So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?
Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?
That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
It is remarkable how, over and over, hardline Leavers seek to bludgeon their own version of Brexit through the House of Commons when a different version would sail through. It’s almost as if they don’t really want to leave the EU at all.
Was that not disproved with the indicative votes?
No. Plenty of the indicative votes would have had huge majorities had the hardliners not been implacably opposed to them.
Such as?
Kenneth Clarke's customs union and Nick Boles's common market 2.0 proposals.
They failed by large margins.
They might have passed if a second referendum had been attached and the Government promoted it but why would they?
As a Remainer even I can’t see the logic of leaving the EU and then having your trade policy dictated by the EU with zip say in anything .
If you’re going to stay in one thing it should be the single market which allows you to set your own trade policy . Sadly the Tories obsession with ending FOM means that’s not possible .
Why would I believe the UK Government would do a better job at a trade policy than the EU?
Its fine as it is.
You know I’m a huge fan of the EU but it’s crazy to have no say in trade policy. At the moment the UK has a veto if it doesn’t like a future trade deal .
The UK can have a very close customs arrangement and still maintain its own trade policy .
So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?
Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?
That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
It is remarkable how, over and over, hardline Leavers seek to bludgeon their own version of Brexit through the House of Commons when a different version would sail through. It’s almost as if they don’t really want to leave the EU at all.
Was that not disproved with the indicative votes?
No. Plenty of the indicative votes would have had huge majorities had the hardliners not been implacably opposed to them.
Such as?
Kenneth Clarke's customs union and Nick Boles's common market 2.0 proposals.
They failed by large margins.
They might have passed if a second referendum had been attached and the Government promoted it but why would they?
As a Remainer even I can’t see the logic of leaving the EU and then having your trade policy dictated by the EU with zip say in anything .
If you’re going to stay in one thing it should be the single market which allows you to set your own trade policy . Sadly the Tories obsession with ending FOM means that’s not possible .
A customs union is worst option and it is better to stay
Then best get ready - some amendments will pass, and if the dup are on side that might be one of them.
As a Remainer even I can’t see the logic of leaving the EU and then having your trade policy dictated by the EU with zip say in anything .
If you’re going to stay in one thing it should be the single market which allows you to set your own trade policy . Sadly the Tories obsession with ending FOM means that’s not possible .
Why would I believe the UK Government would do a better job at a trade policy than the EU?
Its fine as it is.
You know I’m a huge fan of the EU but it’s crazy to have no say in trade policy. At the moment the UK has a veto if it doesn’t like a future trade deal .
The UK can have a very close customs arrangement and still maintain its own trade policy .
Well considering it would be ‘a’ customs union rather than ‘the’ customs union we are unsure of the finer details.
Regardless - what benefits exactly would we get from an independent trade policy? No-one seems to be able to say.
Yes - we were probably leaving the EU before the end of the year at the end of last week and this week we almost certainly wont and may not leave at all.
Well at least Lady Nugee is an honest opponent of democracy, admitting she wants to “bind the hands” of the next parliament.
Not possible. No one can bind another majority government
Great. If that’s true, let’s forget about the 2016 referendum then.
Not sure I understand your comment.
Referenda clearly bind future parliaments.
Not quite - a Government could just ignore a non-binding referendum result but as all parties were elected in 2017 based on their manifesto commitments to the referendum result that isn't possible.
As a Remainer even I can’t see the logic of leaving the EU and then having your trade policy dictated by the EU with zip say in anything .
If you’re going to stay in one thing it should be the single market which allows you to set your own trade policy . Sadly the Tories obsession with ending FOM means that’s not possible .
Why would I believe the UK Government would do a better job at a trade policy than the EU?
Its fine as it is.
You know I’m a huge fan of the EU but it’s crazy to have no say in trade policy. At the moment the UK has a veto if it doesn’t like a future trade deal .
The UK can have a very close customs arrangement and still maintain its own trade policy .
only if we agreed an FTA agreement with the EU - and the ERG don't want any deal with the EU as WTO terms are better in their eyes.
Mind you they don't seem to understand that businesses don't care about tariffs most of the time - paperwork is the killer.
Last time customs union had 12 Labour votes against, implying you’d get a bigger rebellion on a Customs Union amendment than for Letwin. If there’s a smallish block of the ex Tories that will also reject it then the govt might squeak through, even if SNP, Lib Dems and everyone else join it as a wrecking amendment.
14 votes short on Saturday, will be an interesting vote when it happens.
If these MPs are so terrified of the horrors of No Deal bing visited upon the people of the UK, then Vote. For. The. Deal. We. Have.
That doesn't solve the problem.
BoZo has assured the headbangers that even if they vote for this deal, we can still crash out next year.
And if the EU acts as a bunch of complete c***s in the commercial negotations? Any other position than being able to walk away means we have no negotiating position - and must eat whatever shit they put on our plates for ever. Use the Euro? Join the EU army? That's the price, guys. And oh, you can't veto it. Because Scott_P said we had to stop the "headbangers"
The hard decision has to be made once we have negotiated the deal. That was always just reality slapping you upside the head.
We’re negotiating with 27 individual countries effectively once we’ve Brexited. Many of them will have very few trading ties with the UK. But all will know that no deal hurts us a whole lot more, especially now the Irish border issue is resolved.
As a Remainer even I can’t see the logic of leaving the EU and then having your trade policy dictated by the EU with zip say in anything .
If you’re going to stay in one thing it should be the single market which allows you to set your own trade policy . Sadly the Tories obsession with ending FOM means that’s not possible .
A customs union is worst option and it is better to stay
Then best get ready - some amendments will pass, and if the dup are on side that might be one of them.
And the deal falls away
Thats the point. The DUP and all the opposition want that. Comes down to ex cons.
Last time customs union had 12 Labour votes against, implying you’d get a bigger rebellion on a Customs Union amendment than for Letwin. If there’s a smallish block of the ex Tories that will also reject it then the govt might squeak through, even if SNP, Lib Dems and everyone else join it as a wrecking amendment.
14 votes short on Saturday, will be an interesting vote when it happens.
And Letwin and Rudd came fully onside yesterday so 306 - 322 becomes 308 - 320
Well Super-Saturday got massively over-hyped. What does Manic-Monday have in store?
Finding out if Boris did not send a letter properly. Tusk will be very surprised to receive the same letter with a new covering letter saying to ignore the previous letter as it did not really ask for an extension, even though treated it like it did . The EU may well need to delay responding whe they think on that.
As a Remainer even I can’t see the logic of leaving the EU and then having your trade policy dictated by the EU with zip say in anything .
If you’re going to stay in one thing it should be the single market which allows you to set your own trade policy . Sadly the Tories obsession with ending FOM means that’s not possible .
Why would I believe the UK Government would do a better job at a trade policy than the EU?
Its fine as it is.
You know I’m a huge fan of the EU but it’s crazy to have no say in trade policy. At the moment the UK has a veto if it doesn’t like a future trade deal .
The UK can have a very close customs arrangement and still maintain its own trade policy .
only if we agreed an FTA agreement with the EU - and the ERG don't want any deal with the EU as WTO terms are better in their eyes.
Mind you they don't seem to understand that businesses don't care about tariffs most of the time - paperwork is the killer.
I think it would be humiliating as a country to have trade deals enforced on you with no say , the EU could agree to anything and the UK would just have to suck it up .
In the EU you have input and a veto. Labour picked the CU as a means to avoid backing anything , and also because it doesn’t entail FOM .
Aside from whether you are pro Brexit or not, a real problem the uk faces is the sheer number of mp's who will definitely lose their seats/jobs/profile in an election and will do everything to stop one, whilst hiding behind a clock of Brexit debate. Will Anna Soubry ever been on tv again lecturing us about how stupid voters didn't understand what they voted for once she's an ex mp? Yes, a big silver lining of an election.
As a Remainer even I can’t see the logic of leaving the EU and then having your trade policy dictated by the EU with zip say in anything .
If you’re going to stay in one thing it should be the single market which allows you to set your own trade policy . Sadly the Tories obsession with ending FOM means that’s not possible .
A customs union is worst option and it is better to stay
Then best get ready - some amendments will pass, and if the dup are on side that might be one of them.
And the deal falls away
Thats the point. The DUP and all the opposition want that. Comes down to ex cons.
And at the GE the conservatives will be united and will put forward leaving with their deal with brexit happening within days of the GE
That is a powerful message and so is the Lib Dems revoke
Clear messaging from both is going to be deadly for labour and for that reason I can see a good number of labour mps wanting the deal
Well at least Lady Nugee is an honest opponent of democracy, admitting she wants to “bind the hands” of the next parliament.
Not possible. No one can bind another majority government
Great. If that’s true, let’s forget about the 2016 referendum then.
Not sure I understand your comment.
Referenda clearly bind future parliaments.
No, but A50 was triggered and until they decide to revoke that the actions of the last parliament have effect.
Politically the whole past three years is the argument that the referendum takes precedent over parliament. De facto referenda bind future parliaments.
I see the Scottish fishermen are being well looked after, not even out yet and they are being sold down the river, poetic justice.
Morning, Malc. I see there has been discussion of the Scottish fishing industry moving en masse to NI, both for registration and for landing its catches. Of course that assumes Mr Johnson's deal takes place. Of course the farmers can't move their fields ...
Well Super-Saturday got massively over-hyped. What does Manic-Monday have in store?
Finding out if Boris did not send a letter properly. Tusk will be very surprised to receive the same letter with a new covering letter saying to ignore the previous letter as it did not really ask for an extension, even though treated it like it did . The EU may well need to delay responding whe they think on that.
What’s the diplomatic equivalent of Recall Message in MS Outlook?
As a Remainer even I can’t see the logic of leaving the EU and then having your trade policy dictated by the EU with zip say in anything .
If you’re going to stay in one thing it should be the single market which allows you to set your own trade policy . Sadly the Tories obsession with ending FOM means that’s not possible .
A customs union is worst option and it is better to stay
Then best get ready - some amendments will pass, and if the dup are on side that might be one of them.
And the deal falls away
Thats the point. The DUP and all the opposition want that. Comes down to ex cons.
And at the GE the conservatives will be united and will put forward leaving with their deal with brexit happening within days of the GE
That is a powerful message and so is the Lib Dems revoke
Clear messaging from both is going to be deadly for labour and for that reason I can see a good number of labour mps wanting the deal
Better defeat tomorrow than today. First step is stop Boris's momentum and wreck his plans, then they can worry if they can keep doing so .
Well at least Lady Nugee is an honest opponent of democracy, admitting she wants to “bind the hands” of the next parliament.
Not possible. No one can bind another majority government
Great. If that’s true, let’s forget about the 2016 referendum then.
Not sure I understand your comment.
Referenda clearly bind future parliaments.
No, but A50 was triggered and until they decide to revoke that the actions of the last parliament have effect.
Politically the whole past three years is the argument that the referendum takes precedent over parliament. De facto referenda bind future parliaments.
Except that argument has not been win yet as within days or weeks we may be on the path to them putting a new referendum or most parties campaigning in a GE saying the other ref can go hang.
Well Super-Saturday got massively over-hyped. What does Manic-Monday have in store?
Finding out if Boris did not send a letter properly. Tusk will be very surprised to receive the same letter with a new covering letter saying to ignore the previous letter as it did not really ask for an extension, even though treated it like it did . The EU may well need to delay responding whe they think on that.
Now you are a sensible poster but your last sentence is unusually silly
I see the Scottish fishermen are being well looked after, not even out yet and they are being sold down the river, poetic justice.
Morning, Malc. I see there has been discussion of the Scottish fishing industry moving en masse to NI, both for registration and for landing its catches. Of course that assumes Mr Johnson's deal takes place. Of course the farmers can't move their fields ...
Morning Carnyx, that will be a great deal for Scotland indeed. Given the way they treat our MP's you can be sure they will shaft Scotland at every opportunity given they know they can get away with it.
As a businessman let me explain the issue with CU. Most tariffs are small and irrelevant. However the need to complete paperwork and pay them is slow and expensive. Ideally we would move to a single cu for the world. In the meantime the EU CU is a good compromise. There is no better deal available than the exiting one.
I see the Scottish fishermen are being well looked after, not even out yet and they are being sold down the river, poetic justice.
Morning, Malc. I see there has been discussion of the Scottish fishing industry moving en masse to NI, both for registration and for landing its catches. Of course that assumes Mr Johnson's deal takes place. Of course the farmers can't move their fields ...
Morning Carnyx, that will be a great deal for Scotland indeed. Given the way they treat our MP's you can be sure they will shaft Scotland at every opportunity given they know they can get away with it.
Indeed. I'd be very worried if I were a processor.exporter/transport firm onshore in Scotland.
In terms of the court case today re lettergate apparently the petitioners couldn’t avoid it.
They had already agreed to update the court today at noon . It’s unlikely much will happen . Bozo sent the letter , the judges might just issue a slap on the wrist to him to remind him of Padfield and that will be that .
Well Super-Saturday got massively over-hyped. What does Manic-Monday have in store?
Finding out if Boris did not send a letter properly. Tusk will be very surprised to receive the same letter with a new covering letter saying to ignore the previous letter as it did not really ask for an extension, even though treated it like it did . The EU may well need to delay responding whe they think on that.
Now you are a sensible poster but your last sentence is unusually silly
Thats because it was a joke. Lighten up with the sermonising, thanks.
As a Remainer even I can’t see the logic of leaving the EU and then having your trade policy dictated by the EU with zip say in anything .
If you’re going to stay in one thing it should be the single market which allows you to set your own trade policy . Sadly the Tories obsession with ending FOM means that’s not possible .
A customs union is worst option and it is better to stay
Then best get ready - some amendments will pass, and if the dup are on side that might be one of them.
And the deal falls away
Thats the point. The DUP and all the opposition want that. Comes down to ex cons.
And at the GE the conservatives will be united and will put forward leaving with their deal with brexit happening within days of the GE
That is a powerful message and so is the Lib Dems revoke
Clear messaging from both is going to be deadly for labour and for that reason I can see a good number of labour mps wanting the deal
Better defeat tomorrow than today. First step is stop Boris's momentum and wreck his plans, then they can worry if they can keep doing so .
Well at least Lady Nugee is an honest opponent of democracy, admitting she wants to “bind the hands” of the next parliament.
Not possible. No one can bind another majority government
Great. If that’s true, let’s forget about the 2016 referendum then.
Not sure I understand your comment.
Referenda clearly bind future parliaments.
No, but A50 was triggered and until they decide to revoke that the actions of the last parliament have effect.
Politically the whole past three years is the argument that the referendum takes precedent over parliament. De facto referenda bind future parliaments.
Except that argument has not been win yet as within days or weeks we may be on the path to them putting a new referendum or most parties campaigning in a GE saying the other ref can go hang.
Well Super-Saturday got massively over-hyped. What does Manic-Monday have in store?
Finding out if Boris did not send a letter properly. Tusk will be very surprised to receive the same letter with a new covering letter saying to ignore the previous letter as it did not really ask for an extension, even though treated it like it did . The EU may well need to delay responding whe they think on that.
Now you are a sensible poster but your last sentence is unusually silly
Thats because it was a joke. Lighten up with the sermonising, thanks.
The most likely outcome in the impeachment trial is that McConnell will allow vulnerable senators such as Collins to vote to convict, plus never-Trumps like Romney. The end result will probably be something like 55-45, well short of a conviction.
Trump won't stand down, most Republican voters are still behind him so he will still be GOP nominee in 2020 and whatever Republican Senators concerns about his Syria policy they are not going to vote to impeach him and get primaried
As a Remainer even I can’t see the logic of leaving the EU and then having your trade policy dictated by the EU with zip say in anything .
If you’re going to stay in one thing it should be the single market which allows you to set your own trade policy . Sadly the Tories obsession with ending FOM means that’s not possible .
A customs union is worst option and it is better to stay
Then best get ready - some amendments will pass, and if the dup are on side that might be one of them.
And the deal falls away
Thats the point. The DUP and all the opposition want that. Comes down to ex cons.
And at the GE the conservatives will be united and will put forward leaving with their deal with brexit happening within days of the GE
That is a powerful message and so is the Lib Dems revoke
Clear messaging from both is going to be deadly for labour and for that reason I can see a good number of labour mps wanting the deal
Better defeat tomorrow than today. First step is stop Boris's momentum and wreck his plans, then they can worry if they can keep doing so .
Well at least Lady Nugee is an honest opponent of democracy, admitting she wants to “bind the hands” of the next parliament.
Not possible. No one can bind another majority government
Great. If that’s true, let’s forget about the 2016 referendum then.
Not sure I understand your comment.
Referenda clearly bind future parliaments.
No, but A50 was triggered and until they decide to revoke that the actions of the last parliament have effect.
Politically the whole past three years ture parliaments.
Except that argument has not been win yet as within days or weeks we may be on the path to them putting a new referendum or most parties campaigning in a GE saying the other ref can go hang.
So only a referenda can trump a referenda.
Some are saying that. Of course others seek revoke and in theory could win. Plus that would still mean referenda arent binding as thered be a way around them.
Aside from whether you are pro Brexit or not, a real problem the uk faces is the sheer number of mp's who will definitely lose their seats/jobs/profile in an election and will do everything to stop one, whilst hiding behind a clock of Brexit debate. Will Anna Soubry ever been on tv again lecturing us about how stupid voters didn't understand what they voted for once she's an ex mp? Yes, a big silver lining of an election.
I hate to spoil your glee, but after the next election at least 70% of the MPs will be the same as in the current parliament. You will be happy to see some go but you will be sorry to see some others go.
Last time customs union had 12 Labour votes against, implying you’d get a bigger rebellion on a Customs Union amendment than for Letwin. If there’s a smallish block of the ex Tories that will also reject it then the govt might squeak through, even if SNP, Lib Dems and everyone else join it as a wrecking amendment.
14 votes short on Saturday, will be an interesting vote when it happens.
Plus LDs likely will not vote for a Customs Union as they did not in the indicative votes without a referendum attached, even if the DUP now will
As a Remainer even I can’t see the logic of leaving the EU and then having your trade policy dictated by the EU with zip say in anything .
If you’re going to stay in one thing it should be the single market which allows you to set your own trade policy . Sadly the Tories obsession with ending FOM means that’s not possible .
Why would I believe the UK Government would do a better job at a trade policy than the EU?
Its fine as it is.
You know I’m a huge fan of the EU but it’s crazy to have no say in trade policy. At the moment the UK has a veto if it doesn’t like a future trade deal .
The UK can have a very close customs arrangement and still maintain its own trade policy .
only if we agreed an FTA agreement with the EU - and the ERG don't want any deal with the EU as WTO terms are better in their eyes.
Mind you they don't seem to understand that businesses don't care about tariffs most of the time - paperwork is the killer.
I think it would be humiliating as a country to have trade deals enforced on you with no say , the EU could agree to anything and the UK would just have to suck it up .
In the EU you have input and a veto. Labour picked the CU as a means to avoid backing anything , and also because it doesn’t entail FOM .
Not enough is made of the advantage once we leave the customs union to the UK consumer, from being able to set the tariff schedule to zero for goods currently under the EU’s warm protectionist blanket that we have little interest in protecting. This goes for everything from food to electric cars.
Why should UK consumers have to pay a £4k import tax to the EU’s central coffers if they want to buy a Tesla rather than a diesel cheatmobile from Germany?
Well Super-Saturday got massively over-hyped. What does Manic-Monday have in store?
Finding out if Boris did not send a letter properly. Tusk will be very surprised to receive the same letter with a new covering letter saying to ignore the previous letter as it did not really ask for an extension, even though treated it like it did . The EU may well need to delay responding whe they think on that.
Now you are a sensible poster but your last sentence is unusually silly
Thats because it was a joke. Lighten up with the sermonising, thanks.
OK - bit slow this morning - sorry
Well there wasnt a smiley emoji, happens to all of us.
That he reversed his decision is remarkable. Despite his protestations it means even he realised hed crossed a particular line, even if he is blind elsewhere.
This is an odd saga. Because when you get away from it all, most US public opinion probably falls into two overlapping camps:
We should stand by the Kurds. We should carpet bomb ISIS.
I can't imagine there are many votes out there for Trump from principled non-interventionists who are accepting of seeing the Kurds slaughtered, while letting captured ISIS fighters run amok. Apart from our friend Mr HYFUD perhaps but I get the impression he's not registered to vote in the US.
The Kurds are not getting slaughtered as Assad has now sent Syrian forces to join them against Turkey, both the Kurds and Assad have already beaten ISIS
Well Super-Saturday got massively over-hyped. What does Manic-Monday have in store?
Finding out if Boris did not send a letter properly. Tusk will be very surprised to receive the same letter with a new covering letter saying to ignore the previous letter as it did not really ask for an extension, even though treated it like it did . The EU may well need to delay responding whe they think on that.
Now you are a sensible poster but your last sentence is unusually silly
Thats because it was a joke. Lighten up with the sermonising, thanks.
OK - bit slow this morning - sorry
Well there wasnt a smiley emoji, happens to all of us.
The most likely outcome in the impeachment trial is that McConnell will allow vulnerable senators such as Collins to vote to convict, plus never-Trumps like Romney. The end result will probably be something like 55-45, well short of a conviction.
There's a lot of.vulnerable Senators. This is the class. Of 2014, a very good year for the Republicans.
Last time customs union had 12 Labour votes against, implying you’d get a bigger rebellion on a Customs Union amendment than for Letwin. If there’s a smallish block of the ex Tories that will also reject it then the govt might squeak through, even if SNP, Lib Dems and everyone else join it as a wrecking amendment.
14 votes short on Saturday, will be an interesting vote when it happens.
Plus LDs likely will not vote for a Customs Union as they did not in the indicative votes without a referendum attached, even if the DUP now will
The Tiggers also voted against last time. But it’s at the point where they’ll all vote for any old horsesh** so long as it acts as a wrecking amendment. When it comes to it the Lib Dems will vote for it I reckon.
So the Labour plan is to try and get a vote on a customs union amendment (even though very few of them even understand what a CU is and how it works, they’re just doing it to piss off Tories), then vote down the amended Bill anyway?
Oh, and they want to vote down the programme motion, not because they disagree with it, but because they don’t want the government to have the ‘win’ of leaving the EU on 31st October?
Er, what? Customs Union has been fixed Labour policy ever since the referendum. Everyone broadly understands it - upside is easier trade with the EU, downside is to make separate trade deals harder. What makes you think this is mysterious to MPs?
And yes, Labour wants to prevent the current deal being rushed through, or indeed passed at all. We don't agree with it. There is no moral or political reason why the Opposition should automatically agree with whatever the PM comes up with.
Are you sure?
My understanding was they wanted the *benefits* of SM/CU without actually being members
The only problem with that is that the president has to be born in the United States. I
Ivanka’s his daughter. She was born in New York I think?
Born 30 October 1981 in Manhattan, New York.
Married to Jared Kushnar.
"As a result of his father's conviction for fraud and incarceration, [Jared] took over management of his father's real estate company Kushner Companies, which launched his business career."
What could possibly go wrong?
There is a nice assonance to it though. From a wanker to Ivanka.
What’s the age qualification for president?
I’m sure it’s 35 for Congress but is it 40/45 for President? I think Ivanka is about 42/43
As we get closer to an agreement and an election how many MPs will get cold feet. E.g. Tory MPs in London and Scotland will be facing the dole with few routes back. There could be a massive realignment of politics about to happen. It all feels like the post referendum election in Scotland where the losers ended up winning.
That he reversed his decision is remarkable. Despite his protestations it means even he realised hed crossed a particular line, even if he is blind elsewhere.
This is an odd saga. Because when you get away from it all, most US public opinion probably falls into two overlapping camps:
We should stand by the Kurds. We should carpet bomb ISIS.
I can't imagine there are many votes out there for Trump from principled non-interventionists who are accepting of seeing the Kurds slaughtered, while letting captured ISIS fighters run amok. Apart from our friend Mr HYFUD perhaps but I get the impression he's not registered to vote in the US.
The Kurds are not getting slaughtered as Assad has now sent Syrian forces to join them against Turkey, both the Kurds and Assad have already beaten ISIS
Oh good that’s a relief. Assad of Axis of Evil fame is now fighting against a NATO ally. That’s a good result.
The only problem with that is that the president has to be born in the United States. I
Ivanka’s his daughter. She was born in New York I think?
Born 30 October 1981 in Manhattan, New York.
Married to Jared Kushnar.
"As a result of his father's conviction for fraud and incarceration, [Jared] took over management of his father's real estate company Kushner Companies, which launched his business career."
What could possibly go wrong?
There is a nice assonance to it though. From a wanker to Ivanka.
What’s the age qualification for president?
I’m sure it’s 35 for Congress but is it 40/45 for President? I think Ivanka is about 42/43
Some are saying that. Of course others seek revoke and in theory could win. Plus that would still mean referenda arent binding as thered be a way around them.
I'm pretty sure that nowhere in the UK's disparate constitution does it say that a referrendum is legally binding, that a referendum binds this and/or future governments, or that a referendum can only be reversed by another referendum.
So what was the referendum? It was an official poll of the whole UK electorate on a specific question.
As a portent for today's vote, can anyone remember if at the Battle of Trafalgar (New Labour edition) did the red team beat the blue team or the other way round?
Aren't the supposed wrecking amendments something of a red herring?
If the government, as they claim, have the votes to pass their WAIB, then they have the votes to defeat a people's vote and CU, surely.
Are any MPs currently on track to vote for the WAIB indicating that they will seek addition of either of these elements? (Note: this is a different question to any MPs indicating they'd like to add these elements and only then, just possibly, support the WAIB).
I see the Scottish fishermen are being well looked after, not even out yet and they are being sold down the river, poetic justice.
It's great to see that there are still some eternal verities, e.g. it's always, ALWAYS the Tory party that sells out the fishermen (and they always fall for it).
Aren't the supposed wrecking amendments something of a red herring?
If the government, as they claim, have the votes to pass their WAIB, then they have the votes to defeat a people's vote and CU, surely.
Are any MPs currently on track to vote for the WAIB indicating that they will seek addition of either of these elements? (Note: this is a different question to any MPs indicating they'd like to add these elements and only then, just possibly, support the WAIB).
Maybe Rudd, Gauke, Sandbach and Hammond for the CU?
Aren't the supposed wrecking amendments something of a red herring?
If the government, as they claim, have the votes to pass their WAIB, then they have the votes to defeat a people's vote and CU, surely.
Are any MPs currently on track to vote for the WAIB indicating that they will seek addition of either of these elements? (Note: this is a different question to any MPs indicating they'd like to add these elements and only then, just possibly, support the WAIB).
Maybe Rudd, Gauke, Sandbach and Hammond for the CU?
And Clarke. And Stewart. And who knows how many Labour.
Aren't the supposed wrecking amendments something of a red herring?
If the government, as they claim, have the votes to pass their WAIB, then they have the votes to defeat a people's vote and CU, surely.
Are any MPs currently on track to vote for the WAIB indicating that they will seek addition of either of these elements? (Note: this is a different question to any MPs indicating they'd like to add these elements and only then, just possibly, support the WAIB).
Maybe Rudd, Gauke, Sandbach and Hammond for the CU?
You get a lot of flak on here, often deserved, but thanks - that was exactly the kind of response I had in mind.
As a Remainer even I can’t see the logic of leaving the EU and then having your trade policy dictated by the EU with zip say in anything .
If you’re going to stay in one thing it should be the single market which allows you to set your own trade policy . Sadly the Tories obsession with ending FOM means that’s not possible .
Why would I believe the UK Government would do a better job at a trade policy than the EU?
Its fine as it is.
You know I’m a huge fan of the EU but it’s crazy to have no say in trade policy. At the moment the UK has a veto if it doesn’t like a future trade deal .
The UK can have a very close customs arrangement and still maintain its own trade policy .
only if we agreed an FTA agreement with the EU - and the ERG don't want any deal with the EU as WTO terms are better in their eyes.
Mind you they don't seem to understand that businesses don't care about tariffs most of the time - paperwork is the killer.
That’s a misrepresentation of their position
WTO was better than May’s deal. Boris’s deal is better than WTO
I’m fairly sure a reasonable FTA will be better than WTO
As we get closer to an agreement and an election how many MPs will get cold feet. E.g. Tory MPs in London and Scotland will be facing the dole with few routes back. There could be a massive realignment of politics about to happen. It all feels like the post referendum election in Scotland where the losers ended up winning.
The losers - or the frustrated? Those who have tried to block Brexit have frustrated 17.4m voters.....
Aren't the supposed wrecking amendments something of a red herring?
If the government, as they claim, have the votes to pass their WAIB, then they have the votes to defeat a people's vote and CU, surely.
Are any MPs currently on track to vote for the WAIB indicating that they will seek addition of either of these elements? (Note: this is a different question to any MPs indicating they'd like to add these elements and only then, just possibly, support the WAIB).
Maybe Rudd, Gauke, Sandbach and Hammond for the CU?
And Clarke. And Stewart. And who knows how many Labour.
Del Piero would vote for the Deal but also a CU, probably Flint too
Aren't the supposed wrecking amendments something of a red herring?
If the government, as they claim, have the votes to pass their WAIB, then they have the votes to defeat a people's vote and CU, surely.
Are any MPs currently on track to vote for the WAIB indicating that they will seek addition of either of these elements? (Note: this is a different question to any MPs indicating they'd like to add these elements and only then, just possibly, support the WAIB).
Maybe Rudd, Gauke, Sandbach and Hammond for the CU?
And Clarke. And Stewart. And who knows how many Labour.
I think the likes of Flint, who are indicating as for the deal, were not looking kindly on what they saw as shenanigans.
As we get closer to an agreement and an election how many MPs will get cold feet. E.g. Tory MPs in London and Scotland will be facing the dole with few routes back. There could be a massive realignment of politics about to happen. It all feels like the post referendum election in Scotland where the losers ended up winning.
It has always seemed to me that this idea of being "on the dole" if you lose your seat, and the fear of this motivates the voting of MPs is very overstated.
On one level you can say that an MP who votes based on keeping their job rather on the politics should not be an MP. On a more practical level, most Ex-MPs are either over 65 and could easily retire or will have little problem finding another job, probably with less nights away from home, better hours and less hassle from the public and journalists.
It would be nice to get Nick Palmer's take on this.
Aren't the supposed wrecking amendments something of a red herring?
If the government, as they claim, have the votes to pass their WAIB, then they have the votes to defeat a people's vote and CU, surely.
Are any MPs currently on track to vote for the WAIB indicating that they will seek addition of either of these elements? (Note: this is a different question to any MPs indicating they'd like to add these elements and only then, just possibly, support the WAIB).
Maybe Rudd, Gauke, Sandbach and Hammond for the CU?
You get a lot of flak on here, often deserved, but thanks - that was exactly the kind of response I had in mind.
Thankyou, I think they would only vote for a CU though not EUref2. The DUP would also prefer a CU only.
The only independent Tories who would vote for EUref2 are Grieve, Bebb and Greening
As a businessman let me explain the issue with CU. Most tariffs are small and irrelevant. However the need to complete paperwork and pay them is slow and expensive. Ideally we would move to a single cu for the world. In the meantime the EU CU is a good compromise. There is no better deal available than the exiting one.
You are only looking at the economic perspective. Others weighted philosophical questions more heavily
I see the Scottish fishermen are being well looked after, not even out yet and they are being sold down the river, poetic justice.
It's great to see that there are still some eternal verities, e.g. it's always, ALWAYS the Tory party that sells out the fishermen (and they always fall for it).
Well the SNP are part of the opposition alliance that blocked No Deal so blame them.
The only problem with that is that the president has to be born in the United States. I
Ivanka’s his daughter. She was born in New York I think?
Born 30 October 1981 in Manhattan, New York.
Married to Jared Kushnar.
"As a result of his father's conviction for fraud and incarceration, [Jared] took over management of his father's real estate company Kushner Companies, which launched his business career."
What could possibly go wrong?
There is a nice assonance to it though. From a wanker to Ivanka.
What’s the age qualification for president?
I’m sure it’s 35 for Congress but is it 40/45 for President? I think Ivanka is about 42/43
Ivanka won't thank you for adding five years to her age. She will be 38 next week according to her birth date upthread of 30 October 1981. Ivanka would also be the USA's first Jewish president.
As we get closer to an agreement and an election how many MPs will get cold feet. E.g. Tory MPs in London and Scotland will be facing the dole with few routes back. There could be a massive realignment of politics about to happen. It all feels like the post referendum election in Scotland where the losers ended up winning.
It has always seemed to me that this idea of being "on the dole" if you lose your seat, and the fear of this motivates the voting of MPs is very overstated.
On one level you can say that an MP who votes based on keeping their job rather on the politics should not be an MP. On a more practical level, most Ex-MPs are either over 65 and could easily retire or will have little problem finding another job, probably with less nights away from home, better hours and less hassle from the public and journalists.
It would be nice to get Nick Palmer's take on this.
Quite a lot of MP's who lose their seats deserve it. Its the bedbocker MP's who've been there a looooong time that need weeding out IMHO.
The only problem with that is that the president has to be born in the United States. I
Ivanka’s his daughter. She was born in New York I think?
Born 30 October 1981 in Manhattan, New York.
Married to Jared Kushnar.
"As a result of his father's conviction for fraud and incarceration, [Jared] took over management of his father's real estate company Kushner Companies, which launched his business career."
What could possibly go wrong?
There is a nice assonance to it though. From a wanker to Ivanka.
What’s the age qualification for president?
I’m sure it’s 35 for Congress but is it 40/45 for President? I think Ivanka is about 42/43
It’s 35. (Mayor Pete is 37.)
Yes. Article 2, Clause 5 of the Consitiution:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The only problem with that is that the president has to be born in the United States. I
Ivanka’s his daughter. She was born in New York I think?
Born 30 October 1981 in Manhattan, New York.
Married to Jared Kushnar.
"As a result of his father's conviction for fraud and incarceration, [Jared] took over management of his father's real estate company Kushner Companies, which launched his business career."
What could possibly go wrong?
There is a nice assonance to it though. From a wanker to Ivanka.
What’s the age qualification for president?
I’m sure it’s 35 for Congress but is it 40/45 for President? I think Ivanka is about 42/43
As a businessman let me explain the issue with CU. Most tariffs are small and irrelevant. However the need to complete paperwork and pay them is slow and expensive. Ideally we would move to a single cu for the world. In the meantime the EU CU is a good compromise. There is no better deal available than the exiting one.
You are only looking at the economic perspective. Others weighted philosophical questions more heavily
As we get closer to an agreement and an election how many MPs will get cold feet. E.g. Tory MPs in London and Scotland will be facing the dole with few routes back. There could be a massive realignment of politics about to happen. It all feels like the post referendum election in Scotland where the losers ended up winning.
It has always seemed to me that this idea of being "on the dole" if you lose your seat, and the fear of this motivates the voting of MPs is very overstated.
On one level you can say that an MP who votes based on keeping their job rather on the politics should not be an MP. On a more practical level, most Ex-MPs are either over 65 and could easily retire or will have little problem finding another job, probably with less nights away from home, better hours and less hassle from the public and journalists.
It would be nice to get Nick Palmer's take on this.
Quite a lot of MP's who lose their seats deserve it. Its the bedbocker MP's who've been there a looooong time that need weeding out IMHO.
More people like Jared O maras, fewer Ken Clarkes?
Canada votes today and the final polls confirm it's a dead heat between the Liberals and Conservatives but with both falling back and the NDP advancing.
The final EKOS poll puts the Liberals four points ahead (34-30) with the NDP on 18%. That's quite a change from the poll on the 17th which had the Conservatives ahead by one and a half points.
Research Company have a final poll showing the Liberals one point ahead (32-31) with the NDP on 19%. That's their first poll since September 26th and the changes are Liberals down four, Conservatives down two and the NDP up four and that seems the story of the campaign with both the main parties struggling and Singh's NDP exploiting that.
The question for me now is whether the Liberals and NDP between them will have enough ridings to form a majority. I'd also be looking for a strong BQ performance but the Greens may not do as well as they had hoped.
As a businessman let me explain the issue with CU. Most tariffs are small and irrelevant. However the need to complete paperwork and pay them is slow and expensive. Ideally we would move to a single cu for the world. In the meantime the EU CU is a good compromise. There is no better deal available than the exiting one.
You are only looking at the economic perspective. Others weighted philosophical questions more heavily
Which MBA courses have a philosophy module?
Harvard, Wharton, Haas and INSEAD do. Don’t know about any others
As we get closer to an agreement and an election how many MPs will get cold feet. E.g. Tory MPs in London and Scotland will be facing the dole with few routes back. There could be a massive realignment of politics about to happen. It all feels like the post referendum election in Scotland where the losers ended up winning.
It has always seemed to me that this idea of being "on the dole" if you lose your seat, and the fear of this motivates the voting of MPs is very overstated.
On one level you can say that an MP who votes based on keeping their job rather on the politics should not be an MP. On a more practical level, most Ex-MPs are either over 65 and could easily retire or will have little problem finding another job, probably with less nights away from home, better hours and less hassle from the public and journalists.
It would be nice to get Nick Palmer's take on this.
Quite a lot of MP's who lose their seats deserve it. Its the bedbocker MP's who've been there a looooong time that need weeding out IMHO.
More people like Jared O maras, fewer Ken Clarkes?
no JM is one who does deserve to be booted out. There are always exceptions like KC, to the rule, but there are those with huge majorities ……..
As we get closer to an agreement and an election how many MPs will get cold feet. E.g. Tory MPs in London and Scotland will be facing the dole with few routes back. There could be a massive realignment of politics about to happen. It all feels like the post referendum election in Scotland where the losers ended up winning.
It has always seemed to me that this idea of being "on the dole" if you lose your seat, and the fear of this motivates the voting of MPs is very overstated.
On one level you can say that an MP who votes based on keeping their job rather on the politics should not be an MP. On a more practical level, most Ex-MPs are either over 65 and could easily retire or will have little problem finding another job, probably with less nights away from home, better hours and less hassle from the public and journalists.
It would be nice to get Nick Palmer's take on this.
Quite a lot of MP's who lose their seats deserve it. Its the bedbocker MP's who've been there a looooong time that need weeding out IMHO.
More people like Jared O maras, fewer Ken Clarkes?
no JM is one who does deserve to be booted out. There are always exceptions like KC, to the rule, but there are those with huge majorities ……..
Sorry, couldn’t resist. There are useless MPs across the generations.
Quite a lot of MP's who lose their seats deserve it. Its the bedbocker MP's who've been there a looooong time that need weeding out IMHO.
Would you back a term limit for MPs - say 20 years? The reasons the "bed blocker" MPs as you call them stay are simple - their local parties keep selecting them and the voters keep voting for them.
So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?
Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?
That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
It is remarkable how, over and over, hardline Leavers seek to bludgeon their own version of Brexit through the House of Commons when a different version would sail through. It’s almost as if they don’t really want to leave the EU at all.
Was that not disproved with the indicative votes?
No. Plenty of the indicative votes would have had huge majorities had the hardliners not been implacably opposed to them.
Such as?
Kenneth Clarke's customs union and Nick Boles's common market 2.0 proposals.
They failed by large margins.
They might have passed if a second referendum had been attached and the Government promoted it but why would they?
Comments
They might have passed if a second referendum had been attached and the Government promoted it but why would they?
The UK can have a very close customs arrangement and still maintain its own trade policy .
Regardless - what benefits exactly would we get from an independent trade policy? No-one seems to be able to say.
Mind you they don't seem to understand that businesses don't care about tariffs most of the time - paperwork is the killer.
Last time customs union had 12 Labour votes against, implying you’d get a bigger rebellion on a Customs Union amendment than for Letwin. If there’s a smallish block of the ex Tories that will also reject it then the govt might squeak through, even if SNP, Lib Dems and everyone else join it as a wrecking amendment.
14 votes short on Saturday, will be an interesting vote when it happens.
In the EU you have input and a veto. Labour picked the CU as a means to avoid backing anything , and also because it doesn’t entail FOM .
Will Anna Soubry ever been on tv again lecturing us about how stupid voters didn't understand what they voted for once she's an ex mp? Yes, a big silver lining of an election.
That is a powerful message and so is the Lib Dems revoke
Clear messaging from both is going to be deadly for labour and for that reason I can see a good number of labour mps wanting the deal
“Quick, recall! Perhaps no one’s opened it yet!”
They had already agreed to update the court today at noon . It’s unlikely much will happen . Bozo sent the letter , the judges might just issue a slap on the wrist to him to remind him of Padfield and that will be that .
Why should UK consumers have to pay a £4k import tax to the EU’s central coffers if they want to buy a Tesla rather than a diesel cheatmobile from Germany?
https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/1186063209381486593?s=20
https://twitter.com/AndrewScheer/status/1186121616956297217?s=20
My understanding was they wanted the *benefits* of SM/CU without actually being members
(How that works in practice, I know not)
I’m sure it’s 35 for Congress but is it 40/45 for President? I think Ivanka is about 42/43
So what was the referendum? It was an official poll of the whole UK electorate on a specific question.
If the government, as they claim, have the votes to pass their WAIB, then they have the votes to defeat a people's vote and CU, surely.
Are any MPs currently on track to vote for the WAIB indicating that they will seek addition of either of these elements? (Note: this is a different question to any MPs indicating they'd like to add these elements and only then, just possibly, support the WAIB).
WTO was better than May’s deal. Boris’s deal is better than WTO
I’m fairly sure a reasonable FTA will be better than WTO
On one level you can say that an MP who votes based on keeping their job rather on the politics should not be an MP. On a more practical level, most Ex-MPs are either over 65 and could easily retire or will have little problem finding another job, probably with less nights away from home, better hours and less hassle from the public and journalists.
It would be nice to get Nick Palmer's take on this.
The only independent Tories who would vote for EUref2 are Grieve, Bebb and Greening
The minimum age is 35.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_eligibility_legislation
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Qualifications_for_office
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Blount
Canada votes today and the final polls confirm it's a dead heat between the Liberals and Conservatives but with both falling back and the NDP advancing.
The final EKOS poll puts the Liberals four points ahead (34-30) with the NDP on 18%. That's quite a change from the poll on the 17th which had the Conservatives ahead by one and a half points.
Research Company have a final poll showing the Liberals one point ahead (32-31) with the NDP on 19%. That's their first poll since September 26th and the changes are Liberals down four, Conservatives down two and the NDP up four and that seems the story of the campaign with both the main parties struggling and Singh's NDP exploiting that.
The question for me now is whether the Liberals and NDP between them will have enough ridings to form a majority. I'd also be looking for a strong BQ performance but the Greens may not do as well as they had hoped.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1186189394501349376
Is there anything they say Yes to?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/20/peoples-vote-split-by-power-struggle-at-crucial-time-for-alliance
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47779783
One lost by three votes and one lost by 21 votes.
Those were the days.....