are where we are - the country has made a series of bad decisions, which of course means that there will be a bad outcome. That's not a reason to choose an even worse one, if the current best possible option (leaving with a deal, and thus respecting the referendum without trashing the economy too badly) is not available following the trashing of it by the current PM and others.
Any impact on the economy by leaving will likely have been recovered with bells on as long as Jezza doesnt become PM.
Ignoring a referendum will trash our democracy for a generation- and not a SNP generation either.
So a few leavers won’t vote tough that’s their problem.
It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.
What happens after Brexit is canned - is a question remainers cannot answer with honesty.
Yes they can. It will be a disaster, I think pretty much everyone agrees. So what? We are where we are - the country has made a series of bad decisions, which of course means that there will be a bad outcome. That's not a reason to choose an even worse one, if the current best possible option (leaving with a deal, and thus respecting the referendum without trashing the economy too badly) is not available following the trashing of it by the current PM and others.
Any impact on the economy by leaving will likely have been recovered with bells on as long as Jezza doesnt become PM.
Ignoring a referendum will trash our democracy for a generation- and not a SNP generation either.
The problem with your first point is that a no-deal crash out is likely to be followed by a Corbyn (or Corbyn-style) government. They are not alternatives: quite the opposite, crash-out provides a perfect opportunity for Corbyn.
I agree on your second point, but we are where we are. Boris and Steve Baker and the other nutjobs should have thought about that before they laid into May's deal with garbage about it 'not being Brexit' and 'it makes us a vassal state'.
It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.
What happens after Brexit is canned - is a question remainers cannot answer with honesty.
Yes they can. It will be a disaster, I think pretty much everyone agrees. So what? We are where we are - the country has made a series of bad decisions, which of course means that there will be a bad outcome. That's not a reason to choose an even worse one, if the current best possible option (leaving with a deal, and thus respecting the referendum without trashing the economy too badly) is not available following the trashing of it by the current PM and others.
Any impact on the economy by leaving will likely have been recovered with bells on as long as Jezza doesnt become PM.
Ignoring a referendum will trash our democracy for a generation- and not a SNP generation either.
So a few leavers won’t vote tough that’s their problem.
There's not going to be a referendum, that much is fairly clear. The People's Vote campaign has died and even the Lib Dems have abandoned it.
Actually, that article is quite reassuring. Those quoted in the article who are best placed to know seem confident. Those who raise concerns are not saying there's likely to be significant shortages, they are mostly talking about secondary problems.
If you find that reassuring, you're an even bigger idiot than I thought.
It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.
What happens after Brexit is canned - is a question remainers cannot answer with honesty.
Yes they can. It will be a disaster, I think pretty much everyone agrees. So what? We are where we are - the country has made a series of bad decisions, which of course means that there will be a bad outcome. That's not a reason to choose an even worse one, if the current best possible option (leaving with a deal, and thus respecting the referendum without trashing the economy too badly) is not available following the trashing of it by the current PM and others.
Any impact on the economy by leaving will likely have been recovered with bells on as long as Jezza doesnt become PM.
Ignoring a referendum will trash our democracy for a generation- and not a SNP generation either.
So a few leavers won’t vote tough that’s their problem.
I would be more concerned about who they will vote for - Farage may not be enough.
Actually, that article is quite reassuring. Those quoted in the article who are best placed to know seem confident. Those who raise concerns are not saying there's likely to be significant shortages, they are mostly talking about secondary problems.
If you find that reassuring, you're an even bigger idiot than I thought.
You probably will want to delete that having reflected. I suggest your read the Box on 'unanswered questions' in the article to help your understanding.
It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.
What happens after Brexit is canned - is a question remainers cannot answer with honesty.
Yes they can. It will be a disaster, I think pretty much everyone agrees. So what? We are where we are - the country has made a series of bad decisions, which of course means that there will be a bad outcome. That's not a reason to choose an even worse one, if the current best possible option (leaving with a deal, and thus respecting the referendum without trashing the economy too badly) is not available following the trashing of it by the current PM and others.
Any impact on the economy by leaving will likely have been recovered with bells on as long as Jezza doesnt become PM.
Ignoring a referendum will trash our democracy for a generation- and not a SNP generation either.
So a few leavers won’t vote tough that’s their problem.
There's not going to be a referendum, that much is fairly clear. The People's Vote campaign has died and even the Lib Dems have abandoned it.
There won’t be another referendum on any topic for 20-30 years after this.
I was a Remainer I now respect democracy and the Leave vote and winning Leave platform unlike you it seems
Where I am disappointed in you is that as a hitherto long time Conservative you will be as vocal in your advocacy of a Labour government, should the country decide to elect one, and as vehement in your dismissal of all Conservative policies, as you are now of a no deal Brexit.
If Corbyn managed to win a referendum on implementing communism in the UK, I'm sure HYUFD would want any future Conservative government to be bound by that commitment. He's scrupulously consistent.
It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.
What happens after Brexit is canned - is a question remainers cannot answer with honesty.
Yes they can. It will be a disaster, I think pretty much everyone agrees. So what? We are where we are - the country has made a series of bad decisions, which of course means that there will be a bad outcome. That's not a reason to choose an even worse one, if the current best possible option (leaving with a deal, and thus respecting the referendum without trashing the economy too badly) is not available following the trashing of it by the current PM and others.
Any impact on the economy by leaving will likely have been recovered with bells on as long as Jezza doesnt become PM.
Ignoring a referendum will trash our democracy for a generation- and not a SNP generation either.
So a few leavers won’t vote tough that’s their problem.
There's not going to be a referendum, that much is fairly clear. The People's Vote campaign has died and even the Lib Dems have abandoned it.
There won’t be another referendum on any topic for 20-30 years after this.
'Do you approve or disapprove of the annexation of Calais as a constituent part of the UK?'
THAT LOGIC IN FULL * It is OK for the Government to know about it * It is OK for the EU to know about it * It is not OK for the British public to know about it
Once Scotland and London have been removed from the equation, the great majority of seats in England as well as Wales are Leave inclined
Why do you think the Conservatives are likelier to pick those up now than in 2017? Do you think the people who didn't vote Tory in 2017 are rushing to endorse the way the Tories have been handling everything in the past 28 months?
It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.
What happens after Brexit is canned - is a question remainers cannot answer with honesty.
Yes they can. It will be a disaster, I think pretty much everyone agrees. So what? We are where we are - the country has made a series of bad decisions, which of course means that there will be a bad outcome. That's not a reason to choose an even worse one, if the current best possible option (leaving with a deal, and thus respecting the referendum without trashing the economy too badly) is not available following the trashing of it by the current PM and others.
Any impact on the economy by leaving will likely have been recovered with bells on as long as Jezza doesnt become PM.
Ignoring a referendum will trash our democracy for a generation- and not a SNP generation either.
So a few leavers won’t vote tough that’s their problem.
There's not going to be a referendum, that much is fairly clear. The People's Vote campaign has died and even the Lib Dems have abandoned it.
There won’t be another referendum on any topic for 20-30 years after this.
'Do you approve or disapprove of the annexation of Calais as a constituent part of the UK?'
Pointless - the establishment ignore the results of referendums if they don’t like the way we voted.
It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.
What happens after Brexit is canned - is a question remainers cannot answer with honesty.
Yes they can. It will be a disaster, I think pretty much everyone agrees. So what? We are where we are - the country has made a series of bad decisions, which of course means that there will be a bad outcome. That's not a reason to choose an even worse one, if the current best possible option (leaving with a deal, and thus respecting the referendum without trashing the economy too badly) is not available following the trashing of it by the current PM and others.
Any impact on the economy by leaving will likely have been recovered with bells on as long as Jezza doesnt become PM.
Ignoring a referendum will trash our democracy for a generation- and not a SNP generation either.
So a few leavers won’t vote tough that’s their problem.
There's not going to be a referendum, that much is fairly clear. The People's Vote campaign has died and even the Lib Dems have abandoned it.
There won’t be another referendum on any topic for 20-30 years after this.
Agreed, and besides it's not a great idea to campaign for another one after spending years trying to convince the British public that the referendum result was non binding, the winning side were corrupt, the campaign ill-informed and the effect on society negative.
If the Govt had followed the Vote Leave plan then I think it is fair to criticise them, but seeing as the Govt did not follow the plan i.e activating article 50, when VL said do not do it, then I think it is unfair to criticise on this point.
Also who were the main people in Mays inner circle implementing Brexit, Liddington, Green, Hammond, Clark, Rudd, not a leave brain cell between them. David Davis was constantly undermined by May with the structure that she put in place a DexEU with no power and her own no10 Brexit delivery unit.
The mess we are in has largely been created by May and her remainer mates.
It's. Always. Somebody. Else's. Fault.
it is both sides fault. It is hard leavers and hard remainers (Peoples vote) not understanding the word compromise and it is all those MPs in the middle that do not have the political courage to make a decision and want a quiet life with somebody else to blame.
You dropped a critical word. They didn't promise to deliver a deal, they promised to deliver the best possible deal.
If the best possible deal is no deal at all, due to intransigence from Parliament and Europe, then so be it. In that case no deal is the best possible.
AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH.
So now the best possible deal is not a deal. What is it then? Is it an elephant? A wicker basket? A trip to Thailand.
Weasel words, Philip, not becoming of you. They promised to deliver a deal of some sort. That was the promise. They also said they believed that no deal was better than a bad deal but they promised not only to deliver a deal but the best possible deal.
There is no way you can read "and that includes no deal whatsoever" into the manifesto promise.
Absolutely I can and did. It was explicitly there in black and white.
If a great deal is possible then great, lets get the best possible deal, but no deal is better than a bad deal and if it comes to no deal being the best possible then so be it. That was covered in the manifesto in explicit writing.
No deal cannot be a deal. It is not a deal. By, er, definition.
@Scott_P's analogy is as good as any. If I promise you the best possible elephant and then give you a dolphin can you say you have received the best possible elephant?
Actually, that article is quite reassuring. Those quoted in the article who are best placed to know seem confident. Those who raise concerns are not saying there's likely to be significant shortages, they are mostly talking about secondary problems.
If you find that reassuring, you're an even bigger idiot than I thought.
You probably will want to delete that having reflected. I suggest your read the Box on 'unanswered questions' in the article to help your understanding.
If he changes his mind, you're suggesting he unilaterally revoke?
It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.
What happens after Brexit is canned - is a question remainers cannot answer with honesty.
The first thing that happens is that Remainers own EVERYTHING that goes wrong. With anything. However tangential. It will be "because we didn't Brexit."
Only for a deranged minority. The same deranged minority that blamed everything on "Europe". The bitter old xenophobic headbangers that gave us a cancer called Brexit. Most people won't give a shit because they are more interested in Britain's Got Talent or Love Island.
I was a Remainer I now respect democracy and the Leave vote and winning Leave platform unlike you it seems
Where I am disappointed in you is that as a hitherto long time Conservative you will be as vocal in your advocacy of a Labour government, should the country decide to elect one, and as vehement in your dismissal of all Conservative policies, as you are now of a no deal Brexit.
If Corbyn managed to win a referendum on implementing communism in the UK, I'm sure HYUFD would want any future Conservative government to be bound by that commitment. He's scrupulously consistent.
At least it is possible to implement communism.
Hard communism or soft communism? Can it be achieved before every other country embraces communism?
Mr. Foremain, there are legitimate problems with the EU and it's perfectly valid not to be in favour of the UK's membership. Nobody would argue the matter has been handled well, however.
Lumping everyone on the other side together as xenophobes isn't going to help us get to a lasting settlement.
It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.
What happens after Brexit is canned - is a question remainers cannot answer with honesty.
Yes they can. It will be a disaster, I think pretty much everyone agrees. So what? We are where we are - the country has made a series of bad decisions, which of course means that there will be a bad outcome. That's not a reason to choose an even worse one, if the current best possible option (leaving with a deal, and thus respecting the referendum without trashing the economy too badly) is not available following the trashing of it by the current PM and others.
Any impact on the economy by leaving will likely have been recovered with bells on as long as Jezza doesnt become PM.
Ignoring a referendum will trash our democracy for a generation- and not a SNP generation either.
So a few leavers won’t vote tough that’s their problem.
There's not going to be a referendum, that much is fairly clear. The People's Vote campaign has died and even the Lib Dems have abandoned it.
There won’t be another referendum on any topic for 20-30 years after this.
'Do you approve or disapprove of the annexation of Calais as a constituent part of the UK?'
Pointless - the establishment ignore the results of referendums if they don’t like the way we voted.
"Ignore". It's filled the entire political capacity of this country for the past three years+. "Ignore". Jesus wept.
Hi from Halifax, Nova Scotia and note that Boris who may still be pm when we return next tuesday even though he is being attacked from all quarters. I expect the real action will take place mid october. Must go as the ship sails shortly for our 6 day North Atlantic crossing
My best wishes to everyone no matter which side of the argument you are on
It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.
What happens after Brexit is canned - is a question remainers cannot answer with honesty.
Yes they can. It will be a disaster, I think pretty much everyone agrees. So what? We are where we are - the country has made a series of bad decisions, which of course means that there will be a bad outcome. That's not a reason to choose an even worse one, if the current best possible option (leaving with a deal, and thus respecting the referendum without trashing the economy too badly) is not available following the trashing of it by the current PM and others.
Any impact on the economy by leaving will likely have been recovered with bells on as long as Jezza doesnt become PM.
Ignoring a referendum will trash our democracy for a generation- and not a SNP generation either.
So a few leavers won’t vote tough that’s their problem.
There's not going to be a referendum, that much is fairly clear. The People's Vote campaign has died and even the Lib Dems have abandoned it.
There won’t be another referendum on any topic for 20-30 years after this.
'Do you approve or disapprove of the annexation of Calais as a constituent part of the UK?'
Pointless - the establishment ignore the results of referendums if they don’t like the way we voted.
If only! The establishment has become paralysed trying to deliver the referendum result, and therefore failed not just to deliver the result but do anything else either. That is worse than either implementing or ignoring the referendum result.
Once Scotland and London have been removed from the equation, the great majority of seats in England as well as Wales are Leave inclined
Why do you think the Conservatives are likelier to pick those up now than in 2017? Do you think the people who didn't vote Tory in 2017 are rushing to endorse the way the Tories have been handling everything in the past 28 months?
According to a friend of mine who is a Tory canvasser, Boris Johnson is turning out to be much more popular than the somewhat dour Mrs May. He had been canvassing in a Northern Labour marginal last weekend and claims multiple people in Labour wards said things along the lines of "I've never voted Tory in my life but would vote for Boris Johnson". To be fair my friend was surprised himself as he much preferred Hunt and doesn't rate Johnson, but he wonders whether there is a celebrity aspect that cuts through. I'm still sceptical but...
I was a Remainer I now respect democracy and the Leave vote and winning Leave platform unlike you it seems
Where I am disappointed in you is that as a hitherto long time Conservative you will be as vocal in your advocacy of a Labour government, should the country decide to elect one, and as vehement in your dismissal of all Conservative policies, as you are now of a no deal Brexit.
If Corbyn managed to win a referendum on implementing communism in the UK, I'm sure HYUFD would want any future Conservative government to be bound by that commitment. He's scrupulously consistent.
At least it is possible to implement communism.
Hard communism or soft communism? Can it be achieved before every other country embraces communism?
Once the UK Capitalexits, the whole of Capitalism will collapse like a house of cards. Let's take back control (of the means of production).
Vote Leave did come out with oceans of drivel. No doubt whatsoever about that.
However when talking about 'Deal' in the excerpts quoted the meaning is often not exit terms but the ultimate Future Relationship.
And indeed this is what counts. Whether we get soft Brexit or hard Brexit or whatever Brexit will depend on negotiations which will take several years and could easily span multiple general elections and serious changes in political climate.
But those negotiations can only start after we leave. And that event - leaving - was mandated by the 2016 referendum.
It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.
What happens after Brexit is canned - is a question remainers cannot answer with honesty.
The first thing that happens is that Remainers own EVERYTHING that goes wrong. With anything. However tangential. It will be "because we didn't Brexit."
Only for a deranged minority. The same deranged minority that blamed everything on "Europe". The bitter old xenophobic headbangers that gave us a cancer called Brexit. Most people won't give a shit because they are more interested in Britain's Got Talent or Love Island.
Again, you've read this totally wrong. "Blaming Remainers" will be the new national sport..... You think the Mail, the Telegraph, the Sun and the Express will miss a chance to paly this game?
Why the future tense? The fact that the Leaver press will whine non-stop is known. They already do.
It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.
What happens after Brexit is canned - is a question remainers cannot answer with honesty.
Yes they can. It will be a disaster, I think pretty much everyone agrees. So what? We are where we are - the country has made a series of bad decisions, which of course means that there will be a bad outcome. That's not a reason to choose an even worse one, if the current best possible option (leaving with a deal, and thus respecting the referendum without trashing the economy too badly) is not available following the trashing of it by the current PM and others.
Any impact on the economy by leaving will likely have been recovered with bells on as long as Jezza doesnt become PM.
Ignoring a referendum will trash our democracy for a generation- and not a SNP generation either.
The referendum has already been ignored - by Brexiteers. It was a very narrow "victory" for them, but they behaved as though it was overwhelming.
They have tried to obtain something that was not mandated. they are the ones that have not "respected" the result.
Once Scotland and London have been removed from the equation, the great majority of seats in England as well as Wales are Leave inclined
Why do you think the Conservatives are likelier to pick those up now than in 2017? Do you think the people who didn't vote Tory in 2017 are rushing to endorse the way the Tories have been handling everything in the past 28 months?
According to a friend of mine who is a Tory canvasser, Boris Johnson is turning out to be much more popular than the somewhat dour Mrs May. He had been canvassing in a Northern Labour marginal last weekend and claims multiple people in Labour wards said things along the lines of "I've never voted Tory in my life but would vote for Boris Johnson". To be fair my friend was surprised himself as he much preferred Hunt and doesn't rate Johnson, but he wonders whether there is a celebrity aspect that cuts through. I'm still sceptical but...
I think this will be true. He will surely be significantly more popular than May. But he will also be significantly more unpopular than her with a different part of society as well.
May = mostly mixed lukewarm views either way Johnson = marmite
Will those two changes net off against each other? Or will the popularity amongst his base be enough for him given his main opponent is also unpopular.
Once Scotland and London have been removed from the equation, the great majority of seats in England as well as Wales are Leave inclined
Why do you think the Conservatives are likelier to pick those up now than in 2017? Do you think the people who didn't vote Tory in 2017 are rushing to endorse the way the Tories have been handling everything in the past 28 months?
According to a friend of mine who is a Tory canvasser, Boris Johnson is turning out to be much more popular than the somewhat dour Mrs May. He had been canvassing in a Northern Labour marginal last weekend and claims multiple people in Labour wards said things along the lines of "I've never voted Tory in my life but would vote for Boris Johnson". To be fair my friend was surprised himself as he much preferred Hunt and doesn't rate Johnson, but he wonders whether there is a celebrity aspect that cuts through. I'm still sceptical but...
That's rather a good picture of Boris. Nice smile, tie done up, hair more or less under control. Interestingly he does not look tired which is somewhat surprising given the events of the last few weeks. Perhaps Carrie is making sure he gets to bed nice and early.
It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.
What happens after Brexit is canned - is a question remainers cannot answer with honesty.
Yes they can. It will be a disaster, I think pretty much everyone agrees. So what? We are where we are - the country has made a series of bad decisions, which of course means that there will be a bad outcome. That's not a reason to choose an even worse one, if the current best possible option (leaving with a deal, and thus respecting the referendum without trashing the economy too badly) is not available following the trashing of it by the current PM and others.
Any impact on the economy by leaving will likely have been recovered with bells on as long as Jezza doesnt become PM.
Ignoring a referendum will trash our democracy for a generation- and not a SNP generation either.
So a few leavers won’t vote tough that’s their problem.
There's not going to be a referendum, that much is fairly clear. The People's Vote campaign has died and even the Lib Dems have abandoned it.
There won’t be another referendum on any topic for 20-30 years after this.
'Do you approve or disapprove of the annexation of Calais as a constituent part of the UK?'
Pointless - the establishment ignore the results of referendums if they don’t like the way we voted.
For a rather strange definition of "ignore", of course. So in this world where the referendum has been ignored, do we think that Cameron stands a decent chance of winning next year's scheduled election, or will he finally hand over to Osborne? God forbid that the last three-and-a-half years would have been dominated by Brexit the way they would have been if it hadn't been ignored.
Once Scotland and London have been removed from the equation, the great majority of seats in England as well as Wales are Leave inclined
Why do you think the Conservatives are likelier to pick those up now than in 2017? Do you think the people who didn't vote Tory in 2017 are rushing to endorse the way the Tories have been handling everything in the past 28 months?
Mr. Foremain, there are legitimate problems with the EU and it's perfectly valid not to be in favour of the UK's membership. Nobody would argue the matter has been handled well, however.
Lumping everyone on the other side together as xenophobes isn't going to help us get to a lasting settlement.
Fair enough Mr Dancer, clearly you are not one, but many of those on the leave side of the debate are most certainly of such persuasion.
I have a number of "problems" with various parts of the way in which we are governed, far too many of them to write down here. The weaknesses of the EU pale into insignificance to many of these when seen in logical comparison. The main difference to most leavers is that I am not in favour of exaggerating support for such reforms and trashing our economy to achieve them.
Hi from Halifax, Nova Scotia and note that Boris who may still be pm when we return next tuesday even though he is being attacked from all quarters. I expect the real action will take place mid october. Must go as the ship sails shortly for our 6 day North Atlantic crossing
My best wishes to everyone no matter which side of the argument you are on
It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.
What happens after Brexit is canned - is a question remainers cannot answer with honesty.
Yes they can. It will be a disaster, I think pretty much everyone agrees. So what? We are where we are - the country has made a series of bad decisions, which of course means that there will be a bad outcome. That's not a reason to choose an even worse one, if the current best possible option (leaving with a deal, and thus respecting the referendum without trashing the economy too badly) is not available following the trashing of it by the current PM and others.
Any impact on the economy by leaving will likely have been recovered with bells on as long as Jezza doesnt become PM.
Ignoring a referendum will trash our democracy for a generation- and not a SNP generation either.
So a few leavers won’t vote tough that’s their problem.
There's not going to be a referendum, that much is fairly clear. The People's Vote campaign has died and even the Lib Dems have abandoned it.
There won’t be another referendum on any topic for 20-30 years after this.
'Do you approve or disapprove of the annexation of Calais as a constituent part of the UK?'
Pointless - the establishment ignore the results of referendums if they don’t like the way we voted.
Are you taking the piss? Ignore? It’s nearly all we have been talking about for some three and a half years! You can blame who you want for the outcome but it most certainly has not been “ignored”.
It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.
What happens after Brexit is canned - is a question remainers cannot answer with honesty.
Yes they can. It will be a disaster, I think pretty much everyone agrees. So what? We are where we are - the country has made a series of bad decisions, which of course means that there will be a bad outcome. That's not a reason to choose an even worse one, if the current best possible option (leaving with a deal, and thus respecting the referendum without trashing the economy too badly) is not available following the trashing of it by the current PM and others.
Any impact on the economy by leaving will likely have been recovered with bells on as long as Jezza doesnt become PM.
Ignoring a referendum will trash our democracy for a generation- and not a SNP generation either.
So a few leavers won’t vote tough that’s their problem.
There's not going to be a referendum, that much is fairly clear. The People's Vote campaign has died and even the Lib Dems have abandoned it.
There won’t be another referendum on any topic for 20-30 years after this.
'Do you approve or disapprove of the annexation of Calais as a constituent part of the UK?'
Re-annexation. The Ghost of Bloody Mary coming to hand us.
That's rather a good picture of Boris. Nice smile, tie done up, hair more or less under control. Interestingly he does not look tired which is somewhat surprising given the events of the last few weeks. Perhaps Carrie is making sure he gets to bed nice and early.
Once Scotland and London have been removed from the equation, the great majority of seats in England as well as Wales are Leave inclined
Why do you think the Conservatives are likelier to pick those up now than in 2017? Do you think the people who didn't vote Tory in 2017 are rushing to endorse the way the Tories have been handling everything in the past 28 months?
Once Scotland and London have been removed from the equation, the great majority of seats in England as well as Wales are Leave inclined
Why do you think the Conservatives are likelier to pick those up now than in 2017? Do you think the people who didn't vote Tory in 2017 are rushing to endorse the way the Tories have been handling everything in the past 28 months?
According to a friend of mine who is a Tory canvasser, Boris Johnson is turning out to be much more popular than the somewhat dour Mrs May. He had been canvassing in a Northern Labour marginal last weekend and claims multiple people in Labour wards said things along the lines of "I've never voted Tory in my life but would vote for Boris Johnson". To be fair my friend was surprised himself as he much preferred Hunt and doesn't rate Johnson, but he wonders whether there is a celebrity aspect that cuts through. I'm still sceptical but...
Once Scotland and London have been removed from the equation, the great majority of seats in England as well as Wales are Leave inclined
Why do you think the Conservatives are likelier to pick those up now than in 2017? Do you think the people who didn't vote Tory in 2017 are rushing to endorse the way the Tories have been handling everything in the past 28 months?
According to a friend of mine who is a Tory canvasser, Boris Johnson is turning out to be much more popular than the somewhat dour Mrs May. He had been canvassing in a Northern Labour marginal last weekend and claims multiple people in Labour wards said things along the lines of "I've never voted Tory in my life but would vote for Boris Johnson". To be fair my friend was surprised himself as he much preferred Hunt and doesn't rate Johnson, but he wonders whether there is a celebrity aspect that cuts through. I'm still sceptical but...
Once Scotland and London have been removed from the equation, the great majority of seats in England as well as Wales are Leave inclined
Why do you think the Conservatives are likelier to pick those up now than in 2017? Do you think the people who didn't vote Tory in 2017 are rushing to endorse the way the Tories have been handling everything in the past 28 months?
According to a friend of mine who is a Tory canvasser, Boris Johnson is turning out to be much more popular than the somewhat dour Mrs May. He had been canvassing in a Northern Labour marginal last weekend and claims multiple people in Labour wards said things along the lines of "I've never voted Tory in my life but would vote for Boris Johnson". To be fair my friend was surprised himself as he much preferred Hunt and doesn't rate Johnson, but he wonders whether there is a celebrity aspect that cuts through. I'm still sceptical but...
In the reliability stakes, hopefully your friend's name is not Martin Day.
According to a friend of mine who is a Tory canvasser, Boris Johnson is turning out to be much more popular than the somewhat dour Mrs May. He had been canvassing in a Northern Labour marginal last weekend and claims multiple people in Labour wards said things along the lines of "I've never voted Tory in my life but would vote for Boris Johnson". To be fair my friend was surprised himself as he much preferred Hunt and doesn't rate Johnson, but he wonders whether there is a celebrity aspect that cuts through. I'm still sceptical but...
According to a friend of mine who is a Tory canvasser, Boris Johnson is turning out to be much more popular than the somewhat dour Mrs May. He had been canvassing in a Northern Labour marginal last weekend and claims multiple people in Labour wards said things along the lines of "I've never voted Tory in my life but would vote for Boris Johnson". To be fair my friend was surprised himself as he much preferred Hunt and doesn't rate Johnson, but he wonders whether there is a celebrity aspect that cuts through. I'm still sceptical but...
My sauces say the same 😞
This is why I'm not keen on an election anytime soon.
More Meeks' bullshit trying to defend the indefensible. Trying to second guess the result in favour of Remain and put interpretations on the vote which are completely unjustified thtough partial and warped rewriting of history.
That's rather a good picture of Boris. Nice smile, tie done up, hair more or less under control. Interestingly he does not look tired which is somewhat surprising given the events of the last few weeks. Perhaps Carrie is making sure he gets to bed nice and early.
Comments
The set of "best possible deals" does not include none.
If you promised your kids the best possible dinner, or holiday, then gave them nothing, you wouldn't get far with "it was the best I could get"
Thought there were likely to be surpluses of farm products, due to inability of farmers to export after Brexit. Where does Greggs get it's pork from now, I wonder.
Piece also says that 20% of a sausage roll is pork!
After all, medicines are relatively low-bulk, high-value items. You can fly them in if necessary.
https://www.cliftonbrown.co.uk/
Interviewer- So will you implement the result THIS time?
Politician-eyes burning with sincerity-Of course. We will honour and respect it.
17 million people vomit with disgust.
If no deal is possible then no deal is possible and the best possible deal is none at all.
So now the best possible deal is not a deal. What is it then? Is it an elephant? A wicker basket? A trip to Thailand.
Weasel words, Philip, not becoming of you. They promised to deliver a deal of some sort. That was the promise. They also said they believed that no deal was better than a bad deal but they promised not only to deliver a deal but the best possible deal.
There is no way you can read "and that includes no deal whatsoever" into the manifesto promise.
One would hope!
However, it may be a rougher journey
Or the best possible holiday is not a comprehensive foreign two week vacation at an all inclusive resort but a simple domestic weekend away. Equivalent to the mini deals that have been agreed with the EU already. If that's the best possible, its the best possible, don't be greedy.
The Conservative government declared May's deal the best possible deal. How does this section provide a justification to reject that deal and leave without one?
If they have put effort into anything, one assumes it is medicines.
If a great deal is possible then great, lets get the best possible deal, but no deal is better than a bad deal and if it comes to no deal being the best possible then so be it. That was covered in the manifesto in explicit writing.
It doesn't reassure.
I agree with Nick Palmer's assessment regarding Portsmouth South having the potential to allow the Tories to come through the middle. However, I can't agree with Nick's view that "the Conservatives merely have to lose a couple of dozen seats to be underwater, even after those frightful leftists like Philip Hammond and Amber Rudd are replaced by loyalists".
Once Scotland and London have been removed from the equation, the great majority of seats in England as well as Wales are Leave inclined, including nearly all of those which are the lowest hanging fruit for the Tories. The potential for Remainer tactical voting is being overstated outside the minority of seats where Remainers are untypically a majority of the electorate but there will still be a lot of churn. Assuming that the Tories could potentially lose 30-40 seats in total, this would not however destroy Johnson's chances.
Leave seats, particularly Labour ones, are those with the potential for a highest swing towards the Tories, based on what we know from the Opinium crossbreaks of Leave supporters. The "Bolsolver strategy" of 2017 may have narrowly failed but it did bring a number of these within range and Labour majorities in the low teen percentages won't all be safe. Seats like Bassetlaw (majority 9%, Leave 68%) would be in the balance even before John Mann's departure. As things stand the Tories have a fair chance of picking up 40 or so seats to offset those they lose elsewhere.
Generally, there seems to be a tsunami of changes in previous voter loyalties in all sorts of directions and as such the amount of churn in seats is going to be at the high range of expectations.
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1179033252641722368
Ignoring a referendum will trash our democracy for a generation- and not a SNP generation either.
I agree on your second point, but we are where we are. Boris and Steve Baker and the other nutjobs should have thought about that before they laid into May's deal with garbage about it 'not being Brexit' and 'it makes us a vassal state'.
https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1179035026953949191
* It is OK for the Government to know about it
* It is OK for the EU to know about it
* It is not OK for the British public to know about it
@Scott_P's analogy is as good as any. If I promise you the best possible elephant and then give you a dolphin can you say you have received the best possible elephant?
Lumping everyone on the other side together as xenophobes isn't going to help us get to a lasting settlement.
"Ignore". Jesus wept.
My best wishes to everyone no matter which side of the argument you are on
Be with you all again soon
very funny comment on the bbc commentary website - the teams should donate both points to charity as it was the worst game in PL history.
However when talking about 'Deal' in the excerpts quoted the meaning is often not exit terms but the ultimate Future Relationship.
And indeed this is what counts. Whether we get soft Brexit or hard Brexit or whatever Brexit will depend on negotiations which will take several years and could easily span multiple general elections and serious changes in political climate.
But those negotiations can only start after we leave. And that event - leaving - was mandated by the 2016 referendum.
Such remains the case.
The fact that the Leaver press will whine non-stop is known. They already do.
They have tried to obtain something that was not mandated. they are the ones that have not "respected" the result.
May = mostly mixed lukewarm views either way
Johnson = marmite
Will those two changes net off against each other? Or will the popularity amongst his base be enough for him given his main opponent is also unpopular.
So in this world where the referendum has been ignored, do we think that Cameron stands a decent chance of winning next year's scheduled election, or will he finally hand over to Osborne?
God forbid that the last three-and-a-half years would have been dominated by Brexit the way they would have been if it hadn't been ignored.
I have a number of "problems" with various parts of the way in which we are governed, far too many of them to write down here. The weaknesses of the EU pale into insignificance to many of these when seen in logical comparison. The main difference to most leavers is that I am not in favour of exaggerating support for such reforms and trashing our economy to achieve them.
https://twitter.com/mattquig1/status/1179037125087354880?s=21
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/08/15/theresa-may-more-popular-jeremy-corbyn-among-tradi
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-conservatives-popularity-ratings-public-support-a7327726.html
This is why I'm not keen on an election anytime soon.