As for Canada, the various polls out today continue to show a virtual dead heat between the Liberals and Conservatives. The weekly Dart/Maru poll puts the NDP at 21%, their highest rating in any poll with the Conservatives leading 33-29.
The weekly EKOS poll has the Conservative ahead by just 1.5 points with the NDP advancing and the Greens falling back.
There's a regional poll from British Columbia which has 42 ridings. In 2015, the Liberals won 17 seats with 35%, Conservatives got 10 with 30% and NDP 14 with 26% and the Greens one seat with 8%.
The Insights Poll has the Conservatives on 27% (-3), the NDP on 23% (-3) and the Liberals on 20% (-15%) with the Greens on 11%, Others on 4% and remainder undecided or preferring not to answer.
As we see so often, the Conservative vote is based on the elderly and a core more willing to turn out. The NDP vote in particular is younger and less willing to turn out so that's the challenge on Monday for the NDP and Liberal ground organisations.
Humbugger appears on here two weeks ago and attacks all-things-remain. Hmmmm .....
Anyway, if I were a Leaver and I was peeling back the foil from the champagne bottles, I'd be furious too.
But stop a moment. This is a really vital piece of legislation that will affect this country for generations. Taking an extra fortnight or two in order properly to scrutinise it is absolutely right and proper.
Given that MPs have no power to change any of the wording that does seem rather pointless. Unless the whole point is to stop Brexit, of course.
Of course, the worst thing about the Letwin amendment is we won't know for certain how many ex-con and lab votes there really are for the WAIB, unless someone is on record in support of the WA even without Letwin.
Why everybody else has your Tory Swinson party on 17% or less
Your pathetic ability to recognize that corbyn is the problem and probably responsible for why we are where we are and can only bring your fire on the lib dems is amazing, corbyn is the problem no one else.
OGH asked about six hours ago what benefits he could now expect given that we are now leaving. I missed the hundreds of responses that he received can anyone summaries them for me without talking about sovereignty please
People who expect to get benefits from Brexit daren't talk about them in public, in case people start to understand what it's all about.
Of course, the worst thing about the Letwin amendment is we won't know for certain how many ex-con and lab votes there really are for the WAIB, unless someone is on record in support of the WA even without Letwin.
I expect the numbers will be substantially similiar. Unless Corbyn whips FOR the WA when letwin passes ?!
I was wondering what might be up with him. Notwithstanding any legitimate health issues he may have, surely someone will ensure he is dragged to the Commons to vote somehow? His vote, or absence, could well decide the destiny of this country! (or could have, if Letwin were not likely to pass, putting off that moment).
Any Extinction Rebellion protests planned for tomorrow? It'd be hilarious if one or more MPs is unable to get to the Commons because of them.
I think they'll have enough time to get in. The sitting starts at 9.30am and the final vote may be as late as 7pm according to LBC.
This is a really vital piece of legislation that will affect this country for generations. Taking an extra fortnight or two in order properly to scrutinise it is absolutely right and proper.
Yes it is and would be. But that is not the purpose of most of those who are backing the amendment, since they don't want the legislation to pass at all. Given that, they could cut out the delay and either win tomorrow or lose tomorrow.
Humbugger appears on here two weeks ago and attacks all-things-remain. Hmmmm .....
Anyway, if I were a Leaver and I was peeling back the foil from the champagne bottles, I'd be furious too.
But stop a moment. This is a really vital piece of legislation that will affect this country for generations. Taking an extra fortnight or two in order properly to scrutinise it is absolutely right and proper.
But it was OK for the 'vital' Benn legislation to go through in 2 days?
I’m not one to argue with a trained lawyer but that’s not the case . The amendment takes out any approval . Once amended the government motion is not a MV4 .
I urge fellow posters to look at the amendment, it clearly removes that approval .
Indeed. That's why people on Twitter are saying Letwin isn't being truthful.
For my money Boris keeps the vote tomorrow, if it passes then job done and we are leaving. Those supporting Letwin like Peston would love the deal vote to be postponed in the hope of eroding support for it over time.
Yes Letwin makes it slightly harder for the deal to pass but with Lab rebels coming on board throughout the day I think the deal has a greater than 50% chance of passing and if it does Letwin will have little to no effect on anything else.
Telegraph reporting that under the Benn thingy only a copy of the letter has to be sent to Brussels, does not state it has to be signed.
That's the big loophole that BoJo and co have cooked up? Fine, someone here forward an email to Tusk tomorrow evening like so: ------------------ RE: Extension
Humbugger appears on here two weeks ago and attacks all-things-remain. Hmmmm .....
Anyway, if I were a Leaver and I was peeling back the foil from the champagne bottles, I'd be furious too.
But stop a moment. This is a really vital piece of legislation that will affect this country for generations. Taking an extra fortnight or two in order properly to scrutinise it is absolutely right and proper.
Not quite sure what your first point is here. However, for clarification, I can confirm that the Humbugger is pro Brexit.
Humbugger appears on here two weeks ago and attacks all-things-remain. Hmmmm .....
Anyway, if I were a Leaver and I was peeling back the foil from the champagne bottles, I'd be furious too.
But stop a moment. This is a really vital piece of legislation that will affect this country for generations. Taking an extra fortnight or two in order properly to scrutinise it is absolutely right and proper.
Well, yes, but I don't understand why that wasn't anticipated when they wrote the Benn Act. They knew all the relevant dates then. They could have written an alternative letter to request a technical extension for proper legislative scrutiny in the case that the deal passed.
It seems bizarre for a big supporter of the Benn Act to mess about with it in this way at this stage.
Humbugger appears on here two weeks ago and attacks all-things-remain. Hmmmm .....
Anyway, if I were a Leaver and I was peeling back the foil from the champagne bottles, I'd be furious too.
But stop a moment. This is a really vital piece of legislation that will affect this country for generations. Taking an extra fortnight or two in order properly to scrutinise it is absolutely right and proper.
But it was OK for the 'vital' Benn legislation to go through in 2 days?
Much less complex, and really deferring a major decision rather than concluding one, but yes even that should have taken a bit longer (no good complaining about the time they had, they could have acted at any time given they could sieze control of the order paper), since people have still queried what parts of it mean, and if there are ways around it.
OGH asked about six hours ago what benefits he could now expect given that we are now leaving. I missed the hundreds of responses that he received can anyone summaries them for me without talking about sovereignty please
People who expect to get benefits from Brexit daren't talk about them in public, in case people start to understand what it's all about.
Did I get a response to my question about adopting EU regulations during transition or not? If they did then the tax dodgers have won, if they didn’t then TBP still have a role to play.
I’m not one to argue with a trained lawyer but that’s not the case . The amendment takes out any approval . Once amended the government motion is not a MV4 .
I urge fellow posters to look at the amendment, it clearly removes that approval .
That's the point. It does not do what he is claiming it does, which means no wonder people are suspicious about its intent.
This is a really vital piece of legislation that will affect this country for generations. Taking an extra fortnight or two in order properly to scrutinise it is absolutely right and proper.
Yes it is and would be. But that is not the purpose of most of those who are backing the amendment, since they don't want the legislation to pass at all. Given that, they could cut out the delay and either win tomorrow or lose tomorrow.
The other point to make here is that if there was a genuine government volte face and they decided to pull the legislation and go for no deal (which seems to be the rationale here) then you bet your bottom dollar that Bercow would allow time to push through Benn II.
Humbugger appears on here two weeks ago and attacks all-things-remain. Hmmmm .....
Anyway, if I were a Leaver and I was peeling back the foil from the champagne bottles, I'd be furious too.
But stop a moment. This is a really vital piece of legislation that will affect this country for generations. Taking an extra fortnight or two in order properly to scrutinise it is absolutely right and proper.
But it was OK for the 'vital' Benn legislation to go through in 2 days?
Much less complex, and really deferring a major decision rather than concluding one, but yes even that should have taken a bit longer (no good complaining about the time they had, they could have acted at any time given they could sieze control of the order paper), since people have still queried what parts of it mean, and if there are ways around it.
With respect, The Benn Act was not much less complex. It was compelling a PM to act against his own wishes and was probably unprecedented in that respect. That it was inadequate has been demonstrated by its sponsors, in desperation, resorting now to the dreadful Letwin Amendment. Disgraceful.
OGH asked about six hours ago what benefits he could now expect given that we are now leaving. I missed the hundreds of responses that he received can anyone summaries them for me without talking about sovereignty please
People who expect to get benefits from Brexit daren't talk about them in public, in case people start to understand what it's all about.
Did I get a response to my question about adopting EU regulations during transition or not? If they did then the tax dodgers have won, if they didn’t then TBP still have a role to play.
OGH asked about six hours ago what benefits he could now expect given that we are now leaving. I missed the hundreds of responses that he received can anyone summaries them for me without talking about sovereignty please
People who expect to get benefits from Brexit daren't talk about them in public, in case people start to understand what it's all about.
Did I get a response to my question about adopting EU regulations during transition or not? If they did then the tax dodgers have won, if they didn’t then TBP still have a role to play.
Here we go with the conspiracy that Brexit is all about tax evasion.
Telegraph reporting that under the Benn thingy only a copy of the letter has to be sent to Brussels, does not state it has to be signed.
Oh, f**k off. What next? Invisible ink? Morse code? Visible only to bees? Via the medium of interpretive dance?
I'm sorry, the MPs and Government are just arseing around at the moment. Whether you are a Remainer or a Leaver, surely we can all agree that they should be slapped. From Letwins ceci ne'c'est pas une vote to Boris's crossed fingers to Corbyn's absenteeism to Cummings's sixth form Napoleon to Gauke's weaponised pedantry to Swinson's lack of everything, they are irresponsible children unworthy of their high position and should have anvils dropped on their heads by road runners. I hate them.
I’m not one to argue with a trained lawyer but that’s not the case . The amendment takes out any approval . Once amended the government motion is not a MV4 .
I urge fellow posters to look at the amendment, it clearly removes that approval .
Indeed. That's why people on Twitter are saying Letwin isn't being truthful.
That's the first election broadcast for Sindy2 taken care of. More broadly, even by the standards of the relentless doublethink and intellectual dishonesty of Brexiteers, that is some tweet.
Humbugger appears on here two weeks ago and attacks all-things-remain. Hmmmm .....
Anyway, if I were a Leaver and I was peeling back the foil from the champagne bottles, I'd be furious too.
But stop a moment. This is a really vital piece of legislation that will affect this country for generations. Taking an extra fortnight or two in order properly to scrutinise it is absolutely right and proper.
But it was OK for the 'vital' Benn legislation to go through in 2 days?
Much less complex, and really deferring a major decision rather than concluding one, but yes even that should have taken a bit longer (no good complaining about the time they had, they could have acted at any time given they could sieze control of the order paper), since people have still queried what parts of it mean, and if there are ways around it.
With respect, The Benn Act was not much less complex. It was compelling a PM to act against his own wishes and was probably unprecedented in that respect. That it was inadequate has been demonstrated by its sponsors, in desperation, resorting now to the dreadful Letwin Amendment. Disgraceful.
With respect, your point is about the significance of the Benn Act, not about its complexity. It was and is a short and simple piece of legislation (it's 5 pages of content) which as I said should definitely have received more scrutiny, for the very reason you point out that it was and is so significant and, possibly, not totally adequate. You are making my point, because the very fact of it being a simpler act, with fewer bits to worry about, means a bit more time on it would have ironed out the difficulties pretty easily, and they could have made the time if they needed it.
I’m not one to argue with a trained lawyer but that’s not the case . The amendment takes out any approval . Once amended the government motion is not a MV4 .
I urge fellow posters to look at the amendment, it clearly removes that approval .
Indeed. That's why people on Twitter are saying Letwin isn't being truthful.
Telegraph reporting that under the Benn thingy only a copy of the letter has to be sent to Brussels, does not state it has to be signed.
Oh, f**k off. What next? Invisible ink? Morse code? Visible only to bees? Via the medium of interpretive dance?
I'm sorry, the MPs and Government are just arseing around at the moment. Whether you are a Remainer or a Leaver, surely we can all agree that they should be slapped. From Letwins ceci ne'c'est pas une vote to Boris's crossed fingers to Corbyn's absenteeism to Cummings's sixth form Napoleon to Gauke's weaponised pedantry to Swinson's lack of everything, they are irresponsible children unworthy of their high position and should have anvils dropped on their heads by road runners. I hate them.
Well said. Madly said clearly, but as to the gist I'm with you all the way.
Given Letwin means it won't be in any way meaningful as Parliaments witholding its support what does it matter if it passes or fails?
If supporters of the deal vote for the motion and opponents of the deal vote against, it will indicate whether the deal has majority support in the Commons.
OGH asked about six hours ago what benefits he could now expect given that we are now leaving. I missed the hundreds of responses that he received can anyone summaries them for me without talking about sovereignty please
Here we go with the conspiracy that Brexit is all about tax evasion.
I thought we were told it was all about crashing the pound so Boris' backers could make millions. They won't be happy with it being up 8c in the past couple of weeks (and probably as much again when the deal passes).
OGH asked about six hours ago what benefits he could now expect given that we are now leaving. I missed the hundreds of responses that he received can anyone summaries them for me without talking about sovereignty please
People who expect to get benefits from Brexit daren't talk about them in public, in case people start to understand what it's all about.
Did I get a response to my question about adopting EU regulations during transition or not? If they did then the tax dodgers have won, if they didn’t then TBP still have a role to play.
Here we go with the conspiracy that Brexit is all about tax evasion.
Well if it’s not what is it about? But don’t bother replying as I say you have won you’ve made your bed and time will tell whether this has been worth it, I can’t see any benefit of it but I don’t regard none financial benefits as of any value because our voting system is corrupt and does not give people any real control over what the executive does. Let’s move on and argue about the next stage where I support my ERG MPs promise to keep us in EEA or EFTA.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Hammond voting alongside Corbyn. Yes it will ruin his reputation and contradict his position on wanting a deal but clearly he doesn't want Brexit and he doesn't want Boris to succeed, it's very personal and if he thinks he can swing the vote I've no doubt he will. Possibly Rudd will act in the same way.
OGH asked about six hours ago what benefits he could now expect given that we are now leaving. I missed the hundreds of responses that he received can anyone summaries them for me without talking about sovereignty please
People who expect to get benefits from Brexit daren't talk about them in public, in case people start to understand what it's all about.
Did I get a response to my question about adopting EU regulations during transition or not? If they did then the tax dodgers have won, if they didn’t then TBP still have a role to play.
Here we go with the conspiracy that Brexit is all about tax evasion.
Well if it’s not what is it about? But don’t bother replying as I say you have won you’ve made your bed and time will tell whether this has been worth it, I can’t see any benefit of it but I don’t regard none financial benefits as of any value because our voting system is corrupt and does not give people any real control over what the executive does. Let’s move on and argue about the next stage where I support my ERG MPs promise to keep us in EEA or EFTA.
Please read the fact check link posted earlier that debunks the myth you keep peddling.
OGH asked about six hours ago what benefits he could now expect given that we are now leaving. I missed the hundreds of responses that he received can anyone summaries them for me without talking about sovereignty please
I have just done an 8 hour drive down from Aberdeen to Lincolnshire so missed all of today's threads.
So first of all thanks to OblitussumMe for an excellent thread earlier.
In answer to your question the benefit for me and millions of other people including you and OGH - though I know you will deny it - is that it makes our politicians more accountable to us. I am the first to admit that there are many things wrong with our system but there is absolutely no point making changes to it as long as so much decision making rested with the EU
This is particularly well illustrated where it is UK politicians who have suggested additional rules or regulations. If they do this within our Parliament and we subsequently decide, as a nation, that the law was stupid then we can get it changed in our own Parliament. If it has been turned into a regulation or directive by the EU and then adopted into UK law it is practically impossible to get this reversed. You would have to be able somehow to persuade the representatives of either the majority of or all of the other 27 countries to agree to the change.
You can see this in the way EU supporters on both the left and the right consider the EU important to stop the other side from changing things. Conservative Europhiles have argued that the EU will stop Corbyn and his socialist ideas whilst Labour supporters argue that the EU is important to stop the Tories removing rights or legal protections on various things like the environment.
The point they both miss is that what they are actually arguing is that democratically elected Governments should be prevented from enacting the promises they made to the electorate and which helped to win them a majority.
I don't expect you to agree with any of this but you wanted an answer and it is one I believe in.
That is a quite staggering example of levelling down I have ever seen! "See that Belfast? It's shit right? Well if we make Britain shit as well, more people will go live in Belfast! Brilliant"
I have often spoken of the low quality of Spectator columnists, who with few exceptions (Forsythe being the obvious) are bad people with bad morals and too much wealth who in a just world would be screaming homeless drunks encamped by the station gates where they can only harm themselves.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Hammond voting alongside Corbyn. Yes it will ruin his reputation and contradict his position on wanting a deal but clearly he doesn't want Brexit and he doesn't want Boris to succeed, it's very personal and if he thinks he can swing the vote I've no doubt he will. Possibly Rudd will act in the same way.
Rudd is a confirmed vote for more or less. (Also for Letwin !)
Telegraph reporting that under the Benn thingy only a copy of the letter has to be sent to Brussels, does not state it has to be signed.
Hilarious except for the fact it would be frustrating the act and pathetically childish .
Pathetically childish, to be sure, but is it frustrating the Act? I mean, the letter says it is from the PM by the form of the Benn Act, and if it comes from the Ambassador or whoever, its still received officially.
OGH asked about six hours ago what benefits he could now expect given that we are now leaving. I missed the hundreds of responses that he received can anyone summaries them for me without talking about sovereignty please
An improvement in written English.
Oh for god sake find a better answer when auto correct alters things are you a linguistic expert who has ever fallen foul of a minor error?
Telegraph reporting that under the Benn thingy only a copy of the letter has to be sent to Brussels, does not state it has to be signed.
Oh, f**k off. What next? Invisible ink? Morse code? Visible only to bees? Via the medium of interpretive dance?
I'm sorry, the MPs and Government are just arseing around at the moment. Whether you are a Remainer or a Leaver, surely we can all agree that they should be slapped. From Letwins ceci ne'c'est pas une vote to Boris's crossed fingers to Corbyn's absenteeism to Cummings's sixth form Napoleon to Gauke's weaponised pedantry to Swinson's lack of everything, they are irresponsible children unworthy of their high position and should have anvils dropped on their heads by road runners. I hate them.
Well said. Madly said clearly, but as to the gist I'm with you all the way.
Beep-beep. (Was that the road-runner thing?)
Thank you. Yes it was. I should point out that I am on a train, worried, unwell and a bit mizz at the moment, hence the freewheeling abuse to all things politician. I promise I'll stop soon.
Given Letwin means it won't be in any way meaningful as Parliaments witholding its support what does it matter if it passes or fails?
If supporters of the deal vote for the motion and opponents of the deal vote against, it will indicate whether the deal has majority support in the Commons.
Yeah but it's basically a free pass in that it doesn't count to anything.
So lets say the deal passes by 4 votes? 10 votes? 50 votes? So what? Parliament isn't giving it's support to anything meaningful on that day and those people who voted for it on that day can withdraw that vote on any other day.
Letwin has basically turned Super Saturday into a complete and utter farce.
And I’m saying this as a Remainer on steroids . The Letwin amendment whilst trying to make sure there won’t be a no deal is making things very complicated.
It blurs the lines between the different voting groups .
Those who want an extension and who want to vote for the deal.
The next group who don’t want to vote for the deal but want an extension .
Those who want to vote for the deal and no extension .
I’m not sure what the answer is to sorting this out yet though !
For clarity if the House of Commons vote to amend the motion then this market will be settled on the vote on the Government Motion AS AMENDED
Maybe a little bit of thought
If Letwin is the only successful amendment the deal passes subject to the Withdrawal Bill passing next week
If so the mps have surely lost their chance to show the EU there is a majority in the HOC for a GE or especially a referendum so any extension which is requested would be short and only for technical reasons thereby making the deal certain, as no deal is the only other option
Good point . It’s unlikely the EU would offer any further extensions at that point . I’m a Remainer for a deal now so as long as the deal goes through I’m fine.
I’m incredibly sad about Brexit , not so much for myself as I can qualify for an EU passport through my parents but for the younger generation .
However I can’t see a second vote happening so it’s pointless dragging this out for much longer , a few extra weeks to get everything through and then that’s it.
I’m incredibly sad, too. My wife and I are stuck with British passports too; that’s not to say we’re not patriotic, but we like travelling while we still can, with as little hassle as possible. And we want our grandchildren to have the same opportunities our children had; European universities, Erasmus, easy international travel etc. But this has gone on long enough; I’ve a lot of sympathy with business who need some sort of ability to plan, and my former colleagues who need to have secure means of R&D co-operation. Time to make Johnson accept responsibility for the mess he has, and is, creating. Although Brexit is going to do a LOT of damage to the United Kingdom in all sorts of ways.
European universities are filled with non European students. (Filled being an exaggeration but just as in Britain there are lots of non Europeans in them)
Erasmus is open to non EU countries.
International travel is getting easier every year. It is now almost as easy to travel to the US or Canada as it is to the EU. The same goes for practically every first world destination.
Telegraph reporting that under the Benn thingy only a copy of the letter has to be sent to Brussels, does not state it has to be signed.
Oh, f**k off. What next? Invisible ink? Morse code? Visible only to bees? Via the medium of interpretive dance?
I'm sorry, the MPs and Government are just arseing around at the moment. Whether you are a Remainer or a Leaver, surely we can all agree that they should be slapped. From Letwins ceci ne'c'est pas une vote to Boris's crossed fingers to Corbyn's absenteeism to Cummings's sixth form Napoleon to Gauke's weaponised pedantry to Swinson's lack of everything, they are irresponsible children unworthy of their high position and should have anvils dropped on their heads by road runners. I hate them.
I feel the same way. Is there a book on how many incumbents lose in the next election ?
And I’m saying this as a Remainer on steroids . The Letwin amendment whilst trying to make sure there won’t be a no deal is making things very complicated.
It blurs the lines between the different voting groups .
Those who want an extension and who want to vote for the deal.
The next group who don’t want to vote for the deal but want an extension .
Those who want a deal and no extension .
I’m not sure what the answer is to sorting this out yet though !
Drop the amendment and pass the deal? It's quite simple.
Telegraph reporting that under the Benn thingy only a copy of the letter has to be sent to Brussels, does not state it has to be signed.
Oh, f**k off. What next? Invisible ink? Morse code? Visible only to bees? Via the medium of interpretive dance?
I'm sorry, the MPs and Government are just arseing around at the moment. Whether you are a Remainer or a Leaver, surely we can all agree that they should be slapped. From Letwins ceci ne'c'est pas une vote to Boris's crossed fingers to Corbyn's absenteeism to Cummings's sixth form Napoleon to Gauke's weaponised pedantry to Swinson's lack of everything, they are irresponsible children unworthy of their high position and should have anvils dropped on their heads by road runners. I hate them.
Well said. Madly said clearly, but as to the gist I'm with you all the way.
Beep-beep. (Was that the road-runner thing?)
Thank you. Yes it was. I should point out that I am on a train, worried, unwell and a bit mizz at the moment, hence the freewheeling abuse to all things politician. I promise I'll stop soon.
Hmm v sorry to hear that tomorrow is another day and all that (although bad example as tomorrow the HoC is sitting so perhaps only emerge on Sunday).
And I’m saying this as a Remainer on steroids . The Letwin amendment whilst trying to make sure there won’t be a no deal is making things very complicated.
It blurs the lines between the different voting groups .
Those who want an extension and who want to vote for the deal.
The next group who don’t want to vote for the deal but want an extension .
Those who want a deal and no extension .
I’m not sure what the answer is to sorting this out yet though !
Drop the amendment and pass the deal? It's quite simple.
Except if you do that you’ll lose some of the Tory rebels , they don’t trust the ERG.
OGH asked about six hours ago what benefits he could now expect given that we are now leaving. I missed the hundreds of responses that he received can anyone summaries them for me without talking about sovereignty please
I have just done an 8 hour drive down from Aberdeen to Lincolnshire so missed all of today's threads.
So first of all thanks to OblitussumMe for an excellent thread earlier.
In answer to your question the benefit for me and millions of other people including you and OGH - though I know you will deny it - is that it makes our politicians more accountable to us. I am the first to admit that there are many things wrong with our system but there is absolutely no point making changes to it as long as so much decision making rested with the EU
This is particularly well illustrated where it is UK politicians who have suggested additional rules or regulations. If they do this within our Parliament and we subsequently decide, as a nation, that the law was stupid then we can get it changed in our own Parliament. If it has been turned into a regulation or directive by the EU and then adopted into UK law it is practically impossible to get this reversed. You would have to be able somehow to persuade the representatives of either the majority of or all of the other 27 countries to agree to the change.
You can see this in the way EU supporters on both the left and the right consider the EU important to stop the other side from changing things. Conservative Europhiles have argued that the EU will stop Corbyn and his socialist ideas whilst Labour supporters argue that the EU is important to stop the Tories removing rights or legal protections on various things like the environment.
The point they both miss is that what they are actually arguing is that democratically elected Governments should be prevented from enacting the promises they made to the electorate and which helped to win them a majority.
I don't expect you to agree with any of this but you wanted an answer and it is one I believe in.
There are very few EU laws that HMG objected to that they were forced to accept although am willing to be corrected on that, I still maintain our political system actually makes MPs only accountable to the party faithful, not the electorate as a whole. There will not be voting so we won’t get any real say in forming our laws.
Indeed. There were some people on election night 2017 who continued to be dismissive of the Exit poll for two hours after the polls closed. Some had confidently predicted Labour falling back to 180 seats. The predictions they offer today,therefore, need to be taken with a pinch of salt!
OGH asked about six hours ago what benefits he could now expect given that we are now leaving. I missed the hundreds of responses that he received can anyone summaries them for me without talking about sovereignty please
I have just done an 8 hour drive down from Aberdeen to Lincolnshire so missed all of today's threads.
So first of all thanks to OblitussumMe for an excellent thread earlier.
In answer to your question the benefit for me and millions of other people including you and OGH - though I know you will deny it - is that it makes our politicians more accountable to us. I am the first to admit that there are many things wrong with our system but there is absolutely no point making changes to it as long as so much decision making rested with the EU
This is particularly well illustrated where it is UK politicians who have suggested additional rules or regulations. If they do this within our Parliament and we subsequently decide, as a nation, that the law was stupid then we can get it changed in our own Parliament. If it has been turned into a regulation or directive by the EU and then adopted into UK law it is practically impossible to get this reversed. You would have to be able somehow to persuade the representatives of either the majority of or all of the other 27 countries to agree to the change.
You can see this in the way EU supporters on both the left and the right consider the EU important to stop the other side from changing things. Conservative Europhiles have argued that the EU will stop Corbyn and his socialist ideas whilst Labour supporters argue that the EU is important to stop the Tories removing rights or legal protections on various things like the environment.
The point they both miss is that what they are actually arguing is that democratically elected Governments should be prevented from enacting the promises they made to the electorate and which helped to win them a majority.
I don't expect you to agree with any of this but you wanted an answer and it is one I believe in.
This is the most compelling Brexit argument there is. But the reality is that in most seats MPs get re-elected regardless of what they do - and often on less than 50% of the vote. Governments elected with less than 40% of the vote can pass laws most voters oppose. If most people want to retain EU legislation on workers rights, food standards and environmental protections, but a government elected with 35% of the vote abolishes them, how is that a benefit?
And I’m saying this as a Remainer on steroids . The Letwin amendment whilst trying to make sure there won’t be a no deal is making things very complicated.
It blurs the lines between the different voting groups .
Those who want an extension and who want to vote for the deal.
The next group who don’t want to vote for the deal but want an extension .
Those who want a deal and no extension .
I’m not sure what the answer is to sorting this out yet though !
Drop the amendment and pass the deal? It's quite simple.
Except if you do that you’ll lose some of the Tory rebels , they don’t trust the ERG.
But since 'passing' it with Letwin just puts off the moment of truth nothing is lost by dropping it. It's not like the Labour leavers or the other ex-cons will let Boris get away with any funny business later, and they don't have to grant him an election which means he won't need them.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Hammond voting alongside Corbyn. Yes it will ruin his reputation and contradict his position on wanting a deal but clearly he doesn't want Brexit and he doesn't want Boris to succeed, it's very personal and if he thinks he can swing the vote I've no doubt he will. Possibly Rudd will act in the same way.
Telegraph reporting that Hammond is the only whipless one not engaging with the process for the rebels to get the whip back. Support all votes on WA. support QS and support budget on 6th Nov.
Why everybody else has your Tory Swinson party on 17% or less
Bullying of a female party leader is not a good look. You should drop it.
Mr Wales she has to cope with whatever is thrown at her and lives and dies by her ability to cope with it. That is politics and as long it doesn’t cross the line to become the fact that she is female being the issue then all’s fair.
Telegraph reporting that under the Benn thingy only a copy of the letter has to be sent to Brussels, does not state it has to be signed.
Oh, f**k off. What next? Invisible ink? Morse code? Visible only to bees? Via the medium of interpretive dance?
I'm sorry, the MPs and Government are just arseing around at the moment. Whether you are a Remainer or a Leaver, surely we can all agree that they should be slapped. From Letwins ceci ne'c'est pas une vote to Boris's crossed fingers to Corbyn's absenteeism to Cummings's sixth form Napoleon to Gauke's weaponised pedantry to Swinson's lack of everything, they are irresponsible children unworthy of their high position and should have anvils dropped on their heads by road runners. I hate them.
Well said. Madly said clearly, but as to the gist I'm with you all the way.
Beep-beep. (Was that the road-runner thing?)
Thank you. Yes it was. I should point out that I am on a train, worried, unwell and a bit mizz at the moment, hence the freewheeling abuse to all things politician. I promise I'll stop soon.
Hmm v sorry to hear that tomorrow is another day and all that (although bad example as tomorrow the HoC is sitting so perhaps only emerge on Sunday).
Is there some way we can stay in the EU but burn all the remain MPs on a pyre ? This might be where I'm at at the moment.
Why? The Letwin Amendment represents the failure of trust on all sides.
I don't believe a word Boris Johnson says and don't trust him an inch. He says whatever he thinks the audience in front of him wants to hear - that's how he operates. He'll say one thing to one group and then the direct opposite to an opposing group but both groups will say they support him.
The truth is the WA could still be a vehicle for a No Deal and that's all Letwin is trying to prevent. He's not trying to block us leaving but ensuring the WA goes through the appropriate scrutiny and isn't rushed through just to get Brexit "over with".
If that means a 3-month delay while the WA is properly considered so be it - the Commons can still vote for it and it's not as though we were actually leaving on 31/10 anyway - we were going into transition until at least 31/12/20 during which time a PD and a future FTA with the EU are supposedly to be negotiated.
In transition, we are full members of the EU and the Single Market. Freedom of Movement continues as do our financial obligations to the EU. All we will leave are the decision making and political aspects.
And I’m saying this as a Remainer on steroids . The Letwin amendment whilst trying to make sure there won’t be a no deal is making things very complicated.
It blurs the lines between the different voting groups .
Those who want an extension and who want to vote for the deal.
The next group who don’t want to vote for the deal but want an extension .
Those who want to vote for the deal and no extension .
I’m not sure what the answer is to sorting this out yet though !
I struggle to see how the story matches the headline on this one:
How Oliver Letwin Could Go From Zero To Hero Among Brexiteers: Letwin, ridiculed as ‘Parliament’s prime minister’, could help Boris Johnson more than many assume.
OGH asked about six hours ago what benefits he could now expect given that we are now leaving. I missed the hundreds of responses that he received can anyone summaries them for me without talking about sovereignty please
I have just done an 8 hour drive down from Aberdeen to Lincolnshire so missed all of today's threads.
So first of all thanks to OblitussumMe for an excellent thread earlier.
In answer to your question the benefit for me and millions of other people including you and OGH - though I know you will deny it - is that it makes our politicians more accountable to us. I am the first to admit that there are many things wrong with our system but there is absolutely no point making changes to it as long as so much decision making rested with the EU
This is particularly well illustrated where it is UK politicians who have suggested additional rules or regulations. If they do this within our Parliament and we subsequently decide, as a nation, that the law was stupid then we can get it changed in our own Parliament. If it has been turned into a regulation or directive by the EU and then adopted into UK law it is practically impossible to get this reversed. You would have to be able somehow to persuade the representatives of either the majority of or all of the other 27 countries to agree to the change.
You can see this in the way EU supporters on both the left and the right consider the EU important to stop the other side from changing things. Conservative Europhiles have argued that the EU will stop Corbyn and his socialist ideas whilst Labour supporters argue that the EU is important to stop the Tories removing rights or legal protections on various things like the environment.
The point they both miss is that what they are actually arguing is that democratically elected Governments should be prevented from enacting the promises they made to the electorate and which helped to win them a majority.
I don't expect you to agree with any of this but you wanted an answer and it is one I believe in.
If only all leavers had the same clarity. I of course do disagree because in my experience the politicians rarely blame the EU. There is usually an ulterior motive and if there blame it falls on the previous government.
I genuinely don't recall a politician moan that it was the EU wot made me do it. Even VAT on home energy supplies (the sovereignty cause celebre) I haven't heard anyone agitate for it outside the Brexit debate.
OGH asked about six hours ago what benefits he could now expect given that we are now leaving. I missed the hundreds of responses that he received can anyone summaries them for me without talking about sovereignty please
I have just done an 8 hour drive down from Aberdeen to Lincolnshire so missed all of today's threads.
So first of all thanks to OblitussumMe for an excellent thread earlier.
In answer to your question the benefit for me and millions of other people including you and OGH - though I know you will deny it - is that it makes our politicians more accountable to us. I am the first to admit that there are many things wrong with our system but there is absolutely no point making changes to it as long as so much decision making rested with the EU
This is particularly well illustrated where it is UK politicians who have suggested additional rules or regulations. If they do this within our Parliament and we subsequently decide, as a nation, that the law was stupid then we can get it changed in our own Parliament. If it has been turned into a regulation or directive by the EU and then adopted into UK law it is practically impossible to get this reversed. You would have to be able somehow to persuade the representatives of either the majority of or all of the other 27 countries to agree to the change.
You can see this in the way EU supporters on both the left and the right consider the EU important to stop the other side from changing things. Conservative Europhiles have argued that the EU will stop Corbyn and his socialist ideas whilst Labour supporters argue that the EU is important to stop the Tories removing rights or legal protections on various things like the environment.
The point they both miss is that what they are actually arguing is that democratically elected Governments should be prevented from enacting the promises they made to the electorate and which helped to win them a majority.
I don't expect you to agree with any of this but you wanted an answer and it is one I believe in.
Tbh I'm not seeing how it makes politicians that retain the bulk of the governing of my country more accountable, rather the reverse.
This is the most compelling Brexit argument there is. But the reality is that in most seats MPs get re-elected regardless of what they do - and often on less than 50% of the vote. Governments elected with less than 40% of the vote can pass laws most voters oppose. If most people want to retain EU legislation on workers rights, food standards and environmental protections, but a government elected with 35% of the vote abolishes them, how is that a benefit?
I do understand that which is why I said I accepted Nichomar would not agree. But the point remains. There is no point reforming our own electoral and Parliamentary system (which I agree needs a complete overhaul even if I would not do it in the way I suspect you would like) as long as we remain in a system which effectively prevents us from getting rid of laws and regulations which we, as an electorate, have said we do not agree with. It is not an either/or situation. We need to be out of the EU and have root and branch reform of our own electoral and governance systems
I wouldn't be surprised to see Hammond voting alongside Corbyn. Yes it will ruin his reputation and contradict his position on wanting a deal but clearly he doesn't want Brexit and he doesn't want Boris to succeed, it's very personal and if he thinks he can swing the vote I've no doubt he will. Possibly Rudd will act in the same way.
Telegraph reporting that Hammond is the only whipless one not engaging with the process for the rebels to get the whip back. Support all votes on WA. support QS and support budget on 6th Nov.
That is surely not true of other Whipless Tories such as Grieve, Bebb, Greening and possibly Sandbach.
Imagine being called into work on a Saturday for an important job to find you're actually spending Saturday debating whether to put the important job off until another undisclosed time.
Is there some way we can stay in the EU but burn all the remain MPs on a pyre ? This might be where I'm at at the moment.
Why? The Letwin Amendment represents the failure of trust on all sides.
I don't believe a word Boris Johnson says and don't trust him an inch. He says whatever he thinks the audience in front of him wants to hear - that's how he operates. He'll say one thing to one group and then the direct opposite to an opposing group but both groups will say they support him.
The truth is the WA could still be a vehicle for a No Deal and that's all Letwin is trying to prevent. He's not trying to block us leaving but ensuring the WA goes through the appropriate scrutiny and isn't rushed through just to get Brexit "over with".
If that means a 3-month delay while the WA is properly considered so be it - the Commons can still vote for it and it's not as though we were actually leaving on 31/10 anyway - we were going into transition until at least 31/12/20 during which time a PD and a future FTA with the EU are supposedly to be negotiated..
In any case, we can leave as soon as the WA is ratified, whether an extension has been agreed or not. Johnson says it can be ratified by 31 October.
Imagine being called into work on a Saturday for an important job to find you're actually spending Saturday debating whether to put the important job off until another undisclosed time.
There are very few EU laws that HMG objected to that they were forced to accept although am willing to be corrected on that, I still maintain our political system actually makes MPs only accountable to the party faithful, not the electorate as a whole. There will not be voting so we won’t get any real say in forming our laws.
You miss my point. It is not the UK Government against the EU, it is the electorate against both the UK Government and the EU. If the UK Government passes a law that the majority of people in Britain disagree with we can get them voted out and get the law changed. If they persuade the EU to adopt the meat of that law on an EU wide basis we are screwed. There is no way we can get rid of that law no matter what we do.
I want Government and laws that can be got rid of or repealed if they have been introduced against majority view or people change their minds. Being in the EU makes that far more difficult if not impossible.
Is there some way we can stay in the EU but burn all the remain MPs on a pyre ? This might be where I'm at at the moment.
Why? The Letwin Amendment represents the failure of trust on all sides.
I don't believe a word Boris Johnson says and don't trust him an inch. He says whatever he thinks the audience in front of him wants to hear - that's how he operates. He'll say one thing to one group and then the direct opposite to an opposing group but both groups will say they support him.
The truth is the WA could still be a vehicle for a No Deal and that's all Letwin is trying to prevent. He's not trying to block us leaving but ensuring the WA goes through the appropriate scrutiny and isn't rushed through just to get Brexit "over with".
If that means a 3-month delay while the WA is properly considered so be it - the Commons can still vote for it and it's not as though we were actually leaving on 31/10 anyway - we were going into transition until at least 31/12/20 during which time a PD and a future FTA with the EU are supposedly to be negotiated..
In any case, we can leave as soon as the WA is ratified, whether an extension has been agreed or not. Johnson says it can be ratified by 31 October.
Surely the Government is highly vulnerable to unwelcome amendments being passed to the WAIB at its various stages in both Lords and Commons.
Is there some way we can stay in the EU but burn all the remain MPs on a pyre ? This might be where I'm at at the moment.
Why? The Letwin Amendment represents the failure of trust on all sides.
I don't believe a word Boris Johnson says and don't trust him an inch. He says whatever he thinks the audience in front of him wants to hear - that's how he operates. He'll say one thing to one group and then the direct opposite to an opposing group but both groups will say they support him.
The truth is the WA could still be a vehicle for a No Deal and that's all Letwin is trying to prevent. He's not trying to block us leaving but ensuring the WA goes through the appropriate scrutiny and isn't rushed through just to get Brexit "over with".
If that means a 3-month delay while the WA is properly considered so be it - the Commons can still vote for it and it's not as though we were actually leaving on 31/10 anyway - we were going into transition until at least 31/12/20 during which time a PD and a future FTA with the EU are supposedly to be negotiated..
In any case, we can leave as soon as the WA is ratified, whether an extension has been agreed or not. Johnson says it can be ratified by 31 October.
Surely the Government is highly vulnerable to unwelcome amendments being passed to the WAIB at its various stages in both Lords and Commons.
More silly games. Why doesn't Parliament just get on with it?
If only all leavers had the same clarity. I of course do disagree because in my experience the politicians rarely blame the EU. There is usually an ulterior motive and if there blame it falls on the previous government.
I genuinely don't recall a politician moan that it was the EU wot made me do it. Even VAT on home energy supplies (the sovereignty cause celebre) I haven't heard anyone agitate for it outside the Brexit debate.
It is not a case of them blaming the EU. It is just a matter of fact that once laws and regulations have been adopted at an EU level there is little if anything we as the electorate of this country can do to get them repealed or changed.
The chicken feed discussion we had the other day is a minor but obvious example of this. It was the UK who pushed for it across the whole of the EU. There would be no chance of getting it changed if we remained in the EU.
It cements in pace regulations that politicians fear might later be repealed if left in the remit of the UK Parliament.
There are very few EU laws that HMG objected to that they were forced to accept although am willing to be corrected on that, I still maintain our political system actually makes MPs only accountable to the party faithful, not the electorate as a whole. There will not be voting so we won’t get any real say in forming our laws.
You miss my point. It is not the UK Government against the EU, it is the electorate against both the UK Government and the EU. If the UK Government passes a law that the majority of people in Britain disagree with we can get them voted out and get the law changed. If they persuade the EU to adopt the meat of that law on an EU wide basis we are screwed. There is no way we can get rid of that law no matter what we do.
I want Government and laws that can be got rid of or repealed if they have been introduced against majority view or people change their minds. Being in the EU makes that far more difficult if not impossible.
I’ll buy all this, well I have actually run up the surrender flag, if it is supported by a fundamental change in our voting system which respects every vote, it really is not a lot to ask for is it? Let’s move onto the next battle field.
OGH asked about six hours ago what benefits he could now expect given that we are now leaving. I missed the hundreds of responses that he received can anyone summaries them for me without talking about sovereignty please
I have just done an 8 hour drive down from Aberdeen to Lincolnshire so missed all of today's threads.
So first of all thanks to OblitussumMe for an excellent thread earlier.
In answer to your question the benefit for me and millions of other people including you and OGH - though I know you will deny it - is that it makes our politicians more accountable to us. I am the first to admit that there are many things wrong with our system but there is absolutely no point making changes to it as long as so much decision making rested with the EU
This is particularly well illustrated where it is UK politicians who have suggested additional rules or regulations. If they do this within our Parliament and we subsequently decide, as a nation, that the law was stupid then we can get it changed in our own Parliament. If it has been turned into a regulation or directive by the EU and then adopted into UK law it is practically impossible to get this reversed. You would have to be able somehow to persuade the representatives of either the majority of or all of the other 27 countries to agree to the change.
You can see this in the way EU supporters on both the left and the right consider the EU important to stop the other side from changing things. Conservative Europhiles have argued that the EU will stop Corbyn and his socialist ideas whilst Labour supporters argue that the EU is important to stop the Tories removing rights or legal protections on various things like the environment.
The point they both miss is that what they are actually arguing is that democratically elected Governments should be prevented from enacting the promises they made to the electorate and which helped to win them a majority.
I don't expect you to agree with any of this but you wanted an answer and it is one I believe in.
Tbh I'm not seeing how it makes politicians that retain the bulk of the governing of my country more accountable, rather the reverse.
Which is why I favour Scottish Independence as well. The same arguments apply.
I struggle to see how the story matches the headline on this one:
How Oliver Letwin Could Go From Zero To Hero Among Brexiteers: Letwin, ridiculed as ‘Parliament’s prime minister’, could help Boris Johnson more than many assume.
It's not very clear, but I think it's saying that Johnson secretly thinks he may need a fortnight's extension for the legislation, and if the Benn Act is triggered he won't need to take responsibility for it.
Imagine being called into work on a Saturday for an important job to find you're actually spending Saturday debating whether to put the important job off until another undisclosed time.
There are very few EU laws that HMG objected to that they were forced to accept although am willing to be corrected on that, I still maintain our political system actually makes MPs only accountable to the party faithful, not the electorate as a whole. There will not be voting so we won’t get any real say in forming our laws.
You miss my point. It is not the UK Government against the EU, it is the electorate against both the UK Government and the EU. If the UK Government passes a law that the majority of people in Britain disagree with we can get them voted out and get the law changed. If they persuade the EU to adopt the meat of that law on an EU wide basis we are screwed. There is no way we can get rid of that law no matter what we do.
I want Government and laws that can be got rid of or repealed if they have been introduced against majority view or people change their minds. Being in the EU makes that far more difficult if not impossible.
I’ll buy all this, well I have actually run up the surrender flag, if it is supported by a fundamental change in our voting system which respects every vote, it really is not a lot to ask for is it?
I used to be opposed to PR because it gives undue influence to the Party machinery. I still have this concern and want to see the power of parties reduced not increased. But if we can come up with a fairer voting system that has every vote count without increasing the power of the parties in the system then I would be for it all the way.
Comments
I'm requesting an extension till the WAIB is implemented,.
Regards,
Bozza
The weekly EKOS poll has the Conservative ahead by just 1.5 points with the NDP advancing and the Greens falling back.
There's a regional poll from British Columbia which has 42 ridings. In 2015, the Liberals won 17 seats with 35%, Conservatives got 10 with 30% and NDP 14 with 26% and the Greens one seat with 8%.
The Insights Poll has the Conservatives on 27% (-3), the NDP on 23% (-3) and the Liberals on 20% (-15%) with the Greens on 11%, Others on 4% and remainder undecided or preferring not to answer.
https://insightswest.com/news/bc-voters-poll-10-18-2019-federal-vote/
As we see so often, the Conservative vote is based on the elderly and a core more willing to turn out. The NDP vote in particular is younger and less willing to turn out so that's the challenge on Monday for the NDP and Liberal ground organisations.
The CBC seat projector has the following:
Liberals 133
Conservatives 123
NDP 41
BQ 38
Others 3
A Liberal-NDP Coalition would have a narrow overall majority but the NDP hasn't ruled out working with the Conservatives.
The Liberal lead looks based on a solid 6-7% lead in Ontario with the Liberals holding most of their 2015 gains.
p.s. I put those pinning hopes on Bercow turning down the amendment in the same camp as HYUFD's Hungarian Solution.
For example:
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1185240240962842624
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1185249844404932608
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1185241929774194688
Yes Letwin makes it slightly harder for the deal to pass but with Lab rebels coming on board throughout the day I think the deal has a greater than 50% chance of passing and if it does Letwin will have little to no effect on anything else.
------------------
RE: Extension
Yo Donald.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/26/schedule/enacted
Yours
UK Law
----------------
You'll be famous
It seems bizarre for a big supporter of the Benn Act to mess about with it in this way at this stage.
It all seems a bit off...
https://fullfact.org/online/brexit-not-concealing-offshore-accounts/
I'm sorry, the MPs and Government are just arseing around at the moment. Whether you are a Remainer or a Leaver, surely we can all agree that they should be slapped. From Letwins ceci ne'c'est pas une vote to Boris's crossed fingers to Corbyn's absenteeism to Cummings's sixth form Napoleon to Gauke's weaponised pedantry to Swinson's lack of everything, they are irresponsible children unworthy of their high position and should have anvils dropped on their heads by road runners. I hate them.
Beep-beep. (Was that the road-runner thing?)
So first of all thanks to OblitussumMe for an excellent thread earlier.
In answer to your question the benefit for me and millions of other people including you and OGH - though I know you will deny it - is that it makes our politicians more accountable to us. I am the first to admit that there are many things wrong with our system but there is absolutely no point making changes to it as long as so much decision making rested with the EU
This is particularly well illustrated where it is UK politicians who have suggested additional rules or regulations. If they do this within our Parliament and we subsequently decide, as a nation, that the law was stupid then we can get it changed in our own Parliament. If it has been turned into a regulation or directive by the EU and then adopted into UK law it is practically impossible to get this reversed. You would have to be able somehow to persuade the representatives of either the majority of or all of the other 27 countries to agree to the change.
You can see this in the way EU supporters on both the left and the right consider the EU important to stop the other side from changing things. Conservative Europhiles have argued that the EU will stop Corbyn and his socialist ideas whilst Labour supporters argue that the EU is important to stop the Tories removing rights or legal protections on various things like the environment.
The point they both miss is that what they are actually arguing is that democratically elected Governments should be prevented from enacting the promises they made to the electorate and which helped to win them a majority.
I don't expect you to agree with any of this but you wanted an answer and it is one I believe in.
I have often spoken of the low quality of Spectator columnists, who with few exceptions (Forsythe being the obvious) are bad people with bad morals and too much wealth who in a just world would be screaming homeless drunks encamped by the station gates where they can only harm themselves.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1185256561473720323
So lets say the deal passes by 4 votes? 10 votes? 50 votes? So what? Parliament isn't giving it's support to anything meaningful on that day and those people who voted for it on that day can withdraw that vote on any other day.
Letwin has basically turned Super Saturday into a complete and utter farce.
And I’m saying this as a Remainer on steroids . The Letwin amendment whilst trying to make sure there won’t be a no deal is making things very complicated.
It blurs the lines between the different voting groups .
Those who want an extension and who want to vote for the deal.
The next group who don’t want to vote for the deal but want an extension .
Those who want to vote for the deal and no extension .
I’m not sure what the answer is to sorting this out yet though !
Erasmus is open to non EU countries.
International travel is getting easier every year. It is now almost as easy to travel to the US or Canada as it is to the EU. The same goes for practically every first world destination.
I hope all is ok.
This might be where I'm at at the moment.
I don't believe a word Boris Johnson says and don't trust him an inch. He says whatever he thinks the audience in front of him wants to hear - that's how he operates. He'll say one thing to one group and then the direct opposite to an opposing group but both groups will say they support him.
The truth is the WA could still be a vehicle for a No Deal and that's all Letwin is trying to prevent. He's not trying to block us leaving but ensuring the WA goes through the appropriate scrutiny and isn't rushed through just to get Brexit "over with".
If that means a 3-month delay while the WA is properly considered so be it - the Commons can still vote for it and it's not as though we were actually leaving on 31/10 anyway - we were going into transition until at least 31/12/20 during which time a PD and a future FTA with the EU are supposedly to be negotiated.
In transition, we are full members of the EU and the Single Market. Freedom of Movement continues as do our financial obligations to the EU. All we will leave are the decision making and political aspects.
How Oliver Letwin Could Go From Zero To Hero Among Brexiteers:
Letwin, ridiculed as ‘Parliament’s prime minister’, could help Boris Johnson more than many assume.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/how-oliver-letwin-could-go-from-zero-to-hero-among-brexiteers_uk_5daa0674e4b0422422c48755
I genuinely don't recall a politician moan that it was the EU wot made me do it. Even VAT on home energy supplies (the sovereignty cause celebre) I haven't heard anyone agitate for it outside the Brexit debate.
I want Government and laws that can be got rid of or repealed if they have been introduced against majority view or people change their minds. Being in the EU makes that far more difficult if not impossible.
"Oh Lord give us a meaningful vote, just not yet"
The chicken feed discussion we had the other day is a minor but obvious example of this. It was the UK who pushed for it across the whole of the EU. There would be no chance of getting it changed if we remained in the EU.
It cements in pace regulations that politicians fear might later be repealed if left in the remit of the UK Parliament.