That's a good article. I'm not sure there is time for an informed debate, or popular interest in one. People mostly feel the subject is intrinsically boring and they're either for or against, do not bother us with details. A friend campaigning in a Remain area tells me that interest in a second referendum has largely died away.
Nonetheless, I think that inteliigent tactical voting to prevent an overall Conservative majority is the only way to avoid the decision being taken purely on Boris's whim and the ERG's will.
I say Tactically Vote Conservative for a One Nation Britain and to stop the Corbynistas!
There are no one nation tories left, those that there are reflect the membership which is bluekip at best
You know nothing about the Conservtive Party.
Enough to know i wouldn’t knowingly have anything to do with any of them
As I say, you know nothing.
I know a lot about the Conservative party and it’s members, enough to know I would not mix with them socially. They think they have a natural right to run local government in vast swathes of the U.K. and hate anybody that gets in their way.
Whereas you clearly just hate Tories fullstop
Yes nothing wrong with that I also hate extreme labour politicians. But all extremes are wrong and both parties, lab and con, have driven us to the extremes and you have to live with it.
Hate. The life-force of the Left.
Jews. Tories. Anybody else we're missing?
The tories hate anybody that gets in their way of controlling local government in their area. They think it is their god given right to choose the councilors and the mayor.
What does that even mean?
Exactly what it says, tories hate anybody that restricts their local government franchise. They believe the only true route to be a a councillor is as a conservative one. It’s not difficult to understand
Do you have anything to say to the "other nation" - the 48%?
I was one so can hardly speak to myself other thsn to say respect the result, you lost
OGH Kenobi: "A young Remainer by the name of HYUFD, who was a pupil of mine until he turned to evil, helped the Tories hunt down and destroy the Europhiles. Now the Remain Tories are all but extinct. HYUFD was seduced by the Daft Side of the Force."
You were a Leaver seduced to the dark side by diehard Remainers
I am a Leaver because I voted Leave in the referendum. You did NOT!
Summary: Biden is still the one to beat, Warren and Sanders the only serious rivals. Buttigieg? 1,3,5,5,5,4%, 6-9% nationally. He';s in good shape to be everyone favourite VP contender - unthreatening, intelligent, balances fears attendant on an elderly President. Anyone else? No.
Those polls may have only just been released, but their fieldwork was September and the first half of October.
So I'm not not sure how useful they are.
Ultimately, if Buttigieg wins Iowa (and I'm in Iowa right now...) then he's a contender.
That's a good article. I'm not sure there is time for an informed debate, or popular interest in one. People mostly feel the subject is intrinsically boring and they're either for or against, do not bother us with details. A friend campaigning in a Remain area tells me that interest in a second referendum has largely died away.
Nonetheless, I think that inteliigent tactical voting to prevent an overall Conservative majority is the only way to avoid the decision being taken purely on Boris's whim and the ERG's will.
I say Tactically Vote Conservative for a One Nation Britain and to stop the Corbynistas!
There are no one nation tories left, those that there are reflect the membership which is bluekip at best
You know nothing about the Conservtive Party.
Enough to know i wouldn’t knowingly have anything to do with any of them
As I say, you know nothing.
I know a lot about the Conservative party and it’s members, enough to know I would not mix with them socially. They think they have a natural right to run local government in vast swathes of the U.K. and hate anybody that gets in their way.
Whereas you clearly just hate Tories fullstop
Yes nothing wrong with that I also hate extreme labour politicians. But all extremes are wrong and both parties, lab and con, have driven us to the extremes and you have to live with it.
Hate. The life-force of the Left.
Jews. Tories. Anybody else we're missing?
The tories hate anybody that gets in their way of controlling local government in their area. They think it is their god given right to choose the councilors and the mayor.
The only good local and national government is CON.
With LAB its always pay more get less! And LD are LAB's little helpers (assuming they are standing of course)
Give up I can talk shit but that trumps my most shittiest shit
That's a good article. I'm not sure there is time for an informed debate, or popular interest in one. People mostly feel the subject is intrinsically boring and they're either for or against, do not bother us with details. A friend campaigning in a Remain area tells me that interest in a second referendum has largely died away.
Nonetheless, I think that inteliigent tactical voting to prevent an overall Conservative majority is the only way to avoid the decision being taken purely on Boris's whim and the ERG's will.
I say Tactically Vote Conservative for a One Nation Britain and to stop the Corbynistas!
There are no one nation tories left, those that there are reflect the membership which is bluekip at best
You know nothing about the Conservtive Party.
Enough to know i wouldn’t knowingly have anything to do with any of them
As I say, you know nothing.
I know a lot about the Conservative party and it’s members, enough to know I would not mix with them socially. They think they have a natural right to run local government in vast swathes of the U.K. and hate anybody that gets in their way.
Whereas you clearly just hate Tories fullstop
Yes nothing wrong with that I also hate extreme labour politicians. But all extremes are wrong and both parties, lab and con, have driven us to the extremes and you have to live with it.
Hate. The life-force of the Left.
Jews. Tories. Anybody else we're missing?
Europe? Oh no wait, that's the Right
The Right also hate atheists, vegetarians and republicans...
That's a good article. I'm not sure there is time for an informed debate, or popular interest in one. People mostly feel the subject is intrinsically boring and they're either for or against, do not bother us with details. A friend campaigning in a Remain area tells me that interest in a second referendum has largely died away.
Nonetheless, I think that inteliigent tactical voting to prevent an overall Conservative majority is the only way to avoid the decision being taken purely on Boris's whim and the ERG's will.
I say Tactically Vote Conservative for a One Nation Britain and to stop the Corbynistas!
There are no one nation tories left, those that there are reflect the membership which is bluekip at best
You know nothing about the Conservtive Party.
Enough to know i wouldn’t knowingly have anything to do with any of them
As I say, you know nothing.
I know a lot about the Conservative party and it’s members, enough to know I would not mix with them socially. They think they have a natural right to run local government in vast swathes of the U.K. and hate anybody that gets in their way.
Whereas you clearly just hate Tories fullstop
Yes nothing wrong with that I also hate extreme labour politicians. But all extremes are wrong and both parties, lab and con, have driven us to the extremes and you have to live with it.
Hate. The life-force of the Left.
Jews. Tories. Anybody else we're missing?
Europe? Oh no wait, that's the Right
The Right also hate atheists, vegetarians and republicans...
That's me screwed then! (Although I consider myself more an Agnostic)
Surely the easiest way to get Brexit DONE is to Revoke Article 50, then it is done. Any other action just drags things on for transistion periods and endless trade negotiations. Years
I know a lot about the Conservative party and it’s members, enough to know I would not mix with them socially. They think they have a natural right to run local government in vast swathes of the U.K. and hate anybody that gets in their way.
I meet a lot of Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem and Independent councillors in my work. I'll be honest - it's very hard to tell them apart sometimes and there are both very good and very bad Councillors in all parties.
Quite. People are kidding themselves that it is so easy to know, it's a fantasy.
That's a good article. I'm not sure there is time for an informed debate, or popular interest in one. People mostly feel the subject is intrinsically boring and they're either for or against, do not bother us with details. A friend campaigning in a Remain area tells me that interest in a second referendum has largely died away.
Nonetheless, I think that inteliigent tactical voting to prevent an overall Conservative majority is the only way to avoid the decision being taken purely on Boris's whim and the ERG's will.
I say Tactically Vote Conservative for a One Nation Britain and to stop the Corbynistas!
There are no one nation tories left, those that there are reflect the membership which is bluekip at best
You know nothing about the Conservtive Party.
Enough to know i wouldn’t knowingly have anything to do with any of them
As I say, you know nothing.
I know a lot about the Conservative party and it’s members, enough to know I would not mix with them socially. They think they have a natural right to run local government in vast swathes of the U.K. and hate anybody that gets in their way.
Whereas you clearly just hate Tories fullstop
Yes nothing wrong with that I also hate extreme labour politicians. But all extremes are wrong and both parties, lab and con, have driven us to the extremes and you have to live with it.
Hate. The life-force of the Left.
Jews. Tories. Anybody else we're missing?
The tories hate anybody that gets in their way of controlling local government in their area. They think it is their god given right to choose the councilors and the mayor.
The only good local and national government is CON.
With LAB its always pay more get less! And LD are LAB's little helpers (assuming they are standing of course)
Give up I can talk shit but that trumps my most shittiest shit
I'm guessing that they'll be fighting a lot more than the Lib Dems!
Each Party uses the resources it has however it chooses to use them. I'm not stopping the Conservatives campaigning in East Ham nor am I arguing a party can't consider itself a party of Government if it doesn't campaign in every seat.
Apart from a cheap jibe at the LDs and presumably BXP and the Greens I don't know what point you are trying to make.
An interesting piece - I'm not quite sure why the negative jibes against Jo Swinson. The LD policy is Revoke if a majority is won or support a second vote if not.
I do think the opposition need to be clever here - as the article suggests, the WA is only the start of the journey out of the EU yet it has been billed as being the end of the journey.
Boris can wield No Deal as a weapon and clearly some of his candidates are happy to countenance that but we still don't know whether the next Parliament would, if confronted with No Deal on 31/1/20, vote for it.
Are we then to assume the WA has just been obfuscation and leaving without a WA on 31/1/20 remains the option? I doubt that but I do think leaving without an agreed FTA on 31/12/20 remains very much on the table.
So what could or would the Opposition do IF they were able to outvote the Conservatives in the next Parliament? I think the WA should be passed so we go into transition and then ensure the trade and political arrangements with the EU are as close to BINO as possible before we finally leave. That may take some time but no one would be in any rush would they?
We are continually told the 2016 Referendum result must be "respected" - fine but leaving and maintaining a close political and economic relationship with the EU achieves that as much as crashing out with no agreement at all.
The slight jibes at Ms Swinson are because I feel that the Lib Dems are missing an opportunity to shape the debate on what happens post-Brexit. Someone should be asking these questions and forcing the Tories to say whether they will reduce food, environmental, agricultural, employment standards in order to compete with the EU and/or get other trade deals.
Someone needs to ask about the transition period and spell out what it will mean to turn into a third country overnight.
Surely the easiest way to get Brexit DONE is to Revoke Article 50, then it is done. Any other action just drags things on for transistion periods and endless trade negotiations. Years
Revoke doesn't end it either.
The fact of a reneged vote will hang over British politics for decades polluting it and, with 45% of the electorate favouring it, they will win a GE sooner or later and go full on hard Leave.
Surely the easiest way to get Brexit DONE is to Revoke Article 50, then it is done. Any other action just drags things on for transistion periods and endless trade negotiations. Years
Revoke doesn't end it either.
The fact of a reneged vote will hang over British politics for decades polluting it and, with 45% of the electorate favouring it, they will win a GE sooner or later and go full on hard Leave.
Possibly. While I back a remain position as on balance being less problematic in the long run, it, via referendum or revoke, is being sold as a far simpler and definitive process than is actually the case.
If the Withdrawal Agreement is passed then there will not be No Deal as the Deal will have been delivered. The fact Boris may not agree to extend the transition period and keep the UK in the Single Market and Customs Union indefinitely is not No Deal it is continuing FTA talks with the EU as an Independent nation.
No Deal would have meant no Withdrawal Agreement agreed and passed and no FTA talks with the EU.
You keep peddling this but if there is no agreement on the future relationship then without extension it is back to WTO rules, now if WTO rules is not no deal then fair enough I think you are being deceitful by claiming their can’t be a no deal brexit but the reality is that there is no agreement and no extension it is no deal.
There is not, the Withdrawal Agreement is the Deal, a delay in completion of FTA talks and no extended transition period is not No Deal. That is only failing to agree and pass the Withdrawal Agreement leading to the EU refusing to start FTA talks too
Come on that’s complete crap, if the future relationship (note I don’t call it a FTA) isn’t extended if not agreed it is WTO rules
Temporally until a FTA is agreed but that is not No Deal as the Withdrawal Agreement has been passed so WTO terms are not permanent as they would have been with No Deal and no Withdrawal Agreement agreed and passed
You really have no understanding of what departure from the EU means, do you. As of 31 December 2020 - as things currently stand - Britain will overnight turn into a third country. If there is no FTA agreed by then. All previous agreements with the EU - all of them - fall away, overnight. God knows what will replace them.
The effect is exactly the same if we had left the EU on 31 October 2019 without a Withdrawal Agreement - overnight we’d have become a third country vis-a-vis the EU.
All we have got as a result of Boris’s marvellous deal is a cliff edge at the end of 2020 and an earlier cliff edge in June to decide whether or mot we want to extend the transition.
None of which means No Deal.
The Deal is the Withdrawal Agreement which enables FTA talks which will ultimately produce a FTA, even Canada got one with the EU after 7 years and we already have closer links with the EU than them.
No Deal means no Withdrawal Agreement and no FTA talks with the EU until a Deal is agreed and pased
But with no extension to the transition you have no deal governing trade until the FTA is signed, which will be years. A lot of firms will go bust in the meantime. It's exactly the same as no deal, except you have given the EU £39bn.
That's a good article. I'm not sure there is time for an informed debate, or popular interest in one. People mostly feel the subject is intrinsically boring and they're either for or against, do not bother us with details. A friend campaigning in a Remain area tells me that interest in a second referendum has largely died away.
Nonetheless, I think that inteliigent tactical voting to prevent an overall Conservative majority is the only way to avoid the decision being taken purely on Boris's whim and the ERG's will.
I say Tactically Vote Conservative for a One Nation Britain and to stop the Corbynistas!
There are no one nation tories left, those that there are reflect the membership which is bluekip at best
You know nothing about the Conservtive Party.
Enough to know i wouldn’t knowingly have anything to do with any of them
As I say, you know nothing.
I know a lot about the Conservative party and it’s members, enough to know I would not mix with them socially. They think they have a natural right to run local government in vast swathes of the U.K. and hate anybody that gets in their way.
Whereas you clearly just hate Tories fullstop
Yes nothing wrong with that I also hate extreme labour politicians. But all extremes are wrong and both parties, lab and con, have driven us to the extremes and you have to live with it.
Hate. The life-force of the Left.
Jews. Tories. Anybody else we're missing?
The tories hate anybody that gets in their way of controlling local government in their area. They think it is their god given right to choose the councilors and the mayor.
What does that even mean?
Exactly what it says, tories hate anybody that restricts their local government franchise. They believe the only true route to be a a councillor is as a conservative one. It’s not difficult to understand
I think that’s a rather demented generalisation of a huge number of hard working councillors.
Surely the easiest way to get Brexit DONE is to Revoke Article 50, then it is done. Any other action just drags things on for transistion periods and endless trade negotiations. Years
Revoke doesn't end it either.
The fact of a reneged vote will hang over British politics for decades polluting it and, with 45% of the electorate favouring it, they will win a GE sooner or later and go full on hard Leave.
I think this is right. They (probably in the form of a party led by Nigel Farage) will argue that Brexit wasn't clearly specified (as argued by remainers) and so only a 'clean break' Brexit offers clarity and a 'quick' 'solution' (each of those words is contestable of course).
And when has there ever been 100% agreement on what the best regulatory, legislative and economic conditions should be?
Once again you conflate the issue of majority consent for something with the obligation on Government to do what I can for all people irrespective of whether they voted for it.
Are you suggesting a Conservative Government should only enact policies which directly benefit its supporters and completely ignore those who voted for other parties? Should only those areas which voted in Conservative MPs get public money and areas like Newham should be neglected because they don't vote Conservative?
That's just like some dimwit every elected person should be a Conservative - that's what happens in places like North Korea - it's strange to hear someone in a democracy argue for totalitarianism.
That's a good article. I'm not sure there is time for an informed debate, or popular interest in one. People mostly feel the subject is intrinsically boring and they're either for or against, do not bother us with details. A friend campaigning in a Remain area tells me that interest in a second referendum has largely died away.
Nonetheless, I think that inteliigent tactical voting to prevent an overall Conservative majority is the only way to avoid the decision being taken purely on Boris's whim and the ERG's will.
I say Tactically Vote Conservative for a One Nation Britain and to stop the Corbynistas!
There are no one nation tories left, those that there are reflect the membership which is bluekip at best
You know nothing about the Conservtive Party.
Enough to know i wouldn’t knowingly have anything to do with any of them
As I say, you know nothing.
I know a lot about the Conservative party and it’s members, enough to know I would not mix with them socially. They think they have a natural right to run local government in vast swathes of the U.K. and hate anybody that gets in their way.
Whereas you clearly just hate Tories fullstop
Yes nothing wrong with that I also hate extreme labour politicians. But all extremes are wrong and both parties, lab and con, have driven us to the extremes and you have to live with it.
Hate. The life-force of the Left.
Jews. Tories. Anybody else we're missing?
I don't hate Jewish people, or people from any other faith for that matter. I do not hate Tories, although I find Johnson's character flaws make him unsuitable to be Prime Minister. I am on the left and I do not hate anyone with the possible exception of Jeremy Corbyn who's utter stupidity will facilitate a right wing government, the like of which we have not seen before in the UK.
OK, that makes sense. It's Remembrance Sunday after all.
I don't see the point of people, particularly celebs on TV, wearing poppies three weeks before the event!
I think only in the fortnight after the appeal is launched.
I decided last year to only wear one Remembrance weekend and day, not before. 100 years is long enough. I think that a solemn event has transformed into un-British mawkishness and competitive display.
Surely the easiest way to get Brexit DONE is to Revoke Article 50, then it is done. Any other action just drags things on for transistion periods and endless trade negotiations. Years
Revoke doesn't end it either.
The fact of a reneged vote will hang over British politics for decades polluting it and, with 45% of the electorate favouring it, they will win a GE sooner or later and go full on hard Leave.
It’ll be fine, Brexiteers are never more happy when they are complaining about the UK being in the EU, like pigs in muck.
An interesting piece - I'm not quite sure why the negative jibes against Jo Swinson. The LD policy is Revoke if a majority is won or support a second vote if not.
I do think the opposition need to be clever here - as the article suggests, the WA is only the start of the journey out of the EU yet it has been billed as being the end of the journey.
Boris can wield No Deal as a weapon and clearly some of his candidates are happy to countenance that but we still don't know whether the next Parliament would, if confronted with No Deal on 31/1/20, vote for it.
Are we then to assume the WA has just been obfuscation and leaving without a WA on 31/1/20 remains the option? I doubt that but I do think leaving without an agreed FTA on 31/12/20 remains very much on the table.
So what could or would the Opposition do IF they were able to outvote the Conservatives in the next Parliament? I think the WA should be passed so we go into transition and then ensure the trade and political arrangements with the EU are as close to BINO as possible before we finally leave. That may take some time but no one would be in any rush would they?
We are continually told the 2016 Referendum result must be "respected" - fine but leaving and maintaining a close political and economic relationship with the EU achieves that as much as crashing out with no agreement at all.
The slight jibes at Ms Swinson are because I feel that the Lib Dems are missing an opportunity to shape the debate on what happens post-Brexit. Someone should be asking these questions and forcing the Tories to say whether they will reduce food, environmental, agricultural, employment standards in order to compete with the EU and/or get other trade deals.
Someone needs to ask about the transition period and spell out what it will mean to turn into a third country overnight.
If the Lib Dems don’t do it who will?
Part of the problem is that the LibDems are a very broad church now and getting consensus on some of the non-Brexit issues will be tricky to say the least (eg; fiscal prudence). I suspect this is one reason why Soubry didn't join them.
The Deal is the Withdrawal Agreement which enables FTA talks which will ultimately produce a FTA, even Canada got one with the EU after 7 years and we already have closer links with the EU than them.
No Deal means no Withdrawal Agreement and no FTA talks with the EU until a Deal is agreed and pased
Do you therefore accept that it may take longer than 31/12/20 to negotiate an FTA with the EU and would you therefore seek an extension to enable the negotiations to be concluded?
This is a good, thought-provoking article. Zeroing in on the question, if Britain should look West to the US or to Europe or China, the missing bloc is the CPTPP one (led by Australia, Canada and Japan). My preference would be the European bloc first, then CPTPP, then the US a distant third and China a very distant fourth. I suspect the British public would be the same. They might tolerate, just about, a bit more Thatcherism, but I don't think they would take the complete sell-out to corporate interest that exists in the USA. If the Tories tried, they would get decimated at the next election.
The US is our biggest single export destination, realistically we want trade deals with them first after the EU
Why? If we’ve managed to export so successfully to them without a trade deal what’s in it for us? You surely don’t think the US wants a trade deal in order for us to sell even more to them?
If the Withdrawal Agreement is passed then there will not be No Deal as the Deal will have been delivered. The fact Boris may not agree to extend the transition period and keep the UK in the Single Market and Customs Union indefinitely is not No Deal it is continuing FTA talks with the EU as an Independent nation.
No Deal would have meant no Withdrawal Agreement agreed and passed and no FTA talks with the EU.
You keep peddling this but if there is no agreement on the future relationship then without extension it is back to WTO rules, now if WTO rules is not no deal then fair enough I think you are being deceitful by claiming their can’t be a no deal brexit but the reality is that there is no agreement and no extension it is no deal.
There is not, the Withdrawal Agreement is the Deal, a delay in completion of FTA talks and no extended transition period is not No Deal. That is only failing to agree and pass the Withdrawal Agreement leading to the EU refusing to start FTA talks too
Come on that’s complete crap, if the future relationship (note I don’t call it a FTA) isn’t extended if not agreed it is WTO rules
Temporally until a FTA is agreed but that is not No Deal as the Withdrawal Agreement has been passed so WTO terms are not permanent as they would have been with No Deal and no Withdrawal Agreement agreed and passed
You really have no
None of which means No Deal.
The Deal is the Withdrawal Agreement which enables FTA talks which will ultimately produce a FTA, even Canada got one with the EU after 7 years and we already have closer links with the EU than them.
No Deal means no Withdrawal Agreement and no FTA talks with the EU until a Deal is agreed and pased
But with no extension to the transition you have no deal governing trade until the FTA is signed, which will be years. A lot of firms will go bust in the meantime. It's exactly the same as no deal, except you have given the EU £39bn.
They may or may not but as you say a FTA will still be done so it is not No Deal while we leave the SM and CU and regain control over our borders and start trade talks with other nations in the meantime
An interesting piece - I'm not quite sure why the negative jibes against Jo Swinson. The LD policy is Revoke if a majority is won or support a second vote if not.
I do think the opposition need to be clever here - as the article suggests, the WA is only the start of the journey out of the EU yet it has been billed as being the end of the journey.
Boris can wield No Deal as a weapon and clearly some of his candidates are happy to countenance that but we still don't know whether the next Parliament would, if confronted with No Deal on 31/1/20, vote for it.
Are we then to assume the WA has just been obfuscation and leaving without a WA on 31/1/20 remains the option? I doubt that but I do think leaving without an agreed FTA on 31/12/20 remains very much on the table.
So what could or would the Opposition do IF they were able to outvote the Conservatives in the next Parliament? I think the WA should be passed so we go into transition and then ensure the trade and political arrangements with the EU are as close to BINO as possible before we finally leave. That may take some time but no one would be in any rush would they?
We are continually told the 2016 Referendum result must be "respected" - fine but leaving and maintaining a close political and economic relationship with the EU achieves that as much as crashing out with no agreement at all.
The slight jibes at Ms Swinson are because I feel that the Lib Dems are missing an opportunity to shape the debate on what happens post-Brexit. Someone should be asking these questions and forcing the Tories to say whether they will reduce food, environmental, agricultural, employment standards in order to compete with the EU and/or get other trade deals.
Someone needs to ask about the transition period and spell out what it will mean to turn into a third country overnight.
If the Lib Dems don’t do it who will?
I think the jibes are a little more than slight. Anyone would think she'd been as anti-semitic as Corbyn and lied through her teeth in her previous jobs like Coco the clown!
The Deal is the Withdrawal Agreement which enables FTA talks which will ultimately produce a FTA, even Canada got one with the EU after 7 years and we already have closer links with the EU than them.
No Deal means no Withdrawal Agreement and no FTA talks with the EU until a Deal is agreed and pased
Do you therefore accept that it may take longer than 31/12/20 to negotiate an FTA with the EU and would you therefore seek an extension to enable the negotiations to be concluded?
This is a good, thought-provoking article. Zeroing in on the question, if Britain should look West to the US or to Europe or China, the missing bloc is the CPTPP one (led by Australia, Canada and Japan). My preference would be the European bloc first, then CPTPP, then the US a distant third and China a very distant fourth. I suspect the British public would be the same. They might tolerate, just about, a bit more Thatcherism, but I don't think they would take the complete sell-out to corporate interest that exists in the USA. If the Tories tried, they would get decimated at the next election.
The US is our biggest single export destination, realistically we want trade deals with them first after the EU
Why? If we’ve managed to export so successfully to them without a trade deal what’s in it for us? You surely don’t think the US wants a trade deal in order for us to sell even more to them?
Agree 100%
Trade deals tend to have benefits both ways. They're much like free-lunches, admittedly without that actual lunch.
And when has there ever been 100% agreement on what the best regulatory, legislative and economic conditions should be?
Once again you conflate the issue of majority consent for something with the obligation on Government to do what I can for all people irrespective of whether they voted for it.
Are you suggesting a Conservative Government should only enact policies which directly benefit its supporters and completely ignore those who voted for other parties? Should only those areas which voted in Conservative MPs get public money and areas like Newham should be neglected because they don't vote Conservative?
That's just like some dimwit every elected person should be a Conservative - that's what happens in places like North Korea - it's strange to hear someone in a democracy argue for totalitarianism.
No but by definition a Conservative government will pursue policies Labour voters don't like, Labour governments will pursue policies Conservative voters don't like and a LD government will pursue policies both Labour and Tory voters dislike. That is the nature of democracy
An interesting piece - I'm not quite sure why the negative jibes against Jo Swinson. The LD policy is Revoke if a majority is won or support a second vote if not.
I do think the opposition need to be clever here - as the article suggests, the WA is only the start of the journey out of the EU yet it has been billed as being the end of the journey.
Boris can wield No Deal as a weapon and clearly some of his candidates are happy to countenance that but we still don't know whether the next Parliament would, if confronted with No Deal on 31/1/20, vote for it.
Are we then to assume the WA has just been obfuscation and leaving without a WA on 31/1/20 remains the option? I doubt that but I do think leaving without an agreed FTA on 31/12/20 remains very much on the table.
So what could or would the Opposition do IF they were able to outvote the Conservatives in the next Parliament? I think the WA should be passed so we go into transition and then ensure the trade and political arrangements with the EU are as close to BINO as possible before we finally leave. That may take some time but no one would be in any rush would they?
We are continually told the 2016 Referendum result must be "respected" - fine but leaving and maintaining a close political and economic relationship with the EU achieves that as much as crashing out with no agreement at all.
The slight jibes at Ms Swinson are because I feel that the Lib Dems are missing an opportunity to shape the debate on what happens post-Brexit. Someone should be asking these questions and forcing the Tories to say whether they will reduce food, environmental, agricultural, employment standards in order to compete with the EU and/or get other trade deals.
Someone needs to ask about the transition period and spell out what it will mean to turn into a third country overnight.
If the Lib Dems don’t do it who will?
I tried to ask at the leadership hustings what the prospective leaders would want as LD policy post Brexit. Unfortunately it was not chosen as a question.
I suspect Single Market membership with a view to re-entry.
I was quite encouraged by the regional polls, Andy JS spreadsheet notwithstanding. I think that tactical voting will reduce those 374 seats to 340ish.
If the Withdrawal Agreement is passed then there will not be No Deal as the Deal will have been delivered. The fact Boris may not agree to extend the transition period and keep the UK in the Single Market and Customs Union indefinitely is not No Deal it is continuing FTA talks with the EU as an Independent nation.
No Deal would have meant no Withdrawal Agreement agreed and passed and no FTA talks with the EU.
You keep peddling this but if there is no agreement on the future relationship then without extension it is back to WTO rules, now if WTO rules is not no deal then fair enough I think you are being deceitful by claiming their can’t be a no deal brexit but the reality is that there is no agreement and no extension it is no deal.
There is not, the Withdrawal Agreement is the Deal, a delay in completion of FTA talks and no extended transition period is not No Deal. That is only failing to agree and pass the Withdrawal Agreement leading to the EU refusing to start FTA talks too
Come on that’s complete crap, if the future relationship (note I don’t call it a FTA) isn’t extended if not agreed it is WTO rules
Temporally until a FTA is agreed but that is not No Deal as the Withdrawal Agreement has been passed so WTO terms are not permanent as they would have been with No Deal and no Withdrawal Agreement agreed and passed
You really have no
None of which means No Deal.
The Deal is the Withdrawal Agreement which enables FTA talks which will ultimately produce a FTA, even Canada got one with the EU after 7 years and we already have closer links with the EU than them.
No Deal means no Withdrawal Agreement and no FTA talks with the EU until a Deal is agreed and pased
But with no extension to the transition you have no deal governing trade until the FTA is signed, which will be years. A lot of firms will go bust in the meantime. It's exactly the same as no deal, except you have given the EU £39bn.
They may or may not but as you say a FTA will still be done so it is not No Deal while we leave the SM and CU and regain control over our borders and start trade talks with other nations in the meantime
It is no deal until you have the FTA. And that might take 5 years. Or it might prove impossible to negotiate. And might not cover all sectors for goods. And will probably exclude services. So it is basically no deal. The WA only covers the money, citizens' rights and NI, and provides for an 11 month transition period. It is not a trade deal.
The slight jibes at Ms Swinson are because I feel that the Lib Dems are missing an opportunity to shape the debate on what happens post-Brexit. Someone should be asking these questions and forcing the Tories to say whether they will reduce food, environmental, agricultural, employment standards in order to compete with the EU and/or get other trade deals.
Someone needs to ask about the transition period and spell out what it will mean to turn into a third country overnight.
If the Lib Dems don’t do it who will?
I think Chuka Ununna raised this a few weeks ago. I'm certainly of the view there is a very real threat that the FTA won't be concluded on 31/12/20 and we will simply fall out of the EU to WTO rules which is effectively what the "No Deal" brigade were hoping would happen before the Benn legislation.
We don't know whether in the new Parliament the Conservative majority (I still think this is the most likely outcome) will be fully behind a No Deal departure on 31/12/20. I suspect there will be a division there.
If we are only to leave the EU with a fully negotiated FTA and an agreed PD we could still be members in 2022 or 2023 which for some will look a lot like NOT getting Brexit done.
There is not, the Withdrawal Agreement is the Deal, a delay in completion of FTA talks and no extended transition period is not No Deal. That is only failing to agree and pass the Withdrawal Agreement leading to the EU refusing to start FTA talks too
Temporally until a FTA is agreed but that is not No Deal as the Withdrawal Agreement has been passed so WTO terms are not permanent as they would have been with No Deal and no Withdrawal Agreement agreed and passed
You really have no understanding of what departure from the EU means, do you. As of 31 December 2020 - as things currently stand - Britain will overnight turn into a third country. If there is no FTA agreed by then. All previous agreements with the EU - all of them - fall away, overnight. God knows what will replace them.
The effect is exactly the same if we had left the EU on 31 October 2019 without a Withdrawal Agreement - overnight we’d have become a third country vis-a-vis the EU.
All we have got as a result of Boris’s marvellous deal is a cliff edge at the end of 2020 and an earlier cliff edge in June to decide whether or mot we want to extend the transition.
None of which means No Deal.
The Deal is the Withdrawal Agreement which enables FTA talks which will ultimately produce a FTA, even Canada got one with the EU after 7 years and we already have closer links with the EU than them.
No Deal means no Withdrawal Agreement and no FTA talks with the EU until a Deal is agreed and pased
No it doesn’t, however much you may like to define it in the way you would like it to be true. Leaving at the end of the transition period without any FTA (or agreements covering any of the other areas listed in the Political Declaration) means turning into a third country overnight. The effect is exactly the same as us leaving on 31/1/2020 without a Withdrawal Agreement.
It means we have No Deal about what our future relationship with EU across a wide range of matters will be.
All the WA does is give us a transition period. At the end of it we crash out. You’d have to be a hell of an optimist to think that by 31/12/2020 we will have agreed an FTA and put in place all the other agreements necessary to avoid such a crash out.
An October 2019 crash out has been avoided. A December 2020 one has not been. The Tories are completely unable to tell us what their negotiating priorities or aims are. Hell, their Immigration Minister couldn’t even answer a simple question this morning about whether the government would like to increase or reduce immigration.
If the Withdrawal Agreement is passed then there will not be No Deal as the Deal will have been delivered. The fact Boris may not agree to extend the transition period and keep the UK in the Single Market and Customs Union indefinitely is not No Deal it is continuing FTA talks with the EU as an Independent nation.
No Deal would have meant no Withdrawal Agreement agreed and passed and no FTA talks with the EU.
You keep peddling this but if there is no agreement on the future relationship then without extension it is back to WTO rules, now if WTO rules is not no deal then fair enough I think you are being deceitful by claiming their can’t be a no deal brexit but the reality is that there is no agreement and no extension it is no deal.
There is not, the Withdrawal Agreement is the Deal, a delay in completion of FTA talks and no extended transition period is not No Deal. That is only failing to agree and pass the Withdrawal Agreement leading to the EU refusing to start FTA talks too
Come on that’s complete crap, if the future relationship (note I don’t call it a FTA) isn’t extended if not agreed it is WTO rules
Temporally until a FTA is agreed but that is not No Deal as the Withdrawal Agreement has been passed so WTO terms are not permanent as they would have been with No Deal and no Withdrawal Agreement agreed and passed
You really have no
None of which med
But with no extension to the transition you have no deal governing trade until the FTA is signed, which will be years. A lot of firms will go bust in the meantime. It's exactly the same as no deal, except you have given the EU £39bn.
They may or may not but as you say a FTA will still be done so it is not No Deal while we leave the SM and CU and regain control over our borders and start trade talks with other nations in the meantime
It is no deal until you have the FTA. And that might take 5 years. Or it might prove impossible to negotiate. And might not cover all sectors for goods. And will probably exclude services. So it is basically no deal. The WA only covers the money, citizens' rights and NI, and provides for an 11 month transition period. It is not a trade deal.
Wrong, it is not No Deal by definition as soon as the WA is passed, that is the Deal.
The fact from an ideological perspective you consider only staying in the CU and SM for ever ie BINO, a Deal does not mean it is No Deal
An interesting piece - I'm not quite sure why the negative jibes against Jo Swinson. The LD policy is Revoke if a majority is won or support a second vote if not.
I do think the opposition need to be clever here - as the article suggests, the WA is only the start of the journey out of the EU yet it has been billed as being the end of the journey.
Boris can wield No Deal as a weapon and clearly some of his candidates are happy to countenance that but we still don't know whether the next Parliament would, if confronted with No Deal on 31/1/20, vote for it.
Are we then to assume the WA has just been obfuscation and leaving without a WA on 31/1/20 remains the option? I doubt that but I do think leaving without an agreed FTA on 31/12/20 remains very much on the table.
So what could or would the Opposition do IF they were able to outvote the Conservatives in the next Parliament? I think the WA should be passed so we go into transition and then ensure the trade and political arrangements with the EU are as close to BINO as possible before we finally leave. That may take some time but no one would be in any rush would they?
We are continually told the 2016 Referendum result must be "respected" - fine but leaving and maintaining a close political and economic relationship with the EU achieves that as much as crashing out with no agreement at all.
The slight jibes at Ms Swinson are because I feel that the Lib Dems are missing an opportunity to shape the debate on what happens post-Brexit. Someone should be asking these questions and forcing the Tories to say whether they will reduce food, environmental, agricultural, employment standards in order to compete with the EU and/or get other trade deals.
Someone needs to ask about the transition period and spell out what it will mean to turn into a third country overnight.
If the Lib Dems don’t do it who will?
I tried to ask at the leadership hustings what the prospective leaders would want as LD policy post Brexit. Unfortunately it was not chosen as a question.
I suspect Single Market membership with a view to re-entry.
I was quite encouraged by the regional polls, Andy JS spreadsheet notwithstanding. I think that tactical voting will reduce those 374 seats to 340ish.
Trying to guess what will happen to tactical voting is, in my view, a mug's game. The trouble is you can't be sure how much of last time's vote was tactical and therefore can't identify the 'hard core' vote for any party. Tactical voting from last time may unwind more than the positive tactical voting for this time around (if you see what I mean).
No it doesn’t, however much you may like to define it in the way you would like it to be true. Leaving at the end of the transition period without any FTA (or agreements covering any of the other areas listed in the Political Declaration) means turning into a third country overnight. The effect is exactly the same as us leaving on 31/1/2020 without a Withdrawal Agreement.
It means we have No Deal about what our future relationship with EU across a wide range of matters will be.
All the WA does is give us a transition period. At the end of it we crash out. You’d have to be a hell of an optimist to think that by 31/12/2020 we will have agreed an FTA and put in place all the other agreements necessary to avoid such a crash out.
An October 2019 crash out has been avoided. A December 2020 one has not been. The Tories are completely unable to tell us what their negotiating priorities or aims are. Hell, their Immigration Minister couldn’t even answer a simple question this morning about whether the government would like to increase or reduce immigration.
@HYUFD has already given the game away, Ms Cyclefree.
IF there is no FTA agreed by 31/12/20, we will exit to WTO rules. All Boris's talk about wanting a Deal is just that. He will be hoping his new majority will slavishly support the "leave on 31/12/20 if No Deal" line but I suspect that may not be the case.
OK, that makes sense. It's Remembrance Sunday after all.
I don't see the point of people, particularly celebs on TV, wearing poppies three weeks before the event!
I think only in the fortnight after the appeal is launched.
I decided last year to only wear one Remembrance weekend and day, not before. 100 years is long enough. I think that a solemn event has transformed into un-British mawkishness and competitive display.
I do worry about the outrage if someone is seen NOT wearing one.
Partly, I think that's a wider problem of the gleeful "calling out" that is so common now.
But it's also the case that, not so long ago there were quite a few folk who served in WW1 and WW2 about. When I was at primary school, say, quite a few WW2 veterans hadn't even retired. It was a visible indication, to people who'd served and who'd lost friends, that their sacrifice mattered to younger people. It was a matter of respect.
Those days are slipping away very fast - you'd need to be into your 90s to have had any chance at all of having served in WW2 and the WW1 veterans have now all re-joined their fallen comrades.
So who are we now wearing poppies for? Partly, it's a reminder to ourselves, and to make sure we don't forget in our hearts - which is good. Partly, it's increase we do stumble across a chap in his mid to late 90s - again, good. But to an increasing extent, it's virtue signalling. And if an MP or TV presenter neglects to do it, it doesn't actually mean they don't care - it probably means they are wearing a different jacket from yesterday.
You really have no ucliff edge in June to decide whether or mot we want to extend the transition.
None of which means No Deal.
The Deal is the Withdrawal Agreement which enables FTA talks which will ultimately produce a FTA, even Canada got one with the EU after 7 years and we already have closer links with the EU than them.
No Deal means no Withdrawal Agreement and no FTA talks with the EU until a Deal is agreed and pased
No it doesn’t, however much you may like to define it in the way you would like it to be true. Leaving at the end of the transition period without any FTA (or agreements covering any of the other areas listed in the Political Declaration) means turning into a third country overnight. The effect is exactly the same as us leaving on 31/1/2020 without a Withdrawal Agreement.
It means we have No Deal about what our future relationship with EU across a wide range of matters will be.
All the WA does is give us a transition period. At the end of it we crash out. You’d have to be a hell of an optimist to think that by 31/12/2020 we will have agreed an FTA and put in place all the other agreements necessary to avoid such a crash out.
An October 2019 crash out has been avoided. A December 2020 one has not been. The Tories are completely unable to tell us what their negotiating priorities or aims are. Hell, their Immigration Minister couldn’t even answer a simple question this morning about whether the government would like to increase or reduce immigration.
No it doesn't. however much you may like to define No Deal in the way you would like it to be true, provided the Withdrawal Agreement is passed there is a Deal, end of conversation. Leaving at the end of the transition period while FTA negotiations continue is not No Deal, it is just not indefinitely extending the transition period, not the same thing.
The key thing about the WA is nothing to do with the transition period, the key thing is it is the Deal on the terms of our exit from the EU and which opens the way to FTA talks with the EU. By leaving the transition period we can of course end free movement straight after and introduce the government's points system
An interesting piece - I'm not quite sure why the negative jibes against Jo Swinson. The LD policy is Revoke if a majority is won or support a second vote if not.
I do think the opposition need to be clever here - as the article suggests, the WA is only the start of the journey out of the EU yet it has been billed as being the end of the journey.
Boris can wield No Deal as a weapon and clearly some of his candidates are happy to countenance that but we still don't know whether the next Parliament would, if confronted with No Deal on 31/1/20, vote for it.
Are we then to assume the WA has just been obfuscation and leaving without a WA on 31/1/20 remains the option? I doubt that but I do think leaving without an agreed FTA on 31/12/20 remains very much on the table.
So what could or would the Opposition do IF they were able to outvote the Conservatives in the next Parliament? I think the WA should be passed so we go into transition and then ensure the trade and political arrangements with the EU are as close to BINO as possible before we finally leave. That may take some time but no one would be in any rush would they?
We are continually told the 2016 Referendum result must be "respected" - fine but leaving and maintaining a close political and economic relationship with the EU achieves that as much as crashing out with no agreement at all.
Indeed maintaining a close relationship from outside does respect the result. Staying inside does not.
But until we see the report on Russian interference you cannot claim that the outcome was legitimate.
Still clinging to your lurid excuses I see. Of course it was legitimate. And every time you try and claim otherwise it just makes you look more stupid.
If the Withdrawal Agreement is passed then there will not be No Deal as the Deal will have been delivered. The fact Boris may not agree to extend the transition period and keep the UK in the Single Market and Customs Union indefinitely is not No Deal it is continuing FTA talks with the EU as an Independent nation.
No Deal would have meant no Withdrawal Agreement agreed and passed and no FTA talks with the EU.
You keep peddling this but if there is no agreementity is that there is no agreement and no extension it is no deal.
There is not, the Withdrawal Agreement is the Deal, a delay in completion of FTA talks and no extended transition period is not No Deal. That is only failing to agree and pass the Withdrawal Agreement leading to the EU refusing to start FTA talks too
Come on that’s complWTO rules
Temporally until a FTA is agreed but that is not No Deal as the Withdrawal Agreement has been passed so WTO terms are not permanent as they would have been with No Deal and no Withdrawal Agreement agreed and passed
You really have no
None of which med
But with no extension to the transition you have no deal governing trade until the FTA is signed, which will be years. A lot of firms will go bust in the meantime. It's exactly the same as no deal, except you have given the EU £39bn.
They may or may not but as you say a FTA will still be done so it is not No Deal while we leave the SM and CU and regain control over our borders and start trade talks with other nations in the meantime
It is no deal until you have the FTA. And that might take 5 years. Or it might prove impossible to negotiate. And might not cover all sectors for gooly no deal. The WA only covers the money, citizens' rights and NI, and provides for trade deal.
Wrong, it is not No Deal by definition as soon as the WA is passed, that is the Deal.
The fact from an ideological perspective you consider only staying in the CU and SM for ever ie BINO, a Deal does not mean it is No Deal
I think you are struggling to understand this. Do you recognise that if the transition is not extended and no FTA is agreed by the end of next year then we trade with the EU as a third party? That is, we face tariffs and regulatory checks, service firms have no right to operate in each others' markets etc? And that this will be a massive problem for our economy?
Good evening all. Not obvious how Gauke can win his constituency standing as an independent.
Maybe MPs get a better pay-off when they are defeated than when they merely resign?
Yep £22,000 or so better - which was confirmed earlier this week as some MP is switching constituency and doesn't qualify for it.
Do you have a link for that, please? In 2017, I am sure they'd moved to resettlement grant payable regardless of defeat or retirement. It wouldn't shock me if they'd switched again, but I'd not heard it.
Not sure if this has been responded to yet, but it's Angela Smith, ex Lab/Change UK MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge, now standing somewhere else for the LDs.
Surely the easiest way to get Brexit DONE is to Revoke Article 50, then it is done. Any other action just drags things on for transistion periods and endless trade negotiations. Years
Revoke doesn't end it either.
The fact of a reneged vote will hang over British politics for decades polluting it and, with 45% of the electorate favouring it, they will win a GE sooner or later and go full on hard Leave.
Possibly. While I back a remain position as on balance being less problematic in the long run, it, via referendum or revoke, is being sold as a far simpler and definitive process than is actually the case.
There are two ways out of this: a Remain position that takes into account the concerns of people who voted Leave first time round (half in half out) or a Leave position that takes into account the concerns of people who voted Remain (half out half in).
Nothing else is politically sustainable in the long run.
Surely the easiest way to get Brexit DONE is to Revoke Article 50, then it is done. Any other action just drags things on for transistion periods and endless trade negotiations. Years
Revoke doesn't end it either.
The fact of a reneged vote will hang over British politics for decades polluting it and, with 45% of the electorate favouring it, they will win a GE sooner or later and go full on hard Leave.
I think this is right. They (probably in the form of a party led by Nigel Farage) will argue that Brexit wasn't clearly specified (as argued by remainers) and so only a 'clean break' Brexit offers clarity and a 'quick' 'solution' (each of those words is contestable of course).
Farage doesn't want to Leave. He wants to mine grievance.
But with no extension to the transition you have no deal governing trade until the FTA is signed, which will be years. A lot of firms will go bust in the meantime. It's exactly the same as no deal, except you have given the EU £39bn.
They may or may not but as you say a FTA will still be done so it is not No Deal while we leave the SM and CU and regain control over our borders and start trade talks with other nations in the meantime
It is no deal until you have the FTA. And that might take 5 years. Or it might prove impossible to negotiate. And might not cover all sectors for goods. And will probably exclude services. So it is basically no deal. The WA only covers the money, citizens' rights and NI, and provides for an 11 month transition period. It is not a trade deal.
Wrong, it is not No Deal by definition as soon as the WA is passed, that is the Deal.
The fact from an ideological perspective you consider only staying in the CU and SM for ever ie BINO, a Deal does not mean it is No Deal
Try, just try, and understand the difference between a Withdrawal Agreement - covering the terms of departure - and a Deal - which deals with the future relationship with the EU.
If we do not have the latter by the end of the transition we have no deal. Or even No Deal. We leave the transition with No Deal. A No Deal departure.
It’s not hard to understand.
Imagine being a tenant in a flat: you give notice to your landlord. You come to an agreement about repairs, cleaning, payment if rent, return of the deposit etc and the date of departure. Very nicely the landlord says that you can stay until you have found another flat to move to and offers you the opportunity to choose between other properties he owns.
Then you decide that you want to leave on a set date regardless and look at a wide range of properties, not just ones owned by him. Fine.
The date arrives. You move out. Unfortunately you have not agreed an alternative flat to move into though you are talking to lots of people. You are now sleeping on the streets. You are homeless. You are not a tenant just because you entered into an agreement with your ex-landlord about how to terminate your rental agreement.
You really have no ucliff edge in June to decide whether or mot we want to extend the transition.
None of which means No Deal.
The Deal is the Withdrawal Agreement which enables FTA talks which will ultimately produce a FTA, even Canada got one with the EU after 7 years and we already have closer links with the EU than them.
No Deal means no Withdrawal Agreement and no FTA talks with the EU until a Deal is agreed and pased
No it doesn’t, however much you may like to define it in the way you would like it to be true. Leaving at the end of the transition period without any FTA (or agreements covering any of the other areas listed in the Political Declaration) means turning into a third country overnight. The effect is exactly the same as us leaving on 31/1/2020 without a Withdrawal Agreement.
It means we have No Deal about what our future relationship with EU across a wide range of matters will be.
All the WA does is give us a transition period. At the end of it we crash out. You’d have to be a hell of an optimist to think that by 31/12/2020 we will have agreed an FTA and put in place all the other agreements necessary to avoid such a crash out.
An October 2019 crash out has been avoided. A December 2020 one has not been. The Tories are completely unable to tell us what their negotiating priorities or aims are. Hell, their Immigration Minister couldn’t even answer a simple question this morning about whether the government would like to increase or reduce immigration.
@Cyclefree - you are wasting your breath. None of the Leavers seem to believe anything other than a glorious paradise awaits.
It is why I have resigned myself to No Deal Brexit - the Leavers detachment from practical politics, never mind reality, guarantee it.
OK, that makes sense. It's Remembrance Sunday after all.
I don't see the point of people, particularly celebs on TV, wearing poppies three weeks before the event!
I think only in the fortnight after the appeal is launched.
I decided last year to only wear one Remembrance weekend and day, not before. 100 years is long enough. I think that a solemn event has transformed into un-British mawkishness and competitive display.
I do worry about the outrage if someone is seen NOT wearing one.
Partly, I think that's a wider problem of the gleeful "calling out" that is so common now.
But it's also the case that, not so long ago there were quite a few folk who served in WW1 and WW2 about. When I was at primary school, say, quite a few WW2 veterans hadn't even retired. It was a visible indication, to people who'd served and who'd lost friends, that their sacrifice mattered to younger people. It was a matter of respect.
Those days are slipping away very fast - you'd need to be into your 90s to have had any chance at all of having served in WW2 and the WW1 veterans have now all re-joined their fallen comrades.
So who are we now wearing poppies for? Partly, it's a reminder to ourselves, and to make sure we don't forget in our hearts - which is good. Partly, it's increase we do stumble across a chap in his mid to late 90s - again, good. But to an increasing extent, it's virtue signalling. And if an MP or TV presenter neglects to do it, it doesn't actually mean they don't care - it probably means they are wearing a different jacket from yesterday.
There have been wars since WW2 - some quite recent. I think it fair enough to respect those who fought in and survived these later conflicts and their fallen comrades. So I do still see a case for Remembrance Day services.
I do agree though that berating people for not wearing poppies or doing so weeks in advance is ridiculous and a form of emotional bullying. I give to the Legion, wear on the day - and maybe a few days earlier if I remember the pin etc. But wearing it is far less important than giving money to the appropriate charity and putting pressure on governments to do right by the armed forces.
To state the obvious, that Boris line isn’t an accident any more. Feels like focus groups suggest they can claw back Tory remainers. They Can say they have a deal after all. Also chimes with “get Brexit done”.
OK, that makes sense. It's Remembrance Sunday after all.
I don't see the point of people, particularly celebs on TV, wearing poppies three weeks before the event!
I think only in the fortnight after the appeal is launched.
I decided last year to only wear one Remembrance weekend and day, not before. 100 years is long enough. I think that a solemn event has transformed into un-British mawkishness and competitive display.
I do worry about the outrage if someone is seen NOT wearing one.
Partly, I think that's a wider problem of the gleeful "calling out" that is so common now.
But it's also the case that, not so long ago there were quite a few folk who served in WW1 and WW2 about. When I was at primary school, say, quite a few WW2 veterans hadn't even retired. It was a visible indication, to people who'd served and who'd lost friends, that their sacrifice mattered to younger people. It was a matter of respect.
Those days are slipping away very fast - you'd need to be into your 90s to have had any chance at all of having served in WW2 and the WW1 veterans have now all re-joined their fallen comrades.
So who are we now wearing poppies for? Partly, it's a reminder to ourselves, and to make sure we don't forget in our hearts - which is good. Partly, it's increase we do stumble across a chap in his mid to late 90s - again, good. But to an increasing extent, it's virtue signalling. And if an MP or TV presenter neglects to do it, it doesn't actually mean they don't care - it probably means they are wearing a different jacket from yesterday.
Good post. I agree with this.
It's a different kind of virtue signal at times and I speak as someone who always wears one in the first few days of November. Often the paper ones fall off so you have to buy several and in-between you risk being jumped on as disrespectful.
I see poppy flags and poppies on cars now, with sullen looks occasionally at those without one.
To state the obvious, that Boris line isn’t an accident any more. Feels like focus groups suggest they can claw back Tory remainers. They Can say they have a deal after all. Also chimes with “get Brexit done”.
Yes indeed. There are a lot of Remainers who nevertheless think democracy demands we should leave but only with a deal... A lot of these people feel queasy about the Lib-Dem revoke policy and Labour's position is just nonsensical...
"Get Brexit Done" definitely appeals to Leavers and Remainers who are prepared to leave with a deal.
You really have no ucliff edge in June to decide whether or mot we want to extend the transition.
None of which means No Deal.
The Deal is the Withdrawal Agreement which enables FTA talks which will ultimately produce a FTA, even Canada got one with the EU after 7 years and we already have closer links with the EU than them.
No Deal means no Withdrawal Agreement and no FTA talks with the EU until a Deal is agreed and pased
No it doesn’t, however much you may like to define it in the way you would like it to be true. Leaving at the end of the transition period without any FTA (or agreements covering any of the other areas listed in the Political Declaration) means turning into a third country overnight. The effect is exactly the same as us leaving on 31/1/2020 without a Withdrawal Agreement.
It means we have No Deal about what our future relationship with EU across a wide range of matters will be.
All the WA does is give us a transition period. At the end of it we crash out. You’d have to be a hell of an optimist to think that by 31/12/2020 we will have agreed an FTA and put in place all the other agreements necessary to avoid such a crash out.
An October 2019 crash out has been avoided. A December 2020 one has not been. The Tories are completely unable to tell us what their negotiating priorities or aims are. Hell, their Immigration Minister couldn’t even answer a simple question this morning about whether the government would like to increase or reduce immigration.
@Cyclefree - you are wasting your breath. None of the Leavers seem to believe anything other than a glorious paradise awaits.
It is why I have resigned myself to No Deal Brexit - the Leavers detachment from practical politics, never mind reality, guarantee it.
When I was preparing this I did a rough calculation of how many topics there are in the PD, how many agreements we currently have which will need to be replaced (circa 700) and how much time we will have to replace them all. About 4 and a half hours per agreement, I reckon. If it has to be done by June, halve that figure. (Then take off Parliamentary holidays.) It’s probably about 15 mins each.
This Taking Back Back Control malarkey is really going to be absolutely marvellous!
But with no extensionthe meantime. It's exactly the same as no deal, except you have given the EU £39bn.
e the SM and CU and regain control over our borders and start trade talks with other nations in the meantime
It is no deal until you have the FTA. And that might take 5 years. Or it might prove impossibe money, citizens' rights and NI, and provides for an 11 month transition period. It is not a trade deal.
Wrong, it is not No Deal by definition as soon as the WA is passed, that is the Deal.
The fact from an ideological perspective you consider only staying in the CU and SM for ever ie BINO, a Deal does not mean it is No Deal
Try, just try, and understand the difference between a Withdrawal Agreement - covering the terms of departure - and a Deal - which deals with the future relationship with the EU.
If we do not have the latter by the end of the transition we have no deal. Or even No Deal. We leave the transition with No Deal. A No Deal departure.
It’s not hard to understand.
Imagine being a tenant in a flat: you give notice to your
Then you decide that you want to leave on a set date regardless and look at a wide range of properties, not just ones owned by him. Fine.
The date arrives. You move out. Unfortunately you have not agreed an alternative flat to move into though you are talking to lots of people. You are now sleeping on the streets. You are homeless. You are not a tenant just because you entered into an agreement with your ex-landlord about how to terminate your rental agreement.
It isn’t quite like that. With a withdrawal agreement in place I suspect there’d be the goodwill necessary at the end of 2020 such that the worst case is a bunch of mini-agreements to avoid disruption; or possibly even something the WTO could recognise as a bare bones FTA. The scenario is different, and it’s in no one’s to do anything otherwise.
I think there might even be scope late next year to win the argument for “let’s park ourselves in EFTA and join the EEA; at least for now”.
I don't usually put multiple tweets in a post but I thought this was a useful counter to Charles comments on a previous thread and seen as one community concerns got a whole article I figure I could give another at least a long post, especially considering the denial around them..
HYUFD said: "Wrong, it is not No Deal by definition as soon as the WA is passed, that is the Deal.
The fact from an ideological perspective you consider only staying in the CU and SM for ever ie BINO, a Deal does not mean it is No Deal"
Cyclefree said: "Try, just try, and understand the difference between a Withdrawal Agreement - covering the terms of departure - and a Deal - which deals with the future relationship with the EU.
If we do not have the latter by the end of the transition we have no deal. Or even No Deal. We leave the transition with No Deal. A No Deal departure.
It’s not hard to understand."
I think you are talkng at cross-purposes.
"No Deal" in popular parlance has come to mean "leaving without a withdrawal agreement" - i.e. upping up sticks and walking. In this understanding HYUFD is correct in making the obvious statement that leaving with a WA is not No Deal.
However, Cyclefree is also correct because she is is taking "No Deal" to mean "not successfully negotiating a trade agreement". This is correct because this obviously hasn`t happened and may not happen by the the end the transitional period.
To state the obvious, that Boris line isn’t an accident any more. Feels like focus groups suggest they can claw back Tory remainers. They Can say they have a deal after all. Also chimes with “get Brexit done”.
The trouble with Boris is that you don't know what you're going to get.
"So who are we now wearing poppies for? ..... But to an increasing extent, it's virtue signalling."
Yes - spot on - it`s the tyrranny of the virtue-signalling majority. I said as much on this forum a few days ago and got shot down for it. Excuse the pun (I suppose I`ll get in trouble for that too).
Try, just try, and understand the difference between a Withdrawal Agreement - covering the terms of departure - and a Deal - which deals with the future relationship with the EU.
If we do not have the latter by the end of the transition we have no deal. Or even No Deal. We leave the transition with No Deal. A No Deal departure.
It’s not hard to understand.
Imagine being a tenant in a flat: you give notice to your landlord. You come to an agreement about repairs, cleaning, payment if rent, return of the deposit etc and the date of departure. Very nicely the landlord says that you can stay until you have found another flat to move to and offers you the opportunity to choose between other properties he owns.
Then you decide that you want to leave on a set date regardless and look at a wide range of properties, not just ones owned by him. Fine.
The date arrives. You move out. Unfortunately you have not agreed an alternative flat to move into though you are talking to lots of people. You are now sleeping on the streets. You are homeless. You are not a tenant just because you entered into an agreement with your ex-landlord about how to terminate your rental agreement.
To be fair, there is a bit of a difference. Had the UK left with no Withdrawal Agreement, there was a significant risk of the country seeming like a totally untrustworthy bunch of chancers; the sort of people who would do a runner from a restaurant because the chef wasn't going to chase us down the street, was he? The reputational damage of that to the UK could have been huge.
So in that sense, WA + no subsequent deal is a bit better than no deal at all, there's a better chance of getting some sorts of long-term deals across the board, because the UK is showing a bit of responsibility and trustworthiness. But yes- as things stand, there's still a big risk of having minimal useful trading relationships in 14 months time. So it's not that much of a difference.
To state the obvious, that Boris line isn’t an accident any more. Feels like focus groups suggest they can claw back Tory remainers. They Can say they have a deal after all. Also chimes with “get Brexit done”.
The trouble with Boris is that you don't know what you're going to get.
The trouble with May was that you really did.
Well, you know you’re not going to get what he tells you you’re getting.
I don't usually put multiple tweets in a post but I thought this was a useful counter to Charles comments on a previous thread and seen as one community concerns got a whole article I figure I could give another at least a long post, especially considering the denial around them..
To state the obvious, that Boris line isn’t an accident any more. Feels like focus groups suggest they can claw back Tory remainers. They Can say they have a deal after all. Also chimes with “get Brexit done”.
The trouble with Boris is that you don't know what you're going to get.
The trouble with May was that you really did.
I think the man on the Clapham Omnibus (well, the East Midlands Omnibus) thinks Boris does what he says he’s going to do, even when it’s said to be impossible (the dramatics in Parliament helped him with that).
It is no deal until you have the FTA. And that might take 5 years. Or it might prove impossibe money, citizens' rights and NI, and provides for an 11 month transition period. It is not a trade deal.
Wrong, it is not No Deal by definition as soon as the WA is passed, that is the Deal.
The fact from an ideological perspective you consider only staying in the CU and SM for ever ie BINO, a Deal does not mean it is No Deal
Try, just try, and understand the difference between a Withdrawal Agreement - covering the terms of departure - and a Deal - which deals with the future relationship with the EU.
If we do not have the latter by the end of the transition we have no deal. Or even No Deal. We leave the transition with No Deal. A No Deal departure.
It’s not hard to understand.
Imagine being a tenant in a flat: you give notice to your
Then you decide that you want to leave on a set date regardless and look at a wide range of properties, not just ones owned by him. Fine.
The date arrives. You move out. Unfortunately you have not agreed an alternative flat to move into though you are talking to lots of people. You are now sleeping on the streets. You are homeless. You are not a tenant just because you entered into an agreement with your ex-landlord about how to terminate your rental agreement.
It isn’t quite like that. With a withdrawal agreement in place I suspect there’d be the goodwill necessary at the end of 2020 such that the worst case is a bunch of mini-agreements to avoid disruption; or possibly even something the WTO could recognise as a bare bones FTA. The scenario is different, and it’s in no one’s to do anything otherwise.
I think there might even be scope late next year to win the argument for “let’s park ourselves in EFTA and join the EEA; at least for now”.
I’m not at all convinced we have much goodwill left with the EU.
Frankly, (in response to @Stuartinromford) we look now like a bunch of incompetent, easily pushed around, untrustworthy chancers - and ones whose PM doesn’t even understand his own WA. Or lies about it.
Even trying to do some bare bones mini-deals is going to be bloody hard and puts us entirely at the EU’s mercy.
Thanks for a great header Cyclefree. But the last paragraph's call for a debate now on the post-WA deal is, I am afraid, not likely in the maelstrom of an election.
Yes, one photo means that. I suppose if someone puts up a photo of such a team where there is a woman you'll apologise?
If
You seriously think there is not one photo of a Tory canvassing team that has a woman in it that someone can find? Because that's the level of the original comment suggesting no women allowed.
OK, that makes sense. It's Remembrance Sunday after all.
I don't see the point of people, particularly celebs on TV, wearing poppies three weeks before the event!
I think only in the fortnight after the appeal is launched.
I decided last year to only wear one Remembrance weekend and day, not before. 100 years is long enough. I think that a solemn event has transformed into un-British mawkishness and competitive display.
I do worry about the outrage if someone is seen NOT wearing one.
Partly, I think that's a wider problem of the gleeful "calling out" that is so common now.
But it's also the case that, not so long ago there were quite a few folk who served in WW1 and WW2 about. When I was at primary school, say, quite a few WW2 veterans hadn't even retired. It was a visible indication, to people who'd served and who'd lost friends, that their sacrifice mattered to younger people. It was a matter of respect.
Those days are slipping away very fast - you'd need to be into your 90s to have had any chance at all of having served in WW2 and the WW1 veterans have now all re-joined their fallen comrades.
So who are we now wearing poppies for? Partly, it's a reminder to ourselves, and to make sure we don't forget in our hearts - which is good. Partly, it's increase we do stumble across a chap in his mid to late 90s - again, good. But to an increasing extent, it's virtue signalling. And if an MP or TV presenter neglects to do it, it doesn't actually mean they don't care - it probably means they are wearing a different jacket from yesterday.
Good post. I agree with this.
It's a different kind of virtue signal at times and I speak as someone who always wears one in the first few days of November. Often the paper ones fall off so you have to buy several and in-between you risk being jumped on as disrespectful.
I see poppy flags and poppies on cars now, with sullen looks occasionally at those without one.
I don't usually put multiple tweets in a post but I thought this was a useful counter to Charles comments on a previous thread and seen as one community concerns got a whole article I figure I could give another at least a long post, especially considering the denial around them..
Faiza Shaheen also seems to blindly miss the real issue, what is it with these selfish minority types, don't they realise somebody said they would celebrate the death of 2 people plenty view negatively and hold responsible for the deaths of people...
I don't usually put multiple tweets in a post but I thought this was a useful counter to Charles comments on a previous thread and seen as one community concerns got a whole article I figure I could give another at least a long post, especially considering the denial around them..
I was thinking about that jibe of Boris's the other day, and I still cannot fathom why someone in his position, responding to a serious matter, would scribble down such a comment. Why was that his first, unfiltered thought about that situation?
@Cyclefree - you are wasting your breath. None of the Leavers seem to believe anything other than a glorious paradise awaits.
It is why I have resigned myself to No Deal Brexit - the Leavers detachment from practical politics, never mind reality, guarantee it.
When I was preparing this I did a rough calculation of how many topics there are in the PD, how many agreements we currently have which will need to be replaced (circa 700) and how much time we will have to replace them all. About 4 and a half hours per agreement, I reckon. If it has to be done by June, halve that figure. (Then take off Parliamentary holidays.) It’s probably about 15 mins each.
This Taking Back Back Control malarkey is really going to be absolutely marvellous!
The whole thing is going to be an utter shambles. As you have demonstrated without too much bother, the schedules are impractical (impossible might be a better word).
The sheer entertainment value of watching these berks deal with reality is the only benefit of Brexit. Maybe if they made Rowan Atkinson PM it could be Blackadder V. Dominic Cummings could stay on as Baldrick since he looks the part....
I don't usually put multiple tweets in a post but I thought this was a useful counter to Charles comments on a previous thread and seen as one community concerns got a whole article I figure I could give another at least a long post, especially considering the denial around them..
I don't usually put multiple tweets in a post but I thought this was a useful counter to Charles comments on a previous thread and seen as one community concerns got a whole article I figure I could give another at least a long post, especially considering the denial around them..
@Cyclefree - you are wasting your breath. None of the Leavers seem to believe anything other than a glorious paradise awaits.
It is why I have resigned myself to No Deal Brexit - the Leavers detachment from practical politics, never mind reality, guarantee it.
When I was preparing this I did a rough calculation of how many topics there are in the PD, how many agreements we currently have which will need to be replaced (circa 700) and how much time we will have to replace them all. About 4 and a half hours per agreement, I reckon. If it has to be done by June, halve that figure. (Then take off Parliamentary holidays.) It’s probably about 15 mins each.
This Taking Back Back Control malarkey is really going to be absolutely marvellous!
The whole thing is going to be an utter shambles. As you have demonstrated without too much bother, the schedules are impractical (impossible might be a better word).
The sheer entertainment value of watching these berks deal with reality is the only benefit of Brexit. Maybe if they made Rowan Atkinson PM it could be Blackadder V. Dominic Cummings could stay on as Baldrick since he looks the part....
"So who are we now wearing poppies for? ..... But to an increasing extent, it's virtue signalling."
Yes - spot on - it`s the tyrranny of the virtue-signalling majority. I said as much on this forum a few days ago and got shot down for it. Excuse the pun (I suppose I`ll get in trouble for that too).
It is virtue signalling, but the bemoaning of the tyranny of it that is self pitying 'woe is me' virtue signalling in response as well. As was noted at the time the exact same thing happens every year and while no one should feel obliged to wear one, and yet in media/politics at the least would be criticised for not doing so, when people talk about tyranny and oppression, it fails to convince in its hyperbole.
It is no deal until you have the FTA. And that might take 5 years. Or it might prove impossibe money, citizens' rights and NI, and provides for an 11 month transition period. It is not a trade deal.
Wrong, it is not No Deal by definition as soon as the WA is passed, that is the Deal.
The fact from an ideological perspective you consider only staying in the CU and SM for ever ie BINO, a Deal does not mean it is No Deal
Try, just try, and understand the difference between a Withdrawal Agreement - covering the terms of departure - and a Deal - which deals with the future relationship with the EU.
If we do not have the latter by the end of the transition we have no deal. Or even No Deal. We leave the transition with No Deal. A No Deal departure.
It’s not hard to understand.
Imagine being a tenant in a flat: you give notice to your
Then you decide that you want to leave on a set date regardless and look at a wide range of properties, not just ones owned by him. Fine.
The date arrives. You move out. Unfortunately you have not agreed an alternative flat to move into though you are talking to lots of people. You are now sleeping on the streets. You are homeless. You are not a tenant just because you entered into an agreement with your ex-landlord about how to terminate your rental agreement.
e late next year to win the argument for “let’s park ourselves in EFTA and join the EEA; at least for now”.
I’m not at all convinced we have much goodwill left with the EU.
Frankly, (in response to @Stuartinromford) we look now like a bunch of incompetent, easily pushed around, untrustworthy chancers - and ones whose PM doesn’t even understand his own WA. Or lies about it.
Even trying to do some bare bones mini-deals is going to be bloody hard and puts us entirely at the EU’s mercy.
No, international relations don’t work like that. With a WD in the bank there will be a desire to at least bank the basics early in. After a certain point though, it obviously gets tricky as you get into trade offs for fisheries rights etc.
There have been wars since WW2 - some quite recent. I think it fair enough to respect those who fought in and survived these later conflicts and their fallen comrades. So I do still see a case for Remembrance Day services.
I do agree though that berating people for not wearing poppies or doing so weeks in advance is ridiculous and a form of emotional bullying. I give to the Legion, wear on the day - and maybe a few days earlier if I remember the pin etc. But wearing it is far less important than giving money to the appropriate charity and putting pressure on governments to do right by the armed forces.
Very true about respecting sacrifices since WW2, and totally agree with you on Remembrance Services.
But to put it into context, there were 382,600 military casualties in WW2 and a further 67,100 civilian deaths. There have been 7,185 deaths in operations in the whole of the 75 years since.
So, if you walk down the street now you are much, much, much less likely to see someone very directly personally affected than you were in, say, the 1980s. That's not to say it isn't nice to give a quiet nod to them by wearing a poppy. It's just that at one time the odds were pretty good that that would happen, whereas now you're mainly not sending a message to those people.
Thanks for a great header Cyclefree. But the last paragraph's call for a debate now on the post-WA deal is, I am afraid, not likely in the maelstrom of an election.
Isn't an election precisely the time we should be debating the issues facing the country? After all, the winner will claim an electoral mandate for whatever it is they say they want to do, so the least we can do is try to understand it beforehand. Otherwise, why do we even have democracy?
Comments
I mean, this is a canvassing session, not a BBC/ITV leaders' debate for goodness sake.
So I'm not not sure how useful they are.
Ultimately, if Buttigieg wins Iowa (and I'm in Iowa right now...) then he's a contender.
Give up I can talk shit but that trumps my most shittiest shit
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1192903110446002177
Apart from a cheap jibe at the LDs and presumably BXP and the Greens I don't know what point you are trying to make.
Someone needs to ask about the transition period and spell out what it will mean to turn into a third country overnight.
If the Lib Dems don’t do it who will?
The fact of a reneged vote will hang over British politics for decades polluting it and, with 45% of the electorate favouring it, they will win a GE sooner or later and go full on hard Leave.
Mrs Wallace became Governor of Alabama.
Are you suggesting a Conservative Government should only enact policies which directly benefit its supporters and completely ignore those who voted for other parties? Should only those areas which voted in Conservative MPs get public money and areas like Newham should be neglected because they don't vote Conservative?
That's just like some dimwit every elected person should be a Conservative - that's what happens in places like North Korea - it's strange to hear someone in a democracy argue for totalitarianism.
I decided last year to only wear one Remembrance weekend and day, not before. 100 years is long enough. I think that a solemn event has transformed into un-British mawkishness and competitive display.
I suspect Single Market membership with a view to re-entry.
I was quite encouraged by the regional polls, Andy JS spreadsheet notwithstanding. I think that tactical voting will reduce those 374 seats to 340ish.
We don't know whether in the new Parliament the Conservative majority (I still think this is the most likely outcome) will be fully behind a No Deal departure on 31/12/20. I suspect there will be a division there.
If we are only to leave the EU with a fully negotiated FTA and an agreed PD we could still be members in 2022 or 2023 which for some will look a lot like NOT getting Brexit done.
It means we have No Deal about what our future relationship with EU across a wide range of matters will be.
All the WA does is give us a transition period. At the end of it we crash out. You’d have to be a hell of an optimist to think that by 31/12/2020 we will have agreed an FTA and put in place all the other agreements necessary to avoid such a crash out.
An October 2019 crash out has been avoided. A December 2020 one has not been. The Tories are completely unable to tell us what their negotiating priorities or aims are. Hell, their Immigration Minister couldn’t even answer a simple question this morning about whether the government would like to increase or reduce immigration.
The fact from an ideological perspective you consider only staying in the CU and SM for ever ie BINO, a Deal does not mean it is No Deal
IF there is no FTA agreed by 31/12/20, we will exit to WTO rules. All Boris's talk about wanting a Deal is just that. He will be hoping his new majority will slavishly support the "leave on 31/12/20 if No Deal" line but I suspect that may not be the case.
Partly, I think that's a wider problem of the gleeful "calling out" that is so common now.
But it's also the case that, not so long ago there were quite a few folk who served in WW1 and WW2 about. When I was at primary school, say, quite a few WW2 veterans hadn't even retired. It was a visible indication, to people who'd served and who'd lost friends, that their sacrifice mattered to younger people. It was a matter of respect.
Those days are slipping away very fast - you'd need to be into your 90s to have had any chance at all of having served in WW2 and the WW1 veterans have now all re-joined their fallen comrades.
So who are we now wearing poppies for? Partly, it's a reminder to ourselves, and to make sure we don't forget in our hearts - which is good. Partly, it's increase we do stumble across a chap in his mid to late 90s - again, good. But to an increasing extent, it's virtue signalling. And if an MP or TV presenter neglects to do it, it doesn't actually mean they don't care - it probably means they are wearing a different jacket from yesterday.
The key thing about the WA is nothing to do with the transition period, the key thing is it is the Deal on the terms of our exit from the EU and which opens the way to FTA talks with the EU. By leaving the transition period we can of course end free movement straight after and introduce the government's points system
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7663721/Trapped-shoppers-spend-night-Sheffields-Meadowhall-shopping-centre.html
I think the ramifications of that event still permeate European politics to this day.
Nothing else is politically sustainable in the long run.
If we do not have the latter by the end of the transition we have no deal. Or even No Deal. We leave the transition with No Deal. A No Deal departure.
It’s not hard to understand.
Imagine being a tenant in a flat: you give notice to your landlord. You come to an agreement about repairs, cleaning, payment if rent, return of the deposit etc and the date of departure. Very nicely the landlord says that you can stay until you have found another flat to move to and offers you the opportunity to choose between other properties he owns.
Then you decide that you want to leave on a set date regardless and look at a wide range of properties, not just ones owned by him. Fine.
The date arrives. You move out. Unfortunately you have not agreed an alternative flat to move into though you are talking to lots of people. You are now sleeping on the streets. You are homeless. You are not a tenant just because you entered into an agreement with your ex-landlord about how to terminate your rental agreement.
It is why I have resigned myself to No Deal Brexit - the Leavers detachment from practical politics, never mind reality, guarantee it.
I do agree though that berating people for not wearing poppies or doing so weeks in advance is ridiculous and a form of emotional bullying. I give to the Legion, wear on the day - and maybe a few days earlier if I remember the pin etc. But wearing it is far less important than giving money to the appropriate charity and putting pressure on governments to do right by the armed forces.
We are all shaped by political events in our history.
Back in 2017 it was at this point in the campaign that Theresa May decided a declaration of support for Fox Hunting was a great idea :.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-4488772/Theresa-May-pledges-free-vote-bid-overturn-hunting-ban.html
It's a different kind of virtue signal at times and I speak as someone who always wears one in the first few days of November. Often the paper ones fall off so you have to buy several and in-between you risk being jumped on as disrespectful.
I see poppy flags and poppies on cars now, with sullen looks occasionally at those without one.
You never used to get that.
https://twitter.com/peterszanto/status/1192875485941903362
"Get Brexit Done" definitely appeals to Leavers and Remainers who are prepared to leave with a deal.
This Taking Back Back Control malarkey is really going to be absolutely marvellous!
I think there might even be scope late next year to win the argument for “let’s park ourselves in EFTA and join the EEA; at least for now”.
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192908826145673223
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192908827697537024
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192908828888711169
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192908830268637184
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192908831627591686
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192908832911056896
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192908834223861760
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192908835788378113
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192910808105312256
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192911635255615490
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192911635255615490
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192914835912175616
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192917738425073665
The fact from an ideological perspective you consider only staying in the CU and SM for ever ie BINO, a Deal does not mean it is No Deal"
Cyclefree said: "Try, just try, and understand the difference between a Withdrawal Agreement - covering the terms of departure - and a Deal - which deals with the future relationship with the EU.
If we do not have the latter by the end of the transition we have no deal. Or even No Deal. We leave the transition with No Deal. A No Deal departure.
It’s not hard to understand."
I think you are talkng at cross-purposes.
"No Deal" in popular parlance has come to mean "leaving without a withdrawal agreement" - i.e. upping up sticks and walking. In this understanding HYUFD is correct in making the obvious statement that leaving with a WA is not No Deal.
However, Cyclefree is also correct because she is is taking "No Deal" to mean "not successfully negotiating a trade agreement". This is correct because this obviously hasn`t happened and may not happen by the the end the transitional period.
The trouble with May was that you really did.
"So who are we now wearing poppies for? ..... But to an increasing extent, it's virtue signalling."
Yes - spot on - it`s the tyrranny of the virtue-signalling majority. I said as much on this forum a few days ago and got shot down for it. Excuse the pun (I suppose I`ll get in trouble for that too).
So in that sense, WA + no subsequent deal is a bit better than no deal at all, there's a better chance of getting some sorts of long-term deals across the board, because the UK is showing a bit of responsibility and trustworthiness. But yes- as things stand, there's still a big risk of having minimal useful trading relationships in 14 months time. So it's not that much of a difference.
You won't get much sympathy when you want to celebrate the deaths of politicians you disagree with.
Frankly, (in response to @Stuartinromford) we look now like a bunch of incompetent, easily pushed around, untrustworthy chancers - and ones whose PM doesn’t even understand his own WA. Or lies about it.
Even trying to do some bare bones mini-deals is going to be bloody hard and puts us entirely at the EU’s mercy.
Edit:
https://twitter.com/faizashaheen/status/1192904227418525702
Faiza Shaheen also seems to blindly miss the real issue, what is it with these selfish minority types, don't they realise somebody said they would celebrate the death of 2 people plenty view negatively and hold responsible for the deaths of people...
The sheer entertainment value of watching these berks deal with reality is the only benefit of Brexit. Maybe if they made Rowan Atkinson PM it could be Blackadder V. Dominic Cummings could stay on as Baldrick since he looks the part....
Pretty much most of these points - including the need to have an inquiry - were made on this forum in March of this year, here - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/03/08/what-might-the-tories-learn-from-labour/
The fact that Johnson has resiled on his promised inquiry is a disgrace and was criticised by me (and others) on here earlier today.
But to put it into context, there were 382,600 military casualties in WW2 and a further 67,100 civilian deaths. There have been 7,185 deaths in operations in the whole of the 75 years since.
So, if you walk down the street now you are much, much, much less likely to see someone very directly personally affected than you were in, say, the 1980s. That's not to say it isn't nice to give a quiet nod to them by wearing a poppy. It's just that at one time the odds were pretty good that that would happen, whereas now you're mainly not sending a message to those people.