That sounds fair but we must not underestimate the effect of Boris and the Saj's promises to spaff the cash. Costing and funding commitments only matters for the red team, it turns out.
I'm far from certain that Corbyn leads Labour into the next election, whenever that is. Wherever that make a Tory majority more or less likely, I don't know.
That sounds fair but we must not underestimate the effect of Boris and the Saj's promises to spaff the cash. Costing and funding commitments only matters for the red team, it turns out.
But does anybody really believe him? Time after time, he has shown himself to be a liar, and his team have no respect for the rules. Totally untrustworthy, I would say.
One of the most expensive sentences in the English language is ‘Next time it will be different’
Isn't it usually This time it will be different?
Boris' performance in the house yesterday was his best yet (admittedly vs a low bar) so perhaps he's got some of his mojo back? Corbyn by contrast seems bored and uninterested.
Of course a lot will depend on the circumstances under which the GE is fought - as was pointed out yesterday, there appear to be votes in the HoC for both the WIA and a VONC.
Then there's the electorate.
"Thank you Boris for delivering Brexit, here's a stonking majority" or
"Thank you Boris for delivering Brexit it's bored us to tears, time to let the other chap have a go."
Not sure these dalyaing tactics ARE fine and good. Remainers seem to forget, Boris's 31st October "do or die" deadline wasn't of his making. It was the deadline granted, amongst some disquiet, by the EU. It is their deadline he is trying to achieve, without the need to ask them for a further extension to some unspecified time, for some unspecified purpose.
Where the Remainers have got it wrong is misjudging Boris. To their surprise, Boris has got on really well with the EU leaders. He is making all the right noises that he is a fervent European who will be a good team player - just outside the structures of the EU. The Remainers have been dripping poison in the EU's ears, about how Brexit Britain will be an existential threat to them, and they must take all measures to stop our leaving. Except, with Boris, it doesn't feel like that.
Boris has been trying his hardest to meet the EU's original extended deadline. I suspect that having now got the measure of the man, they will be much more inclined to help him out with peeling the Remainers' fingers off the Brexit doorframe....
Boris will be quite shameless about nicking the popular bits of Labour policies, leaving them with a pile of class war shite.....
Agreed, unlike May Boris can do retail politics well
All these delaying tactics are all fine and good but they can't hide from the people forever
Nah, BoZo is a crap campaigner who avoids scrutiny and forgets what he said the day before. He is widely despised and that is a powerful motivator to go out to vote against.
I agree with the header. We simply don't know when the election will be or what will happen in the meantime. I am not investing in this market yet.
Not sure these dalyaing tactics ARE fine and good. Remainers seem to forget, Boris's 31st October "do or die" deadline wasn't of his making. It was the deadline granted, amongst some disquiet, by the EU. It is their deadline he is trying to achieve, without the need to ask them for a further extension to some unspecified time, for some unspecified purpose.
Where the Remainers have got it wrong is misjudging Boris. To their surprise, Boris has got on really well with the EU leaders. He is making all the right noises that he is a fervent European who will be a good team player - just outside the structures of the EU. The Remainers have been dripping poison in the EU's ears, about how Brexit Britain will be an existential threat to them, and they must take all measures to stop our leaving. Except, with Boris, it doesn't feel like that.
Boris has been trying his hardest to meet the EU's original extended deadline. I suspect that having now got the measure of the man, they will be much more inclined to help him out with peeling the Remainers' fingers off the Brexit doorframe....
BoZo's Surrender Deal is quite popular with the EU because it gives them everything that they wanted 2 years ago, before May extracted concessions. It is wrong to conflate that with personal popularity. EU leaders are capable of being polite and diplomatic even to petulant twats.
I'm far from certain that Corbyn leads Labour into the next election, whenever that is. Wherever that make a Tory majority more or less likely, I don't know.
It depends, I suspect, on whether the right-wing Press has time to 'monster' whoever is the new leader, in the way they have done the last few Labour leaders.
And I agree with Mr Mark @6.21. Boris, it appears does get on well with people, for a while anyway. Never met him myself, but it appears he's a very pleasant chap with whom to socialise. Didn't someone on here, a while ago, attest to that?
The trouble is, he's also an untrustworthy, a liar, and as his unsigned letter demonstrates, capable of very childish behaviour when annoyed.
Not sure these dalyaing tactics ARE fine and good. Remainers seem to forget, Boris's 31st October "do or die" deadline wasn't of his making. It was the deadline granted, amongst some disquiet, by the EU. It is their deadline he is trying to achieve, without the need to ask them for a further extension to some unspecified time, for some unspecified purpose.
Where the Remainers have got it wrong is misjudging Boris. To their surprise, Boris has got on really well with the EU leaders. He is making all the right noises that he is a fervent European who will be a good team player - just outside the structures of the EU. The Remainers have been dripping poison in the EU's ears, about how Brexit Britain will be an existential threat to them, and they must take all measures to stop our leaving. Except, with Boris, it doesn't feel like that.
Boris has been trying his hardest to meet the EU's original extended deadline. I suspect that having now got the measure of the man, they will be much more inclined to help him out with peeling the Remainers' fingers off the Brexit doorframe....
BoZo's Surrender Deal is quite popular with the EU because it gives them everything that they wanted 2 years ago, before May extracted concessions. It is wrong to conflate that with personal popularity. EU leaders are capable of being polite and diplomatic even to petulant twats.
Comparison of photo evidence of Boris /May with European leaders would tend to crap all over your statement.
Your statement over the content of the deal is certainly opinion based. There are parts of the deal that are different, as illustrated by David Trimble supporting the deal.
I'm far from certain that Corbyn leads Labour into the next election, whenever that is. Wherever that make a Tory majority more or less likely, I don't know.
I'm far from certain that Corbyn leads Labour into the next election, whenever that is. Wherever that make a Tory majority more or less likely, I don't know.
I'm far from certain that Corbyn leads Labour into the next election, whenever that is. Wherever that make a Tory majority more or less likely, I don't know.
capable of very childish behaviour
Like Brown and the Lisbon Treaty?
Indeed. Very silly. And in the long run it did neither him nor the country any good.
Not sure these dalyaing tactics ARE fine and good. Remainers seem to forget, Boris's 31st October "do or die" deadline wasn't of his making. It was the deadline granted, amongst some disquiet, by the EU. It is their deadline he is trying to achieve, without the need to ask them for a further extension to some unspecified time, for some unspecified purpose.
Where the Remainers have got it wrong is misjudging Boris. To their surprise, Boris has got on really well with the EU leaders. He is making all the right noises that he is a fervent European who will be a good team player - just outside the structures of the EU. The Remainers have been dripping poison in the EU's ears, about how Brexit Britain will be an existential threat to them, and they must take all measures to stop our leaving. Except, with Boris, it doesn't feel like that.
Boris has been trying his hardest to meet the EU's original extended deadline. I suspect that having now got the measure of the man, they will be much more inclined to help him out with peeling the Remainers' fingers off the Brexit doorframe....
BoZo's Surrender Deal is quite popular with the EU because it gives them everything that they wanted 2 years ago, before May extracted concessions. It is wrong to conflate that with personal popularity. EU leaders are capable of being polite and diplomatic even to petulant twats.
Your statement over the content of the deal is certainly opinion based. There are parts of the deal that are different, as illustrated by David Trimble supporting the deal.
Remainers think it's rubbish because it paves the way to a 'harder' Brexit, Leavers prefer it for the same reason. And the previous deal failed three times to gain a HoC majority - lets see how this one does.
Yet he still plans to continue his Scottish court case against the government tomorrow. People donating to him have more money than sense, at some point (and it possibly came close to happening last week) a judge somewhere is going to declare him a vexatious litigant for trying to turn everything the government does into a court case.
Not sure these dalyaing tactics ARE fine and good. Remainers seem to forget, Boris's 31st October "do or die" deadline wasn't of his making. It was the deadline granted, amongst some disquiet, by the EU. It is their deadline he is trying to achieve, without the need to ask them for a further extension to some unspecified time, for some unspecified purpose.
Where the Remainers have got it wrong is misjudging Boris. To their surprise, Boris has got on really well with the EU leaders. He is making all the right noises that he is a fervent European who will be a good team player - just outside the structures of the EU. The Remainers have been dripping poison in the EU's ears, about how Brexit Britain will be an existential threat to them, and they must take all measures to stop our leaving. Except, with Boris, it doesn't feel like that.
Boris has been trying his hardest to meet the EU's original extended deadline. I suspect that having now got the measure of the man, they will be much more inclined to help him out with peeling the Remainers' fingers off the Brexit doorframe....
BoZo's Surrender Deal is quite popular with the EU because it gives them everything that they wanted 2 years ago, before May extracted concessions. It is wrong to conflate that with personal popularity. EU leaders are capable of being polite and diplomatic even to petulant twats.
Your statement over the content of the deal is certainly opinion based. There are parts of the deal that are different, as illustrated by David Trimble supporting the deal.
Remainers think it's rubbish because it paves the way to a 'harder' Brexit, Leavers prefer it for the same reason. And the previous deal failed three times to gain a HoC majority - lets see how this one does.
Yes, it makes the final destination much more likely to be ‘Canada’ than ‘Norway’. A few years of an independent trade policy also makes it much less likely that we rejoin the EU at some point down the line, as doing so would mean tearing up trade agreements and large price increases on food.
Not sure these dalyaing tactics ARE fine and good. Remainers seem to forget, Boris's 31st October "do or die" deadline wasn't of his making. It was the deadline granted, amongst some disquiet, by the EU. It is their deadline he is trying to achieve, without the need to ask them for a further extension to some unspecified time, for some unspecified purpose.
Where the Remainers have got it wrong is misjudging Boris. To their surprise, Boris has got on really well with the EU leaders. He is making all the right noises that he is a fervent European who will be a good team player - just outside the structures of the EU. The Remainers have been dripping poison in the EU's ears, about how Brexit Britain will be an existential threat to them, and they must take all measures to stop our leaving. Except, with Boris, it doesn't feel like that.
Boris has been trying his hardest to meet the EU's original extended deadline. I suspect that having now got the measure of the man, they will be much more inclined to help him out with peeling the Remainers' fingers off the Brexit doorframe....
BoZo's Surrender Deal is quite popular with the EU because it gives them everything that they wanted 2 years ago, before May extracted concessions. It is wrong to conflate that with personal popularity. EU leaders are capable of being polite and diplomatic even to petulant twats.
Your statement over the content of the deal is certainly opinion based. There are parts of the deal that are different, as illustrated by David Trimble supporting the deal.
Remainers think it's rubbish because it paves the way to a 'harder' Brexit, Leavers prefer it for the same reason. And the previous deal failed three times to gain a HoC majority - lets see how this one does.
Yes, it makes the final destination much more likely to be ‘Canada’ than ‘Norway’. A few years of an independent trade policy also makes it much less likely that we rejoin the EU at some point down the line, as doing so would mean tearing up trade agreements and large price increases on food.
Which deal do you anticipate brining about large decreases in the price of food?
Not sure these dalyaing tactics ARE fine and good. Remainers seem to forget, Boris's 31st October "do or die" deadline wasn't of his making. It was the deadline granted, amongst some disquiet, by the EU. It is their deadline he is trying to achieve, without the need to ask them for a further extension to some unspecified time, for some unspecified purpose.
Where the Remainers have got it wrong is misjudging Boris. To their surprise, Boris has got on really well with the EU leaders. He is making all the right noises that he is a fervent European who will be a good team player - just outside the structures of the EU. The Remainers have been dripping poison in the EU's ears, about how Brexit Britain will be an existential threat to them, and they must take all measures to stop our leaving. Except, with Boris, it doesn't feel like that.
Boris has been trying his hardest to meet the EU's original extended deadline. I suspect that having now got the measure of the man, they will be much more inclined to help him out with peeling the Remainers' fingers off the Brexit doorframe....
BoZo's Surrender Deal is quite popular with the EU because it gives them everything that they wanted 2 years ago, before May extracted concessions. It is wrong to conflate that with personal popularity. EU leaders are capable of being polite and diplomatic even to petulant twats.
Your statement over the content of the deal is certainly opinion based. There are parts of the deal that are different, as illustrated by David Trimble supporting the deal.
Remainers think it's rubbish because it paves the way to a 'harder' Brexit, Leavers prefer it for the same reason. And the previous deal failed three times to gain a HoC majority - lets see how this one does.
Yes, it makes the final destination much more likely to be ‘Canada’ than ‘Norway’. A few years of an independent trade policy also makes it much less likely that we rejoin the EU at some point down the line, as doing so would mean tearing up trade agreements and large price increases on food.
That is, of course, assuming we can make any trade agreements, especially long-term ones. Anyone 'dealing' with Britain will be aware that that there is a strong pro-Europe segment of opinion here, and that there has to a chance that we will Rejoin, or at least try to.
That sounds fair but we must not underestimate the effect of Boris and the Saj's promises to spaff the cash. Costing and funding commitments only matters for the red team, it turns out.
But does anybody really believe him? Time after time, he has shown himself to be a liar, and his team have no respect for the rules. Totally untrustworthy, I would say.
Not sure these dalyaing tactics ARE fine and good. Remainers seem to forget, Boris's 31st October "do or die" deadline wasn't of his making. It was the deadline granted, amongst some disquiet, by the EU. It is their deadline he is trying to achieve, without the need to ask them for a further extension to some unspecified time, for some unspecified purpose.
Where the Remainers have got it wrong is misjudging Boris. To their surprise, Boris has got on really well with the EU leaders. He is making all the right noises that he is a fervent European who will be a good team player - just outside the structures of the EU. The Remainers have been dripping poison in the EU's ears, about how Brexit Britain will be an existential threat to them, and they must take all measures to stop our leaving. Except, with Boris, it doesn't feel like that.
Boris has been trying his hardest to meet the EU's original extended deadline. I suspect that having now got the measure of the man, they will be much more inclined to help him out with peeling the Remainers' fingers off the Brexit doorframe....
Almost from the start both extremes of the argument have been making the same mistake in relation to the EU - in believing that their primary motivation was to keep us in the EU. Hence the constant allegations from extreme Leavers that they weren’t negotiating in good faith, and on the other side the consistent rejecting of negotiated agreements by remainers in Parliament in the belief that the EU leaders are on their side.
EU leaders are politicians. They spend large chunks of their time having to cope with random politicians from their home legislatures trying to cause them trouble. They probably have far more sympathy with May/Johnson’s position than Parliament think. And from the start they have known that any deal also has had to get through the EU Parliament.
BoZo's Surrender Deal is quite popular with the EU because it gives them everything that they wanted 2 years ago, before May extracted concessions. It is wrong to conflate that with personal popularity. EU leaders are capable of being polite and diplomatic even to petulant twats.
Your statement over the content of the deal is certainly opinion based. There are parts of the deal that are different, as illustrated by David Trimble supporting the deal.
Remainers think it's rubbish because it paves the way to a 'harder' Brexit, Leavers prefer it for the same reason. And the previous deal failed three times to gain a HoC majority - lets see how this one does.
Yes, it makes the final destination much more likely to be ‘Canada’ than ‘Norway’. A few years of an independent trade policy also makes it much less likely that we rejoin the EU at some point down the line, as doing so would mean tearing up trade agreements and large price increases on food.
Which deal do you anticipate brining about large decreases in the price of food?
We don’t even need to sign any deals for that, we simply leave the CAP and can set our own tariffs on food imports - which will be low for anything we don’t produce ourselves.
We could also ally with somewhere like Ukraine, who have plentiful surplus foodstuffs yet struggle to export to the EU because of high CAP tariffs.
Where I am in the Middle East, food is considerably cheaper than in the U.K., despite the vast majority of it being imported. The reason is high EU CAP tariffs vs low tariffs here. Why would we want to make food more expensive?
That sounds fair but we must not underestimate the effect of Boris and the Saj's promises to spaff the cash. Costing and funding commitments only matters for the red team, it turns out.
But does anybody really believe him? Time after time, he has shown himself to be a liar, and his team have no respect for the rules. Totally untrustworthy, I would say.
Have you even looked at any opinion polls?
Given that, like most senior Tories, he is fawned over by several newspapers, the opinion polls are not surprising. Further, I suspect the late Herr Hitler could have, especially in 1934/4 or so, have got favourable ratings in German opinion polls. And no, I'm not suggesting any similarities between the two men with regard to policies.
Boris will be quite shameless about nicking the popular bits of Labour policies, leaving them with a pile of class war shite.....
Agreed, unlike May Boris can do retail politics well
All these delaying tactics are all fine and good but they can't hide from the people forever
Nah, BoZo is a crap campaigner who avoids scrutiny and forgets what he said the day before. He is widely despised and that is a powerful motivator to go out to vote against.
and yet to the best of my knowledge, he has never lost an election ?
Boris will be quite shameless about nicking the popular bits of Labour policies, leaving them with a pile of class war shite.....
Agreed, unlike May Boris can do retail politics well
All these delaying tactics are all fine and good but they can't hide from the people forever
Nah, BoZo is a crap campaigner who avoids scrutiny and forgets what he said the day before. He is widely despised and that is a powerful motivator to go out to vote against.
and yet to the best of my knowledge, he has never lost an election ?
How many has he actually fought, where he didn't have a very good chance of winning? Further didn't he endorse Zac Goldsmith as mayoral candidate? But it's a fair point.
BoZo's Surrender Deal is quite popular with the EU because it gives them everything that they wanted 2 years ago, before May extracted concessions. It is wrong to conflate that with personal popularity. EU leaders are capable of being polite and diplomatic even to petulant twats.
Your statement over the content of the deal is certainly opinion based. There are parts of the deal that are different, as illustrated by David Trimble supporting the deal.
Remainers think it's rubbish because it paves the way to a 'harder' Brexit, Leavers prefer it for the same reason. And the previous deal failed three times to gain a HoC majority - lets see how this one does.
Yes, it makes the final destination much more likely to be ‘Canada’ than ‘Norway’. A few years of an independent trade policy also makes it much less likely that we rejoin the EU at some point down the line, as doing so would mean tearing up trade agreements and large price increases on food.
Which deal do you anticipate brining about large decreases in the price of food?
We don’t even need to sign any deals for that, we simply leave the CAP and can set our own tariffs on food imports - which will be low for anything we don’t produce ourselves.
We could also ally with somewhere like Ukraine, who have plentiful surplus foodstuffs yet struggle to export to the EU because of high CAP tariffs.
Where I am in the Middle East, food is considerably cheaper than in the U.K., despite the vast majority of it being imported. The reason is high EU CAP tariffs vs low tariffs here. Why would we want to make food more expensive?
Didn't Ukraine end up with an FTA that included foodstuffs with the EU?
BoZo's Surrender Deal is quite popular with the EU because it gives them everything that they wanted 2 years ago, before May extracted concessions. It is wrong to conflate that with personal popularity. EU leaders are capable of being polite and diplomatic even to petulant twats.
Your statement over the content of the deal is certainly opinion based. There are parts of the deal that are different, as illustrated by David Trimble supporting the deal.
Remainers think it's rubbish because it paves the way to a 'harder' Brexit, Leavers prefer it for the same reason. And the previous deal failed three times to gain a HoC majority - lets see how this one does.
Yes, it makes the final destination much more likely to be ‘Canada’ than ‘Norway’. A few years of an independent trade policy also makes it much less likely that we rejoin the EU at some point down the line, as doing so would mean tearing up trade agreements and large price increases on food.
Which deal do you anticipate brining about large decreases in the price of food?
We don’t even need to sign any deals for that, we simply leave the CAP and can set our own tariffs on food imports - which will be low for anything we don’t produce ourselves.
We could also ally with somewhere like Ukraine, who have plentiful surplus foodstuffs yet struggle to export to the EU because of high CAP tariffs.
Where I am in the Middle East, food is considerably cheaper than in the U.K., despite the vast majority of it being imported. The reason is high EU CAP tariffs vs low tariffs here. Why would we want to make food more expensive?
Didn't Ukraine end up with an FTA that included foodstuffs with the EU?
There are still tariffs and quotas on a lot of Ukrainian food exports to the EU, although their ‘Association agreement’ did eliminate tariffs on most other goods in exchange for Ukraine passing a lot of EU law.
BoZo's Surrender Deal is quite popular with the EU because it gives them everything that they wanted 2 years ago, before May extracted concessions. It is wrong to conflate that with personal popularity. EU leaders are capable of being polite and diplomatic even to petulant twats.
Your statement over the content of the deal is certainly opinion based. There are parts of the deal that are different, as illustrated by David Trimble supporting the deal.
Remainers think it's rubbish because it paves the way to a 'harder' Brexit, Leavers prefer it for the same reason. And the previous deal failed three times to gain a HoC majority - lets see how this one does.
Yes, it makes the final destination much more likely to be ‘Canada’ than ‘Norway’. A few years of an independent trade policy also makes it much less likely that we rejoin the EU at some point down the line, as doing so would mean tearing up trade agreements and large price increases on food.
Which deal do you anticipate brining about large decreases in the price of food?
We don’t even need to sign any deals for that, we simply leave the CAP and can set our own tariffs on food imports - which will be low for anything we don’t produce ourselves.
We could also ally with somewhere like Ukraine, who have plentiful surplus foodstuffs yet struggle to export to the EU because of high CAP tariffs.
Where I am in the Middle East, food is considerably cheaper than in the U.K., despite the vast majority of it being imported. The reason is high EU CAP tariffs vs low tariffs here. Why would we want to make food more expensive?
Didn't Ukraine end up with an FTA that included foodstuffs with the EU?
Yes, and as part of that agreement, Ukraine also reformed its food hygiene monitoring regime to reduce non-tariff barriers too.
The UAE keeps prices down by directly investing in farmland abroad and bypassing the market.
Boris will be quite shameless about nicking the popular bits of Labour policies, leaving them with a pile of class war shite.....
Agreed, unlike May Boris can do retail politics well
All these delaying tactics are all fine and good but they can't hide from the people forever
Nah, BoZo is a crap campaigner who avoids scrutiny and forgets what he said the day before. He is widely despised and that is a powerful motivator to go out to vote against.
and yet to the best of my knowledge, he has never lost an election ?
BoZo's Surrender Deal is quite popular with the EU because it gives them everything that they wanted 2 years ago, before May extracted concessions. It is wrong to conflate that with personal popularity. EU leaders are capable of being polite and diplomatic even to petulant twats.
Your statement over the content of the deal is certainly opinion based. There are parts of the deal that are different, as illustrated by David Trimble supporting the deal.
Remainers think it's rubbish because it paves the way to a 'harder' Brexit, Leavers prefer it for the same reason. And the previous deal failed three times to gain a HoC majority - lets see how this one does.
Yes, it makes the final destination much more likely to be ‘Canada’ than ‘Norway’. A few years of an independent trade policy also makes it much less likely that we rejoin the EU at some point down the line, as doing so would mean tearing up trade agreements and large price increases on food.
Which deal do you anticipate brining about large decreases in the price of food?
We don’t even need to sign any deals for that, we simply leave the CAP and can set our own tariffs on food imports - which will be low for anything we don’t produce ourselves.
We could also ally with somewhere like Ukraine, who have plentiful surplus foodstuffs yet struggle to export to the EU because of high CAP tariffs.
Where I am in the Middle East, food is considerably cheaper than in the U.K., despite the vast majority of it being imported. The reason is high EU CAP tariffs vs low tariffs here. Why would we want to make food more expensive?
Didn't Ukraine end up with an FTA that included foodstuffs with the EU?
Yes, and as part of that agreement, Ukraine also reformed its food hygiene monitoring regime to reduce non-tariff barriers too.
The UAE keeps prices down by directly investing in farmland abroad and bypassing the market.
That sounds fair but we must not underestimate the effect of Boris and the Saj's promises to spaff the cash. Costing and funding commitments only matters for the red team, it turns out.
But does anybody really believe him? Time after time, he has shown himself to be a liar, and his team have no respect for the rules. Totally untrustworthy, I would say.
Have you even looked at any opinion polls?
Do you mean the ones asking people to compare him with Corbyn? Where an enormous number of people just cannot decide which of them would be worse?
Remember, democracy is about the processes that govern power and its transfer. It is not, and it has never been, a particular snapshot in time that pleases you; if you think it is, back to school for you.
So is a GE a political snapshot in time and do we implement the result even if we don't like it?
Just a 'Yes' or 'No' will be fine, thanks.
We had an election in 2017 in which a large majority of voters voted for no brexit or a very soft brexit and you’re happy to ignore that.
No we had an election where 84% said voted for parties who said they would respect the result of the referendum. They had a chance to do that and have singularly failed to do so.
In a FPTP System this argument is rubbish. In many constituencies, including my own, the only possible two winners were Con or Lab. Both of these are parties contributing to your 84%. The fact that 84% voted for "pro-Brexit parties" does not mean that 84% were supportive of Brexit. As an example my constituency is a "strong remain" constituency, and the Labour candidate won comfortably.
Yet he still plans to continue his Scottish court case against the government tomorrow. People donating to him have more money than sense, at some point (and it possibly came close to happening last week) a judge somewhere is going to declare him a vexatious litigant for trying to turn everything the government does into a court case.
Yeah, it’s not like he has anything to point to, like a landmark Supreme Court decision, is it?
That sounds fair but we must not underestimate the effect of Boris and the Saj's promises to spaff the cash. Costing and funding commitments only matters for the red team, it turns out.
But does anybody really believe him? Time after time, he has shown himself to be a liar, and his team have no respect for the rules. Totally untrustworthy, I would say.
Have you even looked at any opinion polls?
Do you mean the ones asking people to compare him with Corbyn? Where an enormous number of people just cannot decide which of them would be worse?
Even Labour voters I know abhor Corbyn.. I don't think there is any doubt who would be worse unless you are one eyed so to speak.
BoZo's Surrender Deal is quite popular with the EU because it gives them everything that they wanted 2 years ago, before May extracted concessions. It is wrong to conflate that with personal popularity. EU leaders are capable of being polite and diplomatic even to petulant twats.
Your statement over the content of the deal is certainly opinion based. There are parts of the deal that are different, as illustrated by David Trimble supporting the deal.
Remainers think it's rubbish because it paves the way to a 'harder' Brexit, Leavers prefer it for the same reason. And the previous deal failed three times to gain a HoC majority - lets see how this one does.
Yes, it makes the final destination much more likely to be ‘Canada’ than ‘Norway’. A few years of an independent trade policy also makes it much less likely that we rejoin the EU at some point down the line, as doing so would mean tearing up trade agreements and large price increases on food.
Which deal do you anticipate brining about large decreases in the price of food?
We don’t even need to sign any deals for that, we simply leave the CAP and can set our own tariffs on food imports - which will be low for anything we don’t produce ourselves.
We could also ally with somewhere like Ukraine, who have plentiful surplus foodstuffs yet struggle to export to the EU because of high CAP tariffs.
Where I am in the Middle East, food is considerably cheaper than in the U.K., despite the vast majority of it being imported. The reason is high EU CAP tariffs vs low tariffs here. Why would we want to make food more expensive?
Didn't Ukraine end up with an FTA that included foodstuffs with the EU?
Yes, and as part of that agreement, Ukraine also reformed its food hygiene monitoring regime to reduce non-tariff barriers too.
The UAE keeps prices down by directly investing in farmland abroad and bypassing the market.
Boris will be quite shameless about nicking the popular bits of Labour policies, leaving them with a pile of class war shite.....
Agreed, unlike May Boris can do retail politics well
All these delaying tactics are all fine and good but they can't hide from the people forever
Nah, BoZo is a crap campaigner who avoids scrutiny and forgets what he said the day before. He is widely despised and that is a powerful motivator to go out to vote against.
and yet to the best of my knowledge, he has never lost an election ?
Clwyd South 1997.
I stand corrected, although in all fairness 1997 in Wales was a big ask for a tory.
BoZo's Surrender Deal is quite popular with the EU because it gives them everything that they wanted 2 years ago, before May extracted concessions. It is wrong to conflate that with personal popularity. EU leaders are capable of being polite and diplomatic even to petulant twats.
Your statement over the content of the deal is certainly opinion based. There are parts of the deal that are different, as illustrated by David Trimble supporting the deal.
Remainers think it's rubbish because it paves the way to a 'harder' Brexit, Leavers prefer it for the same reason. And the previous deal failed three times to gain a HoC majority - lets see how this one does.
Yes, it makes the final destination much more likely to be ‘Canada’ than ‘Norway’. A few years of an independent trade policy also makes it much less likely that we rejoin the EU at some point down the line, as doing so would mean tearing up trade agreements and large price increases on food.
Which deal do you anticipate brining about large decreases in the price of food?
We don’t even need to sign any deals for that, we simply leave the CAP and can set our own tariffs on food imports - which will be low for anything we don’t produce ourselves.
We could also ally with somewhere like Ukraine, who have plentiful surplus foodstuffs yet struggle to export to the EU because of high CAP tariffs.
Where I am in the Middle East, food is considerably cheaper than in the U.K., despite the vast majority of it being imported. The reason is high EU CAP tariffs vs low tariffs here. Why would we want to make food more expensive?
Didn't Ukraine end up with an FTA that included foodstuffs with the EU?
Yes, and as part of that agreement, Ukraine also reformed its food hygiene monitoring regime to reduce non-tariff barriers too.
The UAE keeps prices down by directly investing in farmland abroad and bypassing the market.
You’re in danger of making it sound like cheaper food prices are a bad thing.
It does depend though on why the price is is so cheap. After the Chernobyl explosion, retailers in West Germany couldn't sell any fruit or veg even with rock bottom prices. It was not a good situation for anyone.
Boris will be quite shameless about nicking the popular bits of Labour policies, leaving them with a pile of class war shite.....
Agreed, unlike May Boris can do retail politics well
All these delaying tactics are all fine and good but they can't hide from the people forever
Nah, BoZo is a crap campaigner who avoids scrutiny and forgets what he said the day before. He is widely despised and that is a powerful motivator to go out to vote against.
and yet to the best of my knowledge, he has never lost an election ?
How many has he actually fought, where he didn't have a very good chance of winning? Further didn't he endorse Zac Goldsmith as mayoral candidate? But it's a fair point.
Although it's not solely him Brexit 2016 is probably the best example of where he didn't have a good chance of winning but brought it over the line.
Yet he still plans to continue his Scottish court case against the government tomorrow. People donating to him have more money than sense, at some point (and it possibly came close to happening last week) a judge somewhere is going to declare him a vexatious litigant for trying to turn everything the government does into a court case.
Isn’t it the court itself that has said it will sit tomorrow? When it does, it will rule that Johnson has complied with the law and the case will be over. The PM has done what he said he would never do. There was no Cummings master plan - just a very good spin operation, which most of the media is swallowing wholesale. It is very, very impressive.
BoZo's Surrender Deal is quite popular with the EU because it gives them everything that they wanted 2 years ago, before May extracted concessions. It is wrong to conflate that with personal popularity. EU leaders are capable of being polite and diplomatic even to petulant twats.
Your statement over the content of the deal is certainly opinion based. There are parts of the deal that are different, as illustrated by David Trimble supporting the deal.
Remainers think it's rubbish because it paves the way to a 'harder' Brexit, Leavers prefer it for the same reason. And the previous deal failed three times to gain a HoC majority - lets see how this one does.
Yes, it makes the final destination much more likely to be ‘Canada’ than ‘Norway’. A few years of an independent trade policy also makes it much less likely that we rejoin the EU at some point down the line, as doing so would mean tearing up trade agreements and large price increases on food.
Which deal do you anticipate brining about large decreases in the price of food?
We don’t even need to sign any deals for that, we simply leave the CAP and can set our own tariffs on food imports - which will be low for anything we don’t produce ourselves.
We could also ally with somewhere like Ukraine, who have plentiful surplus foodstuffs yet struggle to export to the EU because of high CAP tariffs.
Where I am in the Middle East, food is considerably cheaper than in the U.K., despite the vast majority of it being imported. The reason is high EU CAP tariffs vs low tariffs here. Why would we want to make food more expensive?
Didn't Ukraine end up with an FTA that included foodstuffs with the EU?
Yes, and as part of that agreement, Ukraine also reformed its food hygiene monitoring regime to reduce non-tariff barriers too.
The UAE keeps prices down by directly investing in farmland abroad and bypassing the market.
You’re in danger of making it sound like cheaper food prices are a bad thing.
Well it won’t happen by doing an FTA with Ukraine that we already have, or by copying the UAE’s policies.
What will made e difference, is a reorientation from a system primarily designed to protect producers from competition, to one designed primarily to allow consumers to benefit from world prices.
Not totally unsure I understand this point. What about "good people on both sides" when the young lady was killed by a neo Nazi in protests in the US? And do death threats and the killing of an MP not count in the UK?
Boris will be quite shameless about nicking the popular bits of Labour policies, leaving them with a pile of class war shite.....
Agreed, unlike May Boris can do retail politics well
All these delaying tactics are all fine and good but they can't hide from the people forever
Nah, BoZo is a crap campaigner who avoids scrutiny and forgets what he said the day before. He is widely despised and that is a powerful motivator to go out to vote against.
and yet to the best of my knowledge, he has never lost an election ?
Clwyd South 1997.
I stand corrected, although in all fairness 1997 in Wales was a big ask for a tory.
BoZo's Surrender Deal is quite popular with the EU because it gives them everything that they wanted 2 years ago, before May extracted concessions. It is wrong to conflate that with personal popularity. EU leaders are capable of being polite and diplomatic even to petulant twats.
Your statement over the content of the deal is certainly opinion based. There are parts of the deal that are different, as illustrated by David Trimble supporting the deal.
Remainers think it's rubbish because it paves the way to a 'harder' Brexit, Leavers prefer it for the same reason. And the previous deal failed three times to gain a HoC majority - lets see how this one does.
Yes, it makes the final destination much more likely to be ‘Canada’ than ‘Norway’. A few years of an independent trade policy also makes it much less likely that we rejoin the EU at some point down the line, as doing so would mean tearing up trade agreements and large price increases on food.
Which deal do you anticipate brining about large decreases in the price of food?
We don’t even need to sign any deals for that, we simply leave the CAP and can set our own tariffs on food imports - which will be low for anything we don’t produce ourselves.
We could also ally with somewhere like Ukraine, who have plentiful surplus foodstuffs yet struggle to export to the EU because of high CAP tariffs.
Where I am in the Middle East, food is considerably cheaper than in the U.K., despite the vast majority of it being imported. The reason is high EU CAP tariffs vs low tariffs here. Why would we want to make food more expensive?
Didn't Ukraine end up with an FTA that included foodstuffs with the EU?
There are still tariffs and quotas on a lot of Ukrainian food exports to the EU, although their ‘Association agreement’ did eliminate tariffs on most other goods in exchange for Ukraine passing a lot of EU law.
Closer analysis shows that despite their generous appearance, the association agreements are firmly slanted in the favour of the EU......Through placing restrictions on the strongest Ukrainian exports, the EU ensures that Ukraine cannot gain a competitive advantage from its low labour and materials costs.
Not totally unsure I understand this point. What about "good people on both sides" when the young lady was killed by a neo Nazi in protests in the US? And do death threats and the killing of an MP not count in the UK?
But Bruno won’t ingratiate himself with right-wing think tanks by saying such things...
That sounds fair but we must not underestimate the effect of Boris and the Saj's promises to spaff the cash. Costing and funding commitments only matters for the red team, it turns out.
The Lord Ashworth focus groups on the promises showed enormous scepticism about the promises, though I've not seen a formal poll on them.
More generally, in reply to Felix and others, the polls are unambiguous that both Johnson and Corbyn are unpopular, Corbyn much more, though as TSE says not by as much as compared with May. There's a view that the electorate have now made up their minds about him, but a lot of voters seem to me profoundly unsure about even the most basic assumptions now. I suspect TSE is wise to stay out of the market, unless one puts a bet on just for fun. All of us would be frankly unwise to gloat in advance.
Yes, it makes the final destination much more likely to be ‘Canada’ than ‘Norway’. A few years of an independent trade policy also makes it much less likely that we rejoin the EU at some point down the line, as doing so would mean tearing up trade agreements and large price increases on food.
The stated intention of the Johnson Deal is Canada, not Norway, so clearly that's a very possible outcome. There are several problems with it through.
Firstly any UK FTA will come with strong level playing field commitments, so why take less access for the same commitments?
Secondly an FTA will impose barriers to trade with our by far most important trading partner, compared with the status quo, without bringing benefits for third country trade. There are powerful business lobbies who don't want to lose trade.
Thirdly FTAs take many years to negotiate and have uncertain outcomes. People are supposedly fed up with Brexit and want it done. Johnson's plan drags out the arguments forever.
An FTA comes with a lot of headwinds. Given that and the non-viability of No Deal, noting the problems a divergent GB causes for Northern Ireland, but assuming staying in the EU is not an option, and given half, or maybe more than half now, of the population don't actually want to leave the EU, the only other option is some version of the Vassal State.
Yet he still plans to continue his Scottish court case against the government tomorrow. People donating to him have more money than sense, at some point (and it possibly came close to happening last week) a judge somewhere is going to declare him a vexatious litigant for trying to turn everything the government does into a court case.
I haven’t seen confirmation yet that he’s going to do that . I really hope he doesn’t . I can’t see anything wrong with the letters and I’m no Johnson fan.
The media seem to be intent on whipping up some hysteria over the lack of a signature and the second letter .
It’s like they haven’t had enough drama over the last few weeks .
Yet he still plans to continue his Scottish court case against the government tomorrow. People donating to him have more money than sense, at some point (and it possibly came close to happening last week) a judge somewhere is going to declare him a vexatious litigant for trying to turn everything the government does into a court case.
Isn’t it the court itself that has said it will sit tomorrow? When it does, it will rule that Johnson has complied with the law and the case will be over. The PM has done what he said he would never do. There was no Cummings master plan - just a very good spin operation, which most of the media is swallowing wholesale. It is very, very impressive.
Cummings was never a fan of Oct 31 "do or die". Instead the line is that any 'Act' now passed outwith the Government is 'Parliament's work' which has the advantage of being both true and useful in the propaganda war.
BoZo's Surrender Deal is quite popular with the EU because it gives them everything that they wanted 2 years ago, before May extracted concessions. It is wrong to conflate that with personal popularity. EU leaders are capable of being polite and diplomatic even to petulant twats.
Your statement over the content of the deal is certainly opinion based. There are parts of the deal that are different, as illustrated by David Trimble supporting the deal.
Remainers think it's rubbish because it paves the way to a 'harder' Brexit, Leavers prefer it for the same reason. And the previous deal failed three times to gain a HoC majority - lets see how this one does.
.
Which deal do you anticipate brining about large decreases in the price of food?
We don’t even need to sign any deals for that, we simply leave the CAP and can set our own tariffs on food imports - which will be low for anything we don’t produce ourselves.
We could also ally with somewhere like Ukraine, who have plentiful surplus foodstuffs yet struggle to export to the EU because of high CAP tariffs.
Where I am in the Middle East, food is considerably cheaper than in the U.K., despite the vast majority of it being imported. The reason is high EU CAP tariffs vs low tariffs here. Why would we want to make food more expensive?
Didn't Ukraine end up with an FTA that included foodstuffs with the EU?
Yes, and as part of that agreement, Ukraine also reformed its food hygiene monitoring regime to reduce non-tariff barriers too.
The UAE keeps prices down by directly investing in farmland abroad and bypassing the market.
You’re in danger of making it sound like cheaper food prices are a bad thing.
Well it won’t happen by doing an FTA with Ukraine that we already have, or by copying the UAE’s policies.
What will made e difference, is a reorientation from a system primarily designed to protect producers from competition, to one designed primarily to allow consumers to benefit from world prices.
That sounds like part of a plan to systematically alienate every part of the Brexit coalition. You’ve just lost the DUP. Will rural Britain be next?
Boris will be quite shameless about nicking the popular bits of Labour policies, leaving them with a pile of class war shite.....
Agreed, unlike May Boris can do retail politics well
All these delaying tactics are all fine and good but they can't hide from the people forever
Nah, BoZo is a crap campaigner who avoids scrutiny and forgets what he said the day before. He is widely despised and that is a powerful motivator to go out to vote against.
and yet to the best of my knowledge, he has never lost an election ?
Clwyd South 1997.
I stand corrected, although in all fairness 1997 in Wales was a big ask for a tory.
He bottled the 2016 leadership election. If he thought he would win he would have stood.
That sounds fair but we must not underestimate the effect of Boris and the Saj's promises to spaff the cash. Costing and funding commitments only matters for the red team, it turns out.
The Lord Ashworth focus groups on the promises showed enormous scepticism about the promises, though I've not seen a formal poll on them.
More generally, in reply to Felix and others, the polls are unambiguous that both Johnson and Corbyn are unpopular, Corbyn much more, though as TSE says not by as much as compared with May. There's a view that the electorate have now made up their minds about him, but a lot of voters seem to me profoundly unsure about even the most basic assumptions now. I suspect TSE is wise to stay out of the market, unless one puts a bet on just for fun. All of us would be frankly unwise to gloat in advance.
Surely you can see that Corbyn is a divisive figure. The left is a mess as a result.
Yet he still plans to continue his Scottish court case against the government tomorrow. People donating to him have more money than sense, at some point (and it possibly came close to happening last week) a judge somewhere is going to declare him a vexatious litigant for trying to turn everything the government does into a court case.
I haven’t seen confirmation yet that he’s going to do that . I really hope he doesn’t . I can’t see anything wrong with the letters and I’m no Johnson fan.
The media seem to be intent on whipping up some hysteria over the lack of a signature and the second letter .
It’s like they haven’t had enough drama over the last few weeks .
The media have been shown a squirrel, which they are now relentlessly chasing, instead of reporting that Johnson has done what he said he would never do by complying with the Benn Act and asking for an extension. It is absolutely brilliant spin. Cummings has earned his money.
Not totally unsure I understand this point. What about "good people on both sides" when the young lady was killed by a neo Nazi in protests in the US? And do death threats and the killing of an MP not count in the UK?
He's writing in the present tense - the worse we've seen this weekend was barracking of MPs (and in one case, their son) from both sides of the Brexit debate - unlike the ongoing riots in Catalonia, Hong Kong or the gilets jaunes in France, now nearing a year of protest - so mundane its no longer reported:
Yes, it makes the final destination much more likely to be ‘Canada’ than ‘Norway’. A few years of an independent trade policy also makes it much less likely that we rejoin the EU at some point down the line, as doing so would mean tearing up trade agreements and large price increases on food.
The stated intention of the Johnson Deal is Canada, not Norway, so clearly that's a very possible outcome. There are several problems with it through.
Firstly any UK FTA will come with strong level playing field commitments, so why take less access for the same commitments?
Secondly an FTA will impose barriers to trade with our by far most important trading partner, compared with the status quo, without bringing benefits for third country trade. There are powerful business lobbies who don't want to lose trade.
Thirdly FTAs take many years to negotiate and have uncertain outcomes. People are supposedly fed up with Brexit and want it done. Johnson's plan drags out the arguments forever.
An FTA comes with a lot of headwinds. Given that and the non-viability of No Deal, noting the problems a divergent GB causes for Northern Ireland, but assuming staying in the EU is not an option, and given half, or maybe more than half now, of the population don't actually want to leave the EU, the only other option is some version of the Vassal State.
I think that's where we will end up.
- “FTAs take many years to negotiate and have uncertain outcomes. People are supposedly fed up with Brexit and want it done. Johnson's plan drags out the arguments forever.”
This is vital to understand where England is heading in the next 15 - 20 years. Leaving the EU is only the *start* of extraordinarily painful, expensive and energy-consuming negotiations, not the end.
I note that Tories still have their tails in the air. It’ll be back between their legs in no time and they’ll be cowering and whimpering behind the sofa, begging for forgiveness. But the giant turd they have left on the sitting room carpet of public life is going to take barrowloads of work to remove. And the dirty hounds have been scoffing vindaloo.
Yes, it makes the final destination much more likely to be ‘Canada’ than ‘Norway’. A few years of an independent trade policy also makes it much less likely that we rejoin the EU at some point down the line, as doing so would mean tearing up trade agreements and large price increases on food.
I should also point out that Brexit would only substantially bring down prices on food where imports substitute for UK produce. EU tariffs are generally low on food items that are not produced in Britain and of course you don't pay tariffs on produce imported from another member state. The government has promised to support UK farmers. There will be little if any reduction in food prices.
That sounds fair but we must not underestimate the effect of Boris and the Saj's promises to spaff the cash. Costing and funding commitments only matters for the red team, it turns out.
The Lord Ashworth focus groups on the promises showed enormous scepticism about the promises, though I've not seen a formal poll on them.
More generally, in reply to Felix and others, the polls are unambiguous that both Johnson and Corbyn are unpopular, Corbyn much more, though as TSE says not by as much as compared with May. There's a view that the electorate have now made up their minds about him, but a lot of voters seem to me profoundly unsure about even the most basic assumptions now. I suspect TSE is wise to stay out of the market, unless one puts a bet on just for fun. All of us would be frankly unwise to gloat in advance.
Its almost as though you don't believe your own eyes. You ask any mainstream Labour voter what they think of Corbyn and then put some ear defenders on.
Corbyn has a problem, Strangely enough he began as a man of his word - even if you didn't like his word - but now he's a man so desperate for power, he'll say anything to anybody. Magic Grandpa has become a grumpy old git.
Boris is unreliable, but more like a boisterous teenager than anything malevolent.
The LDs are a one-issue party.
Mrs May was a well-meaning woman hopelessly out of her depth, and a useless hopeless campaigner so the last election campaign may not be repeated. Jeremy is more yesterday's five-day wonder so Labour are probably wise to delay an election until he's replaced.
I’d say no deal is very unlikely now however things could start unraveling quickly this week on the WAIB.
It’s likely the opposition will start amending this , now although any future government doesn’t have to honour this it’s likely to cause problems with the ERG .
I’m shocked the media have not picked up on Steve Bakers tweet , bizarrely Laura K who retweeted it failed to understand the significance of this part of that .
“Support the legislation to completion in good faith, provided it is not spoiled by opponents of Brexit”.
I would at this point hope for not too many dramas but nothing’s over till it’s over !
Onto the DUP who are now on the war path . No amount of money from the government is going to make a blind bit of difference and their votes are now crucial as regards to any possible amendments.
As long as any amendments are cross party and not just Labour ones the DUP could prove very troublesome over the next few weeks.
They’ve already said they’re going to vote against the second reading of the WAIB .
That sounds fair but we must not underestimate the effect of Boris and the Saj's promises to spaff the cash. Costing and funding commitments only matters for the red team, it turns out.
The Lord Ashworth focus groups on the promises showed enormous scepticism about the promises, though I've not seen a formal poll on them.
More generally, in reply to Felix and others, the polls are unambiguous that both Johnson and Corbyn are unpopular, Corbyn much more, though as TSE says not by as much as compared with May. There's a view that the electorate have now made up their minds about him, but a lot of voters seem to me profoundly unsure about even the most basic assumptions now. I suspect TSE is wise to stay out of the market, unless one puts a bet on just for fun. All of us would be frankly unwise to gloat in advance.
Its almost as though you don't believe your own eyes. You ask any mainstream Labour voter what they think of Corbyn and then put some ear defenders on.
But that was also true in 2017. Most Labour MPs did not mention Corbyn in their leaflets because he was so toxic. Voters were certainly very critical. But many voted Labour despite this.
Not totally unsure I understand this point. What about "good people on both sides" when the young lady was killed by a neo Nazi in protests in the US? And do death threats and the killing of an MP not count in the UK?
He's writing in the present tense - the worse we've seen this weekend was barracking of MPs (and in one case, their son) from both sides of the Brexit debate - unlike the ongoing riots in Catalonia, Hong Kong or the gilets jaunes in France, now nearing a year of protest - so mundane its no longer reported:
Well, he's making a ludicrous point then. There has been significant political instability in several countries in recent times, including a rise in political violence. Some sort of conclusion that the UK and US are handling matters well just because there haven't been riots this weekend is just silly.
I'd also question how many people with concerns over Trump and Brexit would name communist China as a model of how best to handle social tensions and protest.
That sounds fair but we must not underestimate the effect of Boris and the Saj's promises to spaff the cash. Costing and funding commitments only matters for the red team, it turns out.
The Lord Ashworth focus groups on the promises showed enormous scepticism about the promises, though I've not seen a formal poll on them.
More generally, in reply to Felix and others, the polls are unambiguous that both Johnson and Corbyn are unpopular, Corbyn much more, though as TSE says not by as much as compared with May. There's a view that the electorate have now made up their minds about him, but a lot of voters seem to me profoundly unsure about even the most basic assumptions now. I suspect TSE is wise to stay out of the market, unless one puts a bet on just for fun. All of us would be frankly unwise to gloat in advance.
Its almost as though you don't believe your own eyes. You ask any mainstream Labour voter what they think of Corbyn and then put some ear defenders on.
But that was also true in 2017. Most Labour MPs did not mention Corbyn in their leaflets because he was so toxic.
Yes but it was A tory self inflicted would about pensioner benefits that did for May.. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.. What madness was it.. probably brought about by the delusion of the polls.
I hope the DUP are enjoying rubbing shoulders with parliamentary politicians who secretly and in my experience very often not so secretly despise them. In worrying that the deal puts them on the UK's window ledge they have overlooked the fact that the Conservative and Unionist Party were their best guarantors that they will not be allowed to fall off it. I suspect that might be rather less the case now.
The Tories threw the DUP under a bus. They did right by the island of Ireland because, in the end, the unionist bit of the party name is now redundant. Brexit matters more.
And yet, Northern Ireland as the gateway to the EU for the UK, and the gateway to the UK for the EU, gives a sort of 21st century reason for being that can only cement its long term position within the UK.
Not really. The equation in Northern Ireland remains the same: when a majority of people in the north see themselves as Irish reunification will take place. The demographics are inexorable. Orangemen and women have less sex than Catholics!!
Nothing is inexorable. Organised religion (sadly) is on the wane. People are (as they are right to be) self interested. Being part of British Hong Kong makes sense.
Yes, it makes the final destination much more likely to be ‘Canada’ than ‘Norway’. A few years of an independent trade policy also makes it much less likely that we rejoin the EU at some point down the line, as doing so would mean tearing up trade agreements and large price increases on food.
I should also point out that Brexit would only substantially bring down prices on food where imports substitute for UK produce. EU tariffs are generally low on food items that are not produced in Britain and of course you don't pay tariffs on produce imported from another member state. The government has promised to support UK farmers. There will be little if any reduction in food prices.
EU produce. Not UK produce. The two are not the same.
One observation that I would make is that there is one consistent pattern in the Johnson premiership: it always seems that he has the votes, his persuasion strategy seems to be "I'm going to win, get on the winning side or you're anathematized" and then he loses.
It seems he has the votes next week. But does he? Even though I'm fairly sure he does, past performance suggests he will somehow contrive the opposite.
Yet he still plans to continue his Scottish court case against the government tomorrow. People donating to him have more money than sense, at some point (and it possibly came close to happening last week) a judge somewhere is going to declare him a vexatious litigant for trying to turn everything the government does into a court case.
Isn’t it the court itself that has said it will sit tomorrow? When it does, it will rule that Johnson has complied with the law and the case will be over. The PM has done what he said he would never do. There was no Cummings master plan - just a very good spin operation, which most of the media is swallowing wholesale. It is very, very impressive.
The case was continued to tomorrow by order to see what the PM did. It was made clear to his counsel that they would be expecting a detailed report on what he had done. The court was also clear that it was a principle of public law that one had to comply not just with the letter but the spirit of the legislation. I think that this latter point is likely to be the source of some discussion. I think that the Court will want addressed on whether the 2 other letters Boris sent were designed to undermine the application for an extension.
Counsel for the petitioners (Aiden O'Neill once again) will no doubt want to make representations on that too. Whether the Court ultimately concludes anything needs to be done is a different question. Despite the letter not being signed I think that there has been substantial compliance and it is likely that will be the end of the matter but counsel for the PM may have a difficult morning.
One observation that I would make is that there is one consistent pattern in the Johnson premiership: it always seems that he has the votes, his persuasion strategy seems to be "I'm going to win, get on the winning side or you're anathematized" and then he loses.
It seems he has the votes next week. But does he? Even though I'm fairly sure he does, past performance suggests he will somehow contrive the opposite.
Perhaps he is merely an effective liar? I am beginning to see why many MPs do not trust him
Yes, it makes the final destination much more likely to be ‘Canada’ than ‘Norway’. A few years of an independent trade policy also makes it much less likely that we rejoin the EU at some point down the line, as doing so would mean tearing up trade agreements and large price increases on food.
I should also point out that Brexit would only substantially bring down prices on food where imports substitute for UK produce. EU tariffs are generally low on food items that are not produced in Britain and of course you don't pay tariffs on produce imported from another member state. The government has promised to support UK farmers. There will be little if any reduction in food prices.
EU produce. Not UK produce. The two are not the same.
So you expect Brexit to result in cheaper oranges, for example?
Yes, it makes the final destination much more likely to be ‘Canada’ than ‘Norway’. A few years of an independent trade policy also makes it much less likely that we rejoin the EU at some point down the line, as doing so would mean tearing up trade agreements and large price increases on food.
I should also point out that Brexit would only substantially bring down prices on food where imports substitute for UK produce. EU tariffs are generally low on food items that are not produced in Britain and of course you don't pay tariffs on produce imported from another member state. The government has promised to support UK farmers. There will be little if any reduction in food prices.
EU produce. Not UK produce. The two are not the same.
The actual stuff that will be substituted is largely UK produced. In this case it largely is the same.
Edit tariffs on produce that comes from the EU now but isn't produced in the UK like winter vegetables aren't high enough for the UK source them from elsewhere. We will still source from the EU for that produce.
Yet he still plans to continue his Scottish court case against the government tomorrow. People donating to him have more money than sense, at some point (and it possibly came close to happening last week) a judge somewhere is going to declare him a vexatious litigant for trying to turn everything the government does into a court case.
Isn’t it the court itself that has said it will sit tomorrow? When it does, it will rule that Johnson has complied with the law and the case will be over. The PM has done what he said he would never do. There was no Cummings master plan - just a very good spin operation, which most of the media is swallowing wholesale. It is very, very impressive.
The case was continued to tomorrow by order to see what the PM did. It was made clear to his counsel that they would be expecting a detailed report on what he had done. The court was also clear that it was a principle of public law that one had to comply not just with the letter but the spirit of the legislation. I think that this latter point is likely to be the source of some discussion. I think that the Court will want addressed on whether the 2 other letters Boris sent were designed to undermine the application for an extension.
Counsel for the petitioners (Aiden O'Neill once again) will no doubt want to make representations on that too. Whether the Court ultimately concludes anything needs to be done is a different question. Despite the letter not being signed I think that there has been substantial compliance and it is likely that will be the end of the matter but counsel for the PM may have a difficult morning.
Isn't an unsigned letter merely an interesting piece of paper?
Which deal do you anticipate brining about large decreases in the price of food?
We don’t even need to sign any deals for that, we simply leave the CAP and can set our own tariffs on food imports - which will be low for anything we don’t produce ourselves.
We could also ally with somewhere like Ukraine, who have plentiful surplus foodstuffs yet struggle to export to the EU because of high CAP tariffs.
Where I am in the Middle East, food is considerably cheaper than in the U.K., despite the vast majority of it being imported. The reason is high EU CAP tariffs vs low tariffs here. Why would we want to make food more expensive?
Didn't Ukraine end up with an FTA that included foodstuffs with the EU?
Yes, and as part of that agreement, Ukraine also reformed its food hygiene monitoring regime to reduce non-tariff barriers too.
The UAE keeps prices down by directly investing in farmland abroad and bypassing the market.
You’re in danger of making it sound like cheaper food prices are a bad thing.
Well it won’t happen by doing an FTA with Ukraine that we already have, or by copying the UAE’s policies.
What will made e difference, is a reorientation from a system primarily designed to protect producers from competition, to one designed primarily to allow consumers to benefit from world prices.
That sounds like part of a plan to systematically alienate every part of the Brexit coalition. You’ve just lost the DUP. Will rural Britain be next?
On the contrary, most farmers will be very pleased to see the back of the dreaded CAP and its constant bureaucracy. Farmers have one of the highest suicide rates of any profession.
AIUI Michael Gove did some good work on this while he was at DEFRA - the key is to support smaller high-quality and organic farms, discourage polluting factory and industrial farming by moving subsidies from production to land management, and most importantly reducing the officious paperwork that causes farmers so many problems. Oh, and work hard on international trade, both with key allies and at the WTO to reduce tariffs.
Yes, it makes the final destination much more likely to be ‘Canada’ than ‘Norway’. A few years of an independent trade policy also makes it much less likely that we rejoin the EU at some point down the line, as doing so would mean tearing up trade agreements and large price increases on food.
The stated intention of the Johnson Deal is Canada, not Norway, so clearly that's a very possible outcome. There are several problems with it through.
Firstly any UK FTA will come with strong level playing field commitments, so why take less access for the same commitments?
Secondly an FTA will impose barriers to trade with our by far most important trading partner, compared with the status quo, without bringing benefits for third country trade. There are powerful business lobbies who don't want to lose trade.
Thirdly FTAs take many years to negotiate and have uncertain outcomes. People are supposedly fed up with Brexit and want it done. Johnson's plan drags out the arguments forever.
An FTA comes with a lot of headwinds. Given that and the non-viability of No Deal, noting the problems a divergent GB causes for Northern Ireland, but assuming staying in the EU is not an option, and given half, or maybe more than half now, of the population don't actually want to leave the EU, the only other option is some version of the Vassal State.
I think that's where we will end up.
Johnson has demonstrated two things with his Withdrawal Agreement.
1. The flexibility to hit a self-imposed deadline.
2. The ability to identify what is most important to his core, ERG, support.
This indicates a willingness to agree to a minimalist Canada-style FTA, accepting in large part whatever draft the EU have sat ready in a drawer.
There will be some concessions that he might fight hard to avoid making. On fisheries, for example. It's possible Scottish fishermen will be the next DUP, though.
Not totally unsure I understand this point. What about "good people on both sides" when the young lady was killed by a neo Nazi in protests in the US? And do death threats and the killing of an MP not count in the UK?
He's writing in the present tense - the worse we've seen this weekend was barracking of MPs (and in one case, their son) from both sides of the Brexit debate - unlike the ongoing riots in Catalonia, Hong Kong or the gilets jaunes in France, now nearing a year of protest - so mundane its no longer reported:
Well, he's making a ludicrous point then. There has been significant political instability in several countries in recent times, including a rise in political violence. Some sort of conclusion that the UK and US are handling matters well just because there haven't been riots this weekend is just silly.
I'd also question how many people with concerns over Trump and Brexit would name communist China as a model of how best to handle social tensions and protest.
I don’t think that is his point though (that there aren’t problems in U.K./US). It is that the media slant that they are way outside the norm is utterly misleading.
Yet he still plans to continue his Scottish court case against the government tomorrow. People donating to him have more money than sense, at some point (and it possibly came close to happening last week) a judge somewhere is going to declare him a vexatious litigant for trying to turn everything the government does into a court case.
Isn’t it the court itself that has said it will sit tomorrow? When it does, it will rule that Johnson has complied with the law and the case will be over. The PM has done what he said he would never do. There was no Cummings master plan - just a very good spin operation, which most of the media is swallowing wholesale. It is very, very impressive.
The case was continued to tomorrow by order to see what the PM did. It was made clear to his counsel that they would be expecting a detailed report on what he had done. The court was also clear that it was a principle of public law that one had to comply not just with the letter but the spirit of the legislation. I think that this latter point is likely to be the source of some discussion. I think that the Court will want addressed on whether the 2 other letters Boris sent were designed to undermine the application for an extension.
Counsel for the petitioners (Aiden O'Neill once again) will no doubt want to make representations on that too. Whether the Court ultimately concludes anything needs to be done is a different question. Despite the letter not being signed I think that there has been substantial compliance and it is likely that will be the end of the matter but counsel for the PM may have a difficult morning.
Isn't an unsigned letter merely an interesting piece of paper?
Tusk seems to have accepted it as an application. Emails aren't signed but are used to form contracts daily. It might have been different if the EU had said this was not a formal application.
Yet he still plans to continue his Scottish court case against the government tomorrow. People donating to him have more money than sense, at some point (and it possibly came close to happening last week) a judge somewhere is going to declare him a vexatious litigant for trying to turn everything the government does into a court case.
Isn’t it the court itself that has said it will sit tomorrow? When it does, it will rule that Johnson has complied with the law and the case will be over. The PM has done what he said he would never do. There was no Cummings master plan - just a very good spin operation, which most of the media is swallowing wholesale. It is very, very impressive.
The case was continued to tomorrow by order to see what the PM did. It was made clear to his counsel that they would be expecting a detailed report on what he had done. The court was also clear that it was a principle of public law that one had to comply not just with the letter but the spirit of the legislation. I think that this latter point is likely to be the source of some discussion. I think that the Court will want addressed on whether the 2 other letters Boris sent were designed to undermine the application for an extension.
Counsel for the petitioners (Aiden O'Neill once again) will no doubt want to make representations on that too. Whether the Court ultimately concludes anything needs to be done is a different question. Despite the letter not being signed I think that there has been substantial compliance and it is likely that will be the end of the matter but counsel for the PM may have a difficult morning.
Isn't an unsigned letter merely an interesting piece of paper?
Tusk seems to have accepted it as an application. Emails aren't signed but are used to form contracts daily. It might have been different if the EU had said this was not a formal application.
If it goes to court, the court will rule that Johnson has complied with the law and asked for an extension. And most of the media will report it as a victory for Johnson! The Cummings spin operation is genuinely brilliant.
Corbyn has surely lost the ‘he’s a breath of fresh air, let’s give him a chance’ crowd.
I think the biggest thing harming Corbyn now is his transparent ineffectiveness and loss of control over his own party. This is not just over Brexit and anti-semitism, but right across the board.
Yesterday I watched 3 of his oldest and most supportive colleagues, John McDonnell, Emily Thornberry and Diane Abbot on stage calling for a #peoplesvote.
I’d say no deal is very unlikely now however things could start unraveling quickly this week on the WAIB.
It’s likely the opposition will start amending this , now although any future government doesn’t have to honour this it’s likely to cause problems with the ERG .
I’m shocked the media have not picked up on Steve Bakers tweet , bizarrely Laura K who retweeted it failed to understand the significance of this part of that .
“Support the legislation to completion in good faith, provided it is not spoiled by opponents of Brexit”.
I would at this point hope for not too many dramas but nothing’s over till it’s over !
Onto the DUP who are now on the war path . No amount of money from the government is going to make a blind bit of difference and their votes are now crucial as regards to any possible amendments.
As long as any amendments are cross party and not just Labour ones the DUP could prove very troublesome over the next few weeks.
They’ve already said they’re going to vote against the second reading of the WAIB .
To my mind the only real question now is whether - if the deal can't get through the current House of Commons - the opposition can realistically block a general election. I am assuming that if the deal doesn't get through the EU will grant an extension long enough to hold an election, and that if there is a general election the Tories will get at least a working majority.
It seems to me that voting down a deal and then trying to block a general election will go down extremely badly with the public. I'm not even sure Corbyn would want to do it.
Yet he still plans to continue his Scottish court case against the government tomorrow. People donating to him have more money than sense, at some point (and it possibly came close to happening last week) a judge somewhere is going to declare him a vexatious litigant for trying to turn everything the government does into a court case.
Isn’t it the court itself that has said it will sit tomorrow? When it does, it will rule that Johnson has complied with the law and the case will be over. The PM has done what he said he would never do. There was no Cummings master plan - just a very good spin operation, which most of the media is swallowing wholesale. It is very, very impressive.
The case was continued to tomorrow by order to see what the PM did. It was made clear to his counsel that they would be expecting a detailed report on what he had done. The court was also clear that it was a principle of public law that one had to comply not just with the letter but the spirit of the legislation. I think that this latter point is likely to be the source of some discussion. I think that the Court will want addressed on whether the 2 other letters Boris sent were designed to undermine the application for an extension.
Counsel for the petitioners (Aiden O'Neill once again) will no doubt want to make representations on that too. Whether the Court ultimately concludes anything needs to be done is a different question. Despite the letter not being signed I think that there has been substantial compliance and it is likely that will be the end of the matter but counsel for the PM may have a difficult morning.
Isn't an unsigned letter merely an interesting piece of paper?
Tusk seems to have accepted it as an application. Emails aren't signed but are used to form contracts daily. It might have been different if the EU had said this was not a formal application.
I recently set up a bank account for a small organisation. The potential cheque signatories had to photocopy and scan their signatures and email the scans to the bank.
Yes, it makes the final destination much more likely to be ‘Canada’ than ‘Norway’. A few years of an independent trade policy also makes it much less likely that we rejoin the EU at some point down the line, as doing so would mean tearing up trade agreements and large price increases on food.
The stated intention of the Johnson Deal is Canada, not Norway, so clearly that's a very possible outcome. There are several problems with it through.
Firstly any UK FTA will come with strong level playing field commitments, so why take less access for the same commitments?
Secondly an FTA will impose barriers to trade with our by far most important trading partner, compared with the status quo, without bringing benefits for third country trade. There are powerful business lobbies who don't want to lose trade.
Thirdly FTAs take many years to negotiate and have uncertain outcomes. People are supposedly fed up with Brexit and want it done. Johnson's plan drags out the arguments forever.
An FTA comes with a lot of headwinds. Given that and the non-viability of No Deal, noting the problems a divergent GB causes for Northern Ireland, but assuming staying in the EU is not an option, and given half, or maybe more than half now, of the population don't actually want to leave the EU, the only other option is some version of the Vassal State.
I think that's where we will end up.
Johnson has demonstrated two things with his Withdrawal Agreement.
1. The flexibility to hit a self-imposed deadline.
2. The ability to identify what is most important to his core, ERG, support.
This indicates a willingness to agree to a minimalist Canada-style FTA, accepting in large part whatever draft the EU have sat ready in a drawer.
There will be some concessions that he might fight hard to avoid making. On fisheries, for example. It's possible Scottish fishermen will be the next DUP, though.
Thoughtful members of the ERG (!!!) might consider how quick Johnson was to throw the DUP under a train when he decided he no longer needed them.
From here, the opposition’s main priority should be tabling amendments to the withdrawal legislation on workers’ rights, consumer protections and the environment. Tory rejections of them will be helpful when the election comes.
Yet he still plans to continue his Scottish court case against the government tomorrow. People donating to him have more money than sense, at some point (and it possibly came close to happening last week) a judge somewhere is going to declare him a vexatious litigant for trying to turn everything the government does into a court case.
Isn’t it the court itself that has said it will sit tomorrow? When it does, it will rule that Johnson has complied with the law and the case will be over. The PM has done what he said he would never do. There was no Cummings master plan - just a very good spin operation, which most of the media is swallowing wholesale. It is very, very impressive.
The case was continued to tomorrow by order to see what the PM did. It was made clear to his counsel that they would be expecting a detailed report on what he had done. The court was also clear that it was a principle of public law that one had to comply not just with the letter but the spirit of the legislation. I think that this latter point is likely to be the source of some discussion. I think that the Court will want addressed on whether the 2 other letters Boris sent were designed to undermine the application for an extension.
Counsel for the petitioners (Aiden O'Neill once again) will no doubt want to make representations on that too. Whether the Court ultimately concludes anything needs to be done is a different question. Despite the letter not being signed I think that there has been substantial compliance and it is likely that will be the end of the matter but counsel for the PM may have a difficult morning.
Isn't an unsigned letter merely an interesting piece of paper?
Tusk seems to have accepted it as an application. Emails aren't signed but are used to form contracts daily. It might have been different if the EU had said this was not a formal application.
If it goes to court, the court will rule that Johnson has complied with the law and asked for an extension. And most of the media will report it as a victory for Johnson! The Cummings spin operation is genuinely brilliant.
Surely it was a mistake for Johnson to say he wouldn't comply. It would have been better to criticise it as strongly as he wanted to, but make it clear that of course he would comply with the law.
Comments
https://twitter.com/mediaguardian/status/1185752381650157569?s=20
Isn't it usually This time it will be different?
Boris' performance in the house yesterday was his best yet (admittedly vs a low bar) so perhaps he's got some of his mojo back? Corbyn by contrast seems bored and uninterested.
Of course a lot will depend on the circumstances under which the GE is fought - as was pointed out yesterday, there appear to be votes in the HoC for both the WIA and a VONC.
Then there's the electorate.
"Thank you Boris for delivering Brexit, here's a stonking majority" or
"Thank you Boris for delivering Brexit it's bored us to tears, time to let the other chap have a go."
Either are perfectly possible.
Boris will be quite shameless about nicking the popular bits of Labour policies, leaving them with a pile of class war shite.....
All these delaying tactics are all fine and good but they can't hide from the people forever
Where the Remainers have got it wrong is misjudging Boris. To their surprise, Boris has got on really well with the EU leaders. He is making all the right noises that he is a fervent European who will be a good team player - just outside the structures of the EU. The Remainers have been dripping poison in the EU's ears, about how Brexit Britain will be an existential threat to them, and they must take all measures to stop our leaving. Except, with Boris, it doesn't feel like that.
Boris has been trying his hardest to meet the EU's original extended deadline. I suspect that having now got the measure of the man, they will be much more inclined to help him out with peeling the Remainers' fingers off the Brexit doorframe....
I agree with the header. We simply don't know when the election will be or what will happen in the meantime. I am not investing in this market yet.
https://twitter.com/JoshuaRozenberg/status/1185790773347926016?s=20
And I agree with Mr Mark @6.21. Boris, it appears does get on well with people, for a while anyway. Never met him myself, but it appears he's a very pleasant chap with whom to socialise. Didn't someone on here, a while ago, attest to that?
The trouble is, he's also an untrustworthy, a liar, and as his unsigned letter demonstrates, capable of very childish behaviour when annoyed.
Your statement over the content of the deal is certainly opinion based. There are parts of the deal that are different, as illustrated by David Trimble supporting the deal.
EU leaders are politicians. They spend large chunks of their time having to cope with random politicians from their home legislatures trying to cause them trouble. They probably have far more sympathy with May/Johnson’s position than Parliament think. And from the start they have known that any deal also has had to get through the EU Parliament.
We could also ally with somewhere like Ukraine, who have plentiful surplus foodstuffs yet struggle to export to the EU because of high CAP tariffs.
Where I am in the Middle East, food is considerably cheaper than in the U.K., despite the vast majority of it being imported. The reason is high EU CAP tariffs vs low tariffs here. Why would we want to make food more expensive?
And no, I'm not suggesting any similarities between the two men with regard to policies.
But it's a fair point.
https://www.cer.eu/insights/ukraine-model-brexit-dissociation-just-association
The UAE keeps prices down by directly investing in farmland abroad and bypassing the market.
https://gulfnews.com/business/investing-abroad-to-secure-food-at-home-1.773464
Hope the Welsh and Japanese win today.
Cannot stand the Welsh rugby fans.
Decades of abuse from them and telling me where I shove the sweet chariot means we Nigels have to support whoever Wales play.
The fact that 84% voted for "pro-Brexit parties" does not mean that 84% were supportive of Brexit. As an example my constituency is a "strong remain" constituency, and the Labour candidate won comfortably.
Even Labour voters I know abhor Corbyn.. I don't think there is any doubt who would be worse unless you are one eyed so to speak.
London too obviously
NOM 4/5
Con Maj 6/4
Lab Maj 14/1
Any other party Maj 50/1
More generally, in reply to Felix and others, the polls are unambiguous that both Johnson and Corbyn are unpopular, Corbyn much more, though as TSE says not by as much as compared with May. There's a view that the electorate have now made up their minds about him, but a lot of voters seem to me profoundly unsure about even the most basic assumptions now. I suspect TSE is wise to stay out of the market, unless one puts a bet on just for fun. All of us would be frankly unwise to gloat in advance.
Firstly any UK FTA will come with strong level playing field commitments, so why take less access for the same commitments?
Secondly an FTA will impose barriers to trade with our by far most important trading partner, compared with the status quo, without bringing benefits for third country trade. There are powerful business lobbies who don't want to lose trade.
Thirdly FTAs take many years to negotiate and have uncertain outcomes. People are supposedly fed up with Brexit and want it done. Johnson's plan drags out the arguments forever.
An FTA comes with a lot of headwinds. Given that and the non-viability of No Deal, noting the problems a divergent GB causes for Northern Ireland, but assuming staying in the EU is not an option, and given half, or maybe more than half now, of the population don't actually want to leave the EU, the only other option is some version of the Vassal State.
I think that's where we will end up.
No 1/12
Yes 6/1
The media seem to be intent on whipping up some hysteria over the lack of a signature and the second letter .
It’s like they haven’t had enough drama over the last few weeks .
https://twitter.com/Amreen__Rizvi/status/1185559010470060032?s=20
This is vital to understand where England is heading in the next 15 - 20 years. Leaving the EU is only the *start* of extraordinarily painful, expensive and energy-consuming negotiations, not the end.
I note that Tories still have their tails in the air. It’ll be back between their legs in no time and they’ll be cowering and whimpering behind the sofa, begging for forgiveness. But the giant turd they have left on the sitting room carpet of public life is going to take barrowloads of work to remove. And the dirty hounds have been scoffing vindaloo.
https://twitter.com/DomWalsh13/status/1185620782015229952?s=20
Now time to get all emotional over our National Anthem ( as my late Scots Father in Law said the best in the World ) and support the lads v France
Boris is unreliable, but more like a boisterous teenager than anything malevolent.
The LDs are a one-issue party.
Mrs May was a well-meaning woman hopelessly out of her depth, and a useless hopeless campaigner so the last election campaign may not be repeated. Jeremy is more yesterday's five-day wonder so Labour are probably wise to delay an election until he's replaced.
It’s likely the opposition will start amending this , now although any future government doesn’t have to honour this it’s likely to cause problems with the ERG .
I’m shocked the media have not picked up on Steve Bakers tweet , bizarrely Laura K who retweeted it failed to understand the significance of this part of that .
“Support the legislation to completion in good faith, provided it is not spoiled by opponents of Brexit”.
I would at this point hope for not too many dramas but nothing’s over till it’s over !
Onto the DUP who are now on the war path . No amount of money from the government is going to make a blind bit of difference and their votes are now crucial as regards to any possible amendments.
As long as any amendments are cross party and not just Labour ones the DUP could prove very troublesome over the next few weeks.
They’ve already said they’re going to vote against the second reading of the WAIB .
I'd also question how many people with concerns over Trump and Brexit would name communist China as a model of how best to handle social tensions and protest.
Nothing is inexorable. Organised religion (sadly) is on the wane. People are (as they are right to be) self interested. Being part of British Hong Kong makes sense.
It seems he has the votes next week. But does he? Even though I'm fairly sure he does, past performance suggests he will somehow contrive the opposite.
Counsel for the petitioners (Aiden O'Neill once again) will no doubt want to make representations on that too. Whether the Court ultimately concludes anything needs to be done is a different question. Despite the letter not being signed I think that there has been substantial compliance and it is likely that will be the end of the matter but counsel for the PM may have a difficult morning.
Edit tariffs on produce that comes from the EU now but isn't produced in the UK like winter vegetables aren't high enough for the UK source them from elsewhere. We will still source from the EU for that produce.
AIUI Michael Gove did some good work on this while he was at DEFRA - the key is to support smaller high-quality and organic farms, discourage polluting factory and industrial farming by moving subsidies from production to land management, and most importantly reducing the officious paperwork that causes farmers so many problems. Oh, and work hard on international trade, both with key allies and at the WTO to reduce tariffs.
Now 10 - 12
1. The flexibility to hit a self-imposed deadline.
2. The ability to identify what is most important to his core, ERG, support.
This indicates a willingness to agree to a minimalist Canada-style FTA, accepting in large part whatever draft the EU have sat ready in a drawer.
There will be some concessions that he might fight hard to avoid making. On fisheries, for example. It's possible Scottish fishermen will be the next DUP, though.
Yesterday I watched 3 of his oldest and most supportive colleagues, John McDonnell, Emily Thornberry and Diane Abbot on stage calling for a #peoplesvote.
It seems to me that voting down a deal and then trying to block a general election will go down extremely badly with the public. I'm not even sure Corbyn would want to do it.