There is zero chance of a 2nd referendum, no PM will risk political suicide. Cameron called a referendum, May called a snap election - look how that worked out.
So many people conflating what they want to happen with reality.
There will be a second referendum because it will become the only way out of the unholy mess we now find ourselves. It's the cop-out option but I will welcome it nevertheless.
There won't, because neither of the big parties will support it.
A fair post. I would read it as voters wanting a customs-free arrangement with the EU to maximise trade, which incidentally is something Theresa May is looking at, whilst also giving the UK the ability to set its own tariff arrangements and trade deals globally. But most people simply don't know how it works.
Free trade means both sides don't pay tariffs on goods within the scope of that agreement, but you still have to show you've complied with rules-of-origin checks at the borders between those countries, as EFTA states do. Customs union means there is no need for customs checks internally, except at the borders of that customs union as a whole, because you've already done them already; however, tariffs are set at a common level.
That means the EU commission negotiates as a whole in international trade deals, because the level of sovereign control a state would have over its own tariff and regulatory regime is so limited (non-existent) there'd be little to no point even if it wanted to.
If we're Leaving the EU to realise benefits and future opportunities, then quitting the customs union is probably the most obvious thing to do first, subject to a transition period.
And it's not just us either who wish to quit the customs union..
Negotiating our own trade deals is always presented as a flexibility and an advantage. It's the wrong way round IMO. Being out of a customs union means losing all the beneficial trade arrangements built up by the EU over decades. Being out of a customs union forces is to negotiate new deals when it would be better to keep what we already have. At the least there will be gap in the short and medium terms
Negotiating trade deals with countries that know you are desperate for trade deals is easy. Basically, you take or leave what they offer - which does, at least, have the benefit of saving time and money, I guess.
Nonsense on stilts because it misses the point that Theresa May did not have to meet the public at all: she could have announced a series of measures -- the enquiry, rehousing, investigation, review of firefighting and whatever -- from Downing Street and sent someone else to the scene. The problem is she did go to the tower and then refuse to meet anyone, and was pretty slow with other measures. The people baying for Theresa May's head are Conservative MPs and even ministers and it is because she is no damn good at politics. She misread the public mood at the election and has done it again now.
A fair post. I would read it as voters wanting a customs-free arrangement with the EU to maximise trade, which incidentally is something Theresa May is looking at, whilst also giving the UK the ability to set its own tariff arrangements and trade deals globally. But most people simply don't know how it works.
Free trade means both sides don't pay tariffs on goods within the scope of that agreement, but you still have to show you've complied with rules-of-origin checks at the borders between those countries, as EFTA states do. Customs union means there is no need for customs checks internally, except at the borders of that customs union as a whole, because you've already done them already; however, tariffs are set at a common level.
That means the EU commission negotiates as a whole in international trade deals, because the level of sovereign control a state would have over its own tariff and regulatory regime is so limited (non-existent) there'd be little to no point even if it wanted to.
If we're Leaving the EU to realise benefits and future opportunities, then quitting the customs union is probably the most obvious thing to do first, subject to a transition period.
And it's not just us either who wish to quit the customs union..
Negotiating our own trade deals is always presented as a flexibility and an advantage. It's the wrong way round IMO. Being out of a customs union means losing all the beneficial trade arrangements built up by the EU over decades. Being out of a customs union forces is to negotiate new deals when it would be better to keep what we already have. At the least there will be gap in the short and medium terms
Negotiating trade deals with countries that know you are desperate for trade deals is easy. Basically, you take or leave what they offer - which does, at least, have the benefit of saving time and money, I guess.
Just the line the EU will take on any deal we do with them
Philip Hammond is definitely in the hunt. He's confirmed he's ready for the UK to leave the customs union, ensuring the headbangers can live with him.
Superb, I'll take that.
I suspect he will change his mind on not having a customs union with the EU, indeed if that is his mind and he becomes PM. It's just further muddying the already murky Brexit waters.
I think there will be a transition period, followed by an arrangement for customs-free union in certain areas and sectors, for a fee, under Hammond. Like on cars and aerospace.
Exact words: "Preserving the integrity of the Single Market excludes participation based on a sector-by-sector approach."
Whatever settlement we get will largely be to the EU's design. It's amazing how parochial our press and political class are, debating the issue as if we get to pick from a menu.
Not entirely true, Switzerland has access by bilateral agreements to the EEA without being a member of it
A Swiss style deal won't be offered to us. It was negotiated in far more benign circumstances and subsequently the EU decided it made a mistake.
The EU exports significantly more to the UK than it does to Switzerland so who knows what the negotiations will produce?
Commentator on Marr asking why helicopters were not spraying water over the buildings and rescuing people. Apparently the fire service banned the helicopters due to downdraft problems which seems obvious when you think about
Flying helicopters at night, in the middle of a city around a tower block on fire?. Sounds fun.
Even in the middle of the night, an inferno is clearly visible. More visible than during the day.
I take it you have not seen helicopters dousing fire in LA, for example.
I think I would believe Twisted Fire Stopper before you.
Of course, you would. Apart from being a fire-fighter, he is also a Brexiter. It is the second bit which makes him more believeable to you.
That's a totally different situation. Imagine how much that bucket would be swinging around above the building, and how low you'd have to get the helicopter to ensure it went on target. And what would happen to the water that hit the building? It'd either pool on the roof or just go down the sides, when the seat of the fire would have been well within by that time.
I hope you volunteer to be the crew on the helicopter doing it.
IMV what you need are what they used: high-pressure unmanned pumps to get the water through windows and into the building - although can they reach high enough for this sort of building? If so that's a significant capability gap.
Here's an idea: a high-powered drone capable of lifting water hoses up high without the need for ladders (or from the top of the highest ladder). Though water and hoses weigh a lot, so it'd have to have a lot of grunt to lift them.
Agreed, and a hell of a lot of grunt to keep them in position, looking at the pressure used on ground based high pressure hoses requiring at least 2 firemen to control. The amount of water in the hose means they cannot even be carried. Just to give some idea, 5 gallons weighs 18.70 Kg, and the standing weight of the water in the hose (no, forget about the water passing through, for the argument it will always be the same water) and the pressure keeps the hose like an iron bar. Found this, and just to note, Grenfell had no sprinklers, and it would be interesting to know if the firemen could have got access to a standing pipe at the top or even halfway up, of the building: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2004/12/how_high_can_a_fire_hose_shoot.html
Philip Hammond is definitely in the hunt. He's confirmed he's ready for the UK to leave the customs union, ensuring the headbangers can live with him.
Superb, I'll take that.
I suspect he will change his mind on not having a customs union with the EU, indeed if that is his mind and he becomes PM. It's just further muddying the already murky Brexit waters.
I think there will be a transition period, followed by an arrangement for customs-free union in certain areas and sectors, for a fee, under Hammond. Like on cars and aerospace.
Exact words: "Preserving the integrity of the Single Market excludes participation based on a sector-by-sector approach."
Whatever settlement we get will largely be to the EU's design. It's amazing how parochial our press and political class are, debating the issue as if we get to pick from a menu.
Not entirely true, Switzerland has access by bilateral agreements to the EEA without being a member of it
The European Comission greatly regrets what they have given Switzerland. They will not make the same mistake with us.
They will offer us a take it or leave it deal. It must have been difficult enough to get an agreed position amongst the 27; I expect Barnier has very little wiggle room.
We will accept, with some face-saving adjustment on the lump sum.
We will see, of course Blair never took the transition controls over free movement other EU nations took from 2004 which legally the UK was entitled to do under EU rules so there will be a lot up for discussion
There is zero chance of a 2nd referendum, no PM will risk political suicide. Cameron called a referendum, May called a snap election - look how that worked out.
So many people conflating what they want to happen with reality.
There will be a second referendum because it will become the only way out of the unholy mess we now find ourselves. It's the cop-out option but I will welcome it nevertheless.
There won't, because neither of the big parties will support it.
There is zero chance of a 2nd referendum, no PM will risk political suicide. Cameron called a referendum, May called a snap election - look how that worked out.
So many people conflating what they want to happen with reality.
There will be a second referendum because it will become the only way out of the unholy mess we now find ourselves. It's the cop-out option but I will welcome it nevertheless.
There won't, because neither of the big parties will support it.
I believe they might if they are in a hole and it effectively passes the buck. If public opinion does turn heavily against Brexit in a year's time (as there are signs it might) then it will become the only way of escaping the narrow vote in 2015.
I cannot honestly now see a No Deal outcome without a further vote of some kind.
Philip Hammond is definitely in the hunt. He's confirmed he's ready for the UK to leave the customs union, ensuring the headbangers can live with him.
Superb, I'll take that.
I suspect he will change his mind on not having a customs union with the EU, indeed if that is his mind and he becomes PM. It's just further muddying the already murky Brexit waters.
I think there will be a transition period, followed by an arrangement for customs-free union in certain areas and sectors, for a fee, under Hammond. Like on cars and aerospace.
Exact words: "Preserving the integrity of the Single Market excludes participation based on a sector-by-sector approach."
Whatever settlement we get will largely be to the EU's design. It's amazing how parochial our press and political class are, debating the issue as if we get to pick from a menu.
Not entirely true, Switzerland has access by bilateral agreements to the EEA without being a member of it
The European Comission greatly regrets what they have given Switzerland. They will not make the same mistake with us.
They will offer us a take it or leave it deal. It must have been difficult enough to get an agreed position amongst the 27; I expect Barnier has very little wiggle room.
We will accept, with some face-saving adjustment on the lump sum.
We will see, of course Blair never took the transition controls over free movement other EU nations took from 2004 which legally the UK was entitled to do under EU rules so there will be a lot up for discussion
If your recent posts on this subject reflect the thinking of your fellow activists then there's still a huge amount of denial in the Tory party about Brexit.
So much as sneeze in front of Diane Abbott and you're a racist misogynist.
Raise the small matter of Hillary Clinton's unleashing of mayhem in Libya and you're a sexist pig.
Challenge Stella Creasy's support for bombing in Syria and you're a foul troll who clearly can't handle the idea of women doing politics.
Wonder out loud if Julia Gillard was a naff PM and you're a 1950s throwback in dire need of awareness-raising.
But Theresa May -- you can say anything you like about her. Unfeeling, uncaring, murderous, robotic, nasty, obsessed with fashion, with a gurning face perfect for piss-taking memes, her inability to emote proof she's a bad leader, and a bad woman. It's always nice to be reminded of what a partisan racket the new feminism is.
It's usually best to bet on things NOT happening as the febrile media (and sometimes the febrile PB) predict. Not always, of course, but the media live by predicting surprises. On Friday, PB was full of posts predicting (a) TM's resignation this weekend and (b) riots. I argued that neither was very likely, and so far that's been the case.
Similarly, "the no more slip-ups" and "you've got to get the Queen's Speech through" are quite low bars for TM to jump. Of course she'll get the QS through, the DUP has already said they'llback it, and while there are rebellious Tories that's not the mechanism they'll choose to bring TM down. Essentially she'll be OK for the forseeable future if she can get through to the August recess.
I'm interested in the s me of Ed Balls, with a genial manner, flexible opinions and steely nerve. But he has worked much harder at making Labour's manifesto vaguely affordable (which is more than we ever managed under EdM), explicitly vetoing things that we'd really like such as reversing all welfare cuts. If Labour does take power, it will be McDonnell who vetoes bonkers Chavez/Syriza-style policies, things that it'd be nice to do but we really can't afford.
(Snip)
On the doorstep, a lot of the "I can't vote Labour because of Corbyn" voters proved on closer discussion to have not voted Labour since 2010, if at all. That's why the anti-Corbyn media blitz didn't really work, as it mainly spoke to people who weren't going to vote Labour anyway. Shifting to an anti-McDonnell blitz won't solve the Tory dilemma either. They need to discover an actual reason why people should LIKE them. And I think they'rre too exhausted to do it.
Interesting comments. Those of us who predicted Corbyn would be a utter disaster should fess up and admit you ended up being right.
But Labour are still not in government.
I'm far from convinced though that the one more heave, Tories are tired, argument will actually work next time.
Yes, I fess up. Nick was right, I was wrong.
Am thinking of rejoining the Labour Party, if only so that I can be its most right wing member.
I thought about it and decided against rejoining. Despite Nick's post, I am very wary of McDonnell and others around the leadership. I think it's a pity Corbyn has failed to reconstruct his shadow cabinet and some of his advisers appal me. I was wrong about Corbyn's ability to fight a campaign and how people would respond to him, but the other stuff has not gone away. I will remain a sympatheic, but critical, observer.
Philip Hammond is definitely in the hunt. He's confirmed he's ready for the UK to leave the customs union, ensuring the headbangers can live with him.
Superb, I'll take that.
I suspect he will change his mind on not having a customs union with the EU, indeed if that is his mind and he becomes PM. It's just further muddying the already murky Brexit waters.
I think there will be a transition period, followed by an arrangement for customs-free union in certain areas and sectors, for a fee, under Hammond. Like on cars and aerospace.
Exact words: "Preserving the integrity of the Single Market excludes participation based on a sector-by-sector approach."
Whatever settlement we get will largely be to the EU's design. It's amazing how parochial our press and political class are, debating the issue as if we get to pick from a menu.
Not entirely true, Switzerland has access by bilateral agreements to the EEA without being a member of it
The European Comission greatly regrets what they have given Switzerland. They will not make the same mistake with us.
They will offer us a take it or leave it deal. It must have been difficult enough to get an agreed position amongst the 27; I expect Barnier has very little wiggle room.
We will accept, with some face-saving adjustment on the lump sum.
We will see, of course Blair never took the transition controls over free movement other EU nations took from 2004 which legally the UK was entitled to do under EU rules so there will be a lot up for discussion
Again, what is their incentive to make life easy for us? The newer members will never countenance some kind of second-class status for their citizens.
It is in the overwhelming existential interest of the EU to make leaving as expensive and painful for the UK as possible, even at the cost of a minor temporary economic hit to the remaining members. Too many of my fellow Brexiteers refuse to believe this, but it is true.
A fair post. I would read it as voters wanting a customs-free arrangement with the EU to maximise trade, which incidentally is something Theresa May is looking at, whilst also giving the UK the ability to set its own tariff arrangements and trade deals globally. But most people simply don't know how it works.
Free trade means both sides don't pay tariffs on goods within the scope of that agreement, but you still have to show you've complied with rules-of-origin checks at the borders between those countries, as EFTA states do. Customs union means there is no need for customs checks internally, except at the borders of that customs union as a whole, because you've already done them already; however, tariffs are set at a common level.
That means the EU commission negotiates as a whole in international trade deals, because the level of sovereign control a state would have over its own tariff and regulatory regime is so limited (non-existent) there'd be little to no point even if it wanted to.
If we're Leaving the EU to realise benefits and future opportunities, then quitting the customs union is probably the most obvious thing to do first, subject to a transition period.
And it's not just us either who wish to quit the customs union..
Negotiating our own trade deals is always presented as a flexibility and an advantage. It's the wrong way round IMO. Being out of a customs union means losing all the beneficial trade arrangements built up by the EU over decades. Being out of a customs union forces is to negotiate new deals when it would be better to keep what we already have. At the least there will be gap in the short and medium terms
Negotiating trade deals with countries that know you are desperate for trade deals is easy. Basically, you take or leave what they offer - which does, at least, have the benefit of saving time and money, I guess.
Just the line the EU will take on any deal we do with them
And all other major trading states. We might get something out of New Zealand, though.
It's good to see that absolute nonsense of the No Deal is Better than a Bad Deal rhetoric being quietly buried today.
As a businessman do you accept a bad deal which loses you money or politely say 'no thanks' ?
These analogies break down because normally the consequence of refusing a bad deal is the status quo. We are on the Brexit train unless something dramatic changes. The default option is catastrophe.
Lord O'Neill of Gatley is a former Commercial Secretary to the Treasury
On 23 September 2016, O'Neill resigned over concerns that May was not committed to the 'Northern Powerhouse' project making him the first, and to date only, member of May's ministry to resign (Wiki)
The people baying for Theresa May's head are Conservative MPs
Really?
Carrying Socialist Workers Party Banners and chanting in a modest group outside Downing Street?
Really. See the thread header for instance. All the Tory papers are quoting Conservatives on the need for Theresa May to go. And Hammond on Marr did not sound that enthused; some on this very here pb interpreted his comments as the start of his own leadership campaign.
If Scotland had voted 52/48 for independence, would that result have been accepted, or would political and business leaders be scrabbling to prevent it?
Philip Hammond is definitely in the hunt. He's confirmed he's ready for the UK to leave the customs union, ensuring the headbangers can live with him.
Superb, I'll take that.
I suspect he will change his mind on not having a customs union with the EU, indeed if that is his mind and he becomes PM. It's just further muddying the already murky Brexit waters.
I think there will be a transition period, followed by an arrangement for customs-free union in certain areas and sectors, for a fee, under Hammond. Like on cars and aerospace.
Exact words: "Preserving the integrity of the Single Market excludes participation based on a sector-by-sector approach."
Whatever settlement we get will largely be to the EU's design. It's amazing how parochial our press and political class are, debating the issue as if we get to pick from a menu.
Not entirely true, Switzerland has access by bilateral agreements to the EEA without being a member of it
The European Comission greatly regrets what they have given Switzerland. They will not make the same mistake with us.
They will offer us a take it or leave it deal. It must have been difficult enough to get an agreed position amongst the 27; I expect Barnier has very little wiggle room.
We will accept, with some face-saving adjustment on the lump sum.
We will see, of course Blair never took the transition controls over free movement other EU nations took from 2004 which legally the UK was entitled to do under EU rules so there will be a lot up for discussion
If your recent posts on this subject reflect the thinking of your fellow activists then there's still a huge amount of denial in the Tory party about Brexit.
For the record I voted Remain but it was undeniably Blair's failure to impose the transition controls on free movement in 2004 which led to the narrow Leave vote in my view, along with Iraq it was the worst mistake of his premiership
Philip Hammond is definitely in the hunt. He's confirmed he's ready for the UK to leave the customs union, ensuring the headbangers can live with him.
Superb, I'll take that.
I suspect he will change his mind on not having a customs union with the EU, indeed if that is his mind and he becomes PM. It's just further muddying the already murky Brexit waters.
I think there will be a transition period, followed by an arrangement for customs-free union in certain areas and sectors, for a fee, under Hammond. Like on cars and aerospace.
Exact words: "Preserving the integrity of the Single Market excludes participation based on a sector-by-sector approach."
Whatever settlement we get will largely be to the EU's design. It's amazing how parochial our press and political class are, debating the issue as if we get to pick from a menu.
Not entirely true, Switzerland has access by bilateral agreements to the EEA without being a member of it
A Swiss style deal won't be offered to us. It was negotiated in far more benign circumstances and subsequently the EU decided it made a mistake.
The EU exports significantly more to the UK than it does to Switzerland so who knows what the negotiations will produce?
We know. More chaos. And more or less effective efforts to mitigate that chaos, which means keeping things as close as possible to what we already have. What the negotiations certainly won't produce is a new all encompassing alternative.
Lord O'Neill of Gatley is a former Commercial Secretary to the Treasury
On 23 September 2016, O'Neill resigned over concerns that May was not committed to the 'Northern Powerhouse' project making him the first, and to date only, member of May's ministry to resign (Wiki)
I'm shocked, I tell you! Shocked.....
Are you Fiona Hill or Nick Timothy?
You have their nasty habit of playing the man/woman when people doesn't say nice things about the pound shop Gordon Brown ?
If Scotland had voted 52/48 for independence, would that result have been accepted, or would political and business leaders be scrabbling to prevent it?
Independence is much easier to deliver than Brexit because at the heart of it is something tangible: a transfer of sovereignty. Brexit does not involve a transfer of sovereignty, merely a diminution of the level of integration between sovereign entities.
It's good to see that absolute nonsense of the No Deal is Better than a Bad Deal rhetoric being quietly buried today.
As a businessman do you accept a bad deal which loses you money or politely say 'no thanks' ?
As a businessman I would not be in this situation in the first place. But to answer your question, this is not a negotiation about a deal between two parties who can walk away to the status quo.
It's good to see that absolute nonsense of the No Deal is Better than a Bad Deal rhetoric being quietly buried today.
As a businessman do you accept a bad deal which loses you money or politely say 'no thanks' ?
These analogies break down because normally the consequence of refusing a bad deal is the status quo. We are on the Brexit train unless something dramatic changes. The default option is catastrophe.
Didn't you tell us a year ago that the default option of a Leave vote would be an immediate recession, stock market crash, millions more unemployed etc etc etc ?
Philip Hammond is definitely in the hunt. He's confirmed he's ready for the UK to leave the customs union, ensuring the headbangers can live with him.
Superb, I'll take that.
I suspect he will change his mind on not having a customs union with the EU, indeed if that is his mind and he becomes PM. It's just further muddying the already murky Brexit waters.
I think there will be a transition period, followed by an arrangement for customs-free union in certain areas and sectors, for a fee, under Hammond. Like on cars and aerospace.
Exact words: "Preserving the integrity of the Single Market excludes participation based on a sector-by-sector approach."
Whatever settlement we get will largely be to the EU's design. It's amazing how parochial our press and political class are, debating the issue as if we get to pick from a menu.
Not entirely true, Switzerland has access by bilateral agreements to the EEA without being a member of it
The European Comission greatly regrets what they have given Switzerland. They will not make the same mistake with us.
They will offer us a take it or leave it deal. It must have been difficult enough to get an agreed position amongst the 27; I expect Barnier has very little wiggle room.
We will accept, with some face-saving adjustment on the lump sum.
We will see, of course Blair never took the transition controls over free movement other EU nations took from 2004 which legally the UK was entitled to do under EU rules so there will be a lot up for discussion
Again, what is their incentive to make life easy for us? The newer members will never countenance some kind of second-class status for their citizens.
It is in the overwhelming existential interest of the EU to make leaving as expensive and painful for the UK as possible, even at the cost of a minor temporary economic hit to the remaining members. Too many of my fellow Brexiteers refuse to believe this, but it is true.
A I was a Remainer not a Brexiteer
B Those newer members accepted France and Germany imposing controls on free movement from 2004 to 2011
If Scotland had voted 52/48 for independence, would that result have been accepted, or would political and business leaders be scrabbling to prevent it?
The EU might be happy to let us stay, I'm not sure the rest of the UK would have been quite so willing to let Scotland stay.
If Scotland had voted 52/48 for independence, would that result have been accepted, or would political and business leaders be scrabbling to prevent it?
Independence is much easier to deliver than Brexit because at the heart of it is something tangible: a transfer of sovereignty. Brexit does not involve a transfer of sovereignty, merely a diminution of the level of integration between sovereign entities.
The Scottish economy is even more integrated with rUK than the UK economy is with the EU
Mr Barnier told Sky News: ”I don't know what hard Brexit or soft Brexit means. I read yesterday 'Open Brexit' too! Brexit is withdrawal from the EU - it's the UK's decision. We're implementing it."
Those are astounding numbers. We must now countenance the possibility that public opinion swings sharply away from Brexit, during the negotiations
They are misleading numbers, and misleading questions.
It's Peston, Islam, and the bitter-ender Remainers that are sharing these as part of their lobbying effort: they smell blood.
Translation: I don't like the results.
Ah, another bitter-ender Remainer looking to jump on the wagon of results he loves.
I've explained downthread why these results are misleading.
There are plenty of other polls showing a very different picture, including support for the Government's current position, which is consistent at about 43-45%.
Your characterisation of me is as inaccurate as your analysis of this poll.
My position, about which I've been consistent since even before the referendum result, is that the result has to be respected in spirit as well as the letter, unless and until public opinion has decisively changed. It's going to be a disaster but that's democracy for you.
The measure of public opinion used to decide we had a referendum was a majority for a party that pledged to hold one. We didn't have one just because UKIP were doing well in polls or winning by elections. Surely the same measure should be used again?
No party got an overall majority. It might yet be that a second referendum is something that the majority of the House feels is appropriate in the changed circumstances.
Personally, I'm not in favour of one.
I mean in 2015. There was a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum if the Conservatives got a majority, that's why we had one. It wasn't on the whim of MP's or a because UKIP were winning seats
This is a Parliamentary democracy. Parliament can decide whether to hold a referendum. The Conservatives didn't have a manifesto commitment to hold one on AV in 2010, but the coalition government did so nevertheless in 2011.
Sure but it will stink to high heaven if they did so here
Philip Hammond is definitely in the hunt. He's confirmed he's ready for the UK to leave the customs union, ensuring the headbangers can live with him.
Superb, I'll take that.
I suspect he will change his mind on not having a customs union with the EU, indeed if that is his mind and he becomes PM. It's just further muddying the already murky Brexit waters.
I think there will be a transition period, followed by an arrangement for customs-free union in certain areas and sectors, for a fee, under Hammond. Like on cars and aerospace.
Exact words: "Preserving the integrity of the Single Market excludes participation based on a sector-by-sector approach."
Whatever settlement we get will largely be to the EU's design. It's amazing how parochial our press and political class are, debating the issue as if we get to pick from a menu.
Not entirely true, Switzerland has access by bilateral agreements to the EEA without being a member of it
The European Comission greatly regrets what they have given Switzerland. They will not make the same mistake with us.
They will offer us a take it or leave it deal. It must have been difficult enough to get an agreed position amongst the 27; I expect Barnier has very little wiggle room.
We will accept, with some face-saving adjustment on the lump sum.
We will see, of course Blair never took the transition controls over free movement other EU nations took from 2004 which legally the UK was entitled to do under EU rules so there will be a lot up for discussion
If your recent posts on this subject reflect the thinking of your fellow activists then there's still a huge amount of denial in the Tory party about Brexit.
For the record I voted Remain but it was undeniably Blair's failure to impose the transition controls on free movement in 2004 which led to the narrow Leave vote in my view, along with Iraq it was the worst mistake of his premiership
Lord O'Neill of Gatley is a former Commercial Secretary to the Treasury
On 23 September 2016, O'Neill resigned over concerns that May was not committed to the 'Northern Powerhouse' project making him the first, and to date only, member of May's ministry to resign (Wiki)
I'm shocked, I tell you! Shocked.....
You have their nasty habit of playing the man/woman when people doesn't say nice things about the pound shop Gordon Brown ?
I suggest you attend to the beam in your own eye before critiquing the mote in others'
If Scotland had voted 52/48 for independence, would that result have been accepted, or would political and business leaders be scrabbling to prevent it?
Good question.
I think though that Independence Means Independence as opposed to Brexit which means a different thing depending on who you ask so would be vastly harder to derail.
Those are astounding numbers. We must now countenance the possibility that public opinion swings sharply away from Brexit, during the negotiations
They are misleading numbers, and misleading questions.
It's Peston, Islam, and the bitter-ender Remainers that are sharing these as part of their lobbying effort: they smell blood.
Translation: I don't like the results.
Ah, another bitter-ender Remainer looking to jump on the wagon of results he loves.
I've explained downthread why these results are misleading.
There are plenty of other polls showing a very different picture, including support for the Government's current position, which is consistent at about 43-45%.
Your characterisation of me is as inaccurate as your analysis of this poll.
My position, about which I've been consistent since even before the referendum result, is that the result has to be respected in spirit as well as the letter, unless and until public opinion has decisively changed. It's going to be a disaster but that's democracy for you.
The measure of public opinion used to decide we had a referendum was a majority for a party that pledged to hold one. We didn't have one just because UKIP were doing well in polls or winning by elections. Surely the same measure should be used again?
No party got an overall majority. It might yet be that a second referendum is something that the majority of the House feels is appropriate in the changed circumstances.
Personally, I'm not in favour of one.
I mean in 2015. There was a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum if the Conservatives got a majority, that's why we had one. It wasn't on the whim of MP's or a because UKIP were winning seats
This is a Parliamentary democracy. Parliament can decide whether to hold a referendum. The Conservatives didn't have a manifesto commitment to hold one on AV in 2010, but the coalition government did so nevertheless in 2011.
Sure but it will stink to high heaven if they did so here
Why? I have problems with referendums, but it's inconsistent to say a first referendum is democratic and legitimate while a second wouldn't be.
Philip Hammond is definitely in the hunt. He's confirmed he's ready for the UK to leave the customs union, ensuring the headbangers can live with him.
Superb, I'll take that.
I suspect he will change his mind on not having a customs union with the EU, indeed if that is his mind and he becomes PM. It's just further muddying the already murky Brexit waters.
I think there will be a transition period, followed by an arrangement for customs-free union in certain areas and sectors, for a fee, under Hammond. Like on cars and aerospace.
Exact words: "Preserving the integrity of the Single Market excludes participation based on a sector-by-sector approach."
Whatever settlement we get will largely be to the EU's design. It's amazing how parochial our press and political class are, debating the issue as if we get to pick from a menu.
Not entirely true, Switzerland has access by bilateral agreements to the EEA without being a member of it
The European Comission greatly regrets what they have given Switzerland. They will not make the same mistake with us.
They will offer us a take it or leave it deal. It must have been difficult enough to get an agreed position amongst the 27; I expect Barnier has very little wiggle room.
We will accept, with some face-saving adjustment on the lump sum.
We will see, of course Blair never took the transition controls over free movement other EU nations took from 2004 which legally the UK was entitled to do under EU rules so there will be a lot up for discussion
If your recent posts on this subject reflect the thinking of your fellow activists then there's still a huge amount of denial in the Tory party about Brexit.
For the record I voted Remain but it was undeniably Blair's failure to impose the transition controls on free movement in 2004 which led to the narrow Leave vote in my view, along with Iraq it was the worst mistake of his premiership
Denying a vote on the Treaty of Lisbon helped to poison the well. Much of the political class in the UK and Europe just don't appreciate that clever tricks, like the Cunningham amendment in 1979, or renaming the EU Constitution something else, come back to bite you later on.
It's good to see that absolute nonsense of the No Deal is Better than a Bad Deal rhetoric being quietly buried today.
As a businessman do you accept a bad deal which loses you money or politely say 'no thanks' ?
As a businessman I would not be in this situation in the first place. But to answer your question, this is not a negotiation about a deal between two parties who can walk away to the status quo.
There was never a status quo - it was either EverCloserUnion or Leave.
And that is where Britain's EU policy went wrong - we pretended that there was a third way when there wasn't.
It's good to see that absolute nonsense of the No Deal is Better than a Bad Deal rhetoric being quietly buried today.
As a businessman do you accept a bad deal which loses you money or politely say 'no thanks' ?
As a businessman I would not be in this situation in the first place. But to answer your question, this is not a negotiation about a deal between two parties who can walk away to the status quo.
There was never a status quo - it was either EverCloserUnion or Leave.
And that is where Britain's EU policy went wrong - we pretended that there was a third way when there wasn't.
To the extent that a third way existed, we had it, and Brexiteers will come to regret throwing it away.
Those are astounding numbers. We must now countenance the possibility that public opinion swings sharply away from Brexit, during the negotiations
They are misleading numbers, and misleading questions.
It's Peston, Islam, and the bitter-ender Remainers that are sharing these as part of their lobbying effort: they smell blood.
Translation: I don't like the results.
Ah, another bitter-ender Remainer looking to jump on the wagon of results he loves.
I've explained downthread why these results are misleading.
There are plenty of other polls showing a very different picture, including support for the Government's current position, which is consistent at about 43-45%.
Your characterisation of me is as inaccurate as your analysis of this poll.
My position, about which I've been consistent since even before the referendum result, is that the result has to be respected in spirit as well as the letter, unless and until public opinion has decisively changed. It's going to be a disaster but that's democracy for you.
The measure of public opinion used to decide we had a referendum was a majority for a party that pledged to hold on one just because UKIP. Surely the same measure should be used again?
No
Personally, I'm not in favour of one.
I mean in 2015. There was a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum if the Conservatives got a majority, that's why we had one. It wasn't on the whim of MP's or a because UKIP were winning seats
This is a Parliamentary democracy. Parliament can decide whether to hold a referendum. The Conservatives didn't have a manifesto commitment to hold one on AV in 2010, but the coalition government did so nevertheless in 2011.
Sure but it will stink to high heaven if they did so here
Why? I have problems with referendums, but it's inconsistent to say a first referendum is democratic and legitimate while a second wouldn't be.
I just think a second referendum should be earned the same way as the first was. A bunch of people (MPs) who didn't like the result of the first one just calling for a rerun doesnt seem to be right. If a govt is elected that has a manifesto pledge for another EU ref or even to take us back in without one, that's fair enough
Philip Hammond is definitely in the hunt. He's confirmed he's ready for the UK to leave the customs union, ensuring the headbangers can live with him.
Superb, I'll take that.
I suspect he will change his mind on not having a customs union with the EU, indeed if that is his mind and he becomes PM. It's just further muddying the already murky Brexit waters.
I think there will be a transition period, followed by an arrangement for customs-free union in certain areas and sectors, for a fee, under Hammond. Like on cars and aerospace.
Exact words: "Preserving the integrity of the Single Market excludes participation based on a sector-by-sector approach."
Whatever settlement we get will largely be to the EU's design. It's amazing how parochial our press and political class are, debating the issue as if we get to pick from a menu.
Not entirely true, Switzerland has access by bilateral agreements to the EEA without being a member of it
The European Comission greatly regrets what they have given Switzerland. They will not make the same mistake with us.
They will offer us a take it or leave it deal. It must have been difficult enough to get an agreed position amongst the 27; I expect Barnier has very little wiggle room.
We will accept, with some face-saving adjustment on the lump sum.
We will see, of course Blair never took the transition controls over free movement other EU nations took from 2004 which legally the UK was entitled to do under EU rules so there will be a lot up for discussion
If your recent posts on this subject reflect the thinking of your fellow activists then there's still a huge amount of denial in the Tory party about Brexit.
For the record I voted Remain but it was undeniably Blair's failure to impose the transition controls on free movement in 2004 which led to the narrow Leave vote in my view, along with Iraq it was the worst mistake of his premiership
Denying a vote on the Treaty of Lisbon helped to poison the well. Much of the political class in the UK and Europe just don't appreciate that clever tricks, like the Cunningham amendment in 1979, or renaming the EU Constitution something else, come back to bite you later on.
If Scotland had voted 52/48 for independence, would that result have been accepted, or would political and business leaders be scrabbling to prevent it?
Independence is much easier to deliver than Brexit because at the heart of it is something tangible: a transfer of sovereignty. Brexit does not involve a transfer of sovereignty, merely a diminution of the level of integration between sovereign entities.
If Scotland had voted 52/48 for independence, would that result have been accepted, or would political and business leaders be scrabbling to prevent it?
Independence is much easier to deliver than Brexit because at the heart of it is something tangible: a transfer of sovereignty. Brexit does not involve a transfer of sovereignty, merely a diminution of the level of integration between sovereign entities.
Paging Richard Tyndall - time to make your sovereignty points again. Those with their finger in their ears don't seem to have heard it...
Am thinking of rejoining the Labour Party, if only so that I can be its most right wing member.
I thought about it and decided against rejoining. Despite Nick's post, I am very wary of McDonnell and others around the leadership. I think it's a pity Corbyn has failed to reconstruct his shadow cabinet and some of his advisers appal me. I was wrong about Corbyn's ability to fight a campaign and how people would respond to him, but the other stuff has not gone away. I will remain a sympatheic, but critical, observer.
Fair enough, both of you. My contributions here (when they aren't trolling, which is usually flagged with a smiley) are partly intended to balance the media image (even from quite friendly media) with personal acquaintance. Among my many weaknesses is that I tend to like everyone (I confess even to a soft spot for Farage, who is often amusing) but I hope they're useful all the same.
How to migrate from the "outside" (demos, militant proclamations, etc.) to potential government is a challenge that many on the left never thought they'd have to face. Some never make it, like Chavez, and just drive themselves and their countries into ruin. Some adjust with ease and become part of the establishment (Denis Healey, like me, was a former Communist, as was a former Tory Cabinet Minister). But there are a fair number - Corbyn is the obvious example - who want to balance keeping their ideals with doing a sensible job, and they don't find it easy, but it's great when they manage it. Partly because I recognise that in myself, I'm inclined to cut some slack to people for what they said decades ago. It's important to bring idealists in from the cold, as government without ideals leads us into a bleak, dark alley.
Those are astounding numbers. We must now countenance the possibility that public opinion swings sharply away from Brexit, during the negotiations
They are misleading numbers, and misleading questions.
It's Peston, Islam, and the bitter-ender Remainers that are sharing these as part of their lobbying effort: they smell blood.
Translation: I don't like the results.
Ah, another bitter-ender Remainer looking to jump on the wagon of results he loves.
I've explained downthread why these results are misleading.
There are plenty of other polls showing a very different picture, including support for the Government's current position, which is consistent at about 43-45%.
Your characterisation of me is as inaccurate as your analysis of this poll.
My position, about which I've been consistent since even before the referendum result, is that the result has to be respected in spirit as well as the letter, unless and until public opinion has decisively changed. It's going to be a disaster but that's democracy for you.
The measure of public opinion used to decide we had a referendum was a majority for a party that pledged to hold one. We didn't have one just because UKIP were doing well in polls or winning by elections. Surely the same measure should be used again?
No party got an overall majority. It might yet be that a second referendum is something that the majority of the House feels is appropriate in the changed circumstances.
Personally, I'm not in favour of one.
I mean in 2015. There was a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum if the Conservatives got a majority, that's why we had one. It wasn't on the whim of MP's or a because UKIP were winning seats
This is a Parliamentary democracy. Parliament can decide whether to hold a referendum. The Conservatives didn't have a manifesto commitment to hold one on AV in 2010, but the coalition government did so nevertheless in 2011.
Sure but it will stink to high heaven if they did so here
Why? I have problems with referendums, but it's inconsistent to say a first referendum is democratic and legitimate while a second wouldn't be.
So can we have a third, fourth and fifth too, and who decides that? You either have one or an unlimited amount, surely?
If Scotland had voted 52/48 for independence, would that result have been accepted, or would political and business leaders be scrabbling to prevent it?
Good question.
I think though that Independence Means Independence as opposed to Brexit which means a different thing depending on who you ask so would be vastly harder to derail.
I could see many of the same arguments being made:-
1. The SNP lied about the benefits and costs of independence, 2. The vote was won on the backs of the poor and uneducated, who are easily manipulated by unscrupulous people, 3. There was no clear idea what independence entailed, 4. The country is divided, given that Edinburgh, Lothian, the Borders, the North East all voted to Remain, 5. 52% is too small a lead to make such a momentous change, 6. People will change their minds once they experience economic hardship,
It's good to see that absolute nonsense of the No Deal is Better than a Bad Deal rhetoric being quietly buried today.
As a businessman do you accept a bad deal which loses you money or politely say 'no thanks' ?
As a businessman I would not be in this situation in the first place. But to answer your question, this is not a negotiation about a deal between two parties who can walk away to the status quo.
There was never a status quo - it was either EverCloserUnion or Leave.
And that is where Britain's EU policy went wrong - we pretended that there was a third way when there wasn't.
To the extent that a third way existed, we had it, and Brexiteers will come to regret throwing it away.
He's high on his own supply. We might well be close to peak Corbyn. Sooner or later he will need compliance from the Labour right. Now was the time to be inclusive or at least conciliatory on his terms. He's missing his chance.
I don't think he's really into revenge (is anyone still talking reselections?) but he's very much into sticking by friends. Every appointment of a centrist involves sacking someone who stuck by him when virtually nobody else did. He finds it difficult. I agree that he needs to being himself to do it, a bit.
The measure of public opinion used to decide we had a referendum was a majority for a party that pledged to hold one. We didn't have one just because UKIP were doing well in polls or winning by elections. Surely the same measure should be used again?
No party got an overall majority. It might yet be that a second referendum is something that the majority of the House feels is appropriate in the changed circumstances.
Personally, I'm not in favour of one.
I mean in 2015. There was a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum if the Conservatives got a majority, that's why we had one. It wasn't on the whim of MP's or a because UKIP were winning seats
This is a Parliamentary democracy. Parliament can decide whether to hold a referendum. The Conservatives didn't have a manifesto commitment to hold one on AV in 2010, but the coalition government did so nevertheless in 2011.
Sure but it will stink to high heaven if they did so here
Why? I have problems with referendums, but it's inconsistent to say a first referendum is democratic and legitimate while a second wouldn't be.
So can we have a third, fourth and fifth too, and who decides that? You either have one or an unlimited amount, surely?
There have already been two. What's your objection to a third? It was quite apparent on the night of the referendum itself that Leavers weren't going to stop demanding another referendum if the result went against them.
Nothing wrong with being a former Communist, or as the Trots (Jezza, included) would say, a 'State Capitalist.' I thought they hated communists worse than real capitalists. Ah, those heady days of 1967.
He's high on his own supply. We might well be close to peak Corbyn. Sooner or later he will need compliance from the Labour right. Now was the time to be inclusive or at least conciliatory on his terms. He's missing his chance.
I don't think he's really into revenge (is anyone still talking reselections?) but he's very much into sticking by friends. Every appointment of a centrist involves sacking someone who stuck by him when virtually nobody else did. He finds it difficult. I agree that he needs to being himself to do it, a bit.
You don't think that was gratuitously rude to Yvette Cooper?
Speaking of Iraq, is there anyone on PB who thinks that Iraq wasn't a mistake? I know that Niall Ferguson IIRC is still defending it.
For the record, I think Iraq was the worst thing Blair ever did and has overshadowed his entire premiership.
The British public will feel EXACTLY the same ~ 4 years after Corbyn is elected Prime Minister................................................................... ^_~
i just think a second referendum should be earned the same way as the first was. A bunch of people (MPs) who didn't like the result of the first one just calling for a rerun doesnt seem to be right. If a govt is elected that has a manifesto pledge for another EU ref or even to take us back in without one, that's fair enough
If people reject a change of direction, the first referendum result will be vindicated and you could argue the second one was unnecessary. But if they override the result of the first referendum in a second one, it supersedes and invalidates the first result. It comes down entirely to how people vote.
He's high on his own supply. We might well be close to peak Corbyn. Sooner or later he will need compliance from the Labour right. Now was the time to be inclusive or at least conciliatory on his terms. He's missing his chance.
I don't think he's really into revenge (is anyone still talking reselections?) but he's very much into sticking by friends. Every appointment of a centrist involves sacking someone who stuck by him when virtually nobody else did. He finds it difficult. I agree that he needs to being himself to do it, a bit.
Surely he needs to ensure that Labour looks like a government in waiting. With the best will in the world, there are a few in the current shadow cabinet who make that a harder task.
Speaking of Iraq, is there anyone on PB who thinks that Iraq wasn't a mistake? I know that Niall Ferguson IIRC is still defending it.
For the record, I think Iraq was the worst thing Blair ever did and has overshadowed his entire premiership.
Outside PB a lot of Blairite pundits (who coincidentally tend to be Scottish) are still on board: McTernan, Daisley, Deerin. Aaronovitch & Cohen I think are at best 'ambivalent' about it. It wouldn't surprise me if one could add the great sage of our times, J.K.Rowling, to the ambivalent column.
If we don't leave Europe, how will we ever learn that votes don't have long term conseqeuences. Corbyn is signalling that he prefers ideological purity over competence today (Diane vs Yvette), the nation is going to need to learn a very hard lesson in ~ 10 years time when his premiership disastrously comes to an end and we're begging the EU/IMF for aid.
I do think though that Brexit followed by Corbyn may well teach us some valuable lessons as a nation. Noone ever learns via "I told you this was a bad idea".
He's high on his own supply. We might well be close to peak Corbyn. Sooner or later he will need compliance from the Labour right. Now was the time to be inclusive or at least conciliatory on his terms. He's missing his chance.
I don't think he's really into revenge (is anyone still talking reselections?) but he's very much into sticking by friends. Every appointment of a centrist involves sacking someone who stuck by him when virtually nobody else did. He finds it difficult. I agree that he needs to being himself to do it, a bit.
You don't think that was gratuitously rude to Yvette Cooper?
There's always someone who has their peak moment immediately after an election.
2010 Clegg 2015 Sturgeon / Osborne 2017 Corbyn ?
They look like they're about to bestride the world unstoppable.
A year or two later and they wonder if they've made a big mistake.
Am thinking of rejoining the Labour Party, if only so that I can be its most right wing member.
I thought about it and decided against rejoining. Despite Nick's post, I am very wary of McDonnell and others around the leadership. I think it's a pity Corbyn has failed to reconstruct his shadow cabinet and some of his advisers appal me. I was wrong about Corbyn's ability to fight a campaign and how people would respond to him, but the other stuff has not gone away. I will remain a sympatheic, but critical, observer.
Fair enough, both of you. My contributions here (when they aren't trolling, which is usually flagged with a smiley) are partly intended to balance the media image (even from quite friendly media) with personal acquaintance. Among my many weaknesses is that I tend to like everyone (I confess even to a soft spot for Farage, who is often amusing) but I hope they're useful all the same.
How to migrate from the "outside" (demos, militant proclamations, etc.) to potential government is a challenge that many on the left never thought they'd have to face. Some never make it, like Chavez, and just drive themselves and their countries into ruin. Some adjust with ease and become part of the establishment (Denis Healey, like me, was a former Communist, as was a former Tory Cabinet Minister). But there are a fair number - Corbyn is the obvious example - who want to balance keeping their ideals with doing a sensible job, and they don't find it easy, but it's great when they manage it. Partly because I recognise that in myself, I'm inclined to cut some slack to people for what they said decades ago. It's important to bring idealists in from the cold, as government without ideals leads us into a bleak, dark alley.
I agree. The events of the last 10 days have reconnected me to a far more left wing view of the world than I had allowed myself for a long time. There is no point in us going round and round on stuff, but I do believe that it would be wrong to assume that a 40% share of the vote for Labour all of a sudden means that close to 13 million Brits have been won over by the party's agenda. I do not believe, for example, that Remainy Warwick and Leamington turned red because voters here have embraced Brexit and full-blooded socialism. My view is that to keep the votes it has won, Labour has to show that it is a broad church. That will mean Corbyn and others reaching out. To my mind it's a really good test of just how serious they are about winning next time.
If we don't leave Europe, how will we ever learn that votes don't have long term conseqeuences. Corbyn is signalling that he prefers ideological purity over competence today (Diane vs Yvette), the nation is going to need to learn a very hard lesson in ~ 10 years time when his premiership disastrously comes to an end and we're begging the EU/IMF for aid.
I do think though that Brexit followed by Corbyn may well teach us some valuable lessons as a nation. Noone ever learns via "I told you this was a bad idea".
We'll only learn when politicians decide they can't wait for the magic money tree to grow more leaves and instead chop it down and sell it for firewood.
Speaking of Iraq, is there anyone on PB who thinks that Iraq wasn't a mistake? I know that Niall Ferguson IIRC is still defending it.
For the record, I think Iraq was the worst thing Blair ever did and has overshadowed his entire premiership.
Outside PB a lot of Blairite pundits (who coincidentally tend to be Scottish) are still on board: McTernan, Daisley, Deerin. Aaronovitch & Cohen I think are at best 'ambivalent' about it. It wouldn't surprise me if one could add the great sage of our times, J.K.Rowling, to the ambivalent column.
Tbf, I don't think J.K is a Blairite - she was most known as a supporter of Gordon Brown, IIRC until being known for her anti-Corbyn views.
Alastair Campbell actually did an interview with Tony Blair, very recently in which they talked about Iraq (as well as other subjects). Blair still doesn't regret it, so I presume that some Blairites are still following their disciple when it comes to still supporting the Iraq War.
If we don't leave Europe, how will we ever learn that votes don't have long term conseqeuences. Corbyn is signalling that he prefers ideological purity over competence today (Diane vs Yvette), the nation is going to need to learn a very hard lesson in ~ 10 years time when his premiership disastrously comes to an end and we're begging the EU/IMF for aid.
I do think though that Brexit followed by Corbyn may well teach us some valuable lessons as a nation. Noone ever learns via "I told you this was a bad idea".
We'll only learn when politicians decide they can't wait for the magic money tree to grow more leaves and instead chop it down and sell it for firewood.
Long is the way and hard, that out of Hell leads up to light.
I admit my view of Trots may be fifty years out of date, but that's why I doubt the new touchy-feely Corbyn. Leon mixed with Mahatma Gandhi doesn't work for me. The full-on Stalinists were boring, but the Trots were a nasty bunch and lived on hatred (not that the Stalinists were full of bonhomie),
But you know the lad, so has he changed in those years?
If Scotland had voted 52/48 for independence, would that result have been accepted, or would political and business leaders be scrabbling to prevent it?
Good question.
I think though that Independence Means Independence as opposed to Brexit which means a different thing depending on who you ask so would be vastly harder to derail.
I could see many of the same arguments being made:-
1. The SNP lied about the benefits and costs of independence, 2. The vote was won on the backs of the poor and uneducated, who are easily manipulated by unscrupulous people, 3. There was no clear idea what independence entailed, 4. The country is divided, given that Edinburgh, Lothian, the Borders, the North East all voted to Remain, 5. 52% is too small a lead to make such a momentous change, 6. People will change their minds once they experience economic hardship,
Rinse and repeat.
3. wouldn't work - the Scottish Government published a hugely detailed white paper or similar well in advance of the referendum.
Does anyone NOT know that that is the real London? It's the same in any city in the country, and most large towns. Those Albanian car washers have to live somewhere.
Message to TSE and other Tory critics of the PM. You seem to be using all your energy to attack her but that in itself is revealing. I don't know if this is about revenge of the Cameroons - who weren't stabbed in the back by May but committed Hari Kiri with the referendum and the absurd punishment budget. But you can't accept this can you? They destroyed themselves. Take heed of Nick Palmer's words yesterday. The Tories don't know why they want to govern. Getting rid of May won't change that. If it's to save us from hard brexit please listen to Mr Barnier who clearly thinks the whole hard/soft notion is a nonsense.
The measure of public opinion used to decide we had a referendum was a majority for a party that pledged to hold one. We didn't have one just because UKIP were doing well in polls or winning by elections. Surely the same measure should be used again?
No party got an overall majority. It might yet be that a second referendum is something that the majority of the House feels is appropriate in the changed circumstances.
Personally, I'm not in favour of one.
I mean in 2015. There was a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum if the Conservatives got a majority, that's why we had one. It wasn't on the whim of MP's or a because UKIP were winning seats
This is a Parliamentary democracy. Parliament can decide whether to hold a referendum. The Conservatives didn't have a manifesto commitment to hold one on AV in 2010, but the coalition government did so nevertheless in 2011.
Sure but it will stink to high heaven if they did so here
Why? I have problems with referendums, but it's inconsistent to say a first referendum is democratic and legitimate while a second wouldn't be.
So can we have a third, fourth and fifth too, and who decides that? You either have one or an unlimited amount, surely?
There have already been two. What's your objection to a third? It was quite apparent on the night of the referendum itself that Leavers weren't going to stop demanding another referendum if the result went against them.
More than happy to have a third when:
a) a similar time gap has elapsed b) the EU has reverted to sensible, non federalist, non common currency, non social chapter policies
"When the economic depression hits it will be hard to find anyone who voted to Leave."
So you think Brexit will be blamed for the effects of Corbynomics? I think Snowball got an easy ride in Animal Farm.
Doubt we will get Corbynomics myself. Still don't think Labour can win until Brexit has been shown to be an utter Tory disaster. Corbyn will probably have gone by then. I don't buy the one more heave view for Labour - I think a lot of people voted Labour safe in the knowledge they were just stopping a tory landslide and Corbyn would not be in No.10.
But in this febrile world, who the feck knows.
A family member txted me on the day the election was called to say that 'May has just thrown away her majority'.
I couldn't stop laughing in disbelief at his weird views...
Does anyone NOT know that that is the real London? It's the same in any city in the country, and most large towns. Those Albanian car washers have to live somewhere.
It is also the same in most major western cities from Paris to new York.
Does anyone NOT know that that is the real London? It's the same in any city in the country, and most large towns. Those Albanian car washers have to live somewhere.
What Inner London lacks, compared to other urban areas, are moderately well off professional people, the lower middle classes, and skilled working classes. The gap between rich and poor is stark and in your face.
Message to TSE and other Tory critics of the PM. You seem to be using all your energy to attack her but that in itself is revealing. I don't know if this is about revenge of the Cameroons - who weren't stabbed in the back by May but committed Hari Kiri with the referendum and the absurd punishment budget. But you can't accept this can you? They destroyed themselves. Take heed of Nick Palmer's words yesterday. The Tories don't know why they want to govern. Getting rid of May won't change that. If it's to save us from hard brexit please listen to Mr Barnier who clearly thinks the whole hard/soft notion is a nonsense.
The Tories need to worry about ideas more than personalities.
Does anyone NOT know that that is the real London? It's the same in any city in the country, and most large towns. Those Albanian car washers have to live somewhere.
What Inner London lacks, compared to other urban areas, are moderately well off professional people, the lower middle classes, and skilled working classes. The gap between rich and poor is stark and in your face.
Maybe we should let London go, it's clearly not a very nice place.
Does anyone NOT know that that is the real London? It's the same in any city in the country, and most large towns. Those Albanian car washers have to live somewhere.
Most folks from outside London don't - many in London close their eyes and ears to the reality of the daily lives of this underclass.
SO - My guess (and it's only that) is that Corbyn will continue to offer the same medicine. 3 million votes this time, so more of the same should produce another 3 million next time.
Does anyone NOT know that that is the real London? It's the same in any city in the country, and most large towns. Those Albanian car washers have to live somewhere.
What Inner London lacks, compared to other urban areas, are moderately well off professional people, the lower middle classes, and skilled working classes. The gap between rich and poor is stark and in your face.
Maybe we should let London go, it's clearly not a very nice place.
Much of it is very nice. But, I'd only see the attraction of living there if one had plenty of money. Rough as it's reputation is, I have a much better standard of living in Luton than in London.
Lord O'Neill of Gatley is a former Commercial Secretary to the Treasury
On 23 September 2016, O'Neill resigned over concerns that May was not committed to the 'Northern Powerhouse' project making him the first, and to date only, member of May's ministry to resign (Wiki)
I'm shocked, I tell you! Shocked.....
Extract: "Take note of what young voters were telling her. The referendum gave her a – weak – mandate for Brexit, not a kamikaze self-destruct button.
We have to put an end to this ridiculous ‘no deal better than a bad deal’ nonsense. Yes, we can trade with any part of the world. But to ignore – or even ditch – what we currently have is plain insanity. Don’t do it."
Commentator on Marr asking why helicopters were not spraying water over the buildings and rescuing people. Apparently the fire service banned the helicopters due to downdraft problems which seems obvious when you think about
Flying helicopters at night, in the middle of a city around a tower block on fire?. Sounds fun.
Even in the middle of the night, an inferno is clearly visible. More visible than during the day.
I take it you have not seen helicopters dousing fire in LA, for example.
That supposes the availability of suitably qualified crew and equipment of which there is none in the UK. Also, even if there were, aerial fire fighting is never done at night.
It's a ridiculous proposal. It would just add a crashed helicopter in a city centre to an already bad situation.
The question, then, is what does the Conservative Party stand for?
Labour quite clearly has an ideology and an agenda. The Lib Dems are a single issue party now. Or possibly a protest party for social liberals if the Tories shack up with the DUP.
If the Conservatives aren't the party of low taxes, fewer regulations, a smaller state - does it revert back to one nation Toryism, which really is just Keynesianism with a bit of social conservatism added on? Who does that appeal to? It's effectively ceding the argument to Labour who offer a bolder and more radical manifesto. Tories reduced to a party that wants to meddle and tinker with the economy, but only a little bit.
Philip Hammond is definitely in the hunt. He's confirmed he's ready for the UK to leave the customs union, ensuring the headbangers can live with him.
Superb, I'll take that.
I suspect he will change his mind on not having a customs union with the EU, indeed if that is his mind and he becomes PM. It's just further muddying the already murky Brexit waters.
I think there will be a transition period, followed by an arrangement for customs-free union in certain areas and sectors, for a fee, under Hammond. Like on cars and aerospace.
Exact words: "Preserving the integrity of the Single Market excludes participation based on a sector-by-sector approach."
Whatever settlement we get will largely be to the EU's design. It's amazing how parochial our press and political class are, debating the issue as if we get to pick from a menu.
Not entirely true, Switzerland has access by bilateral agreements to the EEA without being a member of it
The European Comission greatly regrets what they have given Switzerland. They will not make the same mistake with us.
They will offer us a take it or leave it deal. It must have been difficult enough to get an agreed position amongst the 27; I expect Barnier has very little wiggle room.
We will accept, with some face-saving adjustment on the lump sum.
We will see, of course Blair never took the transition controls over free movement other EU nations took from 2004 which legally the UK was entitled to do under EU rules so there will be a lot up for discussion
Again, what is their incentive to make life easy for us? The newer members will never countenance some kind of second-class status for their citizens.
It is in the overwhelming existential interest of the EU to make leaving as expensive and painful for the UK as possible, even at the cost of a minor temporary economic hit to the remaining members. Too many of my fellow Brexiteers refuse to believe this, but it is true.
I tend to agree particularly given the situation the government finds itself in now.
Comments
Found this, and just to note, Grenfell had no sprinklers, and it would be interesting to know if the firemen could have got access to a standing pipe at the top or even halfway up, of the building:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2004/12/how_high_can_a_fire_hose_shoot.html
I cannot honestly now see a No Deal outcome without a further vote of some kind.
Carrying Socialist Workers Party Banners and chanting in a modest group outside Downing Street?
It is in the overwhelming existential interest of the EU to make leaving as expensive and painful for the UK as possible, even at the cost of a minor temporary economic hit to the remaining members. Too many of my fellow Brexiteers refuse to believe this, but it is true.
A fine example of UK led pan European co-operation, just like the EU.
Lord O'Neill of Gatley is a former Commercial Secretary to the Treasury
On 23 September 2016, O'Neill resigned over concerns that May was not committed to the 'Northern Powerhouse' project making him the first, and to date only, member of May's ministry to resign (Wiki)
I'm shocked, I tell you! Shocked.....
You have their nasty habit of playing the man/woman when people doesn't say nice things about the pound shop Gordon Brown ?
B Those newer members accepted France and Germany imposing controls on free movement from 2004 to 2011
http://www.yorokobu.es/wp-content/uploads/The-Shining-1.jpg
https://twitter.com/open_britain/status/875990161452134400
Mr Barnier told Sky News: ”I don't know what hard Brexit or soft Brexit means. I read yesterday 'Open Brexit' too! Brexit is withdrawal from the EU - it's the UK's decision. We're implementing it."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/816363/brexit-news-eu-chief-negotiator-Michel-Barnier-warn-Britain-wasting-time-leads-to-no-deal
Ney's cavalry charges and the final advance of the Old Guard were at least more heroic than Cameron's humiliation in Brussels last year.
I think though that Independence Means Independence as opposed to Brexit which means a different thing depending on who you ask so would be vastly harder to derail.
And that is where Britain's EU policy went wrong - we pretended that there was a third way when there wasn't.
It occurs to me that if Diane had had just a basic grasp of arithmetic, Jezza might now be PM.
How to migrate from the "outside" (demos, militant proclamations, etc.) to potential government is a challenge that many on the left never thought they'd have to face. Some never make it, like Chavez, and just drive themselves and their countries into ruin. Some adjust with ease and become part of the establishment (Denis Healey, like me, was a former Communist, as was a former Tory Cabinet Minister). But there are a fair number - Corbyn is the obvious example - who want to balance keeping their ideals with doing a sensible job, and they don't find it easy, but it's great when they manage it. Partly because I recognise that in myself, I'm inclined to cut some slack to people for what they said decades ago. It's important to bring idealists in from the cold, as government without ideals leads us into a bleak, dark alley.
1. The SNP lied about the benefits and costs of independence,
2. The vote was won on the backs of the poor and uneducated, who are easily manipulated by unscrupulous people,
3. There was no clear idea what independence entailed,
4. The country is divided, given that Edinburgh, Lothian, the Borders, the North East all voted to Remain,
5. 52% is too small a lead to make such a momentous change,
6. People will change their minds once they experience economic hardship,
Rinse and repeat.
For the record, I think Iraq was the worst thing Blair ever did and has overshadowed his entire premiership.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-Euro_Conservative_Party
Nothing wrong with being a former Communist, or as the Trots (Jezza, included) would say, a 'State Capitalist.' I thought they hated communists worse than real capitalists. Ah, those heady days of 1967.
"There have already been two. What's your objection to a third? "
For once, I totally agree. One in 1975, one in 2016 ... so the next in 2057? Will that suit?
Corbyn is signalling that he prefers ideological purity over competence today (Diane vs Yvette), the nation is going to need to learn a very hard lesson in ~ 10 years time when his premiership disastrously comes to an end and we're begging the EU/IMF for aid.
I do think though that Brexit followed by Corbyn may well teach us some valuable lessons as a nation. Noone ever learns via "I told you this was a bad idea".
2010 Clegg
2015 Sturgeon / Osborne
2017 Corbyn ?
They look like they're about to bestride the world unstoppable.
A year or two later and they wonder if they've made a big mistake.
Alastair Campbell actually did an interview with Tony Blair, very recently in which they talked about Iraq (as well as other subjects). Blair still doesn't regret it, so I presume that some Blairites are still following their disciple when it comes to still supporting the Iraq War.
And the locals "aren't willing to do the work" - I know that because I've read it so many times on PB.
http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/is-eastenders-more-racist-than.html
I admit my view of Trots may be fifty years out of date, but that's why I doubt the new touchy-feely Corbyn. Leon mixed with Mahatma Gandhi doesn't work for me. The full-on Stalinists were boring, but the Trots were a nasty bunch and lived on hatred (not that the Stalinists were full of bonhomie),
But you know the lad, so has he changed in those years?
When the economic depression hits it will be hard to find anyone who voted to Leave.
"When the economic depression hits it will be hard to find anyone who voted to Leave."
So you think Brexit will be blamed for the effects of Corbynomics? I think Snowball got an easy ride in Animal Farm.
a) a similar time gap has elapsed
b) the EU has reverted to sensible, non federalist, non common currency, non social chapter policies
But in this febrile world, who the feck knows.
A family member txted me on the day the election was called to say that 'May has just thrown away her majority'.
I couldn't stop laughing in disbelief at his weird views...
Nobody wants neo-liberalism anymore.
"Take note of what young voters were telling her. The referendum gave her a – weak – mandate for Brexit, not a kamikaze self-destruct button.
We have to put an end to this ridiculous ‘no deal better than a bad deal’ nonsense. Yes, we can trade with any part of the world. But to ignore – or even ditch – what we currently have is plain insanity. Don’t do it."
It's a ridiculous proposal. It would just add a crashed helicopter in a city centre to an already bad situation.
Labour quite clearly has an ideology and an agenda. The Lib Dems are a single issue party now. Or possibly a protest party for social liberals if the Tories shack up with the DUP.
If the Conservatives aren't the party of low taxes, fewer regulations, a smaller state - does it revert back to one nation Toryism, which really is just Keynesianism with a bit of social conservatism added on? Who does that appeal to? It's effectively ceding the argument to Labour who offer a bolder and more radical manifesto. Tories reduced to a party that wants to meddle and tinker with the economy, but only a little bit.