Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Victorious sponge. When competing freedoms clashed in a bakery

SystemSystem Posts: 12,683
edited October 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Victorious sponge. When competing freedoms clashed in a bakery

UK supreme court backs bakery that refused to make gay wedding cake https://t.co/fEoUi7dyUH

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,894
    I agree with the judgement. Nice to see freedom of speech being defended for once. I think many religious views on homosexuality utterly backward, not to mention the idea I'll burn forever is ridiculous [although not very frightening, as an atheist]. However, people get to believe bloody silly things with which I disagree [cf Mr. Eagles' lamentable failure to understand history]. Compelling people to agree with things is just as bad as censorious puritanism.

    The substance of the matter was the message, not the individual seeking to pay for it.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,182
    This case still takes the biscuit!

    Another victory for cakeism.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,086
    So, you can't even HAVE the cake, let alone EAT it.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,543
    Foxy said:

    This case still takes the biscuit!

    Another victory for cakeism.

    Millions of pounds can turn on whether an item is a cake or a biscuit.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    The Fixed Term Parliaments Act - only specific motions of no confidence (or a super-majority for an election) can lead to a dissolution and a new election.

    Consequently a government can be incapable of passing any legislation in the House and, if it didn't no confidence itself and if the rebellious backbenchers who defeat it on legislation back it on confidence votes, then it can continue indefinitely, yet be unable to legislate.

    Is that an accurate understanding?
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    It was an elegant piece of reasoning from the SC which will please all but the zealots. Unfortunately zealots usually have the loudest voices.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,774
    Victorious sponge maybe the greatest pun in the history of man not to have been written by me.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,182
    Incidentally, could the cake have been refused on the basis that depicting Sesame St characters without authorisation would be a copywright violation?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,694
    Morris_Dancer said:

    I agree with the judgement. Nice to see freedom of speech being defended for once. I think many religious views on homosexuality utterly backward, not to mention the idea I'll burn forever is ridiculous [although not very frightening, as an atheist]. However, people get to believe bloody silly things with which I disagree [cf Mr. Eagles' lamentable failure to understand history]. Compelling people to agree with things is just as bad as censorious puritanism.

    The substance of the matter was the message, not the individual seeking to pay for it.

    TBH if the wording on the cake had been 'Gareth and (whoever) and a heart 'I somewhat if the case would got where it did. It was the overt message that the bakers found troublesome.
    I also suspect that there’s a history to do this with the couple, or their friends, and the bakery, or the bakery owner’s church.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,543
    Foxy said:

    Incidentally, could the cake have been refused on the basis that depicting Sesame St characters without authorisation would be a copywright violation?

    Or on the ground that Bert and Ernie are not, in fact, a gay couple?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,113
    It's ultimately the right ruling. Imagine if a customer entered a bakery and requested a cake be baked in the shape of a Swaschtika, carried a pro-paedophilia message or some other message that society generally sees as beyond the pale.

    Freedom of speech =/= compulsion of speech
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,894
    King Cole, read somewhere the chap who asked for said cake is an 'activist', which may explain the origins of the story.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Bravo Alastair. Though I assume they will still have to bake pro-abortion profiteroles, because of a woman's right to choux.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,707
    I hope Alastair is being suitably compensated for these threads. Excellent!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,113
    Morris_Dancer said:

    King Cole, read somewhere the chap who asked for said cake is an 'activist', which may explain the origins of the story.

    A caketivist.
  • marke09marke09 Posts: 926

    Sky News
    ‏Verified account @SkyNews
    1m1 minute ago

    A final deal on the terms of Britain's divorce from the EU is "within reach" by next Wednesday, the bloc's chief negotiator has said
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,707
    Pulpstar said:

    It's ultimately the right ruling. Imagine if a customer entered a bakery and requested a cake be baked in the shape of a Swaschtika, carried a pro-paedophilia message or some other message that society generally sees as beyond the pale.

    Freedom of speech =/= compulsion of speech

    Yes, finding cake decorators for the annual PB Tory bash has been problematic lately... :p
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,774
    RobD said:

    I hope Alastair is being suitably compensated for these threads. Excellent!

    The honour of having an article published on PB is the only compensation one needs.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,818
    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's ultimately the right ruling. Imagine if a customer entered a bakery and requested a cake be baked in the shape of a Swaschtika, carried a pro-paedophilia message or some other message that society generally sees as beyond the pale.

    Freedom of speech =/= compulsion of speech

    Yes, finding cake decorators for the annual PB Tory bash has been problematic lately... :p
    We have babies to eat, not cakes.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591
    OblitusSumMe said:

    The Fixed Term Parliaments Act - only specific motions of no confidence (or a super-majority for an election) can lead to a dissolution and a new election.

    Consequently a government can be incapable of passing any legislation in the House and, if it didn't no confidence itself and if the rebellious backbenchers who defeat it on legislation back it on confidence votes, then it can continue indefinitely, yet be unable to legislate.

    Is that an accurate understanding?

    AFAIK this is the correct legal position. Whether it would be tenable politically in a crisis situation is a very different question. If the UK were heading for a cliff edge Brexit with a paralysed parliament there would be pressure for a national government to get us out of the crisis. This is one scenario which could lead to a second referendum, there being no other obvious way forward.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,694
    edited October 2018
    Morris_Dancer said:

    King Cole, read somewhere the chap who asked for said cake is an 'activist', which may explain the origins of the story.

    Yes, IIRC I read something about that, too. I’m totally relaxed about gay marriage or whatever; don’t give a stuff about what consenting adults get up to. However if people go out looking for a fight and lose I rather feel they haven’t much cause for complaint.
    Much of course, would depend on what was said in the first instance; if the baker said something to the effect of ‘not encouraging those will burn in hells hottest fire’ or something like that, then I can see things going downhill, quite quickly!
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,818
    On the EU issue. I think most people just want it to be done and move on, and aren't 'particularly' concerned about the details.

    Both the DUP and the ERG seem hell bent on creating the conditions that the entire concept of Brexit is being put at risk. It wouldn't take too much more for the public to think staying it might soon be the easier option.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    RobD said:

    I hope Alastair is being suitably compensated for these threads. Excellent!

    I would bake a cake for it.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,694
    Tissue_Price said:

    Bravo Alastair. Though I assume they will still have to bake pro-abortion profiteroles, because of a woman's right to choux.

    Brilliant!
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    Slackbladder said:

    On the EU issue. I think most people just want it to be done and move on, and aren't 'particularly' concerned about the details.

    Both the DUP and the ERG seem hell bent on creating the conditions that the entire concept of Brexit is being put at risk. It wouldn't take too much more for the public to think staying it might soon be the easier option.

    Staying in was always the easier option. The second easiest was a long term project to slowly disengage over 10-12 years. This would have been perfectly possible with minimal actual damage. The question you have to ask yourself is why the Brexiters insisted on a radical and risky approach. The answer is obvious to me.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,421
    OblitusSumMe said:

    The Fixed Term Parliaments Act - only specific motions of no confidence (or a super-majority for an election) can lead to a dissolution and a new election.

    Consequently a government can be incapable of passing any legislation in the House and, if it didn't no confidence itself and if the rebellious backbenchers who defeat it on legislation back it on confidence votes, then it can continue indefinitely, yet be unable to legislate.

    Is that an accurate understanding?

    I think it's a bit more complex than that. If Mrs May went to Her Royal Highness and resigned, the Queen would then ask if there was another Conservative who could command the confidence of Parliament, as without a Prime Minister there would be no government.

    An interim leader would then need to be agreed, and there would be a vote of confidence in them.

    The reality is that in the circumstances suggested, the Conservative Party would be unlikely to agree an interim Prime Minister for Parliament to have confidence in. After a period without a government (two weeks?), then an election would be called.

    Basically, it's complicated.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Victorious sponge maybe the greatest pun in the history of man not to have been written by me.

    A jammy dodger by the SC?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,707
    rcs1000 said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    The Fixed Term Parliaments Act - only specific motions of no confidence (or a super-majority for an election) can lead to a dissolution and a new election.

    Consequently a government can be incapable of passing any legislation in the House and, if it didn't no confidence itself and if the rebellious backbenchers who defeat it on legislation back it on confidence votes, then it can continue indefinitely, yet be unable to legislate.

    Is that an accurate understanding?

    I think it's a bit more complex than that. If Mrs May went to Her Royal Highness and resigned, the Queen would then ask if there was another Conservative who could command the confidence of Parliament, as without a Prime Minister there would be no government.

    An interim leader would then need to be agreed, and there would be a vote of confidence in them.

    The reality is that in the circumstances suggested, the Conservative Party would be unlikely to agree an interim Prime Minister for Parliament to have confidence in. After a period without a government (two weeks?), then an election would be called.

    Basically, it's complicated.
    The FTPA truly is dreadful.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,421
    RobD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    The Fixed Term Parliaments Act - only specific motions of no confidence (or a super-majority for an election) can lead to a dissolution and a new election.

    Consequently a government can be incapable of passing any legislation in the House and, if it didn't no confidence itself and if the rebellious backbenchers who defeat it on legislation back it on confidence votes, then it can continue indefinitely, yet be unable to legislate.

    Is that an accurate understanding?

    I think it's a bit more complex than that. If Mrs May went to Her Royal Highness and resigned, the Queen would then ask if there was another Conservative who could command the confidence of Parliament, as without a Prime Minister there would be no government.

    An interim leader would then need to be agreed, and there would be a vote of confidence in them.

    The reality is that in the circumstances suggested, the Conservative Party would be unlikely to agree an interim Prime Minister for Parliament to have confidence in. After a period without a government (two weeks?), then an election would be called.

    Basically, it's complicated.
    The FTPA truly is dreadful.
    I swing back and forth on this one, because practically every other country in the world has similar, and they don't seem to have problems.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,086
    Slackbladder said:

    On the EU issue. I think most people just want it to be done and move on, and aren't 'particularly' concerned about the details.

    Both the DUP and the ERG seem hell bent on creating the conditions that the entire concept of Brexit is being put at risk. It wouldn't take too much more for the public to think staying it might soon be the easier option.

    The DUP's position has been well known and hasn't changed. If anyone thought they would fudge or be bought off, they'll probably be surprised.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    rcs1000 said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    The Fixed Term Parliaments Act - only specific motions of no confidence (or a super-majority for an election) can lead to a dissolution and a new election.

    Consequently a government can be incapable of passing any legislation in the House and, if it didn't no confidence itself and if the rebellious backbenchers who defeat it on legislation back it on confidence votes, then it can continue indefinitely, yet be unable to legislate.

    Is that an accurate understanding?

    I think it's a bit more complex than that. If Mrs May went to Her Royal Highness and resigned, the Queen would then ask if there was another Conservative who could command the confidence of Parliament, as without a Prime Minister there would be no government.

    An interim leader would then need to be agreed, and there would be a vote of confidence in them.

    The reality is that in the circumstances suggested, the Conservative Party would be unlikely to agree an interim Prime Minister for Parliament to have confidence in. After a period without a government (two weeks?), then an election would be called.

    Basically, it's complicated.
    I suppose in my scenario I'm assuming that May acts as a "bloody difficult woman" and doesn't resign. Gordon Brown would have been unlikely to do so in a similar situation.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    rcs1000 said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    The Fixed Term Parliaments Act - only specific motions of no confidence (or a super-majority for an election) can lead to a dissolution and a new election.

    Consequently a government can be incapable of passing any legislation in the House and, if it didn't no confidence itself and if the rebellious backbenchers who defeat it on legislation back it on confidence votes, then it can continue indefinitely, yet be unable to legislate.

    Is that an accurate understanding?

    I think it's a bit more complex than that. If Mrs May went to Her Royal Highness and resigned, the Queen would then ask if there was another Conservative who could command the confidence of Parliament, as without a Prime Minister there would be no government.

    An interim leader would then need to be agreed, and there would be a vote of confidence in them.

    The reality is that in the circumstances suggested, the Conservative Party would be unlikely to agree an interim Prime Minister for Parliament to have confidence in. After a period without a government (two weeks?), then an election would be called.

    Basically, it's complicated.
    She is a Maj, not a RH.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,086
    matt said:

    It was an elegant piece of reasoning from the SC which will please all but the zealots. Unfortunately zealots usually have the loudest voices.

    Lucky we don't have Kavanaugh in our Supreme Court.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    The Fixed Term Parliaments Act - only specific motions of no confidence (or a super-majority for an election) can lead to a dissolution and a new election.

    Consequently a government can be incapable of passing any legislation in the House and, if it didn't no confidence itself and if the rebellious backbenchers who defeat it on legislation back it on confidence votes, then it can continue indefinitely, yet be unable to legislate.

    Is that an accurate understanding?

    I think it's a bit more complex than that. If Mrs May went to Her Royal Highness and resigned, the Queen would then ask if there was another Conservative who could command the confidence of Parliament, as without a Prime Minister there would be no government.

    An interim leader would then need to be agreed, and there would be a vote of confidence in them.

    The reality is that in the circumstances suggested, the Conservative Party would be unlikely to agree an interim Prime Minister for Parliament to have confidence in. After a period without a government (two weeks?), then an election would be called.

    Basically, it's complicated.
    The FTPA truly is dreadful.
    I swing back and forth on this one, because practically every other country in the world has similar, and they don't seem to have problems.
    It's not so much dreadful per se but rather terribly unBritish.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,113
    Have no worries for NI, Hilary is here to sort it:

    https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1050046804270682117
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,272
    Slackbladder said:

    On the EU issue. I think most people just want it to be done and move on, and aren't 'particularly' concerned about the details.

    Both the DUP and the ERG seem hell bent on creating the conditions that the entire concept of Brexit is being put at risk. It wouldn't take too much more for the public to think staying it might soon be the easier option.

    The polls are clear, voters comfortably prefer Remain to No Deal. Only Norway or Canada style Brexit's have net positives. If No Deal is the alternative to Remain by the end of November Brexit could be reversed in EU ref2 before the Brexit due date at the end of March
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,751
    @Alistair: when do you find time to do any paying work?

    :)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,272
    This ruling coupled with the Gina Miller case shows we need to start paying more attention to the appointment of UK Supreme Court Justices rather than just US ones
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    RobD said:

    I hope Alastair is being suitably compensated for these threads. Excellent!

    The honour of having an article published on PB is the only compensation one needs.
    And the only compensation that you get.

  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,818
    edited October 2018
    HYUFD said:

    Slackbladder said:

    On the EU issue. I think most people just want it to be done and move on, and aren't 'particularly' concerned about the details.

    Both the DUP and the ERG seem hell bent on creating the conditions that the entire concept of Brexit is being put at risk. It wouldn't take too much more for the public to think staying it might soon be the easier option.

    The polls are clear, voters comfortably prefer Remain to No Deal. Only Norway or Canada style Brexit's have net positives. If No Deal is the alternative to Remain by the end of November Brexit could be reversed in EU ref2 before the Brexit due date at the end of March
    Indeed. Everything is against 'No Deal'/Hard Brexit. The current government, MP's as a whole, the Opposition and the public as well.

    The only ones holding out are purists, and they can't win. The numbers across the board aren't there.
  • saddosaddo Posts: 534
    Morris_Dancer said:

    I agree with the judgement. Nice to see freedom of speech being defended for once. I think many religious views on homosexuality utterly backward, not to mention the idea I'll burn forever is ridiculous [although not very frightening, as an atheist]. However, people get to believe bloody silly things with which I disagree [cf Mr. Eagles' lamentable failure to understand history]. Compelling people to agree with things is just as bad as censorious puritanism.

    The substance of the matter was the message, not the individual seeking to pay for it.

    If my memory is working, the cake orderer deliberately chose Ashers to bake the cake in the expection that they'd reject his order. Many other bakers would have helped.

    Seems the SC have seen through his little game.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,894
    Mr. Recidivist, I have some sympathy with that argument (although often the hardest steps to take in life are the most important), but it was the EU that refused to negotiate before Article 50 was invoked, which then began a two year time limit.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    HYUFD said:

    This ruling coupled with the Gina Miller case shows we need to start paying more attention to the appointment of UK Supreme Court Justices rather than just US ones

    Quite the opposite. This was a unanimous decision that quoted and followed the precedent set in the US Supreme Court. Not a narrow partisan decision decided by one individual on narrow partisan lines.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,707
    MikeSmithson said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    RobD said:

    I hope Alastair is being suitably compensated for these threads. Excellent!

    The honour of having an article published on PB is the only compensation one needs.
    And the only compensation that you get.

    Get writing, plebs! :p
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,421
    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    The Fixed Term Parliaments Act - only specific motions of no confidence (or a super-majority for an election) can lead to a dissolution and a new election.

    Consequently a government can be incapable of passing any legislation in the House and, if it didn't no confidence itself and if the rebellious backbenchers who defeat it on legislation back it on confidence votes, then it can continue indefinitely, yet be unable to legislate.

    Is that an accurate understanding?

    I think it's a bit more complex than that. If Mrs May went to Her Royal Highness and resigned, the Queen would then ask if there was another Conservative who could command the confidence of Parliament, as without a Prime Minister there would be no government.

    An interim leader would then need to be agreed, and there would be a vote of confidence in them.

    The reality is that in the circumstances suggested, the Conservative Party would be unlikely to agree an interim Prime Minister for Parliament to have confidence in. After a period without a government (two weeks?), then an election would be called.

    Basically, it's complicated.
    She is a Maj, not a RH.
    Thank you.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    FPT
    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Thanks. But even if May caves in but then it doesn't get through Parliament then you are back to the situation where the hard border has to happen unless there is another government which can agree to a solution. And that might not happen before 29 March. Or, indeed, at all.

    And a cave in effectively means that even though the whole UK has voted to leave the EU, a part of the UK will still be subject to EU rules. Is that correct? If so that does seem a very odd outcome.

    Also, I assume the EU would be vulnerable to the same WTO action from other nations without an FTA with the EU.

    Yes and yes. The whole issue, well for Arlene at least, turns on the fact that "part of the UK will still be subject to EU rules". Now, if EU regulation: EC/4025/85/RoI/42/Chickens constitutes a diminution of the integrity of the UK then yes, that becomes an issue. If it can be seen as a specific and special element to what is after all a complex and nuanced situation and relationship between NI, the RoI and GB, then less so. But that of course is in the eye of the beholder.

    And this is all in advance of any FTA; this is just to get to the transition period.

    As I have stated before, it is my belief that the options are as follows:

    1) UK remains in SM/CU - NI problem goes away: 15%
    2) UK remains in "a" CU (ie Chequers) - NI problem goes away: 45%
    3) NI remains bound by EU regs, border in the Irish Sea -: 35%
    4) UK stays in EU - NI problem goes away: 3%
    5) UK leaves with no deal, hard border in NI: 2%
    I don't think 3 is sellable politically

    1 would be great, but I don't think possible without a concession on FoM so won't happen (and that is so irritating because an automatic work permit system would work fine - it's EU theoreticians getting hung up about theology)

    2 becomes the default option
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,086
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Recidivist, I have some sympathy with that argument (although often the hardest steps to take in life are the most important), but it was the EU that refused to negotiate before Article 50 was invoked, which then began a two year time limit.

    Still TMay should have had the Tory internal discussions sorted before triggering it.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,543
    MikeSmithson said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    RobD said:

    I hope Alastair is being suitably compensated for these threads. Excellent!

    The honour of having an article published on PB is the only compensation one needs.
    And the only compensation that you get.

    Getting an article published on PB places one in the same intellectual bracket as Albert Camus, Cardinal Newman, and Immanuel Kant.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,894
    Comrade D, the prestige of publication in the People's Journal of Political Betting is more than enough for the proletariat!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,894
    Mr. Song, that's a sound point of criticism, which was also made at the time by many people.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,234
    Reading the Guadian's report of Barnier's comments today, far from there being an agreement next week, it looks like this is stalemate and TM may need to terminate the negotiations
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    MikeSmithson said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    RobD said:

    I hope Alastair is being suitably compensated for these threads. Excellent!

    The honour of having an article published on PB is the only compensation one needs.
    And the only compensation that you get.

    I should add that at least once a week I get asked how much it would cost to have a post published on PB.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,332
    rcs1000 said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    The Fixed Term Parliaments Act - only specific motions of no confidence (or a super-majority for an election) can lead to a dissolution and a new election.

    Consequently a government can be incapable of passing any legislation in the House and, if it didn't no confidence itself and if the rebellious backbenchers who defeat it on legislation back it on confidence votes, then it can continue indefinitely, yet be unable to legislate.

    Is that an accurate understanding?

    I think it's a bit more complex than that. If Mrs May went to Her Royal Highness and resigned, the Queen would then ask if there was another Conservative who could command the confidence of Parliament, as without a Prime Minister there would be no government.

    An interim leader would then need to be agreed, and there would be a vote of confidence in them.

    The reality is that in the circumstances suggested, the Conservative Party would be unlikely to agree an interim Prime Minister for Parliament to have confidence in. After a period without a government (two weeks?), then an election would be called.

    Basically, it's complicated.
    Rock Paper Scissors between Lords Hague and Howard for that role, I imagine.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    The Fixed Term Parliaments Act - only specific motions of no confidence (or a super-majority for an election) can lead to a dissolution and a new election.

    Consequently a government can be incapable of passing any legislation in the House and, if it didn't no confidence itself and if the rebellious backbenchers who defeat it on legislation back it on confidence votes, then it can continue indefinitely, yet be unable to legislate.

    Is that an accurate understanding?

    I think it's a bit more complex than that. If Mrs May went to Her Royal Highness and resigned, the Queen would then ask if there was another Conservative who could command the confidence of Parliament, as without a Prime Minister there would be no government.

    An interim leader would then need to be agreed, and there would be a vote of confidence in them.

    The reality is that in the circumstances suggested, the Conservative Party would be unlikely to agree an interim Prime Minister for Parliament to have confidence in. After a period without a government (two weeks?), then an election would be called.

    Basically, it's complicated.
    She is a Maj, not a RH.
    Thank you.
    Although my favorite title is HSH

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serene_Highness#United_Kingdom
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591
    Slackbladder said:

    HYUFD said:

    Slackbladder said:

    On the EU issue. I think most people just want it to be done and move on, and aren't 'particularly' concerned about the details.

    Both the DUP and the ERG seem hell bent on creating the conditions that the entire concept of Brexit is being put at risk. It wouldn't take too much more for the public to think staying it might soon be the easier option.

    The polls are clear, voters comfortably prefer Remain to No Deal. Only Norway or Canada style Brexit's have net positives. If No Deal is the alternative to Remain by the end of November Brexit could be reversed in EU ref2 before the Brexit due date at the end of March
    Indeed. Everything is against 'No Deal'/Hard Brexit. The current government, MP's as a whole, the Opposition and the public as well.

    The only ones holding out are purists, and they can't win. The numbers across the board aren't there.
    No, the numbers are not there. But a no deal Brexit is now baked in to the victorious sponge. Unless something else is approved by both EU and UK before March 29 no deal will happen automatically. And it is not clear that the EU, the U.K. and (more particularly) a majority in the HoC will be able to agree on what "something else" will be.
  • stjohnstjohn Posts: 1,914
    edited October 2018
    Very entertaining article! I particularly liked this,

    "The Supreme Court has been asked to set legal boundaries for freedom of conscience in relation to marzipan, fondant and cochineal. Like Asher’s cakes, the Supreme Court have risen to the challenge, opining on the use of ganache with panache."

    Thanks Alastair. I'm surprised we didn't also have an "acte éclair chocolat". I also really liked Tissue Price's, "a woman's right to choux".
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    This is good from Texas

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=32&v=qRYYqEgT9uI
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,894
    Mr. Nick, indeed. The Speaker, I would suggest, would be helpful to anyone who can get a way for another vote, though.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Charles said:

    FPT

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Thanks. But even if May caves in but then it doesn't get through Parliament then you are back to the situation where the hard border has to happen unless there is another government which can agree to a solution. And that might not happen before 29 March. Or, indeed, at all.

    And a cave in effectively means that even though the whole UK has voted to leave the EU, a part of the UK will still be subject to EU rules. Is that correct? If so that does seem a very odd outcome.

    Also, I assume the EU would be vulnerable to the same WTO action from other nations without an FTA with the EU.

    Yes and yes. The whole issue, well for Arlene at least, turns on the fact that "part of the UK will still be subject to EU rules". Now, if EU regulation: EC/4025/85/RoI/42/Chickens constitutes a diminution of the integrity of the UK then yes, that becomes an issue. If it can be seen as a specific and special element to what is after all a complex and nuanced situation and relationship between NI, the RoI and GB, then less so. But that of course is in the eye of the beholder.

    And this is all in advance of any FTA; this is just to get to the transition period.

    As I have stated before, it is my belief that the options are as follows:

    1) UK remains in SM/CU - NI problem goes away: 15%
    2) UK remains in "a" CU (ie Chequers) - NI problem goes away: 45%
    3) NI remains bound by EU regs, border in the Irish Sea -: 35%
    4) UK stays in EU - NI problem goes away: 3%
    5) UK leaves with no deal, hard border in NI: 2%
    I don't think 3 is sellable politically
    3 breaches the Belfast Agreement which enshrines the principle of “consent” (and makes no mention of borders, hard or otherwise).
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,989
    I cannot resist de-lurking again simply to salute that Victorious Sponge pun. Awesome. Up against stiff competition, on here, but you will be envied for a long time, sir.

    Good evening, everybody.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,894
    Good evening, Miss JGP :)
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,086
    MikeSmithson said:

    This is good from Texas

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=32&v=qRYYqEgT9uI

    This too https://www.newsweek.com/beto-orourke-rally-willie-nelson-attendance-austin-texas-ted-cruz-trump-rally-1145429
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    This will help...

    https://twitter.com/Independent/status/1050066111922929664?s=20

    And at Holyhead too?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,551
    edited October 2018
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Reading the Guadian's report of Barnier's comments today, far from there being an agreement next week, it looks like this is stalemate and TM may need to terminate the negotiations

    It feels very much like the EU kite flying to be able to claim well we were all but signed up for an agreement then UK wouldn't agree to our reasonable minor changes.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    HYUFD said:

    This ruling coupled with the Gina Miller case shows we need to start paying more attention to the appointment of UK Supreme Court Justices rather than just US ones


    Why does this case and that case show such a thing? Agree or disagree with the judgements outside or reactionary newspapers I would think people are content to accept any such judgement as from informed and impartial sources, and that their appointment is not in question. Paying attention to who is appointed suggests we think we need to vet them somehow.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Reading the Guadian's report of Barnier's comments today, far from there being an agreement next week, it looks like this is stalemate and TM may need to terminate the negotiations

    It feels very much like the EU kite flying to be able to claim well we were all but signed up for an agreement then UK wouldn't agree to our reasonable minor changes.
    Reasonable minor changes = increasing Irish Sea checks by a factor of 10
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    RobD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    The Fixed Term Parliaments Act - only specific motions of no confidence (or a super-majority for an election) can lead to a dissolution and a new election.

    Consequently a government can be incapable of passing any legislation in the House and, if it didn't no confidence itself and if the rebellious backbenchers who defeat it on legislation back it on confidence votes, then it can continue indefinitely, yet be unable to legislate.

    Is that an accurate understanding?

    I think it's a bit more complex than that. If Mrs May went to Her Royal Highness and resigned, the Queen would then ask if there was another Conservative who could command the confidence of Parliament, as without a Prime Minister there would be no government.

    An interim leader would then need to be agreed, and there would be a vote of confidence in them.

    The reality is that in the circumstances suggested, the Conservative Party would be unlikely to agree an interim Prime Minister for Parliament to have confidence in. After a period without a government (two weeks?), then an election would be called.

    Basically, it's complicated.
    The FTPA truly is dreadful.
    No it isn't. It places a few basic, and far from insurmountable, issues in place of permitting a PM to have unnecessary discretion.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,551
    CarlottaVance said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Reading the Guadian's report of Barnier's comments today, far from there being an agreement next week, it looks like this is stalemate and TM may need to terminate the negotiations

    It feels very much like the EU kite flying to be able to claim well we were all but signed up for an agreement then UK wouldn't agree to our reasonable minor changes.
    Reasonable minor changes = increasing Irish Sea checks by a factor of 10
    I didn't say they would be minor changes, I said they would claim they were.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Reading the Guadian's report of Barnier's comments today, far from there being an agreement next week, it looks like this is stalemate and TM may need to terminate the negotiations

    Not really her MO.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    https://twitter.com/TomMcTague/status/1050069221646983168?s=20
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Reading the Guadian's report of Barnier's comments today, far from there being an agreement next week, it looks like this is stalemate and TM may need to terminate the negotiations

    Thereby achieving what exactly?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    https://twitter.com/tommctague/status/1050070413664034816?s=21
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,612
    CarlottaVance said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Reading the Guadian's report of Barnier's comments today, far from there being an agreement next week, it looks like this is stalemate and TM may need to terminate the negotiations

    It feels very much like the EU kite flying to be able to claim well we were all but signed up for an agreement then UK wouldn't agree to our reasonable minor changes.
    Reasonable minor changes = increasing Irish Sea checks by a factor of 10
    Barnier is focussing on the 'checks' but the legal reality is that there would be a customs border between GB and NI, regardless of what level of 'checks' exist this is unacceptable. The EU are trying to bounce May.

    I am somewhat surprised that the EU have not just agreed to the all-UK backstop as it will give them what they want - the ability to force the UK to remain bound by SM and CU rules forever. But Barnier will only agree this on the basis of FOM and payments.

    This is the box that May has tied herself up in - there is not meant to be a solution to the NI backstop. It's a trap!
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,113
    That Brexit Dividend is still in negative territory.

    https://twitter.com/_jeremynicholls/status/1049905814465650688?s=21
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,234
    Jonathan said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Reading the Guadian's report of Barnier's comments today, far from there being an agreement next week, it looks like this is stalemate and TM may need to terminate the negotiations

    Thereby achieving what exactly?
    So we just take EU diktat - sometimes you say no

    I do not know what follows but I would expect panic by both sides and Barnier finding life is not as easy as he thought
  • JohnRussellJohnRussell Posts: 297
    edited October 2018
    What would our 50/50 take be on whether the person asking the baker to ice the cake only asked that particular baker because he knew they wouldn't want to do it?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,332
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Reading the Guadian's report of Barnier's comments today, far from there being an agreement next week, it looks like this is stalemate and TM may need to terminate the negotiations

    It feels very much like the EU kite flying to be able to claim well we were all but signed up for an agreement then UK wouldn't agree to our reasonable minor changes.
    Yep that’s my reading too.

    If people are talking up a deal, that means we’re nowhere near a deal.

    I think Canada + with a reconfigured backstop is approaching.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    The bigots from the DUP really should have thought about this before they campaigned to Leave. What a mistaka da maka.
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,113
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Jonathan said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Reading the Guadian's report of Barnier's comments today, far from there being an agreement next week, it looks like this is stalemate and TM may need to terminate the negotiations

    Thereby achieving what exactly?
    So we just take EU diktat - sometimes you say no

    I do not know what follows but I would expect panic by both sides and Barnier finding life is not as easy as he thought
    Is that because they need us more than we need them?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,234
    Mortimer said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Reading the Guadian's report of Barnier's comments today, far from there being an agreement next week, it looks like this is stalemate and TM may need to terminate the negotiations

    It feels very much like the EU kite flying to be able to claim well we were all but signed up for an agreement then UK wouldn't agree to our reasonable minor changes.
    Yep that’s my reading too.

    If people are talking up a deal, that means we’re nowhere near a deal.

    I think Canada + with a reconfigured backstop is approaching.
    That is a border then
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,332
    archer101au said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Reading the Guadian's report of Barnier's comments today, far from there being an agreement next week, it looks like this is stalemate and TM may need to terminate the negotiations

    It feels very much like the EU kite flying to be able to claim well we were all but signed up for an agreement then UK wouldn't agree to our reasonable minor changes.
    Reasonable minor changes = increasing Irish Sea checks by a factor of 10
    Barnier is focussing on the 'checks' but the legal reality is that there would be a customs border between GB and NI, regardless of what level of 'checks' exist this is unacceptable. The EU are trying to bounce May.

    I am somewhat surprised that the EU have not just agreed to the all-UK backstop as it will give them what they want - the ability to force the UK to remain bound by SM and CU rules forever. But Barnier will only agree this on the basis of FOM and payments.

    This is the box that May has tied herself up in - there is not meant to be a solution to the NI backstop. It's a trap!
    Thanks for your reply to me yesterday btw, it made sense.

    And I don’t think what seemed to be a solution (UK not enforcing checks on NI goods) is now as positive a suggestion as it seemed.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Jonathan said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Reading the Guadian's report of Barnier's comments today, far from there being an agreement next week, it looks like this is stalemate and TM may need to terminate the negotiations

    Thereby achieving what exactly?
    So we just take EU diktat - sometimes you say no

    I do not know what follows but I would expect panic by both sides and Barnier finding life is not as easy as he thought
    Barnier would just have to sit tight and wait for whoever the Tories replaced May with
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,332
    On topic, this is a tremendous piece of writing. Thanks AM!
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,234
    Bromptonaut said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Jonathan said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Reading the Guadian's report of Barnier's comments today, far from there being an agreement next week, it looks like this is stalemate and TM may need to terminate the negotiations

    Thereby achieving what exactly?
    So we just take EU diktat - sometimes you say no

    I do not know what follows but I would expect panic by both sides and Barnier finding life is not as easy as he thought
    Is that because they need us more than we need them?
    That is a loaded question. It is going to do serious damage to everyone and even the EU has said they do not want a no deal but they are going the right way to create one
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,234
    edited October 2018
    Stereotomy said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Jonathan said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Reading the Guadian's report of Barnier's comments today, far from there being an agreement next week, it looks like this is stalemate and TM may need to terminate the negotiations

    Thereby achieving what exactly?
    So we just take EU diktat - sometimes you say no

    I do not know what follows but I would expect panic by both sides and Barnier finding life is not as easy as he thought
    Barnier would just have to sit tight and wait for whoever the Tories replaced May with
    Be careful what you wish for
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Recidivist, I have some sympathy with that argument (although often the hardest steps to take in life are the most important), but it was the EU that refused to negotiate before Article 50 was invoked, which then began a two year time limit.

    Well for people who claim to oppose it, the Brexiters are pretty puppy like when it comes to actually dealing with the EU. Imagine the situation been that we really wanted to negotiate seriously in our national interest and the EU had raised the objection that talks could not begin until the process started. We could have responded by asking for exploratory talks 'in principle'. We could have upped the pressure by threatening to veto everything until they talked. We could have insisted on examining the expenses of major EU officials. If all that failed you might have an argument that the EU was being in some way obstructive.

    In reality we triggered Article 50 before we knew what we wanted to achieve from the negotiations. In fact, we still don't know.

    Is that respecting a democratic vote? Hardly. Brexit has already failed at the hands of the people who claim to support it.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Jonathan said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Reading the Guadian's report of Barnier's comments today, far from there being an agreement next week, it looks like this is stalemate and TM may need to terminate the negotiations

    Thereby achieving what exactly?
    So we just take EU diktat - sometimes you say no

    I do not know what follows but I would expect panic by both sides and Barnier finding life is not as easy as he thought
    And then what?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,234
    Recidivist said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Recidivist, I have some sympathy with that argument (although often the hardest steps to take in life are the most important), but it was the EU that refused to negotiate before Article 50 was invoked, which then began a two year time limit.

    Well for people who claim to oppose it, the Brexiters are pretty puppy like when it comes to actually dealing with the EU. Imagine the situation been that we really wanted to negotiate seriously in our national interest and the EU had raised the objection that talks could not begin until the process started. We could have responded by asking for exploratory talks 'in principle'. We could have upped the pressure by threatening to veto everything until they talked. We could have insisted on examining the expenses of major EU officials. If all that failed you might have an argument that the EU was being in some way obstructive.

    In reality we triggered Article 50 before we knew what we wanted to achieve from the negotiations. In fact, we still don't know.

    Is that respecting a democratic vote? Hardly. Brexit has already failed at the hands of the people who claim to support it.
    And of course the circumstances in your first paragraph is exactly what will happen if the vote is reversed and a Brexiteer becomes PM
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,113
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Bromptonaut said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Jonathan said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Reading the Guadian's report of Barnier's comments today, far from there being an agreement next week, it looks like this is stalemate and TM may need to terminate the negotiations

    Thereby achieving what exactly?
    So we just take EU diktat - sometimes you say no

    I do not know what follows but I would expect panic by both sides and Barnier finding life is not as easy as he thought
    Is that because they need us more than we need them?
    That is a loaded question. It is going to do serious damage to everyone and even the EU has said they do not want a no deal but they are going the right way to create one
    Do you think perhaps that the U.K. government shares any responsibility here?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    Stereotomy said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Reading the Guadian's report of Barnier's comments today, far from there being an agreement next week, it looks like this is stalemate and TM may need to terminate the negotiations

    Not really her MO.
    No, but she simply does not have as much wriggle room as the EU seem to think she does (whether the EU should or would reasonably wriggle more is neither here nor there, in that they at least could if they wanted to), and there's little point in her agreeing to something which she has zero chance of getting through parliament. She was already struggling to do so. Maybe she'll break off negotiations, maybe she'll resign, but she cannot keep kicking the can and bringing any old nonsense back is pointless.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,272
    archer101au said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Reading the Guadian's report of Barnier's comments today, far from there being an agreement next week, it looks like this is stalemate and TM may need to terminate the negotiations

    It feels very much like the EU kite flying to be able to claim well we were all but signed up for an agreement then UK wouldn't agree to our reasonable minor changes.
    Reasonable minor changes = increasing Irish Sea checks by a factor of 10
    Barnier is focussing on the 'checks' but the legal reality is that there would be a customs border between GB and NI, regardless of what level of 'checks' exist this is unacceptable. The EU are trying to bounce May.

    I am somewhat surprised that the EU have not just agreed to the all-UK backstop as it will give them what they want - the ability to force the UK to remain bound by SM and CU rules forever. But Barnier will only agree this on the basis of FOM and payments.

    This is the box that May has tied herself up in - there is not meant to be a solution to the NI backstop. It's a trap!
    When has Barnier ever said the backstop cannot include work permits and requires everlasting payments?

    He has said the backstop requires NI to be in the Customs Union effectively and to have regulatory alignment and that will have to apply to the whole UK unless and until an acceptable technical solution can be found
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    Jonathan said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Reading the Guadian's report of Barnier's comments today, far from there being an agreement next week, it looks like this is stalemate and TM may need to terminate the negotiations

    Thereby achieving what exactly?
    Not much, but as nothing would have been achieved anyway, there would be no negative impact either, and the ball would be in parliament's hands to decide what to do next.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,234
    Bromptonaut said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Bromptonaut said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Jonathan said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Reading the Guadian's report of Barnier's comments today, far from there being an agreement next week, it looks like this is stalemate and TM may need to terminate the negotiations

    Thereby achieving what exactly?
    So we just take EU diktat - sometimes you say no

    I do not know what follows but I would expect panic by both sides and Barnier finding life is not as easy as he thought
    Is that because they need us more than we need them?
    That is a loaded question. It is going to do serious damage to everyone and even the EU has said they do not want a no deal but they are going the right way to create one
    Do you think perhaps that the U.K. government shares any responsibility here?
    Of course but everyone does from inept brexiteers to those who from day one have worked tirelessly to stop brexit, to those who want to make political capital, and of course the EU which is just a protectionist racket

    No one is free of blame and a plague on all of their houses
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,309
    Bromptonaut said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    That is a loaded question. It is going to do serious damage to everyone and even the EU has said they do not want a no deal but they are going the right way to create one

    Do you think perhaps that the U.K. government shares any responsibility here?
    This is and will always be the Conservative bottom line. No mea culpa or any notion of responsibility, just blame the "nasty Europeans" because that plays well to the core vote.

  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    kle4 said:

    Stereotomy said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Reading the Guadian's report of Barnier's comments today, far from there being an agreement next week, it looks like this is stalemate and TM may need to terminate the negotiations

    Not really her MO.
    No, but she simply does not have as much wriggle room as the EU seem to think she does (whether the EU should or would reasonably wriggle more is neither here nor there, in that they at least could if they wanted to), and there's little point in her agreeing to something which she has zero chance of getting through parliament. She was already struggling to do so. Maybe she'll break off negotiations, maybe she'll resign, but she cannot keep kicking the can and bringing any old nonsense back is pointless.
    She'll keep kicking that can until she's dragged away
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    edited October 2018
    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Reading the Guadian's report of Barnier's comments today, far from there being an agreement next week, it looks like this is stalemate and TM may need to terminate the negotiations

    Thereby achieving what exactly?
    Not much, but as nothing would have been achieved anyway, there would be no negative impact either, and the ball would be in parliament's hands to decide what to do next.
    If so..... She should resign. She had one job. She failed.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,272
    Philip_Thompson said:

    HYUFD said:

    This ruling coupled with the Gina Miller case shows we need to start paying more attention to the appointment of UK Supreme Court Justices rather than just US ones

    Quite the opposite. This was a unanimous decision that quoted and followed the precedent set in the US Supreme Court. Not a narrow partisan decision decided by one individual on narrow partisan lines.
    There were 3 dissenting judges on the Gina Miller ruling but it passed anyway
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,234
    Stereotomy said:

    kle4 said:

    Stereotomy said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Reading the Guadian's report of Barnier's comments today, far from there being an agreement next week, it looks like this is stalemate and TM may need to terminate the negotiations

    Not really her MO.
    No, but she simply does not have as much wriggle room as the EU seem to think she does (whether the EU should or would reasonably wriggle more is neither here nor there, in that they at least could if they wanted to), and there's little point in her agreeing to something which she has zero chance of getting through parliament. She was already struggling to do so. Maybe she'll break off negotiations, maybe she'll resign, but she cannot keep kicking the can and bringing any old nonsense back is pointless.
    She'll keep kicking that can until she's dragged away
    It cannot be kicked beyond next March - we are out with a no deal unless we actively stop it
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,272
    anothernick said:

    Slackbladder said:

    HYUFD said:

    Slackbladder said:

    On the EU issue. I think most people just want it to be done and move on, and aren't 'particularly' concerned about the details.

    Both the DUP and the ERG seem hell bent on creating the conditions that the entire concept of Brexit is being put at risk. It wouldn't take too much more for the public to think staying it might soon be the easier option.

    The polls are clear, voters comfortably prefer Remain to No Deal. Only Norway or Canada style Brexit's have net positives. If No Deal is the alternative to Remain by the end of November Brexit could be reversed in EU ref2 before the Brexit due date at the end of March
    Indeed. Everything is against 'No Deal'/Hard Brexit. The current government, MP's as a whole, the Opposition and the public as well.

    The only ones holding out are purists, and they can't win. The numbers across the board aren't there.
    No, the numbers are not there. But a no deal Brexit is now baked in to the victorious sponge. Unless something else is approved by both EU and UK before March 29 no deal will happen automatically. And it is not clear that the EU, the U.K. and (more particularly) a majority in the HoC will be able to agree on what "something else" will be.
    More likely there will be EUref2 or another general election before March if No Deal looks likely by the end of November and either Remain wins a new referendum or Corbyn becomes PM leading a minority government reliant on the SNP and LDs.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,234
    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Reading the Guadian's report of Barnier's comments today, far from there being an agreement next week, it looks like this is stalemate and TM may need to terminate the negotiations

    Thereby achieving what exactly?
    Not much, but as nothing would have been achieved anyway, there would be no negative impact either, and the ball would be in parliament's hands to decide what to do next.
    If so..... She should resign. She had one job. She failed.
    And then what
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025