politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB supporters are deluding themselves if they think an anti-C

Second! Like Corbyn, Remain & Yes.....

FPT - background on the latest Home Office scandal, from an unlikely source.....

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/993218506983464960

Local election night GE projections are supposed to forecast a majority for the current opposition of 200 or more, as "just a bit of fun". That fact that Corbynites are scratching around trying to claim an NOC largest party forecast as some kind of victory tells us all we need to know.

Long Read - post Brexit dispute resolution (its complicated) and Selmayr (It's a mess and it's going to get worse):

https://twitter.com/ceris_training/status/993266327954522117

2010 might be relevant in a different way. The Lib Dems might be prepared to put Labour into power if they drop their leader.

That could be a lively public discussion.

What happens if a number of the Labour MPs let the Palace know that they would not support Corbyn as PM?

OldKingCole said:

Well, my 80th birthday celebrations of yesterday are over; nice things were said about me, drink was taken and cake was eaten and all that’s left is to sort out the bills.

On topic, dn’t those figures mean a conntinuation of the current Con plus DUP C&S arrangments?

Belated congratulations! Old enough to set a bad example!

SouthamObserver said:

Coalition - formal or informal - requires compromise. The far left is incapable of that. It’s one of the reasons why I am immensely confident Corbyn will never be PM.

Isn't he in favour of Trident, now? Or at least not against it.

Let’s face it, a result anything like that projection and we are very likely heading back to the polls again with no viable government possible. At best there might be a short interregnum so the Tories lose the benefits of incumbency. But the idea that a viable government could be put together in that way is for the birds.

Agree with the thrust of the header - Lab should not assume.
I do think the green(s?) would support Corbyn over the Tories certainly.

Lib Dems under Vince more likely to back the Tories rather than Corbyn I reckon. I'd add also that the more left-wing Lib dems, perhaps previously motivated by the Iraq war/civil liberties, may have already switched to Labour.

SNP - I think the advantage here is the Labour is more ambivalent on constitutional matters. I imagine some kind of deal could be done. I find it hard to believe someone like Mhairi Black would ever back the Tories.

Overall, the London percentages were Con 31%, Lab 47%, Lib Dem 13%, Others 9%, very similar to 1997.

Mr. F, presumably that means the Conservatives had a smaller but significant lead in England (excluding London)? Also, that the Lib Dems did better out of London than in it?

Titter.....

Brexit was supposed to be the French language’s chance at a comeback.

For a brief moment after the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, Francophones in Paris and Brussels allowed themselves to believe that French would regain its historical standing as Europe’s language of diplomacy.

Instead, perhaps paradoxically, the opposite is taking place. Once Britain leaves the EU, only two, relatively small, EU member countries — Ireland and Malta — will still list English as an official language (alongside Irish and Maltese). It would be everyone else’s second language and thus neutral territory. Officials from non-French speaking countries like Poland, Italy or the Czech Republic are particularly eager to see the global lingua franca become the primary means of communication in the EU.

https://www.politico.eu/article/french-english-language-brexit-european-parliament-ecj-commission-eu-next-waterloo

AlastairMeeks said:

2010 might be relevant in a different way. The Lib Dems might be prepared to put Labour into power if they drop their leader.

That could be a lively public discussion.

A lot would depend on the maths.
If LD MPs < Corbyn MP supporters then it's probably irrelevant.

That does seem a more likely route for a Labour split though than what is normally discussed.

OldKingCole said:

MarqueeMark said:

OldKingCole said:

Well, my 80th birthday celebrations of yesterday are over; nice things were said about me, drink was taken and cake was eaten and all that’s left is to sort out the bills.

On topic, dn’t those figures mean a conntinuation of the current Con plus DUP C&S arrangments?

Couldn't have been that much drink taken if you are up and posting already! Congrats.

I wonder if any other poster has a better claim to be our very own Father of the House?

Thank you. We finshed drinking about 7 and I’ve slept for quite at long time. And I’m sure JackW is much older!

He just SAYS he is!

CarlottaVance said:

Long Read - post Brexit dispute resolution (its complicated) and Selmayr (It's a mess and it's going to get worse):

https://twitter.com/ceris_training/status/993266327954522117

That first article is interesting if rather dry. It's surprising to see how ad hoc and incompetent the EU are at drawing up trade treaties and how little thought goes into them. Maybe there's hope for a workable deal yet.

The second one doesn't pull any punches, does it?

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

Let’s face it, a result anything like that projection and we are very likely heading back to the polls again with no viable government possible. At best there might be a short interregnum so the Tories lose the benefits of incumbency. But the idea that a viable government could be put together in that way is for the birds.

The Tories would need to be on 310+ to stay in office, IMHO, and 315+ to be secure.

Anything less and they could be ambushed and defeated anytime.

On the numbers in the header the Lib Dems and DUP could offer them a comfortable majority on confidence and supply. Moreover, the Yellows could justify it perfectly legitimately on the basis of their long standing position that the Tories had won the most seats and they would talk to the largest party first. That would not be true of any arrangement involving Labour, who even if the SNP took leave of their senses and joined them wouldn't crack 300.

However, I can only see such an arrangement lasting two years before fresh elections. Possibly enough time for Labour however, if Corbyn was finally ditched in favour of somebody who can reach out to the centre.

Next problem - could they find such a person in the current Labour Party?

Even some very sensible and reasonable labour people have uses the word 'betrayal' when talking of the lds, for instance, not standing aside in a close con-lab contest, and i think OGH is right that the level of automatic expectation they would fall into line shows a measure of arrogance and lack of understanding of the fact the lds are their own party, not a Labour sub group.

That said, there are arrangements that don't require coalition, most ld voters seem to prefer labour to the tories (I'll take his word about them not being fans of Corbyn, though we know some lds are huge fans of his) and being seen to somehow prop up the tories, Even through inaction, woukd probably hurt them. So while it woukd be messy, and not as certain as some in labour act like it would be, I get the feeling they'd play ball.

Yes theyve been burned by coalition, but I'd have thought the party was still about hoping for some influence. It's not like they expect to win outright.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. F, presumably that means the Conservatives had a smaller but significant lead in England (excluding London)? Also, that the Lib Dems did better out of London than in it?

It's interesting to note that Labour won 56 seats in London in 1997, compared to 11 Conservative and 6 Lib Dem. Thursday's result would have been more like 47, 22, 4, which shows how effective New Labour were at winning votes where they needed them.

ydoethur said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

Let’s face it, a result anything like that projection and we are very likely heading back to the polls again with no viable government possible. At best there might be a short interregnum so the Tories lose the benefits of incumbency. But the idea that a viable government could be put together in that way is for the birds.

The Tories would need to be on 310+ to stay in office, IMHO, and 315+ to be secure.

Anything less and they could be ambushed and defeated anytime.

On the numbers in the header the Lib Dems and DUP could offer them a comfortable majority on confidence and supply. Moreover, the Yellows could justify it perfectly legitimately on the basis of their long standing position that the Tories had won the most seats and they would talk to the largest party first. That would not be true of any arrangement involving Labour, who even if the SNP took leave of their senses and joined them wouldn't crack 300.

However, I can only see such an arrangement lasting two years before fresh elections. Possibly enough time for Labour however, if Corbyn was finally ditched in favour of somebody who can reach out to the centre.

Next problem - could they find such a person in the current Labour Party?

The price of a C and S arrangement by LDs would be at the very least a referendum on the Brexit deal with a Remain option. I couldnt see that get past JRM.

Foxy said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting thread - including this:

https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/993201238979366912

https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/993201241726636032

Isn't that what the significance of the Backstop position that May conceeded? Failure to agree on other arrangements (a UK CU) means a NI CU with a customs border in the Irish sea.

No. These are the relevant clauses:

49. The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all- island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.
50. In the absence of agreed solutions, as set out in the previous paragraph, the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998 Agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland. In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.

The EU is now trying to put a radically different interpretation on this, presumably due to pressure from Dublin backed by Selmayr, who doesn't have much understanding of the issues, but in principle the EU have themselves ruled out a border in the Irish Sea.

Incidentally with regard to your reply yesterday if you can't see that the bank bailout, forced on Ireland by the ECB when even the IMF tried to stop it, has left major ongoing problems masked by a temporary credit binge, I can't force you to. But believe me, Ireland is no more out of the woods than we are and has even fewer options in the event of an emergency (like, oooh, a drunken fool in the European Commission inadvertently imposing a hard border on he island because he was wasted).

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

Let’s face it, a result anything like that projection and we are very likely heading back to the polls again with no viable government possible. At best there might be a short interregnum so the Tories lose the benefits of incumbency. But the idea that a viable government could be put together in that way is for the birds.

I agree, and I do not think there would be a coalition, but rather a minority government. Germany managed without a government for 6 months and the Italians seem to be doing the same. Most functions of government can tick over quite well without anyone at the wheel. Indeed it would return sovereignty to the Legislature rather than the executive. Policy would have to be thrashed out on a bill by bill basis rather than whipped. Sounds good to me.

Alternatively, a minority party could provide the PM. Who is SNP leader at Westminster now?

Sovereignty doesn’t belong to the legislature but to the executive (the “Crown-in-Parliament”)

kle4 said:

Can you imagine Corbyn trying to wrangle together a coalition (not even a formal Coalition) of such a variety of groups? Fair play to the man for boosting the labour vote, his campaigning skills, and his deterumination, but it's not an unfair point that party management has not been his strong suit.

Were in a situation where the leaders cannot seem to manage without working majorities, but cannot seem likely to get such a majority either. I think Corbyn has a chance of that, if Brexit goes even more poorly, but more likely no one will find it easy.

Far too many Labour members see the other centre-left parties as wholly owned subsidiaries of the Labour Party.

daodao said:

CarlottaVance said:

No doubt many Lib Dems also remember Labour's arrogant assumption that they were basically 'Labour mini-me' when Brown tried to hold on to power in 2010 - even without Corbyn, I doubt that fundamental Labour attitude has shifted.....all part of the progressive alliance (which Mason reckons doesn't need the Lib Dems):

https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/992408416298651648

Classic 'bubble' thinking - there are many non-progressive (current and former) Labour voters out there.....

The Lie Dems are not suitable partners for a radical "progressive" alliance. It was clear to me from the presentation to the public of the ConDem coalition in the Downing Street Rose Garden inn May 2010, and the fact that this government lasted a full 5 years, how little difference there is between liberal "conservatism" and the LDs.

While there would be differences between the nationalist parties (PC/SNP) and Labour on the national identity issue, they do at least have similar left-wing views and attitudes to foreign policy.

How dare the lds make a deal and see it through. Coalition can happen even between very different parties. Sometimes it's necessary. The public did not feel the compromises the lds made were worth any gains, but that they made a feel and such with it (which in fairness in part was necessary due to polling position) is not a sign they are mini tories.

CarlottaVance said:

daodao said:

CarlottaVance said:

No doubt many Lib Dems also remember Labour's arrogant assumption that they were basically 'Labour mini-me' when Brown tried to hold on to power in 2010 - even without Corbyn, I doubt that fundamental Labour attitude has shifted.....all part of the progressive alliance (which Mason reckons doesn't need the Lib Dems):

https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/992408416298651648

Classic 'bubble' thinking - there are many non-progressive (current and former) Labour voters out there.....

the nationalist parties (PC/SNP) and Labour.....do at least have similar ....attitudes to foreign policy.

Labour want to stay in the EU (SNP Policy)?

Their members do.

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting thread - including this:

https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/993201238979366912

https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/993201241726636032

Isn't that what the significance of the Backstop position that May conceeded? Failure to agree on other arrangements (a UK CU) means a NI CU with a customs border in the Irish sea.

No. These are the relevant clauses:

49. The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all- island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.
50. In the absence of agreed solutions, as set out in the previous paragraph, the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998 Agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland. In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.

The EU is now trying to put a radically different interpretation on this, presumably due to pressure from Dublin backed by Selmayr, who doesn't have much understanding of the issues, but in principle the EU have themselves ruled out a border in the Irish Sea.

Incidentally with regard to your reply yesterday if you can't see that the bank bailout, forced on Ireland by the ECB when even the IMF tried to stop it, has left major ongoing problems masked by a temporary credit binge, I can't force you to. But believe me, Ireland is no more out of the woods than we are and has even fewer options in the event of an emergency (like, oooh, a drunken fool in the European Commission inadvertently imposing a hard border on he island because he was wasted).

Sure, Ireland has economic issues, as indeed do all countries. It has however survived the GFC rather well, without bankrupcy and now has an economy forecast to be growing at the second fastest in the EU28.

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting thread - including this:

https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/993201238979366912

https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/993201241726636032

If point 10 is correct (I honestly cannot recall) it is intereating, as surely it would mean either the EU is no more competent than us, or is operating in bad faith. I'd assume the former, because this whole area is a political mess.

CarlottaVance said:

ydoethur said:

CarlottaVance said:

Long Read - post Brexit dispute resolution (its complicated) and Selmayr (It's a mess and it's going to get worse):

https://twitter.com/ceris_training/status/993266327954522117

That first article is interesting if rather dry. It's surprising to see how ad hoc and incompetent the EU are at drawing up trade treaties and how little thought goes into them. Maybe there's hope for a workable deal yet.

The second one doesn't pull any punches, does it?

On the treaties its a hodge-podge - on Selmayr its a disaster waiting to happen:

this will happen anyway if anyone in a future legal action against a secretary general’s decision decides to contest his competence because he has been illegally appointed. There will be a lot of opportunities, and this could thus produce a huge destabilization of the Commission, for a long period.

Given the EU'S hatred of instability, and it's defence of its own power, are there really countries or people who would be do angry as to challenge it in b such a way? It would seem counter productive. (I haven't read the whole piece yet, it's too early)

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting thread - including this:

https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/993201238979366912

https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/993201241726636032

If point 10 is correct (I honestly cannot recall) it is intereating, as surely it would mean either the EU is no more competent than us, or is operating in bad faith. I'd assume the former, because this whole area is a political mess.

It's a bit misleading. It agreed to those things in principle but didn't provide a solution, and stated that of a solution was not found that would meet the criteria, NI would have to remain in regulatory alignment with the EU (essentially staying in the CU )

daodao said:

kle4 said:

daodao said:

CarlottaVance said:

No doubt many Lib Dems also remember Labour's arrogant assumption that they were basically 'Labour mini-me' when Brown tried to hold on to power in 2010 - even without Corbyn, I doubt that fundamental Labour attitude has shifted.....all part of the progressive alliance (which Mason reckons doesn't need the Lib Dems):

https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/992408416298651648

Classic 'bubble' thinking - there are many non-progressive (current and former) Labour voters out there.....

The Lie Dems are not suitable partners for a radical "progressive" alliance. It was clear to me from the presentation to the public of the ConDem coalition in the Downing Street Rose Garden inn May 2010, and the fact that this government lasted a full 5 years, how little difference there is between liberal "conservatism" and the LDs.

While there would be differences between the nationalist parties (PC/SNP) and Labour on the national identity issue, they do at least have similar left-wing views and attitudes to foreign policy.

How dare the lds make a deal and see it through. Coalition can happen even between very different parties. Sometimes it's necessary. The public did not feel the compromises the lds made were worth any gains, but that they made a feel and such with it (which in fairness in part was necessary due to polling position) is not a sign they are mini tories.

I didn't say that the LDs were wrong to form a coalition with the Tories in 2010, merely that they are on the same side as the Tories on the fundamental question of "big state good vs bad". The LDs support capitalism, albeit with safeguards. The Socialist view espoused by Labour is that capitalism is intrinsically bad, but to be tolerated under strict regulation.

Ah, I see. I'd never really thought of it that way. Certainly the red liberals among them don't seem to see it that way. And until recently labour didn't seem to be saying capitalism is intrinsically bad, not in my lifetime.

CarlottaVance said:

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

ydoethur said:

CarlottaVance said:

Long Read - post Brexit dispute resolution (its complicated) and Selmayr (It's a mess and it's going to get worse):

https://twitter.com/ceris_training/status/993266327954522117

That first article is interesting if rather dry. It's surprising to see how ad hoc and incompetent the EU are at drawing up trade treaties and how little thought goes into them. Maybe there's hope for a workable deal yet.

The second one doesn't pull any punches, does it?

On the treaties its a hodge-podge - on Selmayr its a disaster waiting to happen:

this will happen anyway if anyone in a future legal action against a secretary general’s decision decides to contest his competence because he has been illegally appointed. There will be a lot of opportunities, and this could thus produce a huge destabilization of the Commission, for a long period.

Given the EU'S hatred of instability, and it's defence of its own power, are there really countries or people who would be do angry as to challenge it in b such a way? It would seem counter productive. (I haven't read the whole piece yet, it's too early)

Any countries being challenged over the rule of law for starters....Poland...Hungary....

The former has backed down though, haven't they? I can see unhappy countries try to stare down the EU up to a point, to rock the boat as it were, but woukd they drill a hole in the boat?

Recidivist said:

Sean_F said:

kle4 said:

Even some very sensible and reasonable labour people have uses the word 'betrayal' when talking of the lds, for instance, not standing aside in a close con-lab contest, and i think OGH is right that the level of automatic expectation they would fall into line shows a measure of arrogance and lack of understanding of the fact the lds are their own party, not a Labour sub group.

That said, there are arrangements that don't require coalition, most ld voters seem to prefer labour to the tories (I'll take his word about them not being fans of Corbyn, though we know some lds are huge fans of his) and being seen to somehow prop up the tories, Even through inaction, woukd probably hurt them. So while it woukd be messy, and not as certain as some in labour act like it would be, I get the feeling they'd play ball.

Yes theyve been burned by coalition, but I'd have thought the party was still about hoping for some influence. It's not like they expect to win outright.

If the Lib Dems didn't exist, the Conservatives would hold every one of their English seats, making Labour's task harder, not easier.

They do exist. And any revival in their fortunes makes the chances of the Tories winning a majority lower.

That is so. I was rebutting the argument that the Lib Dems split the left wing vote.

ydoethur said:

For those in the know, a serious question.

Assuming Norman Lamb retires at the next election, will the LDs be able to hold North Norfolk?

LibDems don't have a great track record in 'handing on' seats to successor candidates, but it has happened. 'Twas how we came by Clegg, after all.

kle4 said:

daodao said:

kle4 said:

daodao said:

CarlottaVance said:

No doubt many Lib Dems also remember Labour's arrogant assumption that they were basically 'Labour mini-me' when Brown tried to hold on to power in 2010 - even without Corbyn, I doubt that fundamental Labour attitude has shifted.....all part of the progressive alliance (which Mason reckons doesn't need the Lib Dems):

https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/992408416298651648

Classic 'bubble' thinking - there are many non-progressive (current and former) Labour voters out there.....

The Lie Dems are not suitable partners for a radical "progressive" alliance. It was clear to me from the presentation to the public of the ConDem coalition in the Downing Street Rose Garden inn May 2010, and the fact that this government lasted a full 5 years, how little difference there is between liberal "conservatism" and the LDs.

While there would be differences between the nationalist parties (PC/SNP) and Labour on the national identity issue, they do at least have similar left-wing views and attitudes to foreign policy.

How dare the lds make a deal and see it through. Coalition can happen even between very different parties. Sometimes it's necessary. The public did not feel the compromises the lds made were worth any gains, but that they made a feel and such with it (which in fairness in part was necessary due to polling position) is not a sign they are mini tories.

I didn't say that the LDs were wrong to form a coalition with the Tories in 2010, merely that they are on the same side as the Tories on the fundamental question of "big state good vs bad". The LDs support capitalism, albeit with safeguards. The Socialist view espoused by Labour is that capitalism is intrinsically bad, but to be tolerated under strict regulation.

Ah, I see. I'd never really thought of it that way. Certainly the red liberals among them don't seem to see it that way. And until recently labour didn't seem to be saying capitalism is intrinsically bad, not in my lifetime.

I think red liberals are basically interested in a non-socialist form of centre-left politics that isn’t dominated and driven by unionised labour.

Nice to see The Times carrying a front page advertisement for Labour Leave.

Foxy said:

Freggles said:

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting thread - including this:

https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/993201238979366912

https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/993201241726636032

If point 10 is correct (I honestly cannot recall) it is intereating, as surely it would mean either the EU is no more competent than us, or is operating in bad faith. I'd assume the former, because this whole area is a political mess.

It's a bit misleading. It agreed to those things in principle but didn't provide a solution, and stated that of a solution was not found that would meet the criteria, NI would have to remain in regulatory alignment with the EU (essentially staying in the CU )

The Belfast Telegraph on the possibility of an Irish Sea border, and the backstop plan:

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/brexit-border-could-move-to-irish-sea-as-eu-backstop-plan-that-angered-may-remains-in-place-36720522.html

Our Civil Servants do have contingency plans for such an Irish Sea border too:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/04/irish-border-backup-plan-suggests-checks-ports-airports-brexit

Seems the only viable option to me, apart from full UK CU.

The invisible border concept is entirely viable in principle. It’s just the EU didn’t want to do the work jointly. Presumably because they thought they could “weaponise the Irish border” in negotiations

kle4 said:

Charles said:

Foxy said:

Freggles said:

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting thread - including this:

https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/993201238979366912

https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/993201241726636032

If point 10 is correct (I honestly cannot recall) it is intereating, as surely it would mean either the EU is no more competent than us, or is operating in bad faith. I'd assume the former, because this whole area is a political mess.

It's a bit misleading. It agreed to those things in principle but didn't provide a solution, and stated that of a solution was not found that would meet the criteria, NI would have to remain in regulatory alignment with the EU (essentially staying in the CU )

The Belfast Telegraph on the possibility of an Irish Sea border, and the backstop plan:

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/brexit-border-could-move-to-irish-sea-as-eu-backstop-plan-that-angered-may-remains-in-place-36720522.html

Our Civil Servants do have contingency plans for such an Irish Sea border too:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/04/irish-border-backup-plan-suggests-checks-ports-airports-brexit

Seems the only viable option to me, apart from full UK CU.

The invisible border concept is entirely viable in principle. It’s just the EU didn’t want to do the work jointly. Presumably because they thought they could “weaponise the Irish border” in negotiations

Successfully, as it turns out.

Not clear.

Charles said:

Foxy said:

Freggles said:

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting thread - including this:

https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/993201238979366912

https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/993201241726636032

If point 10 is correct (I honestly cannot recall) it is intereating, as surely it would mean either the EU is no more competent than us, or is operating in bad faith. I'd assume the former, because this whole area is a political mess.

It's a bit misleading. It agreed to those things in principle but didn't provide a solution, and stated that of a solution was not found that would meet the criteria, NI would have to remain in regulatory alignment with the EU (essentially staying in the CU )

The Belfast Telegraph on the possibility of an Irish Sea border, and the backstop plan:

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/brexit-border-could-move-to-irish-sea-as-eu-backstop-plan-that-angered-may-remains-in-place-36720522.html

Our Civil Servants do have contingency plans for such an Irish Sea border too:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/04/irish-border-backup-plan-suggests-checks-ports-airports-brexit

Seems the only viable option to me, apart from full UK CU.

The invisible border concept is entirely viable in principle. It’s just the EU didn’t want to do the work jointly. Presumably because they thought they could “weaponise the Irish border” in negotiations

And Varadkar stopped the work on the border Kenny had started....'not our problem'....

not_on_fire said:

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting thread - including this:

https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/993201238979366912

https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/993201241726636032

If point 10 is correct (I honestly cannot recall) it is intereating, as surely it would mean either the EU is no more competent than us, or is operating in bad faith. I'd assume the former, because this whole area is a political mess.

It’s not correct. The arrangement the EU and Uk came to in Dec was a backstop position if no agreement on Customs was made.

Gove:

https://twitter.com/michaelgove/status/993254022068035584
https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/993212477025456128

CarlottaVance said:

Titter.....

Brexit was supposed to be the French language’s chance at a comeback.

For a brief moment after the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, Francophones in Paris and Brussels allowed themselves to believe that French would regain its historical standing as Europe’s language of diplomacy.

Instead, perhaps paradoxically, the opposite is taking place. Once Britain leaves the EU, only two, relatively small, EU member countries — Ireland and Malta — will still list English as an official language (alongside Irish and Maltese). It would be everyone else’s second language and thus neutral territory. Officials from non-French speaking countries like Poland, Italy or the Czech Republic are particularly eager to see the global lingua franca become the primary means of communication in the EU.

https://www.politico.eu/article/french-english-language-brexit-european-parliament-ecj-commission-eu-next-waterloo

English is a very poor choice as a language of diplomacy and legislation due to the imprecision that comes from its manifold use of parataxis. Eg the omission of any type of connecting modifier between related nouns, optional elision of the conjunction "that" in subordinate clauses, omission of the relative pronoun when it serves as the object of a relative clause, use of the infinitive with an oblique pronoun in a subordinate clause. (There are lots more).

From a purely technical perspective French or Greek would be far superior as the working language of the EU.

Dura_Ace said:

CarlottaVance said:

Titter.....

Brexit was supposed to be the French language’s chance at a comeback.

For a brief moment after the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, Francophones in Paris and Brussels allowed themselves to believe that French would regain its historical standing as Europe’s language of diplomacy.

Instead, perhaps paradoxically, the opposite is taking place. Once Britain leaves the EU, only two, relatively small, EU member countries — Ireland and Malta — will still list English as an official language (alongside Irish and Maltese). It would be everyone else’s second language and thus neutral territory. Officials from non-French speaking countries like Poland, Italy or the Czech Republic are particularly eager to see the global lingua franca become the primary means of communication in the EU.

https://www.politico.eu/article/french-english-language-brexit-european-parliament-ecj-commission-eu-next-waterloo

English is a very poor choice as a language of diplomacy and legislation due to the imprecision that comes from its manifold use of parataxis. Eg the omission of any type of connecting modifier between related nouns, optional elision of the conjunction "that" in subordinate clauses, omission of the relative pronoun when it serves as the object of a relative clause, use of the infinitive with an oblique pronoun in a subordinate clause. (There are lots more).

From a purely technical perspective French or Greek would be far superior as the working language of the EU.

And the DVORAK keyboard is more efficient than a QWERTY keyboard, but the loss of efficiency is made up for by convenience because (for English speaking users anyway) it is what most people already use. Fair play to the French and a few allies for advancing the language, along with any advantages, but day to day usage and convenience leans toward English.

Foxy said:

CarlottaVance said:

Charles said:

Foxy said:

Freggles said:

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting thread - including this:

https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/993201238979366912

https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/993201241726636032

If point 10 is correct (I honestly cannot recall) it is intereating, as surely it would mean either the EU is no more competent than us, or is operating in bad faith. I'd assume the former, because this whole area is a political mess.

It's a bit misleading. It agreed to those things in principle but didn't provide a solution, and stated that of a solution was not found that would meet the criteria, NI would have to remain in regulatory alignment with the EU (essentially staying in the CU )

The Belfast Telegraph on the possibility of an Irish Sea border, and the backstop plan:

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/brexit-border-could-move-to-irish-sea-as-eu-backstop-plan-that-angered-may-remains-in-place-36720522.html

Our Civil Servants do have contingency plans for such an Irish Sea border too:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/04/irish-border-backup-plan-suggests-checks-ports-airports-brexit

Seems the only viable option to me, apart from full UK CU.

The invisible border concept is entirely viable in principle. It’s just the EU didn’t want to do the work jointly. Presumably because they thought they could “weaponise the Irish border” in negotiations

And Varadkar stopped the work on the border Kenny had started....'not our problem'....

The Dail has Sovereignty too!

Well we can soon put a stop to that! Scramble the fighters...

Dura_Ace said:

CarlottaVance said:

Titter.....

Brexit was supposed to be the French language’s chance at a comeback.

For a brief moment after the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, Francophones in Paris and Brussels allowed themselves to believe that French would regain its historical standing as Europe’s language of diplomacy.

Instead, perhaps paradoxically, the opposite is taking place. Once Britain leaves the EU, only two, relatively small, EU member countries — Ireland and Malta — will still list English as an official language (alongside Irish and Maltese). It would be everyone else’s second language and thus neutral territory. Officials from non-French speaking countries like Poland, Italy or the Czech Republic are particularly eager to see the global lingua franca become the primary means of communication in the EU.

https://www.politico.eu/article/french-english-language-brexit-european-parliament-ecj-commission-eu-next-waterloo

English is a very poor choice as a language of diplomacy and legislation due to the imprecision that comes from its manifold use of parataxis. Eg the omission of any type of connecting modifier between related nouns, optional elision of the conjunction "that" in subordinate clauses, omission of the relative pronoun when it serves as the object of a relative clause, use of the infinitive with an oblique pronoun in a subordinate clause. (There are lots more).

From a purely technical perspective French or Greek would be far superior as the working language of the EU.

Okay, when you put it that way....

murali_s said:

felix said:

Sean_F said:

Overall, the London percentages were Con 31%, Lab 47%, Lib Dem 13%, Others 9%, very similar to 1997.

So Labour 4 points less than at least one poll I saw and the Tories up 2. Labour did well but off the high water mark.

To be honest, a rather meh performance from Labour - I think a disproportionate number of Labour supporters stayed at home which rather goes against the narrative that Corbyn / Momentum will get the vote out. A 22% lead at GE17 has been reduced to 16%. Yes, it's not quite an apples vs apples comparison but Labour is *not* making progress in London.

2017 looking like a local high tide for Labour in London

Foxy said:

CarlottaVance said:

Charles said:

Foxy said:

Freggles said:

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting thread - including this:

https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/993201238979366912

https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/993201241726636032

If point 10 is correct (I honestly cannot recall) it is intereating, as surely it would mean either the EU is no more competent than us, or is operating in bad faith. I'd assume the former, because this whole area is a political mess.

It's a bit misleading. It agreed to those things in principle but didn't provide a solution, and stated that of a solution was not found that would meet the criteria, NI would have to remain in regulatory alignment with the EU (essentially staying in the CU )

The Belfast Telegraph on the possibility of an Irish Sea border, and the backstop plan:

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/brexit-border-could-move-to-irish-sea-as-eu-backstop-plan-that-angered-may-remains-in-place-36720522.html

Our Civil Servants do have contingency plans for such an Irish Sea border too:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/04/irish-border-backup-plan-suggests-checks-ports-airports-brexit

Seems the only viable option to me, apart from full UK CU.

The invisible border concept is entirely viable in principle. It’s just the EU didn’t want to do the work jointly. Presumably because they thought they could “weaponise the Irish border” in negotiations

And Varadkar stopped the work on the border Kenny had started....'not our problem'....

The Dail has Sovereignty too!

In a negotiation, we do not get to pick the opposing team.

Why do you think he stopped the work? Surely cooperation is more fruitful?

kle4 said:

Dura_Ace said:

CarlottaVance said:

Titter.....

Brexit was supposed to be the French language’s chance at a comeback.

For a brief moment after the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, Francophones in Paris and Brussels allowed themselves to believe that French would regain its historical standing as Europe’s language of diplomacy.

Instead, perhaps paradoxically, the opposite is taking place. Once Britain leaves the EU, only two, relatively small, EU member countries — Ireland and Malta — will still list English as an official language (alongside Irish and Maltese). It would be everyone else’s second language and thus neutral territory. Officials from non-French speaking countries like Poland, Italy or the Czech Republic are particularly eager to see the global lingua franca become the primary means of communication in the EU.

https://www.politico.eu/article/french-english-language-brexit-european-parliament-ecj-commission-eu-next-waterloo

English is a very poor choice as a language of diplomacy and legislation due to the imprecision that comes from its manifold use of parataxis. Eg the omission of any type of connecting modifier between related nouns, optional elision of the conjunction "that" in subordinate clauses, omission of the relative pronoun when it serves as the object of a relative clause, use of the infinitive with an oblique pronoun in a subordinate clause. (There are lots more).

From a purely technical perspective French or Greek would be far superior as the working language of the EU.

And the DVORAK keyboard is more efficient than a QWERTY keyboard, but the loss of efficiency is made up for by convenience because (for English speaking users anyway) it is what most people already use. Fair play to the French and a few allies for advancing the language, along with any advantages, but day to day usage and convenience leans toward English.

If they wanted a language of subtlety, grace, poetry and nuance, I would argue for Italian rather than French anyway.

And for a language of precision, care and thought, it would have to be German.

I know the polls aren't moving much, but the argument is very much not going Brexit's way.

https://twitter.com/OFOCBrexit/status/993181347580694528

CarlottaVance said:

Foxy said:

CarlottaVance said:

Charles said:

Foxy said:

Freggles said:

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting thread - including this:

https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/993201238979366912

https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/993201241726636032

If point 10 is correct (I honestly cannot recall) it is intereating, as surely it would mean either the EU is no more competent than us, or is operating in bad faith. I'd assume the former, because this whole area is a political mess.

It's a bit misleading. It agreed to those things in principle but didn't provide a solution, and stated that of a solution was not found that would meet the criteria, NI would have to remain in regulatory alignment with the EU (essentially staying in the CU )

The Belfast Telegraph on the possibility of an Irish Sea border, and the backstop plan:

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/brexit-border-could-move-to-irish-sea-as-eu-backstop-plan-that-angered-may-remains-in-place-36720522.html

Our Civil Servants do have contingency plans for such an Irish Sea border too:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/04/irish-border-backup-plan-suggests-checks-ports-airports-brexit

Seems the only viable option to me, apart from full UK CU.

The invisible border concept is entirely viable in principle. It’s just the EU didn’t want to do the work jointly. Presumably because they thought they could “weaponise the Irish border” in negotiations

And Varadkar stopped the work on the border Kenny had started....'not our problem'....

The Dail has Sovereignty too!

In a negotiation, we do not get to pick the opposing team.

Why do you think he stopped the work? Surely cooperation is more fruitful?

Because it was giving false hope to the UK side who didn’t take the issue seriously.