I think the EU are in danger of winning the battle, but losing the war.
The principle of punishing Britain is to take EU exit off the agenda across the continent. But the situation they have created is one in which Brussels' flaws are demonstrated over and over again - some real, some imagined - with no alternative narrative to challenge the perception that for the first time since the Cold War, the very principle of a united Europe is under threat.
In effect it isn't, as the transition could well end up being permanent with an application for EFTA membership unless a technical solution is found to the Irish border that ends the backstop and enables a FTA.
In any case no vote needs to be held on the SM and CU for GB only for NI in the vote on the backstop as part of the Withdrawal Agreement.
You are still so confused. EFTA has absolutely nothing to do with this. We cannot join EFTA as being in a CU with the EU is not compatible with EFTA.
Confusion abounds.
The biggest HYUFD overnight Eastasia/Eurasia moment is surely that he has stopped talking about scrapping FOM, at all....
But the polls meanwhile say that the people overwhelmingly want to deal with EU immigration in the same way as ROW...
Another day, another nightmare on South Western Railways. We really have the lousiest railway system in the World!!!
Things need to change...
Wales (labour) have just awarded a new 5 billion pound 15 year franchise under TFW to Joint France - Spanish venture with KeolisAmey. It has been given targets on punctuality and overcrowding and has a cap on profits
Seems an excellent compromise without the downside of full nationalisation
The new name is Transport for London Wales. According to station announcements they apparently will replace all the old Pacer and other trains by 2023.
BTW I made a brief return to Wales today to do the Swansea District Line (from Llanelli to Port Talbot by-passing Swansea and Neath). Effectively I have captured - on film! - all the major weekday routes running in daylight in England und Wales.
That is amazing. When I am bored I enjoy the cab videos of various routes. Maybe I have revealed my geeky side and I do love everything steam
John Major is the most successful living Tory leader.
Not sure about that but in any case that's not saying much given he took Mrs Thatchers 100+ seat majority from 1987 and lost 40 seats in 1992, presided over the ERM disaster in which he threw Tory voting house-holders to the wolves in order to try and stay in the ERM and ultimately saw the Conservatives get their biggest pasting since the Duke of Wellington in the subsequent election...
Other than that I agree he's amazing.
It's really interesting how many people on the right's political views seem to have been formed during that period but based on New Labour's spin rather than the reality.
Unfortunately for "Sir John" whatever credibility he had dissolved into thin air at this moment
Given the total and abject humiliation he presided over I'm surprised he ever showed his face in public again... I'm not sure I'd have been able to.
But the even bigger mystery is why anyone in the media takes him remotely seriously after being so widely known as the biggest political failure in the lifetime of anyone alive, then or now?
And of course special mention for that waste of space Lord Heseltine who was equally responsible for his "asteroid wiping out all life as we know it" event as Anthony King described it...
The 1997 election loss (or, conversely, Blair's win) was multi-faceted. He made some big mistakes - as all PMs do. But the Conservatives had been in power for 18 years, and were tired. He had MPs doing dodgy things - hardly directly his fault. And then he had the Brexit bastards who kicked his government in the nuts.
Thatcher would have lost in 1997. Cameron would have lost in 1997. Blair would have lost in 1997, if leading the Conservatives. They were a tired toddler: they'd been in power too long, needed to go to bed for a sleep, but were arguing against it - and in the process made the sleep deeper and longer than need be the case.
When Cameron left office, he had a majority in Parliament.
When Major left office, he had a rump of only 165 MPs!
All this winning majorities, serving full terms and such is relevant to merits as party leader promoting party interest, not to merits as PM governing the country. It's not the size of your majority, it's what you do with it that counts (fnarrr). Cameron's achievement in 2015 of getting an against the odds majority enabled him to fuck the country over on an epic scale in a way which would have been impossible otherwise. So not in the country's interest, and not even in the medium to long term interst of his party, as will become apparent as and when the tories are out of office for 30 years after GE 2022.
That sounds like the speeches Major used to give saying why leaving the ERM would be a disaster.
Citation needed.
Major put interest rates up 5% in a single day to try to maintain ERM membership as well as pissing away billions intervening in the foreign currency markets.
Do you not think that proves something ?
I think it proves that he panics under pressure, a characteristic he shares with many other people (see Dick Fuld). However situation was short andthe blowback from the ERM fallout was limited[1].
People forget the reason why we went in: it enabled a degree of fiscal prudence that squeezed out the larger inflation of the 80's. Unfortunately the solution became a problem in itself, hence the fallout.
Incidentally, if you traduce John Major for his lack of cope in a financial disaster, shouldn't you credit Gordon Brown for his behavior in 2008?
[1] Although arguably it laid the foundations for Brexit several years later...
John Major is the most successful living Tory leader.
Not sure about that but in any case that's not saying much given he took Mrs Thatchers 100+ seat majority from 1987 and lost 40 seats in 1992, presided over the ERM disaster in which he threw Tory voting house-holders to the wolves in order to try and stay in the ERM and ultimately saw the Conservatives get their biggest pasting since the Duke of Wellington in the subsequent election...
Other than that I agree he's amazing.
It's really interesting how many people on the right's political views seem to have been formed during that period but based on New Labour's spin rather than the reality.
Unfortunately for "Sir John" whatever credibility he had dissolved into thin air at this moment
Given the total and abject humiliation he presided over I'm surprised he ever showed his face in public again... I'm not sure I'd have been able to.
But the even bigger mystery is why anyone in the media takes him remotely seriously after being so widely known as the biggest political failure in the lifetime of anyone alive, then or now?
And of course special mention for that waste of space Lord Heseltine who was equally responsible for his "asteroid wiping out all life as we know it" event as Anthony King described it...
The 1997 election loss (or, conversely, Blair's win) was multi-faceted. He made some big mistakes - as all PMs do. But the Conservatives had been in power for 18 years, and were tired. He had MPs doing dodgy things - hardly directly his fault. And then he had the Brexit bastards who kicked his government in the nuts.
Thatcher would have lost in 1997. Cameron would have lost in 1997. Blair would have lost in 1997, if leading the Conservatives. They were a tired toddler: they'd been in power too long, needed to go to bed for a sleep, but were arguing against it - and in the process made the sleep deeper and longer than need be the case.
Yeah but there's "losing"... And then there's 1997!
For Parliament to act there has to be a Bill. And the Bill has to be introduced.
AIUI Private members bills can be easily stopped unless introduced by HMLoyalOpposition (ie corbyn) . Government Bills can only be introduced by the Gov (ie May).
And that's it.
So regardless of the views of 'Parliament' unless may/corbyn introduce a bill there's nothing to vote on. The single known exception is the already legislated for 'Meaningful Vote'. Which is only yea/nay on the Deal Tmay brings back.
All the talk of a Sovereign Parliament stopping NoDeal, peoplesvotes etc falls down here : there is nothing to vote on.
This is quite correct. The assumptions about what Parliament will 'do' are a lot more complicated because ultimately you need a functioning Government which has to have a policy.
The 'meaningful vote' can possibly be amended, but it is nothing but an advisory position. As we see on PB all day, people propose things in terms of deal outcomes that can't actually happen (eg HYUFD and his magic transition to SM+CU) so how Parliament does anything but have a general whinge is beyond me.
Parliament can either reject or pass a deal presented to them. If the Government supported it, they could decide either to abandon Brexit or have another referendum, but this can't happen without Govt support because both require primary legislation. But the one thing they can't do is determine which deal outcome they might want.
If none of these happen, no deal will happen. It doesn't need any form of approval.
John Major is the most successful living Tory leader.
Not sure about that but in any case that's not saying much given he took Mrs Thatchers 100+ seat majority from 1987 and lost 40 seats in 1992, presided over the ERM disaster in which he threw Tory voting house-holders to the wolves in order to try and stay in the ERM and ultimately saw the Conservatives get their biggest pasting since the Duke of Wellington in the subsequent election...
Other than that I agree he's amazing.
It's really interesting how many people on the right's political views seem to have been formed during that period but based on New Labour's spin rather than the reality.
Unfortunately for "Sir John" whatever credibility he had dissolved into thin air at this moment
Given the total and abject humiliation he presided over I'm surprised he ever showed his face in public again... I'm not sure I'd have been able to.
But the even bigger mystery is why anyone in the media takes him remotely seriously after being so widely known as the biggest political failure in the lifetime of anyone alive, then or now?
And of course special mention for that waste of space Lord Heseltine who was equally responsible for his "asteroid wiping out all life as we know it" event as Anthony King described it...
The 1997 election loss (or, conversely, Blair's win) was multi-faceted. He made some big mistakes - as all PMs do. But the Conservatives had been in power for 18 years, and were tired. He had MPs doing dodgy things - hardly directly his fault. And then he had the Brexit bastards who kicked his government in the nuts.
Thatcher would have lost in 1997. Cameron would have lost in 1997. Blair would have lost in 1997, if leading the Conservatives. They were a tired toddler: they'd been in power too long, needed to go to bed for a sleep, but were arguing against it - and in the process made the sleep deeper and longer than need be the case.
Yeah but there's "losing"... And then there's 1997!
John Major is the most successful living Tory leader.
Not sure about that but in any case that's not saying much given he took Mrs Thatchers 100+ seat majority from 1987 and lost 40 seats in 1992, presided over the ERM disaster in which he threw Tory voting house-holders to the wolves in order to try and stay in the ERM and ultimately saw the Conservatives get their biggest pasting since the Duke of Wellington in the subsequent election...
Other than that I agree he's amazing.
It's really interesting how many people on the right's political views seem to have been formed during that period but based on New Labour's spin rather than the reality.
Unfortunately for "Sir John" whatever credibility he had dissolved into thin air at this moment
Given the total and abject humiliation he presided over I'm surprised he ever showed his face in public again... I'm not sure I'd have been able to.
But the even bigger mystery is why anyone in the media takes him remotely seriously after being so widely known as the biggest political failure in the lifetime of anyone alive, then or now?
And of course special mention for that waste of space Lord Heseltine who was equally responsible for his "asteroid wiping out all life as we know it" event as Anthony King described it...
The 1997 election loss (or, conversely, Blair's win) was multi-faceted. He made some big mistakes - as all PMs do. But the Conservatives had been in power for 18 years, and were tired. He had MPs doing dodgy things - hardly directly his fault. And then he had the Brexit bastards who kicked his government in the nuts.
Thatcher would have lost in 1997. Cameron would have lost in 1997. Blair would have lost in 1997, if leading the Conservatives. They were a tired toddler: they'd been in power too long, needed to go to bed for a sleep, but were arguing against it - and in the process made the sleep deeper and longer than need be the case.
Yeah but there's "losing"... And then there's 1997!
Hopefully we'll have another one to look forward to in the new year
If none of these happen, no deal will happen. It doesn't need any form of approval.
I think you're ignoring the real world pressures on the government. If no deal is in the process of happening by default, the pressure on the PM to request an extension will be overwhelming. She won't be able to get away with saying her hands are tied.
I do not remember John Major's time in office, but when he has popped up every now and then in years past he comes across as thoughtful and dignified, which I appreciate. I think it optimistic to think he has not been overcome with the kind of Brexit hysteria all of us here indulge in, particularly when he has, sincerely and legitimately, been so clearly on one side.
I do remember his time in office and he was seen as decent, perhaps too nice and dreadfully, dreadfully boring. His Spitting Image puppet was a grey-coloured one and it was fascinated by anything dull and boring and had a huge, stiff upper lip.
Today's shower (in either party) make Major look wonderfully competent and thoughtful. A statesman.
Amazing ....
I like John Major, I really do. I suspect I'm about one of a dozen people in the country that shelled out on his cricket book.
Major was always second best to Maggie, and that's no surprise. He really did have the back to the wind though, and he could have done much more with that.
I'd have him way down in the league of PMs. Although having typed that there are many more below him than above.
Today's shower, are a shower, and a chilly and disappointing version. Not a hot-water spurt amongst them. However, these are really tough times for politicians. There's a real-and-present danger that they may have to think.
It seems to me that there are politicians out there making sensible if incomplete noises. Some DUP chap on the C4 news last night was entirely sensible. If the DUP can do it we all can!
That sounds like the speeches Major used to give saying why leaving the ERM would be a disaster.
Citation needed.
Major put interest rates up 5% in a single day to try to maintain ERM membership as well as pissing away billions intervening in the foreign currency markets.
Do you not think that proves something ?
I think it proves that he panics under pressure, a characteristic he shares with many other people (see Dick Fuld). However situation was short andthe blowback from the ERM fallout was limited[1].
People forget the reason why we went in: it enabled a degree of fiscal prudence that squeezed out the larger inflation of the 80's. Unfortunately the solution became a problem in itself, hence the fallout.
Incidentally, if you traduce John Major for his lack of cope in a financial disaster, shouldn't you credit Gordon Brown for his behavior in 2008?
[1] Although arguably it laid the foundations for Brexit several years later...
The economic blowback from leaving the ERM was positive - interest rates were dramatically cut and a competitive exchange rate was reached - but the political blowback was severe and crippled the Conservative economic reputation.
Ironically one of the reasons of the inflation of the late 1980s was Nigel Lawson's 'shadowing the DM' policy. The same Nigel Lawson who now supports leaving the EU.
I'm not sure what we need to thank Gordon Brown for in 2008 - interest rates cuts were delivered by the now independent BoE. They, together with the fall in Sterling, did help stop the recession being even deeper.
The biggest HYUFD overnight Eastasia/Eurasia moment is surely that he has stopped talking about scrapping FOM, at all....
...
You are quite right. I missed that. But maybe it never happened. There is no such thing as reality after all. Reality only exists in the collective mind of PB posters....
If none of these happen, no deal will happen. It doesn't need any form of approval.
I think you're ignoring the real world pressures on the government. If no deal is in the process of happening by default, the pressure on the PM to request an extension will be overwhelming. She won't be able to get away with saying her hands are tied.
I think an extension is possible. I would have no major issue with it. But the question is - to what purpose? We have been stuck on exactly the same issues all the way through - is there really any chance that an extension would help?
I think if we are heading for no deal both parties should agree a short extension and agree to co-operate to manage the disruption as best as possible. But I just can't see the EU agreeing.
If none of these happen, no deal will happen. It doesn't need any form of approval.
I think you're ignoring the real world pressures on the government. If no deal is in the process of happening by default, the pressure on the PM to request an extension will be overwhelming. She won't be able to get away with saying her hands are tied.
I think an extension is possible. I would have no major issue with it. But the question is - to what purpose? We have been stuck on exactly the same issues all the way through - is there really any chance that an extension would help?
I think if we are heading for no deal both parties should agree a short extension and agree to co-operate to manage the disruption as best as possible. But I just can't see the EU agreeing.
The only purpose of an extension is to allow UK politics to accept the inevitability of one of the two options: Brexit on the EU's terms, or Remain, via a second referendum.
I do not remember John Major's time in office, but when he has popped up every now and then in years past he comes across as thoughtful and dignified, which I appreciate. I think it optimistic to think he has not been overcome with the kind of Brexit hysteria all of us here indulge in, particularly when he has, sincerely and legitimately, been so clearly on one side.
I do remember his time in office and he was seen as decent, perhaps too nice and dreadfully, dreadfully boring. His Spitting Image puppet was a grey-coloured one and it was fascinated by anything dull and boring and had a huge, stiff upper lip.
Today's shower (in either party) make Major look wonderfully competent and thoughtful. A statesman.
Amazing ....
I like John Major, I really do. I suspect I'm about one of a dozen people in the country that shelled out on his cricket book.
Major was always second best to Maggie, and that's no surprise. He really did have the back to the wind though, and he could have done much more with that.
I'd have him way down in the league of PMs. Although having typed that there are many more below him than above.
Today's shower, are a shower, and a chilly and disappointing version. Not a hot-water spurt amongst them. However, these are really tough times for politicians. There's a real-and-present danger that they may have to think.
It seems to me that there are politicians out there making sensible if incomplete noises. Some DUP chap on the C4 news last night was entirely sensible. If the DUP can do it we all can!
Gibraltar seems to be sorting out its part pretty well.
There seems to be some sort of law of diminishing returns regarding Westminster politics - the more powerful you become the more incompetent you become.
She will be far from the only MP who thinks ignoring bad behaviour or a bad culture is acceptable in this instance. If that is their choice, I hope others at least say so as well.
That sounds like the speeches Major used to give saying why leaving the ERM would be a disaster.
Citation needed.
Major put interest rates up 5% in a single day to try to maintain ERM membership as well as pissing away billions intervening in the foreign currency markets.
Do you not think that proves something ?
I think it proves that he panics under pressure, a characteristic he shares with many other people (see Dick Fuld). However situation was short andthe blowback from the ERM fallout was limited[1].
People forget the reason why we went in: it enabled a degree of fiscal prudence that squeezed out the larger inflation of the 80's. Unfortunately the solution became a problem in itself, hence the fallout.
Incidentally, if you traduce John Major for his lack of cope in a financial disaster, shouldn't you credit Gordon Brown for his behavior in 2008?
[1] Although arguably it laid the foundations for Brexit several years later...
The economic blowback from leaving the ERM was positive - interest rates were dramatically cut and a competitive exchange rate was reached - but the political blowback was severe and crippled the Conservative economic reputation.
Ironically one of the reasons of the inflation of the late 1980s was Nigel Lawson's 'shadowing the DM' policy. The same Nigel Lawson who now supports leaving the EU.
I'm not sure what we need to thank Gordon Brown for in 2008 - interest rates cuts were delivered by the now independent BoE. They, together with the fall in Sterling, did help stop the recession being even deeper.
Brown threw money at the problem. I'm not sure people realise how insane that was.
Major panicked, and he mainly did so because Lamont was as strong willed as a lettuce leaf. They took very drastic action which was overkill, but did address the issue.
Brown/Darling made everything much worse. I genuinely think that what they did was treasonous. Nobody seems to have noticed though, so I guess they must be right.
Osborne and Hammond are mostly just covering up the crimes, and hoping that nobody notices that the Exchequer has no clothes.
She will be far from the only MP who thinks ignoring bad behaviour or a bad culture is acceptable in this instance. If that is their choice, I hope others at least say so as well.
It might be interesting to compare any comments about this with any comments about, say, the President's Club dinner story.
She will be far from the only MP who thinks ignoring bad behaviour or a bad culture is acceptable in this instance. If that is their choice, I hope others at least say so as well.
It might be interesting to compare any comments about this with any comments about, say, the President's Club dinner story.
They have all genuinely gone mad. Of course he needs to go. Now.
She will be far from the only MP who thinks ignoring bad behaviour or a bad culture is acceptable in this instance. If that is their choice, I hope others at least say so as well.
Leadsom had the answer.
Hoyle is neither inexperience nor anything else. He is perfectly capable.
That sounds like the speeches Major used to give saying why leaving the ERM would be a disaster.
Citation needed.
Major put interest rates up 5% in a single day to try to maintain ERM membership as well as pissing away billions intervening in the foreign currency markets.
Do you not think that proves something ?
I think it proves that he panics under pressure, a characteristic he shares with many other people (see Dick Fuld). However situation was short andthe blowback from the ERM fallout was limited[1].
People forget the reason why we went in: it enabled a degree of fiscal prudence that squeezed out the larger inflation of the 80's. Unfortunately the solution became a problem in itself, hence the fallout.
Incidentally, if you traduce John Major for his lack of cope in a financial disaster, shouldn't you credit Gordon Brown for his behavior in 2008?
[1] Although arguably it laid the foundations for Brexit several years later...
The economic blowback from leaving the ERM was positive - interest rates were dramatically cut and a competitive exchange rate was reached - but the political blowback was severe and crippled the Conservative economic reputation.
Ironically one of the reasons of the inflation of the late 1980s was Nigel Lawson's 'shadowing the DM' policy. The same Nigel Lawson who now supports leaving the EU.
I'm not sure what we need to thank Gordon Brown for in 2008 - interest rates cuts were delivered by the now independent BoE. They, together with the fall in Sterling, did help stop the recession being even deeper.
It cured the problem, albeit temporary It could be applied by anybody It was easily comprehensible
In an emergency people freeze up: they fall back on reflexes, take refuge in blame, do things they know won't work because they can't think of anything else. Brown, for all his (considerable) faults, did not. Major did in 1992 and May is doing it right now.
She will be far from the only MP who thinks ignoring bad behaviour or a bad culture is acceptable in this instance. If that is their choice, I hope others at least say so as well.
It might be interesting to compare any comments about this with any comments about, say, the President's Club dinner story.
They have all genuinely gone mad. Of course he needs to go. Now.
The Brexit virus is strange, deadly and clearly mutates to warp people's thinking in other ways and indeed morals.
She will be far from the only MP who thinks ignoring bad behaviour or a bad culture is acceptable in this instance. If that is their choice, I hope others at least say so as well.
Leadsom had the answer.
Hoyle is neither inexperience nor anything else. He is perfectly capable.
It does seem that that the idea the Commons would descend into more chaos than it already is with Bercow gone, or that its rights would not be defended, does not really hold water. So if people merely think that Bercow does not deserve to go because of the culture that exists, they should be bold enough to say that, too.
It seems to me that there are politicians out there making sensible if incomplete noises. Some DUP chap on the C4 news last night was entirely sensible. If the DUP can do it we all can!
I know what you mean. I heard Sammy Wilson talking sense on R4 last week. Weird! A first time for everything I suppose....
That sounds like the speeches Major used to give saying why leaving the ERM would be a disaster.
Citation needed.
Major put interest rates up 5% in a single day to try to maintain ERM membership as well as pissing away billions intervening in the foreign currency markets.
Do you not think that proves something ?
I think it proves that he panics under pressure, a characteristic he shares with many other people (see Dick Fuld). However situation was short andthe blowback from the ERM fallout was limited[1].
People forget the reason why we went in: it enabled a degree of fiscal prudence that squeezed out the larger inflation of the 80's. Unfortunately the solution became a problem in itself, hence the fallout.
Incidentally, if you traduce John Major for his lack of cope in a financial disaster, shouldn't you credit Gordon Brown for his behavior in 2008?
[1] Although arguably it laid the foundations for Brexit several years later...
The economic blowback from leaving the ERM was positive - interest rates were dramatically cut and a competitive exchange rate was reached - but the political blowback was severe and crippled the Conservative economic reputation.
Ironically one of the reasons of the inflation of the late 1980s was Nigel Lawson's 'shadowing the DM' policy. The same Nigel Lawson who now supports leaving the EU.
I'm not sure what we need to thank Gordon Brown for in 2008 - interest rates cuts were delivered by the now independent BoE. They, together with the fall in Sterling, did help stop the recession being even deeper.
It cured the problem, albeit temporary It could be applied by anybody It was easily comprehensible
In an emergency people freeze up: they fall back on reflexes, take refuge in blame, do things they know won't work because they can't think of anything else. Brown, for all his (considerable) faults, did not. Major did in 1992 and May is doing it right now.
What do you think the disadvantages might have been? (Lets do it once a month otherwise)
The inevitable has happened - Elizabeth Warren's ridiculous native american claim has become a subject of ridicule. Sen. Orrin Hatch has tweeted a photo of him looking at his phone, with the description "1/1032 T. Rex, the rest - other dinosaurs".
When you don't even need to mention the object of the joke, the ridicule is complete.
In effect it isn't, as the transition could well end up being permanent with an application for EFTA membership unless a technical solution is found to the Irish border that ends the backstop and enables a FTA.
In any case no vote needs to be held on the SM and CU for GB only for NI in the vote on the backstop as part of the Withdrawal Agreement.
You are still so confused. EFTA has absolutely nothing to do with this. We cannot join EFTA as being in a CU with the EU is not compatible with EFTA.
Confusion abounds.
The biggest HYUFD overnight Eastasia/Eurasia moment is surely that he has stopped talking about scrapping FOM, at all....
But the polls meanwhile say that the people overwhelmingly want to deal with EU immigration in the same way as ROW...
Eastern European migration has seen a net fall since the referendum anyway, I am not prepared to risk ending the Union and wreck the economy just over ending FOM (which Blair could have controlled through transition controls in 2004 within the EU) and for a few worthless FTAs
It seems to me that there are politicians out there making sensible if incomplete noises. Some DUP chap on the C4 news last night was entirely sensible. If the DUP can do it we all can!
I know what you mean. I heard Sammy Wilson talking sense on R4 last week. Weird! A first time for everything I suppose....
Yeah but we have to listen.(and thanks for the name.)
I like making sense, but as second best I like hearing sense. (Sounds very Northern, but I'm not)
If none of these happen, no deal will happen. It doesn't need any form of approval.
I think you're ignoring the real world pressures on the government. If no deal is in the process of happening by default, the pressure on the PM to request an extension will be overwhelming. She won't be able to get away with saying her hands are tied.
I think an extension is possible. I would have no major issue with it. But the question is - to what purpose? We have been stuck on exactly the same issues all the way through - is there really any chance that an extension would help?
I think if we are heading for no deal both parties should agree a short extension and agree to co-operate to manage the disruption as best as possible. But I just can't see the EU agreeing.
The only purpose of an extension is to allow UK politics to accept the inevitability of one of the two options: Brexit on the EU's terms, or Remain, via a second referendum.
It was made clear before the referendum that those where the only two choices available. Everything else was fantasy.
It seems to me that there are politicians out there making sensible if incomplete noises. Some DUP chap on the C4 news last night was entirely sensible. If the DUP can do it we all can!
I know what you mean. I heard Sammy Wilson talking sense on R4 last week. Weird! A first time for everything I suppose....
Yeah but we have to listen.(and thanks for the name.) I like making sense, but as second best I like hearing sense. (Sounds very Northern, but I'm not)
Ahhh ... but I am very northern. I regard Scousers and Mancs as southerners
For Parliament to act there has to be a Bill. And the Bill has to be introduced.
AIUI Private members bills can be easily stopped unless introduced by HMLoyalOpposition (ie corbyn) . Government Bills can only be introduced by the Gov (ie May).
And that's it.
So regardless of the views of 'Parliament' unless may/corbyn introduce a bill there's nothing to vote on. The single known exception is the already legislated for 'Meaningful Vote'. Which is only yea/nay on the Deal Tmay brings back.
All the talk of a Sovereign Parliament stopping NoDeal, peoplesvotes etc falls down here : there is nothing to vote on.
This is quite correct. The assumptions about what Parliament will 'do' are a lot more complicated because ultimately you need a functioning Government which has to have a policy.
The 'meaningful vote' can possibly be amended, but it is nothing but an advisory position. As we see on PB all day, people propose things in terms of deal outcomes that can't actually happen (eg HYUFD and his magic transition to SM+CU) so how Parliament does anything but have a general whinge is beyond me.
Parliament can either reject or pass a deal presented to them. If the Government supported it, they could decide either to abandon Brexit or have another referendum, but this can't happen without Govt support because both require primary legislation. But the one thing they can't do is determine which deal outcome they might want.
If none of these happen, no deal will happen. It doesn't need any form of approval.
May will simply allow the likes of Grieve etc to put forward their own bills on Brexit which will likely lead to a vote on a SM+CU backstop for NI which will likely pass the Commons to get the transition period (in which the whole UK will stay in the SM + CU) and the Withdrawal Agreeement.
What will not happen is MPs allow No Deal to occur. Even after November's negotiations once May hands over to Parliament if those talks fail there will be over 4 months until Brexit day
In effect it isn't, as the transition could well end up being permanent with an application for EFTA membership unless a technical solution is found to the Irish border that ends the backstop and enables a FTA.
In any case no vote needs to be held on the SM and CU for GB only for NI in the vote on the backstop as part of the Withdrawal Agreement.
You are still so confused. EFTA has absolutely nothing to do with this. We cannot join EFTA as being in a CU with the EU is not compatible with EFTA.
Confusion abounds.
The biggest HYUFD overnight Eastasia/Eurasia moment is surely that he has stopped talking about scrapping FOM, at all....
But the polls meanwhile say that the people overwhelmingly want to deal with EU immigration in the same way as ROW...
Eastern European migration has seen a net fall since the referendum anyway, I am not prepared to risk ending the Union and wreck the economy just over ending FOM (which Blair could have controlled through transition controls in 2004 within the EU) and for a few worthless FTAs
Ruth Davidson thinks the backstop risks ending the Union.
John Major is the most successful living Tory leader.
Not sure about that but in any case that's not saying much given he took Mrs Thatchers 100+ seat majority from 1987 and lost 40 seats in 1992, presided over the ERM disaster in which he threw Tory voting house-holders to the wolves in order to try and stay in the ERM and ultimately saw the Conservatives get their biggest pasting since the Duke of Wellington in the subsequent election...
Other than that I agree he's amazing.
It's really interesting how many people on the right's political views seem to have been formed during that period but based on New Labour's spin rather than the reality.
Unfortunately for "Sir John" whatever credibility he had dissolved into thin air at this moment
Given the total and abject humiliation he presided over I'm surprised he ever showed his face in public again... I'm not sure I'd have been able to.
But the even bigger mystery is why anyone in the media takes him remotely seriously after being so widely known as the biggest political failure in the lifetime of anyone alive, then or now?
And of course special mention for that waste of space Lord Heseltine who was equally responsible for his "asteroid wiping out all life as we know it" event as Anthony King described it...
The 1997 election loss (or, conversely, Blair's win) was multi-faceted. He made some big mistakes - as all PMs do. But the Conservatives had been in power for 18 years, and were tired. He had MPs doing dodgy things - hardly directly his fault. And then he had the Brexit bastards who kicked his government in the nuts.
Thatcher would have lost in 1997. Cameron would have lost in 1997. Blair would have lost in 1997, if leading the Conservatives. They were a tired toddler: they'd been in power too long, needed to go to bed for a sleep, but were arguing against it - and in the process made the sleep deeper and longer than need be the case.
Yeah but there's "losing"... And then there's 1997!
Even Ed got 232 MPs in 2015
Major got 336 MPs in 1992, the only Tory Leader to win a 4th successive term for the party since Lord Liverpool
I think it proves that he panics under pressure, a characteristic he shares with many other people (see Dick Fuld). However situation was short andthe blowback from the ERM fallout was limited[1].
People forget the reason why we went in: it enabled a degree of fiscal prudence that squeezed out the larger inflation of the 80's. Unfortunately the solution became a problem in itself, hence the fallout.
Incidentally, if you traduce John Major for his lack of cope in a financial disaster, shouldn't you credit Gordon Brown for his behavior in 2008?
[1] Although arguably it laid the foundations for Brexit several years later...
The economic blowback from leaving the ERM was positive - interest rates were dramatically cut and a competitive exchange rate was reached - but the political blowback was severe and crippled the Conservative economic reputation.
Ironically one of the reasons of the inflation of the late 1980s was Nigel Lawson's 'shadowing the DM' policy. The same Nigel Lawson who now supports leaving the EU.
I'm not sure what we need to thank Gordon Brown for in 2008 - interest rates cuts were delivered by the now independent BoE. They, together with the fall in Sterling, did help stop the recession being even deeper.
It cured the problem, albeit temporary It could be applied by anybody It was easily comprehensible
In an emergency people freeze up: they fall back on reflexes, take refuge in blame, do things they know won't work because they can't think of anything else. Brown, for all his (considerable) faults, did not. Major did in 1992 and May is doing it right now.
What do you think the disadvantages might have been? (Lets do it once a month otherwise)
There were several big things: I thought it was fraudulent (I may be right) and would lead to a pulse of inflation (I think I was wrong in that, or at least premature). Also the moral hazard was intense: I disapproved of it then and even more now. Capitalism doesn't work if failures don't fail, it just becomes communism for billionaires. If it was up to me I wouldn't have done it, even with hindsight.
The inevitable has happened - Elizabeth Warren's ridiculous native american claim has become a subject of ridicule. Sen. Orrin Hatch has tweeted a photo of him looking at his phone, with the description "1/1032 T. Rex, the rest - other dinosaurs".
When you don't even need to mention the object of the joke, the ridicule is complete.
I thought Trump had been ridiculing it for months.
In effect it isn't, as the transition could well end up being permanent with an application for EFTA membership unless a technical solution is found to the Irish border that ends the backstop and enables a FTA.
In any case no vote needs to be held on the SM and CU for GB only for NI in the vote on the backstop as part of the Withdrawal Agreement.
You are still so confused. EFTA has absolutely nothing to do with this. We cannot join EFTA as being in a CU with the EU is not compatible with EFTA.
Confusion abounds.
The biggest HYUFD overnight Eastasia/Eurasia moment is surely that he has stopped talking about scrapping FOM, at all....
But the polls meanwhile say that the people overwhelmingly want to deal with EU immigration in the same way as ROW...
Eastern European migration has seen a net fall since the referendum anyway, I am not prepared to risk ending the Union and wreck the economy just over ending FOM (which Blair could have controlled through transition controls in 2004 within the EU) and for a few worthless FTAs
Ruth Davidson thinks the backstop risks ending the Union.
Ruth Davidson knows No Deal risks ending the Union, Scotland voting for independence and NI leaving the UK. The UK will stay in the Single Market and Customs Union in the transition period anyway.
Most voters in NI want to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union, if there is a hard border in NI the polling is clear they will vote for a United Ireland.
Survation had Yes on 52% in Scotland if No Deal Brexit just a fortnight ago.
However I know ending a 200 and 300 year Union is of no concern to you in your ideological zeal for a No Deal Brexit and erasing all links with Brussels
She will be far from the only MP who thinks ignoring bad behaviour or a bad culture is acceptable in this instance. If that is their choice, I hope others at least say so as well.
It might be interesting to compare any comments about this with any comments about, say, the President's Club dinner story.
They have all genuinely gone mad. Of course he needs to go. Now.
The Brexit virus is strange, deadly and clearly mutates to warp people's thinking in other ways and indeed morals.
There's a lot of this sort of stuff going around, like Republicans ignoring credible allegations against Kavanaugh because he's their guy.
In effect it isn't, as the transition could well end up being permanent with an application for EFTA membership unless a technical solution is found to the Irish border that ends the backstop and enables a FTA.
In any case no vote needs to be held on the SM and CU for GB only for NI in the vote on the backstop as part of the Withdrawal Agreement.
You are still so confused. EFTA has absolutely nothing to do with this. We cannot join EFTA as being in a CU with the EU is not compatible with EFTA.
Confusion abounds.
The biggest HYUFD overnight Eastasia/Eurasia moment is surely that he has stopped talking about scrapping FOM, at all....
But the polls meanwhile say that the people overwhelmingly want to deal with EU immigration in the same way as ROW...
Eastern European migration has seen a net fall since the referendum anyway, I am not prepared to risk ending the Union and wreck the economy just over ending FOM (which Blair could have controlled through transition controls in 2004 within the EU) and for a few worthless FTAs
Ruth Davidson thinks the backstop risks ending the Union.
Ruth Davidson knows No Deal risks ending the Union, Scotland voting for independence and NI leaving the UK.
Most voters in NI want to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union, if there is a hard border in NI the polling is clear they will vote for a United Ireland.
Survation had Yes on 52% in Scotland if No Deal Brexit just a fortnight ago.
However I know ending a 200 and 300 year Union is of no concern to you in your ideological zeal for a No Deal Brexit and erasing all links with Brussels
Stop talking balls. She has said she won’t vote for a backstop that you support.
I want to protect the Union. I have roots in three parts of it.
Including Belfast.
Which you want to allow to be subject to the rules of a foreign power.
It seems to me that there are politicians out there making sensible if incomplete noises. Some DUP chap on the C4 news last night was entirely sensible. If the DUP can do it we all can!
I know what you mean. I heard Sammy Wilson talking sense on R4 last week. Weird! A first time for everything I suppose....
Yeah but we have to listen.(and thanks for the name.) I like making sense, but as second best I like hearing sense. (Sounds very Northern, but I'm not)
Ahhh ... but I am very northern. I regard Scousers and Mancs as southerners
I was merely complimenting the Northern ability to make comments 'pithy'. I thought as a Southerner that I'd rather stumbled into that. I wrote very few words, and I made my point almost accidentally well. As you can tell from this windy explanation it isn't a theme
John Major is the most successful living Tory leader.
Not sure about that but in any case that's not saying much given he took Mrs Thatchers 100+ seat majority from 1987 and lost 40 seats in 1992, presided over the ERM disaster in which he threw Tory voting house-holders to the wolves in order to try and stay in the ERM and ultimately saw the Conservatives get their biggest pasting since the Duke of Wellington in the subsequent election...
Other than that I agree he's amazing.
It's really interesting how many people on the right's political views seem to have been formed during that period but based on New Labour's spin rather than the reality.
Unfortunately for "Sir John" whatever credibility he had dissolved into thin air at this moment
Given the total and abject humiliation he presided over I'm surprised he ever showed his face in public again... I'm not sure I'd have been able to.
But the even bigger mystery is why anyone in the media takes him remotely seriously after being so widely known as the biggest political failure in the lifetime of anyone alive, then or now?
And of course special mention for that waste of space Lord Heseltine who was equally responsible for his "asteroid wiping out all life as we know it" event as Anthony King described it...
The 1997 election loss (or, conversely, Blair's win) was multi-faceted. He made some big mistakes - as all PMs do. But the Conservatives had been in power for 18 years, and were tired. He had MPs doing dodgy things - hardly directly his fault. And then he had the Brexit bastards who kicked his government in the nuts.
Thatcher would have lost in 1997. Cameron would have lost in 1997. Blair would have lost in 1997, if leading the Conservatives. They were a tired toddler: they'd been in power too long, needed to go to bed for a sleep, but were arguing against it - and in the process made the sleep deeper and longer than need be the case.
Yeah but there's "losing"... And then there's 1997!
Even Ed got 232 MPs in 2015
Major got 336 MPs in 1992, the only Tory Leader to win a 4th successive term for the party since Lord Liverpool
But he got 165 MPs in 1997, the lowest number for either Tories or Labour since 1945.
In effect it isn't, as the transition could well end up being permanent with an application for EFTA membership unless a technical solution is found to the Irish border that ends the backstop and enables a FTA.
In any case no vote needs to be held on the SM and CU for GB only for NI in the vote on the backstop as part of the Withdrawal Agreement.
You are still so confused. EFTA has absolutely nothing to do with this. We cannot join EFTA as being in a CU with the EU is not compatible with EFTA.
Confusion abounds.
The biggest HYUFD overnight Eastasia/Eurasia moment is surely that he has stopped talking about scrapping FOM, at all....
But the polls meanwhile say that the people overwhelmingly want to deal with EU immigration in the same way as ROW...
Eastern European migration has seen a net fall since the referendum anyway, I am not prepared to risk ending the Union and wreck the economy just over ending FOM (which Blair could have controlled through transition controls in 2004 within the EU) and for a few worthless FTAs
Ruth Davidson thinks the backstop risks ending the Union.
Ruth Davidson knows No Deal risks ending the Union, Scotland voting for independence and NI leaving the UK.
Most voters in NI want to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union, if there is a hard border in NI the polling is clear they will vote for a United Ireland.
Survation had Yes on 52% in Scotland if No Deal Brexit just a fortnight ago.
However I know ending a 200 and 300 year Union is of no concern to you in your ideological zeal for a No Deal Brexit and erasing all links with Brussels
We should probably start calling it EWexit, since ultimately only England & Wales will leave the EU. (And how long before the Welsh see the light too?)
I think it proves that he panics under pressure, a characteristic he shares with many other people (see Dick Fuld). However situation was short andthe blowback from the ERM fallout was limited[1].
People forget the reason why we went in: it enabled a degree of fiscal prudence that squeezed out the larger inflation of the 80's. Unfortunately the solution became a problem in itself, hence the fallout.
Incidentally, if you traduce John Major for his lack of cope in a financial disaster, shouldn't you credit Gordon Brown for his behavior in 2008?
[1] Although arguably it laid the foundations for Brexit several years later...
The economic blowback from leaving the ERM was positive - interest rates were dramatically cut and a competitive exchange rate was reached - but the political blowback was severe and crippled the Conservative economic reputation.
Ironically one of the reasons of the inflation of the late 1980s was Nigel Lawson's 'shadowing the DM' policy. The same Nigel Lawson who now supports leaving the EU.
I'm not sure what we need to thank Gordon Brown for in 2008 - interest rates cuts were delivered by the now independent BoE. They, together with the fall in Sterling, did help stop the recession being even deeper.
It cured the problem, albeit temporary It could be applied by anybody It was easily comprehensible
In an emergency people freeze up: they fall back on reflexes, take refuge in blame, do things they know won't work because they can't think of anything else. Brown, for all his (considerable) faults, did not. Major did in 1992 and May is doing it right now.
What do you think the disadvantages might have been? (Lets do it once a month otherwise)
There were several big things: I thought it was fraudulent (I may be right) and would lead to a pulse of inflation (I think I was wrong in that, or at least premature). Also the moral hazard was intense: I disapproved of it then and even more now. Capitalism doesn't work if failures don't fail, it just becomes communism for billionaires. If it was up to me I wouldn't have done it, even with hindsight.
In effect it isn't, as the transition could well end up being permanent with an application for EFTA membership unless a technical solution is found to the Irish border that ends the backstop and enables a FTA.
In any case no vote needs to be held on the SM and CU for GB only for NI in the vote on the backstop as part of the Withdrawal Agreement.
You are still so confused. EFTA has absolutely nothing to do with this. We cannot join EFTA as being in a CU with the EU is not compatible with EFTA.
Confusion abounds.
The biggest HYUFD overnight Eastasia/Eurasia moment is surely that he has stopped talking about scrapping FOM, at all....
But the polls meanwhile say that the people overwhelmingly want to deal with EU immigration in the same way as ROW...
Eastern European migration has seen a net fall since the referendum anyway, I am not prepared to risk ending the Union and wreck the economy just over ending FOM (which Blair could have controlled through transition controls in 2004 within the EU) and for a few worthless FTAs
Ruth Davidson thinks the backstop risks ending the Union.
Ruth Davidson knows No Deal risks ending the Union, Scotland voting for independence and NI leaving the UK.
Most voters in NI want to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union, if there is a hard border in NI the polling is clear they will vote for a United Ireland.
Survation had Yes on 52% in Scotland if No Deal Brexit just a fortnight ago.
However I know ending a 200 and 300 year Union is of no concern to you in your ideological zeal for a No Deal Brexit and erasing all links with Brussels
Stop talking balls. She has said she won’t vote for a backstop that you support.
I want to protect the Union. I have roots in three parts of it.
Including Belfast.
Which you want to allow to be subject to the rules of a foreign power.
Who is the Unionist now?
By your actions in supporting a No Deal you are dicing with death with the Union and peace in Northern Ireland.
Also since when was the EU a foreign power, it is a Union we are still a part of until next March?
I think it proves that he panics under pressure, a characteristic he shares with many other people (see Dick Fuld). However situation was short andthe blowback from the ERM fallout was limited[1].
People forget the reason why we went in: it enabled a degree of fiscal prudence that squeezed out the larger inflation of the 80's. Unfortunately the solution became a problem in itself, hence the fallout.
Incidentally, if you traduce John Major for his lack of cope in a financial disaster, shouldn't you credit Gordon Brown for his behavior in 2008?
[1] Although arguably it laid the foundations for Brexit several years later...
The economic blowback from leaving the ERM was positive - interest rates were dramatically cut and a competitive exchange rate was reached - but the political blowback was severe and crippled the Conservative economic reputation.
Ironically one of the reasons of the inflation of the late 1980s was Nigel Lawson's 'shadowing the DM' policy. The same Nigel Lawson who now supports leaving the EU.
I'm not sure what we need to thank Gordon Brown for in 2008 - interest rates cuts were delivered by the now independent BoE. They, together with the fall in Sterling, did help stop the recession being even deeper.
It cured the problem, albeit temporary It could be applied by anybody It was easily comprehensible
In an emergency people freeze up: they fall back on reflexes, take refuge in blame, do things they know won't work because they can't think of anything else. Brown, for all his (considerable) faults, did not. Major did in 1992 and May is doing it right now.
What do you think the disadvantages might have been? (Lets do it once a month otherwise)
There were several big things: I thought it was fraudulent (I may be right) and would lead to a pulse of inflation (I think I was wrong in that, or at least premature). Also the moral hazard was intense: I disapproved of it then and even more now. Capitalism doesn't work if failures don't fail, it just becomes communism for billionaires. If it was up to me I wouldn't have done it, even with hindsight.
The US of course let Lehmans go bust
Lehmans was not a retail bank of course - very different beast.
In effect it isn't, as the transition could well end up being permanent with an application for EFTA membership unless a technical solution is found to the Irish border that ends the backstop and enables a FTA.
In any case no vote needs to be held on the SM and CU for GB only for NI in the vote on the backstop as part of the Withdrawal Agreement.
You are still so confused. EFTA has absolutely nothing to do with this. We cannot join EFTA as being in a CU with the EU is not compatible with EFTA.
Confusion abounds.
The biggest HYUFD overnight Eastasia/Eurasia moment is surely that he has stopped talking about scrapping FOM, at all....
But the polls meanwhile say that the people overwhelmingly want to deal with EU immigration in the same way as ROW...
Eastern European migration has seen a net fall since the referendum anyway, I am not prepared to risk ending the Union and wreck the economy just over ending FOM (which Blair could have controlled through transition controls in 2004 within the EU) and for a few worthless FTAs
Ruth Davidson thinks the backstop risks ending the Union.
Ruth Davidson knows No Deal risks ending the Union, Scotland voting for independence and NI leaving the UK.
Most voters in NI want to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union, if there is a hard border in NI the polling is clear they will vote for a United Ireland.
Survation had Yes on 52% in Scotland if No Deal Brexit just a fortnight ago.
However I know ending a 200 and 300 year Union is of no concern to you in your ideological zeal for a No Deal Brexit and erasing all links with Brussels
Stop talking balls. She has said she won’t vote for a backstop that you support.
I want to protect the Union. I have roots in three parts of it.
Including Belfast.
Which you want to allow to be subject to the rules of a foreign power.
Who is the Unionist now?
By your actions in supporting a No Deal you are dicing with death with the Union and peace in Northern Ireland.
Also since when was the EU a foreign power, it is a Union we are still a part of until next March?
Pah - mere facts! That'll cut no ice with Mortimer
John Major is the most successful living Tory leader.
Not sure about that but in any case that's not saying much given he took Mrs Thatchers 100+ seat majority from 1987 and lost 40 seats in 1992, presided over the ERM disaster in which he threw Tory voting house-holders to the wolves in order to try and stay in the ERM and ultimately saw the Conservatives get their biggest pasting since the Duke of Wellington in the subsequent election...
Other than that I agree he's amazing.
It's really interesting how many people on the right's political views seem to have been formed during that period but based on New Labour's spin rather than the reality.
Unfortunately for "Sir John" whatever credibility he had dissolved into thin air at this moment
Given the total and abject humiliation he presided over I'm surprised he ever showed his face in public again... I'm not sure I'd have been able to.
But the even bigger mystery is why anyone in the media takes him remotely seriously after being so widely known as the biggest political failure in the lifetime of anyone alive, then or now?
And of course special mention for that waste of space Lord Heseltine who was equally responsible for his "asteroid wiping out all life as we know it" event as Anthony King described it...
The 1997 election loss (or, conversely, Blair's win) was multi-faceted. He made some big mistakes - as all PMs do. But the Conservatives had been in power for 18 years, and were tired. He had MPs doing dodgy things - hardly directly his fault. And then he had the Brexit bastards who kicked his government in the nuts.
Thatcher would have lost in 1997. Cameron would have lost in 1997. Blair would have lost in 1997, if leading the Conservatives. They were a tired toddler: they'd been in power too long, needed to go to bed for a sleep, but were arguing against it - and in the process made the sleep deeper and longer than need be the case.
Yeah but there's "losing"... And then there's 1997!
Even Ed got 232 MPs in 2015
Major got 336 MPs in 1992, the only Tory Leader to win a 4th successive term for the party since Lord Liverpool
But he got 165 MPs in 1997, the lowest number for either Tories or Labour since 1945.
In effect it isn't, as the transition could well end up being permanent with an application for EFTA membership unless a technical solution is found to the Irish border that ends the backstop and enables a FTA.
In any case no vote needs to be held on the SM and CU for GB only for NI in the vote on the backstop as part of the Withdrawal Agreement.
You are still so confused. EFTA has absolutely nothing to do with this. We cannot join EFTA as being in a CU with the EU is not compatible with EFTA.
Confusion abounds.
The biggest HYUFD overnight Eastasia/Eurasia moment is surely that he has stopped talking about scrapping FOM, at all....
But the polls meanwhile say that the people overwhelmingly want to deal with EU immigration in the same way as ROW...
Eastern European migration has seen a net fall since the referendum anyway, I am not prepared to risk ending the Union and wreck the economy just over ending FOM (which Blair could have controlled through transition controls in 2004 within the EU) and for a few worthless FTAs
Ruth Davidson thinks the backstop risks ending the Union.
Ruth Davidson knows No Deal risks ending the Union, Scotland voting for independence and NI leaving the UK.
Most voters in NI want to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union, if there is a hard border in NI the polling is clear they will vote for a United Ireland.
Survation had Yes on 52% in Scotland if No Deal Brexit just a fortnight ago.
However I know ending a 200 and 300 year Union is of no concern to you in your ideological zeal for a No Deal Brexit and erasing all links with Brussels
Stop talking balls. She has said she won’t vote for a backstop that you support.
I want to protect the Union. I have roots in three parts of it.
Including Belfast.
Which you want to allow to be subject to the rules of a foreign power.
Who is the Unionist now?
By your actions in supporting a No Deal you are dicing with death with the Union and peace in Northern Ireland.
Also since when was the EU a foreign power, it is a Union we are still a part of until next March?
Pah - mere facts! That'll cut no ice with Mortimer
Err, we’re talking about a backstop.
By the time it comes into effect, the EU will be a foreign power.
The inevitable has happened - Elizabeth Warren's ridiculous native american claim has become a subject of ridicule. Sen. Orrin Hatch has tweeted a photo of him looking at his phone, with the description "1/1032 T. Rex, the rest - other dinosaurs".
When you don't even need to mention the object of the joke, the ridicule is complete.
I thought Trump had been ridiculing it for months.
He has, but thanks to her dna test now it's officially ridiculous.
In effect it isn't, as the transition could well end up being permanent with an application for EFTA membership unless a technical solution is found to the Irish border that ends the backstop and enables a FTA.
In any case no vote needs to be held on the SM and CU for GB only for NI in the vote on the backstop as part of the Withdrawal Agreement.
You are still so confused. EFTA has absolutely nothing to do with this. We cannot join EFTA as being in a CU with the EU is not compatible with EFTA.
Confusion abounds.
The biggest HYUFD overnight Eastasia/Eurasia moment is surely that he has stopped talking about scrapping FOM, at all....
But the polls meanwhile say that the people overwhelmingly want to deal with EU immigration in the same way as ROW...
Eastern European migration has seen a net fall since the referendum anyway, I am not prepared to risk ending the Union and wreck the economy just over ending FOM (which Blair could have controlled through transition controls in 2004 within the EU) and for a few worthless FTAs
Ruth Davidson thinks the backstop risks ending the Union.
Ruth Davidson knows No Deal risks ending the Union, Scotland voting for independence and NI leaving the UK.
Most voters in NI want to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union, if there is a hard border in NI the polling is clear they will vote for a United Ireland.
Survation had Yes on 52% in Scotland if No Deal Brexit just a fortnight ago.
However I know ending a 200 and 300 year Union is of no concern to you in your ideological zeal for a No Deal Brexit and erasing all links with Brussels
We should probably start calling it EWexit, since ultimately only England & Wales will leave the EU. (And how long before the Welsh see the light too?)
If it is hard Brexit that may well be the case, certainly it is hard to see Scotland and Northern Ireland accepting a No Deal Brexit for long given they both voted Remain.
Wales voted Leave and has effectively been linked to England for at least 200 years more than Scotland and 300 years more than Ireland (plus it has been a principality of the monarchy since the 13th century) so I expect Wales will stay. If Wales rejoined the EU or the single market it would probably be alongside England not as an independent country
The inevitable has happened - Elizabeth Warren's ridiculous native american claim has become a subject of ridicule. Sen. Orrin Hatch has tweeted a photo of him looking at his phone, with the description "1/1032 T. Rex, the rest - other dinosaurs".
When you don't even need to mention the object of the joke, the ridicule is complete.
It did seem a peculiar thing for her to have done, just setting herself up for Trump to mock her. Perhaps that was the point, on the the grounds anybody he mocks will be supported?
Not having access to the article, I cannot tell if the Torygraph has a take on Hammond's forecast. But does the fact that they've given it a front page spread indicate a softening of their hard-line Brexit stance?
In effect it isn't, as the transition could well end up being permanent with an application for EFTA membership unless a technical solution is found to the Irish border that ends the backstop and enables a FTA.
In any case no vote needs to be held on the SM and CU for GB only for NI in the vote on the backstop as part of the Withdrawal Agreement.
You are still so confused. EFTA has absolutely nothing to do with this. We cannot join EFTA as being in a CU with the EU is not compatible with EFTA.
Confusion abounds.
The biggest HYUFD overnight Eastasia/Eurasia moment is surely that he has stopped talking about scrapping FOM, at all....
But the polls meanwhile say that the people overwhelmingly want to deal with EU immigration in the same way as ROW...
Eastern European migration has seen a net fall since the referendum anyway, I am not prepared to risk ending the Union and wreck the economy just over ending FOM (which Blair could have controlled through transition controls in 2004 within the EU) and for a few worthless FTAs
Ruth Davidson thinks the backstop risks ending the Union.
Ruth Davidson knows No Deal risks ending the Union, Scotland voting for independence and NI leaving the UK.
Most voters in NI want to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union, if there is a hard border in NI the polling is clear they will vote for a United Ireland.
Survation had Yes on 52% in Scotland if No Deal Brexit just a fortnight ago.
However I know ending a 200 and 300 year Union is of no concern to you in your ideological zeal for a No Deal Brexit and erasing all links with Brussels
We should probably start calling it EWexit, since ultimately only England & Wales will leave the EU. (And how long before the Welsh see the light too?)
If it is hard Brexit that may well be the case, certainly it is hard to see Scotland and Northern Ireland accepting a No Deal Brexit for long given they both voted Remain.
Wales voted Leave and has effectively been linked to England for at least 200 years more than Scotland and 300 years more than Ireland (plus it has been a principality of the monarchy since the 13th century) so I expect Wales will stay. If Wales rejoined the EU or the single market it would probably be alongside England not as an independent country
You're probably right. Although I think it's when not if.
I think it proves that he panics under pressure, a characteristic he shares with many other people (see Dick Fuld). However situation was short andthe blowback from the ERM fallout was limited[1].
People forget the reason why we went in: it enabled a degree of fiscal prudence that squeezed out the larger inflation of the 80's. Unfortunately the solution became a problem in itself, hence the fallout.
Incidentally, if you traduce John Major for his lack of cope in a financial disaster, shouldn't you credit Gordon Brown for his behavior in 2008?
[1] Although arguably it laid the foundations for Brexit several years later...
The economic blowback from leaving the ERM was positive - interest rates were dramatically cut and a competitive exchange rate was reached - but the political blowback was severe and crippled the Conservative economic reputation.
Ironically one of the reasons of the inflation of the late 1980s was Nigel Lawson's 'shadowing the DM' policy. The same Nigel Lawson who now supports leaving the EU.
I'm not sure what we need to thank Gordon Brown for in 2008 - interest rates cuts were delivered by the now independent BoE. They, together with the fall in Sterling, did help stop the recession being even deeper.
It cured the problem, albeit temporary It could be applied by anybody It was easily comprehensible
In an emergency people freeze up: they fall back on reflexes, take refuge in blame, do things they know won't work because they can't think of anything else. Brown, for all his (considerable) faults, did not. Major did in 1992 and May is doing it right now.
What do you think the disadvantages might have been? (Lets do it once a month otherwise)
There were several big things: I thought it was fraudulent (I may be right) and would lead to a pulse of inflation (I think I was wrong in that, or at least premature). Also the moral hazard was intense: I disapproved of it then and even more now. Capitalism doesn't work if failures don't fail, it just becomes communism for billionaires. If it was up to me I wouldn't have done it, even with hindsight.
Good answer!
I agree with 'fraudulent',
I don't understand why immediate inflationary run-away didn't result. (My best guess is that Economists don't understand Economics)
Not having access to the article, I cannot tell if the Torygraph has a take on Hammond's forecast. But does the fact that they've given it a front page spread indicate a softening of their hard-line Brexit stance?
Has Boris been sacked. Now that would be a positive
In effect it isn't, as the transition could well end up being permanent with an application for EFTA membership unless a technical solution is found to the Irish border that ends the backstop and enables a FTA.
In any case no vote needs to be held on the SM and CU for GB only for NI in the vote on the backstop as part of the Withdrawal Agreement.
You are still so confused. EFTA has absolutely nothing to do with this. We cannot join EFTA as being in a CU with the EU is not compatible with EFTA.
Confusion abounds.
The biggest HYUFD overnight Eastasia/Eurasia moment is surely that he has stopped talking about scrapping FOM, at all....
But the polls meanwhile say that the people overwhelmingly want to deal with EU immigration in the same way as ROW...
Eastern European migration has seen a net fall since the referendum anyway, I am not prepared to risk ending the Union and wreck the economy just over ending FOM (which Blair could have controlled through transition controls in 2004 within the EU) and for a few worthless FTAs
Ruth Davidson thinks the backstop risks ending the Union.
PB Tories, you are spoiling us with outcomes that will end the Union.
Not having access to the article, I cannot tell if the Torygraph has a take on Hammond's forecast. But does the fact that they've given it a front page spread indicate a softening of their hard-line Brexit stance?
It says his comments angered Eurosceptics but that he (sorry, 'sources close to the Chancellor') insist he too is frustrated by EU intransigence, but that the legal advice is what is is.
It talks about the Brexit timetable slipping further as May has been told to bring 'new facts' to the negotiating table, presumably by the EU.
It looks like a pretty neutral write up, though perhaps it is telling that the front page cuts off a rebutting Rees-Mogg quote mid sentence, to be continued on page 4.
Not having access to the article, I cannot tell if the Torygraph has a take on Hammond's forecast. But does the fact that they've given it a front page spread indicate a softening of their hard-line Brexit stance?
It says his comments angered Eurosceptics but that he (sorry, 'sources close to the Chancellor) insist he too is frustrated by EU intransigence, but that the legal advice is what is is.
It talks about the Brexit timetable slipping further as May has been told to bring 'new facts' to the negotiating table, presumably by the EU.
It looks like a pretty neutral write up, though perhaps it is telling that the front page cuts off a rebutting Rees-Mogg quote mid sentence, to be continued on page 4.
In effect it isn't, as the transition could well end up being permanent with an application for EFTA membership unless a technical solution is found to the Irish border that ends the backstop and enables a FTA.
In any case no vote needs to be held on the SM and CU for GB only for NI in the vote on the backstop as part of the Withdrawal Agreement.
You are still so confused. EFTA has absolutely nothing to do with this. We cannot join EFTA as being in a CU with the EU is not compatible with EFTA.
Confusion abounds.
The biggest HYUFD overnight Eastasia/Eurasia moment is surely that he has stopped talking about scrapping FOM, at all....
But the polls meanwhile say that the people overwhelmingly want to deal with EU immigration in the same way as ROW...
Eastern European migration has seen a net fall since the referendum anyway, I am not prepared to risk ending the Union and wreck the economy just over ending FOM (which Blair could have controlled through transition controls in 2004 within the EU) and for a few worthless FTAs
Ruth Davidson thinks the backstop risks ending the Union.
PB Tories, you are spoiling us with outcomes that will end the Union.
Dick Fuld). However situation was short andthe blowback from the ERM fallout was limited[1].
People forget the reason why we went in: it enabled a degree of fiscal prudence that squeezed out the larger inflation of the 80's. Unfortunately the solution became a problem in itself, hence the fallout.
Incidentally, if you traduce John Major for his lack of cope in a financial disaster, shouldn't you credit Gordon Brown for his behavior in 2008?
[1] Although arguably it laid the foundations for Brexit several years later...
The economic blowback from leaving the ERM was positive - interest rates were dramatically cut and a competitive exchange rate was reached - but the political blowback was severe and crippled the Conservative economic reputation.
Ironically one of the reasons of the inflation of the late 1980s was Nigel Lawson's 'shadowing the DM' policy. The same Nigel Lawson who now supports leaving the EU.
I'm not sure what we need to thank Gordon Brown for in 2008 - interest rates cuts were delivered by the now independent BoE. They, together with the fall in Sterling, did help stop the recession being even deeper.
It cured the problem, albeit temporary It could be applied by anybody It was easily comprehensible
In an emergency people freeze up: they fall back on reflexes, take refuge in blame, do things they know won't work because they can't think of anything else. Brown, for all his (considerable) faults, did not. Major did in 1992 and May is doing it right now.
What do you think the disadvantages might have been? (Lets do it once a month otherwise)
There were several big things: I thought it was fraudulent (I may be right) and would lead to a pulse of inflation (I think I was wrong in that, or at least premature). Also the moral hazard was intense: I disapproved of it then and even more now. Capitalism doesn't work if failures don't fail, it just becomes communism for billionaires. If it was up to me I wouldn't have done it, even with hindsight.
I am not sure investors in say RBS or HBOS will feel they have been protected from the banks failure. Nor should they have been of course.
If Brown and Darling had not stepped in the impact on the economy of one or two major retail banks failing would have been catastrophic for the country on a scale not seen since the war.
Not having access to the article, I cannot tell if the Torygraph has a take on Hammond's forecast. But does the fact that they've given it a front page spread indicate a softening of their hard-line Brexit stance?
Not my reading of it. Just reporting a story.
But Hammond is a disgrace. Firstly, he is wrong about the legal requirements of the Brexit bill and this has been subject to expert legal advice from people far more credible than the 'Treasury lawyers' that he is for some reason engaging to provide advice that is nothing to do with his department (clearly a DexEU matter). Secondly, he is talking about 'the UK losing in international arbitration' which completely ignores the fact that the UK is not subject to international arbitration on the EU treaties unless we decide to offer it; there is no jurisdiction where the EU can 'enforce' the bill.
Hammond, more than almost anyone except May, is responsible for the mess the Government is in now. He refused to plan for no deal and release the necessary funds, has constantly had the Treasury release bogus forecasts of doom and now he is lying about the bill. Should be fired but of course won't be; the end of his career cannot come soon enough.
The inevitable has happened - Elizabeth Warren's ridiculous native american claim has become a subject of ridicule. Sen. Orrin Hatch has tweeted a photo of him looking at his phone, with the description "1/1032 T. Rex, the rest - other dinosaurs".
When you don't even need to mention the object of the joke, the ridicule is complete.
I thought Trump had been ridiculing it for months.
He has, but thanks to her dna test now it's officially ridiculous.
Add her to the long list of shysters Trump has exposed.
Not having access to the article, I cannot tell if the Torygraph has a take on Hammond's forecast. But does the fact that they've given it a front page spread indicate a softening of their hard-line Brexit stance?
Has Boris been sacked. Now that would be a positive
I doubt they can afford the pay-off his contract no doubt dictates.
The inevitable has happened - Elizabeth Warren's ridiculous native american claim has become a subject of ridicule. Sen. Orrin Hatch has tweeted a photo of him looking at his phone, with the description "1/1032 T. Rex, the rest - other dinosaurs".
When you don't even need to mention the object of the joke, the ridicule is complete.
I thought Trump had been ridiculing it for months.
He has, but thanks to her dna test now it's officially ridiculous.
Add her to the long list of shysters Trump has exposed.
Not having access to the article, I cannot tell if the Torygraph has a take on Hammond's forecast. But does the fact that they've given it a front page spread indicate a softening of their hard-line Brexit stance?
Not my reading of it. Just reporting a story.
But Hammond is a disgrace. Firstly, he is wrong about the legal requirements of the Brexit bill and this has been subject to expert legal advice from people far more credible than the 'Treasury lawyers' that he is for some reason engaging to provide advice that is nothing to do with his department (clearly a DexEU matter). Secondly, he is talking about 'the UK losing in international arbitration' which completely ignores the fact that the UK is not subject to international arbitration on the EU treaties unless we decide to offer it; there is no jurisdiction where the EU can 'enforce' the bill.
Hammond, more than almost anyone except May, is responsible for the mess the Government is in now. He refused to plan for no deal and release the necessary funds, has constantly had the Treasury release bogus forecasts of doom and now he is lying about the bill. Should be fired but of course won't be; the end of his career cannot come soon enough.
Hammond is not preparing for No Deal as May is not really either, she intends to give Parliament a SM +CU backstop for NI vote if No Deal and if they vote for as is likely that will be the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement she signs with the EU to get the transition period in which the whole UK will stay in the SM + CU
John Major is the most successful living Tory leader.
Not sure about that but in any case that's not saying much given he took Mrs Thatchers 100+ seat majority from 1987 and lost 40 seats in 1992, presided over the ERM disaster in which he threw Tory voting house-holders to the wolves in order to try and stay in the ERM and ultimately saw the Conservatives get their biggest pasting since the Duke of Wellington in the subsequent election...
Other than that I agree he's amazing.
It's really interesting how many people on the right's political views seem to have been formed during that period but based on New Labour's spin rather than the reality.
Unfortunately for "Sir John" whatever credibility he had dissolved into thin air at this moment
Given the total and abject humiliation he presided over I'm surprised he ever showed his face in public again... I'm not sure I'd have been able to.
But the even bigger mystery is why anyone in the media takes him remotely seriously after being so widely known as the biggest political failure in the lifetime of anyone alive, then or now?
And of course special mention for that waste of space Lord Heseltine who was equally responsible for his "asteroid wiping out all life as we know it" event as Anthony King described it...
The 1997 election loss (or, conversely, Blair's win) was multi-faceted. He made some big mistakes - as all PMs do. But the Conservatives had been in power for 18 years, and were tired. He had MPs doing dodgy things - hardly directly his fault. And then he had the Brexit bastards who kicked his government in the nuts.
Thatcher would have lost in 1997. Cameron would have lost in 1997. Blair would have lost in 1997, if leading the Conservatives. They were a tired toddler: they'd been in power too long, needed to go to bed for a sleep, but were arguing against it - and in the process made the sleep deeper and longer than need be the case.
Yeah but there's "losing"... And then there's 1997!
Even Ed got 232 MPs in 2015
Major got 336 MPs in 1992, the only Tory Leader to win a 4th successive term for the party since Lord Liverpool
But he got 165 MPs in 1997, the lowest number for either Tories or Labour since 1945.
No Tory leader would have won in 1997
Sir John Major is worth ten of today's Tories. A man of honour.
For Parliament to act there has to be a Bill. And the Bill has to be introduced.
AIUI Private members bills can be easily stopped unless introduced by HMLoyalOpposition (ie corbyn) . Government Bills can only be introduced by the Gov (ie May).
And that's it.
So regardless of the views of 'Parliament' unless may/corbyn introduce a bill there's nothing to vote on. The single known exception is the already legislated for 'Meaningful Vote'. Which is only yea/nay on the Deal Tmay brings back.
All the talk of a Sovereign Parliament stopping NoDeal, peoplesvotes etc falls down here : there is nothing to vote on.
This is quite correct. The assumptions about what Parliament will 'do' are a lot more complicated because ultimately you need a functioning Government which has to have a policy.
The 'meaningful vote' can possibly be amended, but it is nothing but an advisory position. As we see on PB all day, people propose things in terms of deal outcomes that can't actually happen (eg HYUFD and his magic transition to SM+CU) so how Parliament does anything but have a general whinge is beyond me.
Parliament can either reject or pass a deal presented to them. If the Government supported it, they could decide either to abandon Brexit or have another referendum, but this can't happen without Govt support because both require primary legislation. But the one thing they can't do is determine which deal outcome they might want.
If none of these happen, no deal will happen. It doesn't need any form of approval.
May will simply allow the likes of Grieve etc to put forward their own bills on Brexit which will likely lead to a vote on a SM+CU backstop for NI which will likely pass the Commons to get the transition period (in which the whole UK will stay in the SM + CU) and the Withdrawal Agreeement.
What will not happen is MPs allow No Deal to occur. Even after November's negotiations once May hands over to Parliament if those talks fail there will be over 4 months until Brexit day
Honestly. Private members cannot magically put forward bills that will pass in record time. Private members cannot even put up bills unless they win the ballot. The only Brexit bills that will be considered are those that are proposed by the Government. Try again.
Not having access to the article, I cannot tell if the Torygraph has a take on Hammond's forecast. But does the fact that they've given it a front page spread indicate a softening of their hard-line Brexit stance?
Has Boris been sacked. Now that would be a positive
I recently learned that last year, Boris said of the Saudis "With friends like these, who needs Yemenis?"
The inevitable has happened - Elizabeth Warren's ridiculous native american claim has become a subject of ridicule. Sen. Orrin Hatch has tweeted a photo of him looking at his phone, with the description "1/1032 T. Rex, the rest - other dinosaurs".
When you don't even need to mention the object of the joke, the ridicule is complete.
I thought Trump had been ridiculing it for months.
He has, but thanks to her dna test now it's officially ridiculous.
Add her to the long list of shysters Trump has exposed.
About time he exposed himself then (Ahem...)
Don't give him ideas, the credibility of Stormy Daniels is his current obsession.
John Major is the most successful living Tory leader.
Not sure about that but in any case that's not saying much given he took Mrs Thatchers 100+ seat majority from 1987 and lost 40 seats in 1992, presided over the ERM disaster in which he threw Tory voting house-holders to the wolves in order to try and stay in the ERM and ultimately saw the Conservatives get their biggest pasting since the Duke of Wellington in the subsequent election...
Other than that I agree he's amazing.
It's really interesting how many people on the right's political views seem to have been formed during that period but based on New Labour's spin rather than the reality.
Unfortunately for "Sir John" whatever credibility he had dissolved into thin air at this moment
Given the total and abject humiliation he presided over I'm surprised he ever showed his face in public again... I'm not sure I'd have been able to.
But the even bigger mystery is why anyone in the media takes him remotely seriously after being so widely known as the biggest political failure in the lifetime of anyone alive, then or now?
And of course special mention for that waste of space Lord Heseltine who was equally responsible for his "asteroid wiping out all life as we know it" event as Anthony King described it...
(cut) Thatcher would have lost in 1997. Cameron would have lost in 1997. Blair would have lost in 1997, if leading the Conservatives. They were a tired toddler: they'd been in power too long, needed to go to bed for a sleep, but were arguing against it - and in the process made the sleep deeper and longer than need be the case.
Yeah but there's "losing"... And then there's 1997!
Even Ed got 232 MPs in 2015
Major got 336 MPs in 1992, the only Tory Leader to win a 4th successive term for the party since Lord Liverpool
But he got 165 MPs in 1997, the lowest number for either Tories or Labour since 1945.
No Tory leader would have won in 1997
That's far from no Tory leader being able to win in 1997 with a lead up. Portillo perhaps?
In effect it isn't, as the transition could well end up being permanent with an application for EFTA membership unless a technical solution is found to the Irish border that ends the backstop and enables a FTA.
In any case no vote needs to be held on the SM and CU for GB only for NI in the vote on the backstop as part of the Withdrawal Agreement.
You are still so confused. EFTA has absolutely nothing to do with this. We cannot join EFTA as being in a CU with the EU is not compatible with EFTA.
Why? EFTA doesn't have its own customs union and doesn't mandate any particular arrangement with third countries for its members. If the UK goes down this route, I expect it to have own single arrangement wth the EU incorporating a free trade agreement based on the EEA plus customs union. EFTA courts would be a useful system to tap into. EEA will be left alone.
In effect it isn't, as the transition could well end up being permanent with an application for EFTA membership unless a technical solution is found to the Irish border that ends the backstop and enables a FTA.
In any case no vote needs to be held on the SM and CU for GB only for NI in the vote on the backstop as part of the Withdrawal Agreement.
You are still so confused. EFTA has absolutely nothing to do with this. We cannot join EFTA as being in a CU with the EU is not compatible with EFTA.
Confusion abounds.
The biggest HYUFD overnight Eastasia/Eurasia moment is surely that he has stopped talking about scrapping FOM, at all....
But the polls meanwhile say that the people overwhelmingly want to deal with EU immigration in the same way as ROW...
Eastern European migration has seen a net fall since the referendum anyway, I am not prepared to risk ending the Union and wreck the economy just over ending FOM (which Blair could have controlled through transition controls in 2004 within the EU) and for a few worthless FTAs
Ruth Davidson thinks the backstop risks ending the Union.
Ruth Davidson knows No Deg all links with Brussels
We should probably start calling it EWexit, since ultimately only England & Wales will leave the EU. (And how long before the Welsh see the light too?)
If it is hard Brexit that may well be the case, certainly it is hard to see Scotland and Northern Ireland accepting a No Deal Brexit for long given they both voted Remain.
Wales voted Leave and has effectively been linked to England for at least 200 years more than Scotland and 300 years more than Ireland (plus it has been a principality of the monarchy since the 13th century) so I expect Wales will stay. If Wales rejoined the EU or the single market it would probably be alongside England not as an independent country
You're probably right. Although I think it's when not if.
The ironic thing though is even a majority of English voters oppose No Deal just as a majority of Scots and Northern Irish voters do. The median English voter wants a soft Brexit.
If it was the case polling showed a majority of English voters backed No Deal while Scottish and Northern Irish voters opposed No Deal then yes it may be fair to say the Union is dead but that is not the case
John Major is the most successful living Tory leader.
Not sure about that but in any case that's not saying much given he took Mrs Thatchers 100+ seat majority from 1987 and lost 40 seats in 1992, presided over the ERM disaster in which he threw Tory voting house-holders to the wolves in order to try and stay in the ERM and ultimately saw the Conservatives get their biggest pasting since the Duke of Wellington in the subsequent election...
Other than that I agree he's amazing.
It's really interesting how many people on the right's political views seem to have been formed during that period but based on New Labour's spin rather than the reality.
Unfortunately for "Sir John" whatever credibility he had dissolved into thin air at this moment
Given the total and abject humiliation he presided over I'm surprised he ever showed his face in public again... I'm not sure I'd have been able to.
But the even bigger mystery is why anyone in the media takes him remotely seriously after being so widely known as the biggest political failure in the lifetime of anyone alive, then or now?
And of course special mention for that waste of space Lord Heseltine who was equally responsible for his "asteroid wiping out all life as we know it" event as Anthony King described it...
The 1997 election loss (or, conveed be the case.
Yeah but there's "losing"... And then there's 1997!
Even Ed got 232 MPs in 2015
Major got 336 MPs in 1992, the only Tory Leader to win a 4th successive term for the party since Lord Liverpool
But he got 165 MPs in 1997, the lowest number for either Tories or Labour since 1945.
No Tory leader would have won in 1997
Sir John Major is worth ten of today's Tories. A man of honour.
John Major is the most successful living Tory leader.
Not sure about that but in any case that's not saying much given he took Mrs Thatchers 100+ seat majority from 1987 and lost 40 seats in 1992, presided over the ERM disaster in which he threw Tory voting house-holders to the wolves in order to try and stay in the ERM and ultimately saw the Conservatives get their biggest pasting since the Duke of Wellington in the subsequent election...
Other than that I agree he's amazing.
It's really interesting how many people on the right's political views seem to have been formed during that period but based on New Labour's spin rather than the reality.
Unfortunately for "Sir John" whatever credibility he had dissolved into thin air at this moment
Given the total and abject humiliation he presided over I'm surprised he ever showed his face in public again... I'm not sure I'd have been able to.
But the even bigger mystery is why anyone in the media takes him remotely seriously after being so widely known as the biggest political failure in the lifetime of anyone alive, then or now?
And of course special mention for that waste of space Lord Heseltine who was equally responsible for his "asteroid wiping out all life as we know it" event as Anthony King described it...
(cut) Thatcher would have lost in 1997. Cameron would have lost in 1997. Blair would have lost in 1997, if leading the Conservatives. They were a tired toddler: they'd been in power too long, needed to go to bed for a sleep, but were arguing against it - and in the process made the sleep deeper and longer than need be the case.
Yeah but there's "losing"... And then there's 1997!
Even Ed got 232 MPs in 2015
Major got 336 MPs in 1992, the only Tory Leader to win a 4th successive term for the party since Lord Liverpool
But he got 165 MPs in 1997, the lowest number for either Tories or Labour since 1945.
No Tory leader would have won in 1997
That's far from no Tory leader being able to win in 1997 with a lead up. Portillo perhaps?
The real factor at play was Blair.
Portillo would have done no better than Major in 1997, maybe worse. Taxi drivers were honking their horns when he lost Enfield Southgate.
Heseltine may have done slightly better but would still have lost
John Major is the most successful living Tory leader.
Not sure about that but in any case that's not saying much given he took Mrs Thatchers 100+
Other than that I agree he's amazing.
It's really interesting how many people on the right's political views seem to have been formed during that period but based on New Labour's spin rather than the reality.
Unfortunately for "Sir John" whatever credibility he had dissolved into thin air at this moment
Given the total and abject humiliation he presided over I'm surprised he ever showed his face in public again... I'm not sure I'd have been able to.
But the even bigger mystery is why anyone in the media takes him remotely seriously after being so widely known as the biggest political failure in the lifetime of anyone alive, then or now?
And of course special mention for that waste of space Lord Heseltine who was equally responsible for his "asteroid wiping out all life as we know it" event as Anthony King described it...
The 1997 election loss (or, conversely, Blair's win) was multi-faceted. He made some big mistakes - as all PMs do. But the Conservatives had been in power for 18 years, and were tired. He had MPs doing dodgy things - hardly directly his fault. And then he had the Brexit bastards who kicked his government in the nuts.
Thatcher would have lost in 1997. Cameron would have lost in 1997. Blair would have lost in 1997, if leading the Conservatives. They were a tired toddler: they'd been in power too long, needed to go to bed for a sleep, but were arguing against it - and in the process made the sleep deeper and longer than need be the case.
Yeah but there's "losing"... And then there's 1997!
Even Ed got 232 MPs in 2015
Major got 336 MPs in 1992, the only Tory Leader to win a 4th successive term for the party since Lord Liverpool
But he got 165 MPs in 1997, the lowest number for either Tories or Labour since 1945.
No Tory leader would have won in 1997
Sir John Major is worth ten of today's Tories. A man of honour.
I am not sure he is worth 10 of this conservative but maybe that is a bit arrogant
John Major is the most successful living Tory leader.
Not sure about that but in any case that's not saying much given he took Mrs Thatchers 100+ seat majority from 1987 and lost 40 seats in 1992, presided over the ERM disaster in which he threw Tory voting house-holders to the wolves in order to try and stay in the ERM and ultimately saw the Conservatives get their biggest pasting since the Duke of Wellington in the subsequent election...
Other than that I agree he's amazing.
It's really interesting how many people on the right's political views seem to have been formed during that period but based on New Labour's spin rather than the reality.
Unfortunately for "Sir John" whatever credibility he had dissolved into thin air at this moment
Given the total and abject humiliation he presided over I'm surprised he ever showed his face in public again... I'm not sure I'd have been able to.
But the even bigger mystery is why anyone in the media takes him remotely seriously after being so widely known as the biggest political failure in the lifetime of anyone alive, then or now?
And of course special mention for that waste of space Lord Heseltine who was equally responsible for his "asteroid wiping out all life as we know it" event as Anthony King described it...
The 1997 election loss (or, conveed be the case.
Yeah but there's "losing"... And then there's 1997!
Even Ed got 232 MPs in 2015
Major got 336 MPs in 1992, the only Tory Leader to win a 4th successive term for the party since Lord Liverpool
But he got 165 MPs in 1997, the lowest number for either Tories or Labour since 1945.
No Tory leader would have won in 1997
Sir John Major is worth ten of today's Tories. A man of honour.
He put country before party
Admirable, but though I am not one who thinks any cost to Brexit is worth it, presumably a great many of even the hardest Brexiters believe they are putting country before party, hence their willing to go against their party leader pre, during and post referendum.
For Parliament to act there has to be a Bill. And the Bill has to be introduced.
AIUI Private members bills can be easily stopped unless introduced by HMLoyalOpposition (ie corbyn) . Government Bills can only be introduced by the Gov (ie May).
And that's it.
So regardless of the views of 'Parliament' unless may/corbyn introduce a bill there's nothing to vote on. The single known exception is the already legislated for 'Meaningful Vote'. Which is only yea/nay on the Deal Tmay brings back.
All the talk of a Sovereign Parliament stopping NoDeal, peoplesvotes etc falls down here : there is nothing to vote on.
This is quite correct. The assumptions about what Parliament will 'do' are a lot more complicated because ultimately you need a functioning Government which has to have a policy.
The 'meaningful vote' can possibly be amended, but it is nothing but an advisory position. As we see on PB all day, people propose things in terms of deal outcomes that can't actually happen (eg HYUFD and his magic transition to SM+CU) so how Parliament does anything but have a general whinge is beyond me.
Parliament can either reject or pass a deal presented to them. If the Government supported it, they could decide either to abandon Brexit or have another referendum, but this can't happen without Govt support because both require primary legislation. But the one thing they can't do is determine which deal outcome they might want.
If none of these happen, no deal will happen. It doesn't need any form of approval.
May will simply allow the likes of Grieve etc to put forward their own bills on Brexit which will likely lead to a vote on a SM+CU backstop for NI which will likely pass the Commons to get the transition period (in which the whole UK will stay in the SM + CU) and the Withdrawal Agreeement.
What will not happen is MPs allow No Deal to occur. Even after November's negotiations once May hands over to Parliament if those talks fail there will be over 4 months until Brexit day
Honestly. Private members cannot magically put forward bills that will pass in record time. Private members cannot even put up bills unless they win the ballot. The only Brexit bills that will be considered are those that are proposed by the Government. Try again.
May will ultimately put up a SM + CU backstop but only take it to the EU if Parliament votes it though which it likely will
Comments
'92 was a relatively successful campaign, but against a very, very weak (and over-confident) opposition, after a huge self-inflicted economic wound.
Imagine the Tories going to the polls in '92 having NOT ever bothered with the ERM and avoiding the subsequent crash out...
The principle of punishing Britain is to take EU exit off the agenda across the continent. But the situation they have created is one in which Brussels' flaws are demonstrated over and over again - some real, some imagined - with no alternative narrative to challenge the perception that for the first time since the Cold War, the very principle of a united Europe is under threat.
The biggest HYUFD overnight Eastasia/Eurasia moment is surely that he has stopped talking about scrapping FOM, at all....
But the polls meanwhile say that the people overwhelmingly want to deal with EU immigration in the same way as ROW...
Thatcher would have lost in 1997. Cameron would have lost in 1997. Blair would have lost in 1997, if leading the Conservatives. They were a tired toddler: they'd been in power too long, needed to go to bed for a sleep, but were arguing against it - and in the process made the sleep deeper and longer than need be the case.
People forget the reason why we went in: it enabled a degree of fiscal prudence that squeezed out the larger inflation of the 80's. Unfortunately the solution became a problem in itself, hence the fallout.
Incidentally, if you traduce John Major for his lack of cope in a financial disaster, shouldn't you credit Gordon Brown for his behavior in 2008?
[1] Although arguably it laid the foundations for Brexit several years later...
Major’s one-man on a soapbox campaign remains one of the most underrated achievements in British political history.
And the Sheffield rally factor is one of the most overrated effects.
Major deserves huge credit for winning, and I write as one who opposed his election.
The 'meaningful vote' can possibly be amended, but it is nothing but an advisory position. As we see on PB all day, people propose things in terms of deal outcomes that can't actually happen (eg HYUFD and his magic transition to SM+CU) so how Parliament does anything but have a general whinge is beyond me.
Parliament can either reject or pass a deal presented to them. If the Government supported it, they could decide either to abandon Brexit or have another referendum, but this can't happen without Govt support because both require primary legislation. But the one thing they can't do is determine which deal outcome they might want.
If none of these happen, no deal will happen. It doesn't need any form of approval.
Major was always second best to Maggie, and that's no surprise. He really did have the back to the wind though, and he could have done much more with that.
I'd have him way down in the league of PMs. Although having typed that there are many more below him than above.
Today's shower, are a shower, and a chilly and disappointing version. Not a hot-water spurt amongst them. However, these are really tough times for politicians. There's a real-and-present danger that they may have to think.
It seems to me that there are politicians out there making sensible if incomplete noises. Some DUP chap on the C4 news last night was entirely sensible. If the DUP can do it we all can!
Ironically one of the reasons of the inflation of the late 1980s was Nigel Lawson's 'shadowing the DM' policy. The same Nigel Lawson who now supports leaving the EU.
I'm not sure what we need to thank Gordon Brown for in 2008 - interest rates cuts were delivered by the now independent BoE. They, together with the fall in Sterling, did help stop the recession being even deeper.
I think if we are heading for no deal both parties should agree a short extension and agree to co-operate to manage the disruption as best as possible. But I just can't see the EU agreeing.
I rest my case.
There seems to be some sort of law of diminishing returns regarding Westminster politics - the more powerful you become the more incompetent you become.
I don't think half our MP's are even rational at the moment...
Major panicked, and he mainly did so because Lamont was as strong willed as a lettuce leaf. They took very drastic action which was overkill, but did address the issue.
Brown/Darling made everything much worse. I genuinely think that what they did was treasonous. Nobody seems to have noticed though, so I guess they must be right.
Osborne and Hammond are mostly just covering up the crimes, and hoping that nobody notices that the Exchequer has no clothes.
Hoyle is neither inexperience nor anything else. He is perfectly capable.
It cured the problem, albeit temporary
It could be applied by anybody
It was easily comprehensible
In an emergency people freeze up: they fall back on reflexes, take refuge in blame, do things they know won't work because they can't think of anything else. Brown, for all his (considerable) faults, did not. Major did in 1992 and May is doing it right now.
(Lets do it once a month otherwise)
When you don't even need to mention the object of the joke, the ridicule is complete.
I like making sense, but as second best I like hearing sense.
(Sounds very Northern, but I'm not)
https://twitter.com/Qofficiel/status/1052261879425523712
What will not happen is MPs allow No Deal to occur. Even after November's negotiations once May hands over to Parliament if those talks fail there will be over 4 months until Brexit day
Most voters in NI want to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union, if there is a hard border in NI the polling is clear they will vote for a United Ireland.
Survation had Yes on 52% in Scotland if No Deal Brexit just a fortnight ago.
However I know ending a 200 and 300 year Union is of no concern to you in your ideological zeal for a No Deal Brexit and erasing all links with Brussels
I want to protect the Union. I have roots in three parts of it.
Including Belfast.
Which you want to allow to be subject to the rules of a foreign power.
Who is the Unionist now?
Also since when was the EU a foreign power, it is a Union we are still a part of until next March?
By the time it comes into effect, the EU will be a foreign power.
Chronology clearly beyond Benpointer
Wales voted Leave and has effectively been linked to England for at least 200 years more than Scotland and 300 years more than Ireland (plus it has been a principality of the monarchy since the 13th century) so I expect Wales will stay. If Wales rejoined the EU or the single market it would probably be alongside England not as an independent country
I agree with 'fraudulent',
I don't understand why immediate inflationary run-away didn't result. (My best guess is that Economists don't understand Economics)
Fails? : Me too.
It talks about the Brexit timetable slipping further as May has been told to bring 'new facts' to the negotiating table, presumably by the EU.
It looks like a pretty neutral write up, though perhaps it is telling that the front page cuts off a rebutting Rees-Mogg quote mid sentence, to be continued on page 4.
If Brown and Darling had not stepped in the impact on the economy of one or two major retail banks failing would have been catastrophic for the country on a scale not seen since the war.
But Hammond is a disgrace. Firstly, he is wrong about the legal requirements of the Brexit bill and this has been subject to expert legal advice from people far more credible than the 'Treasury lawyers' that he is for some reason engaging to provide advice that is nothing to do with his department (clearly a DexEU matter). Secondly, he is talking about 'the UK losing in international arbitration' which completely ignores the fact that the UK is not subject to international arbitration on the EU treaties unless we decide to offer it; there is no jurisdiction where the EU can 'enforce' the bill.
Hammond, more than almost anyone except May, is responsible for the mess the Government is in now. He refused to plan for no deal and release the necessary funds, has constantly had the Treasury release bogus forecasts of doom and now he is lying about the bill. Should be fired but of course won't be; the end of his career cannot come soon enough.
What an absolute grade A shit of a man.
The real factor at play was Blair.
If it was the case polling showed a majority of English voters backed No Deal while Scottish and Northern Irish voters opposed No Deal then yes it may be fair to say the Union is dead but that is not the case
Heseltine may have done slightly better but would still have lost