https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1068363730990350336 Theresa May reveals what she hopes to achieve with the debate: close down any compromise with Labour. Interesting strategy, which means she will need the votes of every one of her MPs and also of the DUP, who have said they will vote against and may actually prefer a soft Brexit if it keeps NI aligned with GB.
Strange strategy since she will need Labour votes to ever have a chance of getting it through.
Maybe she is resigned to it not passing and is wanting justification for a new referendum. Or possibly a no deal Brexit. It's all rather exciting.
TM strategy is simple. No other deal, no second referendum, this is it.
Brexiteers should accept her deal, move on and put in hard negotiators to take on the EU and challenge them even in international courts but the way they are behaving risks finishing off their dreams. It is madness by them
Regarding the debates to be fair to May the one thing she seems to be able to do is grasp the detail. If the debate is kept to the deal then on something so technical she should beat Corbyn. Has he got round to reading the document yet? This won’t be a Corbyn rally
Pretty clear there wont be a debate - no upside for Corbyn in agreeing to one.
Off of Brexit, I listened to Lloyd Russell-Moyle's emotive speech last night about his HIV status on the radio and the house reaction. The science has moved on so it is treatable, and parliament showed a magnificent example with its reaction to the speech, it will lead public attitude. Whatever happens with Brexit, that we've moved so far was something to be very proud of yesterday.
Is there not a danger that we're heading towards a view that it doesn't matter if you get HIV, we can treat it with drugs? What if the drugs stop working?
I don't think anyone would willingly choose to be HIV+ - having to take a drug every day doesn't sound particularly pleasent. And there is definitely a legitimate debate around the availability of 'prep' on the NHS. But noone should be ashamed of having HIV, as Moyle said better to live in knowledge than die in fear.
Diabetes seems like the big health issue of the moment now.
HIV is now a long term disease like diabetes to be managed to reach normal life expectancy.
It was pretty grim in the 1990s when I would see patients fade away in front of me over a year or so.
Yes, so like diabetes we should encourage prevention as better than the cure?
Absolutely. And that's what PrEP is. And that's why we've been telling high risk groups to get tested regularly for a long time.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1068363730990350336 Theresa May reveals what she hopes to achieve with the debate: close down any compromise with Labour. Interesting strategy, which means she will need the votes of every one of her MPs and also of the DUP, who have said they will vote against and may actually prefer a soft Brexit if it keeps NI aligned with GB.
Strange strategy since she will need Labour votes to ever have a chance of getting it through.
Maybe she is resigned to it not passing and is wanting justification for a new referendum. Or possibly a no deal Brexit. It's all rather exciting.
TM strategy is simple. No other deal, no second referendum, this is it.
Brexiteers should accept her deal, move on and put in hard negotiators to take on the EU and challenge them even in international courts but the way they are behaving risks finishing off their dreams. It is madness by them
It's not madness as we're not in any better position to disentangle ourselves from the EU after the deal and we've lost all our bargaining chips along the way. We still need their permission to leave the deal and we've already paid them the £39bn and agreed to the NI backstop.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1068363730990350336 Theresa May reveals what she hopes to achieve with the debate: close down any compromise with Labour. Interesting strategy, which means she will need the votes of every one of her MPs and also of the DUP, who have said they will vote against and may actually prefer a soft Brexit if it keeps NI aligned with GB.
Strange strategy since she will need Labour votes to ever have a chance of getting it through.
Maybe she is resigned to it not passing and is wanting justification for a new referendum. Or possibly a no deal Brexit. It's all rather exciting.
TM strategy is simple. No other deal, no second referendum, this is it.
Brexiteers should accept her deal, move on and put in hard negotiators to take on the EU and challenge them even in international courts but the way they are behaving risks finishing off their dreams. It is madness by them
"Hard negotiators" like May?
Of course not. Whoever leads the party post brexit, if ERG have not sabotaged it, needs a committed brexiteer cabinet member with hard nosed negotiators drawn from business and law to drive the separation
Regarding the debates to be fair to May the one thing she seems to be able to do is grasp the detail. If the debate is kept to the deal then on something so technical she should beat Corbyn. Has he got round to reading the document yet? This won’t be a Corbyn rally
Pretty clear there wont be a debate - no upside for Corbyn in agreeing to one.
Maybe he could copy May's tactic at the GE debate - and send his Shadow Home Sec? Might be more entertaining..
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1068363730990350336 Theresa May reveals what she hopes to achieve with the debate: close down any compromise with Labour. Interesting strategy, which means she will need the votes of every one of her MPs and also of the DUP, who have said they will vote against and may actually prefer a soft Brexit if it keeps NI aligned with GB.
Strange strategy since she will need Labour votes to ever have a chance of getting it through.
Maybe she is resigned to it not passing and is wanting justification for a new referendum. Or possibly a no deal Brexit. It's all rather exciting.
TM strategy is simple. No other deal, no second referendum, this is it.
Brexiteers should accept her deal, move on and put in hard negotiators to take on the EU and challenge them even in international courts but the way they are behaving risks finishing off their dreams. It is madness by them
"Hard negotiators" like May?
Of course not. Whoever leads the party post brexit, if ERG have not sabotaged it, needs a committed brexiteer cabinet member with hard nosed negotiators drawn from business and law to drive the separation
Considering May will have already gifted them Northern Ireland and money, the negotiators will really struggle don't you agree?
So has PB come up with ideas as to how there were over 300 thousand more immigrants in the year to June 2018 yet the number of immigrants in work fell during that period ?
More children and non working spouses.
Spouses should be working. We're not in the eighties any more.
The cultures of South Asia and Middle East where many of the non-EU migrants come from are not noted for their progressive feminist perspectives.
Why do we permit chain migration but make it hard for the likes of @Sandpit to bring their spouses here?
Is all about delivering on Vote Leave’s campaign promises of fewer immigrants from Europe and more from the Indian subcontinent.
Vote Leave is hoping to secure the backing of British Asians by telling them that if Britain quits the EU, it will mean more immigration from elsewhere in the world.
The official Out campaign is drawing up leaflets aimed at Punjabi, Hindi and Urdu speakers arguing that a British exit from the EU would help to stem the flow of Eastern Europeans into the UK — allowing more incomers from Commonwealth countries to take their place.
Saqib Bhatti, a board member for Vote Leave, said English-language leaflets had been sent out to Muslim voters, while others in different languages were set to follow.
Regarding the debates to be fair to May the one thing she seems to be able to do is grasp the detail. If the debate is kept to the deal then on something so technical she should beat Corbyn. Has he got round to reading the document yet? This won’t be a Corbyn rally
Pretty clear there wont be a debate - no upside for Corbyn in agreeing to one.
Maybe he could copy May's tactic at the GE debate - and send his Shadow Home Sec? Might be more entertaining..
I reckon it will be May on her own on BBC vs audience.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1068363730990350336 Theresa May reveals what she hopes to achieve with the debate: close down any compromise with Labour. Interesting strategy, which means she will need the votes of every one of her MPs and also of the DUP, who have said they will vote against and may actually prefer a soft Brexit if it keeps NI aligned with GB.
Strange strategy since she will need Labour votes to ever have a chance of getting it through.
Maybe she is resigned to it not passing and is wanting justification for a new referendum. Or possibly a no deal Brexit. It's all rather exciting.
TM strategy is simple. No other deal, no second referendum, this is it.
Brexiteers should accept her deal, move on and put in hard negotiators to take on the EU and challenge them even in international courts but the way they are behaving risks finishing off their dreams. It is madness by them
"Hard negotiators" like May?
Of course not. Whoever leads the party post brexit, if ERG have not sabotaged it, needs a committed brexiteer cabinet member with hard nosed negotiators drawn from business and law to drive the separation
Exactly. Had we voted Remain there would already be problems looming as we would be the block against the further integration that the EU very desperately needs.
Not saying you're wrong but what specific proposals are you thinking of?
Well leave is deliverable in the form of a no-deal Brexit. It's the only way out of the EU now, the deal is too bad.
You can argue that the problems it will cause are not worth it, but you can't claim it is impossible.
I think the downsides are exaggerated and it won't be as bad as they claim (as were their claims about chaos after the leave vote). I also think if they had prepared for no-deal from the beginning like they should have done we'd be in a much stronger position.
But many leavers, including pones on here, were arguing against a no-deal Brexit, and preferred the EEA-style option. Different promises that are incompatible.
So has PB come up with ideas as to how there were over 300 thousand more immigrants in the year to June 2018 yet the number of immigrants in work fell during that period ?
More children and non working spouses.
Spouses should be working. We're not in the eighties any more.
The cultures of South Asia and Middle East where many of the non-EU migrants come from are not noted for their progressive feminist perspectives.
Why do we permit chain migration but make it hard for the likes of @Sandpit to bring their spouses here?
Is all about delivering on Vote Leave’s campaign promises of fewer immigrants from Europe and more from the Indian subcontinent.
Vote Leave is hoping to secure the backing of British Asians by telling them that if Britain quits the EU, it will mean more immigration from elsewhere in the world.
The official Out campaign is drawing up leaflets aimed at Punjabi, Hindi and Urdu speakers arguing that a British exit from the EU would help to stem the flow of Eastern Europeans into the UK — allowing more incomers from Commonwealth countries to take their place.
Saqib Bhatti, a board member for Vote Leave, said English-language leaflets had been sent out to Muslim voters, while others in different languages were set to follow.
Off of Brexit, I listened to Lloyd Russell-Moyle's emotive speech last night about his HIV status on the radio and the house reaction. The science has moved on so it is treatable, and parliament showed a magnificent example with its reaction to the speech, it will lead public attitude. Whatever happens with Brexit, that we've moved so far was something to be very proud of yesterday.
Is there not a danger that we're heading towards a view that it doesn't matter if you get HIV, we can treat it with drugs? What if the drugs stop working?
I thought the point of Prep was not that it treats HIV but that it stops you getting it in the first place. That is the whole point of the name - Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis. That seems like a very good thing.
That said there was a report the other evening that highlighted the fact that of course it doesn't stop you getting other very nasty STDs so the best way to help yourself is to avoid risky behaviour.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1068363730990350336 Theresa May reveals what she hopes to achieve with the debate: close down any compromise with Labour. Interesting strategy, which means she will need the votes of every one of her MPs and also of the DUP, who have said they will vote against and may actually prefer a soft Brexit if it keeps NI aligned with GB.
Strange strategy since she will need Labour votes to ever have a chance of getting it through.
Maybe she is resigned to it not passing and is wanting justification for a new referendum. Or possibly a no deal Brexit. It's all rather exciting.
TM strategy is simple. No other deal, no second referendum, this is it.
Brexiteers should accept her deal, move on and put in hard negotiators to take on the EU and challenge them even in international courts but the way they are behaving risks finishing off their dreams. It is madness by them
It's not madness as we're not in any better position to disentangle ourselves from the EU after the deal and we've lost all our bargaining chips along the way. We still need their permission to leave the deal and we've already paid them the £39bn and agreed to the NI backstop.
The official Out campaign is drawing up leaflets aimed at Punjabi, Hindi and Urdu speakers arguing that a British exit from the EU would help to stem the flow of Eastern Europeans into the UK — allowing more incomers from Commonwealth countries to take their place.
Saqib Bhatti, a board member for Vote Leave, said English-language leaflets had been sent out to Muslim voters, while others in different languages were set to follow.
I can't wait to see the look on those beady-eyed little gammon faces when they realize they've voted for largest increase in UK melanin levels since Windrush.
So has PB come up with ideas as to how there were over 300 thousand more immigrants in the year to June 2018 yet the number of immigrants in work fell during that period ?
More children and non working spouses.
Spouses should be working. We're not in the eighties any more.
The cultures of South Asia and Middle East where many of the non-EU migrants come from are not noted for their progressive feminist perspectives.
Why do we permit chain migration but make it hard for the likes of @Sandpit to bring their spouses here?
Is all about delivering on Vote Leave’s campaign promises of fewer immigrants from Europe and more from the Indian subcontinent.
Vote Leave is hoping to secure the backing of British Asians by telling them that if Britain quits the EU, it will mean more immigration from elsewhere in the world.
The official Out campaign is drawing up leaflets aimed at Punjabi, Hindi and Urdu speakers arguing that a British exit from the EU would help to stem the flow of Eastern Europeans into the UK — allowing more incomers from Commonwealth countries to take their place.
Saqib Bhatti, a board member for Vote Leave, said English-language leaflets had been sent out to Muslim voters, while others in different languages were set to follow.
So has PB come up with ideas as to how there were over 300 thousand more immigrants in the year to June 2018 yet the number of immigrants in work fell during that period ?
More children and non working spouses.
Spouses should be working. We're not in the eighties any more.
The cultures of South Asia and Middle East where many of the non-EU migrants come from are not noted for their progressive feminist perspectives.
Why do we permit chain migration but make it hard for the likes of @Sandpit to bring their spouses here?
A very good question, and one to which I’d like to know the answer!
AIUI it’s mostly down to those who wish to play by the increasingly-complex rules getting refused, while those willing to “bend” the rules seem to be okay. Possibly also a willingness of those in certain cultures to be happy living away from their wives for several years.
Some of the rules themselves are particularly egregious, such as that income earned abroad or a job offer in the U.K. cannot be taken into account (only several years of U.K. earnings), and that there is active discrimination against spouses of Britons as opposed to other Europeans - A Romanian has the “right” to live with his wife in the U.K., no matter which country in the world she comes from, but a British citizen doesn’t.
It’s worth noting that there have been several immigration lawyers struck off in the past couple of years for various sorts of malpractice.
Exactly. Had we voted Remain there would already be problems looming as we would be the block against the further integration that the EU very desperately needs.
There is that risk. But we'd just had a referendum where, if remain won, it was clear what it meant in that respect, and could be used to either brake that process or, if necessary, break away - either fully or partially.
Whereas leave's incompatibilities and inconsistencies were much more direct and obvious. And have led us to the brink of a disastrous no-deal bodged Brexit.
Well leave is deliverable in the form of a no-deal Brexit. It's the only way out of the EU now, the deal is too bad.
You can argue that the problems it will cause are not worth it, but you can't claim it is impossible.
I think the downsides are exaggerated and it won't be as bad as they claim (as were their claims about chaos after the leave vote). I also think if they had prepared for no-deal from the beginning like they should have done we'd be in a much stronger position.
But many leavers, including pones on here, were arguing against a no-deal Brexit, and preferred the EEA-style option. Different promises that are incompatible.
Both are deliverable, just not simultaneously. Its up to the government to deliver one of them then if we don't like that we elect a new government and change again if need be.
That's the whole point of taking back control. We ultimately get the power to kick out the government if they get it wrong. We can#'t kick out the Commission.
Off of Brexit, I listened to Lloyd Russell-Moyle's emotive speech last night about his HIV status on the radio and the house reaction. The science has moved on so it is treatable, and parliament showed a magnificent example with its reaction to the speech, it will lead public attitude. Whatever happens with Brexit, that we've moved so far was something to be very proud of yesterday.
Is there not a danger that we're heading towards a view that it doesn't matter if you get HIV, we can treat it with drugs? What if the drugs stop working?
I thought the point of Prep was not that it treats HIV but that it stops you getting it in the first place. That is the whole point of the name - Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis. That seems like a very good thing.
That said there was a report the other evening that highlighted the fact that of course it doesn't stop you getting other very nasty STDs so the best way to help yourself is to avoid risky behaviour.
Of course. PrEP makes it (very nearly) impossible to contract HIV, but it won't prevent chlamydia or gonorrhea or syphilis or any other genito-urinary nasty.
Being on PrEP certainly does not obviate the need to get regular sexual health checkups. But, of course, any GUM or HIV clinic worth their salt will do a full bank of screenings when they prescribe PrEP or do HIV tests as a matter of course.
Mr. Tokyo, in Cameron's defence, it's easy to predict those things with hindsight. He made some mistakes but an inability to see the future of the migrant crisis was not one for which he deserves especial criticism.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1068363730990350336 Theresa May reveals what she hopes to achieve with the debate: close down any compromise with Labour. Interesting strategy, which means she will need the votes of every one of her MPs and also of the DUP, who have said they will vote against and may actually prefer a soft Brexit if it keeps NI aligned with GB.
Strange strategy since she will need Labour votes to ever have a chance of getting it through.
Maybe she is resigned to it not passing and is wanting justification for a new referendum. Or possibly a no deal Brexit. It's all rather exciting.
TM strategy is simple. No other deal, no second referendum, this is it.
Brexiteers should accept her deal, move on and put in hard negotiators to take on the EU and challenge them even in international courts but the way they are behaving risks finishing off their dreams. It is madness by them
"Hard negotiators" like May?
Of course not. Whoever leads the party post brexit, if ERG have not sabotaged it, needs a committed brexiteer cabinet member with hard nosed negotiators drawn from business and law to drive the separation
Considering May will have already gifted them Northern Ireland and money, the negotiators will really struggle don't you agree?
Of course she hasn't gifted either. The money is payable under existing commitments plus an amount for transistion. As far as Northern Ireland is concerned the only oponents are the DUP who are at war with their core vote.
You are going to lose brexit in an act of colossal self harm
So has PB come up with ideas as to how there were over 300 thousand more immigrants in the year to June 2018 yet the number of immigrants in work fell during that period ?
More children and non working spouses.
Spouses should be working. We're not in the eighties any more.
The cultures of South Asia and Middle East where many of the non-EU migrants come from are not noted for their progressive feminist perspectives.
Why do we permit chain migration but make it hard for the likes of @Sandpit to bring their spouses here?
A very good question, and one to which I’d like to know the answer!
AIUI it’s mostly down to those who wish to play by the increasingly-complex rules getting refused, while those willing to “bend” the rules seem to be okay.
Some of the rules themselves are particularly egregious, such as that income earned abroad or a job offer in the U.K. cannot be taken into account (only several years of U.K. earnings), and that there is active discrimination against spouses of Britons as opposed to other Europeans - A Romanian has the “right” to live with his wife in the U.K., no matter which country in the world she comes from, but a British citizen doesn’t.
It’s worth noting that there have been several immigration lawyers struck off in the past couple of years for various sorts of malpractice.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1068363730990350336 Theresa May reveals what she hopes to achieve with the debate: close down any compromise with Labour. Interesting strategy, which means she will need the votes of every one of her MPs and also of the DUP, who have said they will vote against and may actually prefer a soft Brexit if it keeps NI aligned with GB.
Strange strategy since she will need Labour votes to ever have a chance of getting it through.
Maybe she is resigned to it not passing and is wanting justification for a new referendum. Or possibly a no deal Brexit. It's all rather exciting.
TM strategy is simple. No other deal, no second referendum, this is it.
Brexiteers should accept her deal, move on and put in hard negotiators to take on the EU and challenge them even in international courts but the way they are behaving risks finishing off their dreams. It is madness by them
"Hard negotiators" like May?
Of course not. Whoever leads the party post brexit, if ERG have not sabotaged it, needs a committed brexiteer cabinet member with hard nosed negotiators drawn from business and law to drive the separation
So has PB come up with ideas as to how there were over 300 thousand more immigrants in the year to June 2018 yet the number of immigrants in work fell during that period ?
More children and non working spouses.
Spouses should be working. We're not in the eighties any more.
The cultures of South Asia and Middle East where many of the non-EU migrants come from are not noted for their progressive feminist perspectives.
Why do we permit chain migration but make it hard for the likes of @Sandpit to bring their spouses here?
Is all about delivering on Vote Leave’s campaign promises of fewer immigrants from Europe and more from the Indian subcontinent.
Vote Leave is hoping to secure the backing of British Asians by telling them that if Britain quits the EU, it will mean more immigration from elsewhere in the world.
The official Out campaign is drawing up leaflets aimed at Punjabi, Hindi and Urdu speakers arguing that a British exit from the EU would help to stem the flow of Eastern Europeans into the UK — allowing more incomers from Commonwealth countries to take their place.
Saqib Bhatti, a board member for Vote Leave, said English-language leaflets had been sent out to Muslim voters, while others in different languages were set to follow.
Yes, if I have to choose between an Indian doctor and a European unskilled migrant, I would go for the Indian doctor every single time.
The casual racism of some Remainers who basically imply "ah yes but these are [white] European migrants so they're good" is sickening.
EU citizens, whether Italian, Portuguese, Polish all have pretty swift assimilation into British culture over the decades. Some non-EU groups do too, such as West Indians and Phillipino, but as "Tommy Robinson" points out, not so much integration when from other countries in Asia, Middle East and Africa. Undoubtably this will change our culture more, but of course that may be an inevitable and positive thing. I work in possibly the most multicultural workplace in the most multicultural city in the country.
I have no problem with Indian doctors or Philipino Nurses, but visas and recognition of qualifications is a much more elaborate and time consuming affair than recruiting Greek doctors or Portuguese nurses. My department recruited 4 Philipinno nurses a year ago, but still they cannot start because of these issues.
Regarding the debates to be fair to May the one thing she seems to be able to do is grasp the detail. If the debate is kept to the deal then on something so technical she should beat Corbyn. Has he got round to reading the document yet? This won’t be a Corbyn rally
Pretty clear there wont be a debate - no upside for Corbyn in agreeing to one.
Maybe he could copy May's tactic at the GE debate - and send his Shadow Home Sec? Might be more entertaining..
I reckon it will be May on her own on BBC vs audience.
With an empty chair for Corbyn. Now that would be a turnaround
Off of Brexit, I listened to Lloyd Russell-Moyle's emotive speech last night about his HIV status on the radio and the house reaction. The science has moved on so it is treatable, and parliament showed a magnificent example with its reaction to the speech, it will lead public attitude. Whatever happens with Brexit, that we've moved so far was something to be very proud of yesterday.
Is there not a danger that we're heading towards a view that it doesn't matter if you get HIV, we can treat it with drugs? What if the drugs stop working?
I don't think anyone would willingly choose to be HIV+ - having to take a drug every day doesn't sound particularly pleasent. And there is definitely a legitimate debate around the availability of 'prep' on the NHS. But noone should be ashamed of having HIV, as Moyle said better to live in knowledge than die in fear.
Diabetes seems like the big health issue of the moment now.
"I don't think anyone would willingly choose to be HIV+"
Sadly, there are people who go out to get HIV. Mrs J did not believe me on this, and the a segment came on Radio 4 about just that. As an example:
Sure, but I think this is a very small minority. And I haven't heard anyone be impressed by San Fransisco recently, the city is literally turning to (human) shit - I think this sort of behaviour is like extreme 500+lb feeders compared to the general population issue of inactivity and obesity for diabetes, it is emphatically not reflective of homosexual men in general.
Regarding the debates to be fair to May the one thing she seems to be able to do is grasp the detail. If the debate is kept to the deal then on something so technical she should beat Corbyn. Has he got round to reading the document yet? This won’t be a Corbyn rally
Pretty clear there wont be a debate - no upside for Corbyn in agreeing to one.
Besides jezza doesn’t want to miss his fav show, I’m a celeb...
I think it's 9%, 8% was last time they asked? This is where they're asked about a referendum on the deal, without offering Remain as an option. Understandably Remain enthusiasts tend to prefer "Britain should stop Brexit and remain in the EU after all" when confronted with that (28%).
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1068363730990350336 Theresa May reveals what she hopes to achieve with the debate: close down any compromise with Labour. Interesting strategy, which means she will need the votes of every one of her MPs and also of the DUP, who have said they will vote against and may actually prefer a soft Brexit if it keeps NI aligned with GB.
Strange strategy since she will need Labour votes to ever have a chance of getting it through.
Maybe she is resigned to it not passing and is wanting justification for a new referendum. Or possibly a no deal Brexit. It's all rather exciting.
TM strategy is simple. No other deal, no second referendum, this is it.
Brexiteers should accept her deal, move on and put in hard negotiators to take on the EU and challenge them even in international courts but the way they are behaving risks finishing off their dreams. It is madness by them
"Hard negotiators" like May?
Of course not. Whoever leads the party post brexit, if ERG have not sabotaged it, needs a committed brexiteer cabinet member with hard nosed negotiators drawn from business and law to drive the separation
Gove.
Yes
There's a lot of us on this site that back Gove. He'd have been infinitely better than May in the first place - visionary, willing to take on vested interest, actually saw this as an opportunity. He's not great with the public, but neither was May.
I think it's 9%, 8% was last time they asked? This is where they're asked about a referendum on the deal, without offering Remain as an option. Understandably Remain enthusiasts tend to prefer "Britain should stop Brexit and remain in the EU after all" when confronted with that (28%).
If I made a mistake I am sorry and thank you for your clarification
I think it's 9%, 8% was last time they asked? This is where they're asked about a referendum on the deal, without offering Remain as an option. Understandably Remain enthusiasts tend to prefer "Britain should stop Brexit and remain in the EU after all" when confronted with that (28%).
They should offer all the options at the bottom as options in a referendum (Including the iterative referendum option !). We can then go through the Schulze method to see where to go next.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1068363730990350336 Theresa May reveals what she hopes to achieve with the debate: close down any compromise with Labour. Interesting strategy, which means she will need the votes of every one of her MPs and also of the DUP, who have said they will vote against and may actually prefer a soft Brexit if it keeps NI aligned with GB.
Strange strategy since she will need Labour votes to ever have a chance of getting it through.
Maybe she is resigned to it not passing and is wanting justification for a new referendum. Or possibly a no deal Brexit. It's all rather exciting.
TM strategy is simple. No other deal, no second referendum, this is it.
Brexiteers should accept her deal, move on and put in hard negotiators to take on the EU and challenge them even in international courts but the way they are behaving risks finishing off their dreams. It is madness by them
"Hard negotiators" like May?
Of course not. Whoever leads the party post brexit, if ERG have not sabotaged it, needs a committed brexiteer cabinet member with hard nosed negotiators drawn from business and law to drive the separation
Gove.
Yes
There's a lot of us on this site that back Gove. He'd have been infinitely better than May in the first place - visionary, willing to take on vested interest, actually saw this as an opportunity. He's not great with the public, but neither was May.
Another +1 for Gove. His time probably passes if he doesn’t resign before the Commons Deal vote though.
What’s vitally important is that whoever is next in No 10 sees the situation as a positive opportunity for the country.
The peak was in 2015 and the referendum was called in 2016. It didn't come as a shock, it was already in the news. Plus the manifesto gave Cameron until 2017 to hold the referendum.
Regarding the debates to be fair to May the one thing she seems to be able to do is grasp the detail. If the debate is kept to the deal then on something so technical she should beat Corbyn. Has he got round to reading the document yet? This won’t be a Corbyn rally
Pretty clear there wont be a debate - no upside for Corbyn in agreeing to one.
Maybe he could copy May's tactic at the GE debate - and send his Shadow Home Sec? Might be more entertaining..
I reckon it will be May on her own on BBC vs audience.
With an empty chair for Corbyn. Now that would be a turnaround
Regarding the debates to be fair to May the one thing she seems to be able to do is grasp the detail. If the debate is kept to the deal then on something so technical she should beat Corbyn. Has he got round to reading the document yet? This won’t be a Corbyn rally
Pretty clear there wont be a debate - no upside for Corbyn in agreeing to one.
Maybe he could copy May's tactic at the GE debate - and send his Shadow Home Sec? Might be more entertaining..
I reckon it will be May on her own on BBC vs audience.
With an empty chair for Corbyn. Now that would be a turnaround
So has PB come up with ideas as to how there were over 300 thousand more immigrants in the year to June 2018 yet the number of immigrants in work fell during that period ?
More children and non working spouses.
Spouses should be working. We're not in the eighties any more.
The cultures of South Asia and Middle East where many of the non-EU migrants come from are not noted for their progressive feminist perspectives.
Why do we permit chain migration but make it hard for the likes of @Sandpit to bring their spouses here?
Is all about delivering on Vote Leave’s campaign promises of fewer immigrants from Europe and more from the Indian subcontinent.
Vote Leave is hoping to secure the backing of British Asians by telling them that if Britain quits the EU, it will mean more immigration from elsewhere in the world.
The official Out campaign is drawing up leaflets aimed at Punjabi, Hindi and Urdu speakers arguing that a British exit from the EU would help to stem the flow of Eastern Europeans into the UK — allowing more incomers from Commonwealth countries to take their place.
Saqib Bhatti, a board member for Vote Leave, said English-language leaflets had been sent out to Muslim voters, while others in different languages were set to follow.
Off of Brexit, I listened to Lloyd Russell-Moyle's emotive speech last night about his HIV status on the radio and the house reaction. The science has moved on so it is treatable, and parliament showed a magnificent example with its reaction to the speech, it will lead public attitude. Whatever happens with Brexit, that we've moved so far was something to be very proud of yesterday.
Is there not a danger that we're heading towards a view that it doesn't matter if you get HIV, we can treat it with drugs? What if the drugs stop working?
I don't think anyone would willingly choose to be HIV+ - having to take a drug every day doesn't sound particularly pleasent. And there is definitely a legitimate debate around the availability of 'prep' on the NHS. But noone should be ashamed of having HIV, as Moyle said better to live in knowledge than die in fear.
Diabetes seems like the big health issue of the moment now.
HIV is now a long term disease like diabetes to be managed to reach normal life expectancy.
It was pretty grim in the 1990s when I would see patients fade away in front of me over a year or so.
Yes, so like diabetes we should encourage prevention as better than the cure?
Absolutely. And that's what PrEP is. And that's why we've been telling high risk groups to get tested regularly for a long time.
Although each time I see one of the “give HIV the finger” adverts I can’t help thinking they should call it a “prick test”
On the day rail fare increases of 3.1% are announced Sadiq Khan and TFL are starring at a one billion pound loss
He has frozen fares until 2020, handed 18,000 staff a 3.5% wage increase, banned advertising in an act of political correctness, seen a fall in passenger numbers and has encountered problems with crossrail
I think we have labour policy in transparency right there. Labour always leaves the country in a financial mess and the conservatives have to clear it up.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1068363730990350336 Theresa May reveals what she hopes to achieve with the debate: close down any compromise with Labour. Interesting strategy, which means she will need the votes of every one of her MPs and also of the DUP, who have said they will vote against and may actually prefer a soft Brexit if it keeps NI aligned with GB.
Strange strategy since she will need Labour votes to ever have a chance of getting it through.
Maybe she is resigned to it not passing and is wanting justification for a new referendum. Or possibly a no deal Brexit. It's all rather exciting.
TM strategy is simple. No other deal, no second referendum, this is it.
Brexiteers should accept her deal, move on and put in hard negotiators to take on the EU and challenge them even in international courts but the way they are behaving risks finishing off their dreams. It is madness by them
It's not madness as we're not in any better position to disentangle ourselves from the EU after the deal and we've lost all our bargaining chips along the way. We still need their permission to leave the deal and we've already paid them the £39bn and agreed to the NI backstop.
Is all about delivering on Vote Leave’s campaign promises of fewer immigrants from Europe and more from the Indian subcontinent.
Vote Leave is hoping to secure the backing of British Asians by telling them that if Britain quits the EU, it will mean more immigration from elsewhere in the world.
The official Out campaign is drawing up leaflets aimed at Punjabi, Hindi and Urdu speakers arguing that a British exit from the EU would help to stem the flow of Eastern Europeans into the UK — allowing more incomers from Commonwealth countries to take their place.
Saqib Bhatti, a board member for Vote Leave, said English-language leaflets had been sent out to Muslim voters, while others in different languages were set to follow.
Yes, if I have to choose between an Indian doctor and a European unskilled migrant, I would go for the Indian doctor every single time.
The casual racism of some Remainers who basically imply "ah yes but these are [white] European migrants so they're good" is sickening.
EU citizens, whether Italian, Portuguese, Polish all have pretty swift assimilation into British culture over the decades. Some non-EU groups do too, such as West Indians and Phillipino, but as "Tommy Robinson" points out, not so much integration when from other countries in Asia, Middle East and Africa. Undoubtably this will change our culture more, but of course that may be an inevitable and positive thing. I work in possibly the most multicultural workplace in the most multicultural city in the country.
I have no problem with Indian doctors or Philipino Nurses, but visas and recognition of qualifications is a much more elaborate and time consuming affair than recruiting Greek doctors or Portuguese nurses. My department recruited 4 Philipinno nurses a year ago, but still they cannot start because of these issues.
I am not at all certain that having more immigration from non-integrating cultures from Asia or the Middle East is a positive thing. See, for instance, the reasons why May personally has blocked granting asylum to Asia Bibi.
It should be a matter of deep shame to this country that we refuse asylum to this poor woman because we are afraid of extremists here having the same views as those who are threatening her in Pakistan while at the same time allowing into this country hate preachers from Pakistan who spread their hate and incite murder.
So has PB come up with ideas as to how there were over 300 thousand more immigrants in the year to June 2018 yet the number of immigrants in work fell during that period ?
Regarding the debates to be fair to May the one thing she seems to be able to do is grasp the detail. If the debate is kept to the deal then on something so technical she should beat Corbyn. Has he got round to reading the document yet? This won’t be a Corbyn rally
Pretty clear there wont be a debate - no upside for Corbyn in agreeing to one.
Maybe he could copy May's tactic at the GE debate - and send his Shadow Home Sec? Might be more entertaining..
I reckon it will be May on her own on BBC vs audience.
With an empty chair for Corbyn. Now that would be a turnaround
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1068363730990350336 Theresa May reveals what she hopes to achieve with the debate: close down any compromise with Labour. Interesting strategy, which means she will need the votes of every one of her MPs and also of the DUP, who have said they will vote against and may actually prefer a soft Brexit if it keeps NI aligned with GB.
Strange strategy since she will need Labour votes to ever have a chance of getting it through.
Maybe she is resigned to it not passing and is wanting justification for a new referendum. Or possibly a no deal Brexit. It's all rather exciting.
TM strategy is simple. No other deal, no second referendum, this is it.
Brexiteers should accept her deal, move on and put in hard negotiators to take on the EU and challenge them even in international courts but the way they are behaving risks finishing off their dreams. It is madness by them
"Hard negotiators" like May?
Of course not. Whoever leads the party post brexit, if ERG have not sabotaged it, needs a committed brexiteer cabinet member with hard nosed negotiators drawn from business and law to drive the separation
Gove.
Yes
There's a lot of us on this site that back Gove. He'd have been infinitely better than May in the first place - visionary, willing to take on vested interest, actually saw this as an opportunity. He's not great with the public, but neither was May.
He backs the deal and sees the way forward. I am a great admirer of Gove, especially for COE
Why do we permit chain migration but make it hard for the likes of @Sandpit to bring their spouses here?
Is all about delivering on Vote Leave’s campaign promises of fewer immigrants from Europe and more from the Indian subcontinent.
Vote Leave is hoping to secure the backing of British Asians by telling them that if Britain quits the EU, it will mean more immigration from elsewhere in the world.
The official Out campaign is drawing up leaflets aimed at Punjabi, Hindi and Urdu speakers arguing that a British exit from the EU would help to stem the flow of Eastern Europeans into the UK — allowing more incomers from Commonwealth countries to take their place.
Saqib Bhatti, a board member for Vote Leave, said English-language leaflets had been sent out to Muslim voters, while others in different languages were set to follow.
Yes, if I have to choose between an Indian doctor and a European unskilled migrant, I would go for the Indian doctor every single time.
The casual racism of some Remainers who basically imply "ah yes but these are [white] European migrants so they're good" is sickening.
EU citizens, whether Italian, Portuguese, Polish all have pretty swift assimilation into British culture over the decades. Some non-EU groups do too, such as West Indians and Phillipino, but as "Tommy Robinson" points out, not so much integration when from other countries in Asia, Middle East and Africa. Undoubtably this will change our culture more, but of course that may be an inevitable and positive thing. I work in possibly the most multicultural workplace in the most multicultural city in the country.
I have no problem with Indian doctors or Philipino Nurses, but visas and recognition of qualifications is a much more elaborate and time consuming affair than recruiting Greek doctors or Portuguese nurses. My department recruited 4 Philipinno nurses a year ago, but still they cannot start because of these issues.
Which is bonkers. The NHS, Foreign Office, Home Office and Education departments should be co-operating in setting up academic partnerships with teaching hospitals in places like Mumbai and Manila, offering 10 year U.K. visas and student loans/training bonds to those willing to fill staff shortages in key professions like healthcare in the U.K.
There’s probably also a need to reform the existing U.K. training scheme with both carrots and sticks to reduce the drop out rates.
Regarding the debates to be fair to May the one thing she seems to be able to do is grasp the detail. If the debate is kept to the deal then on something so technical she should beat Corbyn. Has he got round to reading the document yet? This won’t be a Corbyn rally
Pretty clear there wont be a debate - no upside for Corbyn in agreeing to one.
Maybe he could copy May's tactic at the GE debate - and send his Shadow Home Sec? Might be more entertaining..
I reckon it will be May on her own on BBC vs audience.
With an empty chair for Corbyn. Now that would be a turnaround
A tub of ?????
Answers on a postcard to BBC …..
Jam
Potentially a sticky mess that can be difficult to get to the setting point?
If the EU offer the months extension is TM more or less secure?
Realisitically the only thing it offers time for is a general election.
In theory, on a Deal or No Deal question with Labour led by a Communist clown and a dithering old fool, May would have every chance of winning such an election.
However, it's Theresa May we're talking about here.
So I would say, she's toast in that scenario.
Yes, or a #peoplesvote, which is the most likely consequence if the Commons rejects May's deal.
It doesn't:
1) There isn't time left, even with an extension to A50;
2) Nobody can agree a question;
3) The risks of it leading to No Deal are enormous;
4) No party was elected on a manifesto to hold such a plebiscite, so the risk it would lack legitimacy is a real one;
5) It would be deeply unpopular in the real world, not that strange planet inhabited by the tenth rate pseudo intellectual Blairite arse licker Adonis.
As for your second point, you do know Tory backbenchers on their own cannot get this through? They will need at least tacit support from one of Labour, the SNP, the DUP or the Liberal Democrats. This is why Labour's posturing is so irresponsible and as I say, appears to be damaging them.
So as I also said: The only thing it might offer is an election. I can hear Brenda exploding already.
Labour MPs will not vote for something that screws their constituents.
Intentionally or nor, that is what they are going to do.
On the day rail fare increases of 3.1% are announced Sadiq Khan and TFL are starring at a one billion pound loss
He has frozen fares until 2020, handed 18,000 staff a 3.5% wage increase, banned advertising in an act of political correctness, seen a fall in passenger numbers and has encountered problems with crossrail
I think we have labour policy in transparency right there. Labour always leaves the country in a financial mess and the conservatives have to clear it up.
Be careful. despite his horrendous record as Mayor, Khan is seen as a messiah on this site.
On the day rail fare increases of 3.1% are announced Sadiq Khan and TFL are starring at a one billion pound loss
He has frozen fares until 2020, handed 18,000 staff a 3.5% wage increase, banned advertising in an act of political correctness, seen a fall in passenger numbers and has encountered problems with crossrail
I think we have labour policy in transparency right there. Labour always leaves the country in a financial mess and the conservatives have to clear it up.
Fascinating.
Have you seen what the Tories have done to the national debt since 2010. Is "almost doubling it" welsh for "clear it up"?
I think there’s a sort of entire worldview thing going on with some of the views on a fresh referendum.
There’s the one where it’s like a sport, or game. “Why should they have two bites of the cherry? We won, we get the spoils, they have to suck it up.”
There’s the one where it’s like consulting someone on what they should do in the future. “Are you sure of this? Have you changed your mind?”
If you view it as an adversarial contest, divided into them-and-us (and supporters of each), then it’s manifestly unfair that the losers get a rematch before you get to enjoy your trophy/winnings/spoils (delete as applicable). You would also assume by default that if the losers were convinced they’d lose again, they’d not even want to take the field. And, as they are “them”, they’ll obviously try some other underhanded cheating tactics to deprive you of your hard won victory. In this worldview, winning is the important thing, and reconciling with the losers is all-but-irrelevant (and probably impossible in any case). Asking the same question again (or even asking a question where one of the answers could overturn the outcome of the previous game vote is downright unfair. Totally unacceptable.
If you view it as consulting the people on what they think is best for the country, then there’s no issue whatsoever with that. Even asking the exact same question again. If it was a loved one of yours, you’d do it all the time:
“Are you sure you want to go through with this?” -vs- “No, you decided you’d have a tattoo. The only choice you have left is which one”, or “Nope, you chose that guy, you have to marry him, I don’t care if he beats you now, just choose what flowers you want for the wedding”, or “No, you said you’d jump off the bridge, you can only change your mind after jumping, your only choice is head-first or feet-first”
If this is as important as marrying someone, getting a tattoo, choosing a college or career, jumping off a bridge, or whatever, then I see no issues with asking the public to confirm they really want to go ahead.
Then again, I was never that invested in the EU either way (I was always a soft Eurosceptic), and I disliked both campaigns cordially last time.
On the day rail fare increases of 3.1% are announced Sadiq Khan and TFL are starring at a one billion pound loss
He has frozen fares until 2020, handed 18,000 staff a 3.5% wage increase, banned advertising in an act of political correctness, seen a fall in passenger numbers and has encountered problems with crossrail
I think we have labour policy in transparency right there. Labour always leaves the country in a financial mess and the conservatives have to clear it up.
Fascinating.
Have you seen what the Tories have done to the national debt since 2010. Is "almost doubling it" welsh for "clear it up"?
It is a real pain, all this austerity. Costs so much money.
At which point she gets defeated massively. Having wasted 2 weeks the UK doesn't have, and having demeaned her office begging for miracles. Having at that point ruled out every possible option other than her deal as written what does she do then? Say "no deal it is" and "the policy of her Majesty's government is to spend the next 3 months saying "you voted for this, you got this" and eating popcorn as the UK slides towards the cliff edge that the government knows will smash us?
Yes.
Because if we vote down this deal, we leave without one. A general election would be another option, I just can't see it producing a radical change from the current House of Commons - at least, not radical enough to get this deal through.
It really is that easy - or perhaps I should say, that stark?
Have a good morning.
Except that it isnt. The EU wont negotiate any more bespoke deals - we kmow that. Which leaves adopting a pre-existing deal (EEA) or keeping the existing one. The ONLY scenario that gets a majority in the house is not leaving without one. Having mandated the government to not accept no deal (because take back control) then we're back to where we were at the start. Don't leave or rejoin EFTA. Every other option was fantasy and has been proven to be so.
You are completely ignoring the fact that No Deal is the default position. It doesn't need a majority in Parliament. It just needs the other options to fail. The MPs cannot mandate the Government to not accept it any more than they can mandate them to defy gravity.
Now I hope it doesn't happen, but just because Parliament says it mustn't happen does not mean it won't unless they can force through May's Deal or Remain. Sadly I would suggest NO Deal is far more likely than an EFTA arrangement now.
I am not ignoring it. I am simply pointing out that options remain available. No Deal is what happens of we do nothing - my view is that the Commons will not allow the government to do nothing especially as the exacting details of just how fucked we are get unboxed in front of them.
As May is insisting that no further options bar her deal are possible, then her reaction to being heavily defeated will be instructive. Either she says "fine, no deal" at which point she is removed, or says "ok, let's do something else" at which point she is removed. The Commons can and will instruct the government, and if the government refuses the sovereign will of parliament it too can be removed.
Doing nothing (and pointing the finger at your opponents) is usually the most popular course of action.
Support for Theresa May's Brexit deal has risen, but only slowly. 27% of Brits now support the deal (up 12 on two weeks ago), but 45% still oppose the deal.
Conservative Remainers are most likely to back the Brexit deal, at 52%. They are, however, outweighed by the much more numerous Conservative Leavers who oppose the deal by 45% to 38%
When it comes to what MPs should do, Britons think they should vote down the deal UNLESS this would see the UK leave the EU without any deal, in which case Brits think they should support it by 42% to 32%
On the day rail fare increases of 3.1% are announced Sadiq Khan and TFL are starring at a one billion pound loss
He has frozen fares until 2020, handed 18,000 staff a 3.5% wage increase, banned advertising in an act of political correctness, seen a fall in passenger numbers and has encountered problems with crossrail
I think we have labour policy in transparency right there. Labour always leaves the country in a financial mess and the conservatives have to clear it up.
Be careful. despite his horrendous record as Mayor, Khan is seen as a messiahpot of gold on this site.
On the day rail fare increases of 3.1% are announced Sadiq Khan and TFL are starring at a one billion pound loss
He has frozen fares until 2020, handed 18,000 staff a 3.5% wage increase, banned advertising in an act of political correctness, seen a fall in passenger numbers and has encountered problems with crossrail
I think we have labour policy in transparency right there. Labour always leaves the country in a financial mess and the conservatives have to clear it up.
His time as a government minister wasn’t exactly stellar either. 500million wasted on fire control centres.
I think there’s a sort of entire worldview thing going on with some of the views on a fresh referendum.
There’s the one where it’s like a sport, or game. “Why should they have two bites of the cherry? We won, we get the spoils, they have to suck it up.”
There’s the one where it’s like consulting someone on what they should do in the future. “Are you sure of this? Have you changed your mind?”
If you view it as an adversarial contest, divided into them-and-us (and supporters of each), then it’s manifestly unfair that the losers get a rematch before you get to enjoy your trophy/winnings/spoils (delete as applicable). You would also assume by default that if the losers were convinced they’d lose again, they’d not even want to take the field. And, as they are “them”, they’ll obviously try some other underhanded cheating tactics to deprive you of your hard won victory. In this worldview, winning is the important thing, and reconciling with the losers is all-but-irrelevant (and probably impossible in any case). Asking the same question again (or even asking a question where one of the answers could overturn the outcome of the previous game vote is downright unfair. Totally unacceptable.
If you view it as consulting the people on what they think is best for the country, then there’s no issue whatsoever with that. Even asking the exact same question again. If it was a loved one of yours, you’d do it all the time:
“Are you sure you want to go through with this?” -vs- “No, you decided you’d have a tattoo. The only choice you have left is which one”, or “Nope, you chose that guy, you have to marry him, I don’t care if he beats you now, just choose what flowers you want for the wedding”, or “No, you said you’d jump off the bridge, you can only change your mind after jumping, your only choice is head-first or feet-first”
If this is as important as marrying someone, getting a tattoo, choosing a college or career, jumping off a bridge, or whatever, then I see no issues with asking the public to confirm they really want to go ahead.
Then again, I was never that invested in the EU either way (I was always a soft Eurosceptic), and I disliked both campaigns cordially last time.
That is a very long way of saying we should keep asking the same question until we get the answer we want.
On the day rail fare increases of 3.1% are announced Sadiq Khan and TFL are starring at a one billion pound loss
He has frozen fares until 2020, handed 18,000 staff a 3.5% wage increase, banned advertising in an act of political correctness, seen a fall in passenger numbers and has encountered problems with crossrail
I think we have labour policy in transparency right there. Labour always leaves the country in a financial mess and the conservatives have to clear it up.
Be careful. despite his horrendous record as Mayor, Khan is seen as a messiah on this site.
The billion deficit in TFL is caused by freezing prices and inflating workers wages plus politically correct decisions and Sadiq Khan is London mayor.
On the day rail fare increases of 3.1% are announced Sadiq Khan and TFL are starring at a one billion pound loss
He has frozen fares until 2020, handed 18,000 staff a 3.5% wage increase, banned advertising in an act of political correctness, seen a fall in passenger numbers and has encountered problems with crossrail
I think we have labour policy in transparency right there. Labour always leaves the country in a financial mess and the conservatives have to clear it up.
Fascinating.
Have you seen what the Tories have done to the national debt since 2010. Is "almost doubling it" welsh for "clear it up"?
You don't get rid of the debt until you get the rid of the deficit. And since Labour have opposed every move aimed at reducing the deficit it is a bit rich to moan about the debt.
The only cohort that actually wants this deal is Con remainers- which aligns with the only people in this place which supports the deal being Con remainers.
Interesting that May has stopped calling Con remainers "saboteurs" now they're the only people supporting her deal.
On the day rail fare increases of 3.1% are announced Sadiq Khan and TFL are starring at a one billion pound loss
He has frozen fares until 2020, handed 18,000 staff a 3.5% wage increase, banned advertising in an act of political correctness, seen a fall in passenger numbers and has encountered problems with crossrail
I think we have labour policy in transparency right there. Labour always leaves the country in a financial mess and the conservatives have to clear it up.
Fascinating.
Have you seen what the Tories have done to the national debt since 2010. Is "almost doubling it" welsh for "clear it up"?
You may try to deflect but you cannot freeze prices and put wages up without making a loss.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1068363730990350336 Theresa May reveals what she hopes to achieve with the debate: close down any compromise with Labour. Interesting strategy, which means she will need the votes of every one of her MPs and also of the DUP, who have said they will vote against and may actually prefer a soft Brexit if it keeps NI aligned with GB.
Strange strategy since she will need Labour votes to ever have a chance of getting it through.
Maybe she is resigned to it not passing and is wanting justification for a new referendum. Or possibly a no deal Brexit. It's all rather exciting.
TM strategy is simple. No other deal, no second referendum, this is it.
Brexiteers should accept her deal, move on and put in hard negotiators to take on the EU and challenge them even in international courts but the way they are behaving risks finishing off their dreams. It is madness by them
"Hard negotiators" like May?
Of course not. Whoever leads the party post brexit, if ERG have not sabotaged it, needs a committed brexiteer cabinet member with hard nosed negotiators drawn from business and law to drive the separation
Gove.
Yes
There's a lot of us on this site that back Gove. He'd have been infinitely better than May in the first place - visionary, willing to take on vested interest, actually saw this as an opportunity. He's not great with the public, but neither was May.
He backs the deal and sees the way forward. I am a great admirer of Gove, especially for COE
Trouble is I don't want him to move from DEFRA where he is starting to make a real difference. I can see all his good work being swept away by another Environment Secretary who cares only for short termism and keeping the farmers happy.
Why do we permit chain migration but make it hard for the likes of @Sandpit to bring their spouses here?
Is all about delivering on Vote Leave’s campaign promises of fewer immigrants from Europe and more from the Indian subcontinent.
Vote Leave is hoping to secure the backing of British Asians by telling them that if Britain quits the EU, it will mean more immigration from elsewhere in the world.
The official Out campaign is drawing up leaflets aimed at Punjabi, Hindi and Urdu speakers arguing that a British exit from the EU would help to stem the flow of Eastern Europeans into the UK — allowing more incomers from Commonwealth countries to take their place.
Saqib Bhatti, a board member for Vote Leave, said English-language leaflets had been sent out to Muslim voters, while others in different languages were set to follow.
Yes, if I have to choose between an Indian doctor and a European unskilled migrant, I would go for the Indian doctor every single time.
The casual racism of some Remainers who basically imply "ah yes but these are [white] European migrants so they're good" is sickening.
EU citizens, whether Italian, Portuguese
I have no problem with Indian doctors or Philipino Nurses, but visas and recognition of qualifications is a much more elaborate and time consuming affair than recruiting Greek doctors or Portuguese nurses. My department recruited 4 Philipinno nurses a year ago, but still they cannot start because of these issues.
Which is bonkers. The NHS, Foreign Office, Home Office and Education departments should be co-operating in setting up academic partnerships with teaching hospitals in places like Mumbai and Manila, offering 10 year U.K. visas and student loans/training bonds to those willing to fill staff shortages in key professions like healthcare in the U.K.
There’s probably also a need to reform the existing U.K. training scheme with both carrots and sticks to reduce the drop out rates.
It is Home Office policy to be beastly to foreigners in order to keep them out.
Why do we permit chain migration but make it hard for the likes of @Sandpit to bring their spouses here?
Is all about delivering on Vote Leave’s campaign promises of fewer immigrants from Europe and more from the Indian subcontinent.
Vote Leave is hoping to secure the backing of British Asians by telling them that if Britain quits the EU, it will mean more immigration from elsewhere in the world.
The official Out campaign is drawing up leaflets aimed at Punjabi, Hindi and Urdu speakers arguing that a British exit from the EU would help to stem the flow of Eastern Europeans into the UK — allowing more incomers from Commonwealth countries to take their place.
Saqib Bhatti, a board member for Vote Leave, said English-language leaflets had been sent out to Muslim voters, while others in different languages were set to follow.
Yes, if I have to choose between an Indian doctor and a European unskilled migrant, I would go for the Indian doctor every single time.
The casual racism of some Remainers who basically imply "ah yes but these are [white] European migrants so they're good" is sickening.
EU citizens, whether Italian, Portuguese
I have no problem with Indian doctors or Philipino Nurses, but visas and recognition of qualifications is a much more elaborate and time consuming affair than recruiting Greek doctors or Portuguese nurses. My department recruited 4 Philipinno nurses a year ago, but still they cannot start because of these issues.
Which is bonkers. The NHS, Foreign Office, Home Office and Education departments should be co-operating in setting up academic partnerships with teaching hospitals in places like Mumbai and Manila, offering 10 year U.K. visas and student loans/training bonds to those willing to fill staff shortages in key professions like healthcare in the U.K.
There’s probably also a need to reform the existing U.K. training scheme with both carrots and sticks to reduce the drop out rates.
It is Home Office policy to be beastly to foreigners in order to keep them out.
Something to do with "tens of thousands".
I wonder who was the Home Secretary pushing that line for many years?
Trouble is I don't want him to move from DEFRA where he is starting to make a real difference. I can see all his good work being swept away by another Environment Secretary who cares only for short termism and keeping the farmers happy.
I thought Gove had found his calling as the man you send in to unfuck whatever department Grayling fucked last.
The only cohort that actually wants this deal is Con remainers- which aligns with the only people in this place which supports the deal being Con remainers.
Interesting that May has stopped calling Con remainers "saboteurs" now they're the only people supporting her deal.
On the day rail fare increases of 3.1% are announced Sadiq Khan and TFL are starring at a one billion pound loss
He has frozen fares until 2020, handed 18,000 staff a 3.5% wage increase, banned advertising in an act of political correctness, seen a fall in passenger numbers and has encountered problems with crossrail
I think we have labour policy in transparency right there. Labour always leaves the country in a financial mess and the conservatives have to clear it up.
Fascinating.
Have you seen what the Tories have done to the national debt since 2010. Is "almost doubling it" welsh for "clear it up"?
Remember Cameron was all about 'paying down the deficit'. The debt, not so much.
The only cohort that actually wants this deal is Con remainers- which aligns with the only people in this place which supports the deal being Con remainers.
Interesting that May has stopped calling Con remainers "saboteurs" now they're the only people supporting her deal.
Anna Soubry is fulsome in her comments. If that is support I'll pass, thank you.
I think there’s a sort of entire worldview thing going on with some of the views on a fresh referendum.
There’s the one where it’s like a sport, or game. “Why should they have two bites of the cherry? We won, we get the spoils, they have to suck it up.”
There’s the one where it’s like consulting someone on what they should do in the future. “Are you sure of this? Have you changed your mind?”
If you view it as an adversarial contest, divided into them-and-us (and supporters of each), then it’s manifestly unfair that the losers get a rematch before you get to enjoy your trophy/winnings/spoils (delete as applicable). You would also assume by default that if the losers were convinced they’d lose again, they’d not even want to take the field. And, as they are “them”, they’ll obviously try some other underhanded cheating tactics to deprive you of your hard won victory. In this worldview, winning is the important thing, and reconciling with the losers is all-but-irrelevant (and probably impossible in any case). Asking the same question again (or even asking a question where one of the answers could overturn the outcome of the previous game vote is downright unfair. Totally unacceptable.
If you view it as consulting the people on what they think is best for the country, then there’s no issue whatsoever with that. Even asking the exact same question again. If it was a loved one of yours, you’d do it all the time:
“Are you sure you want to go through with this?” -vs- “No, you decided you’d have a tattoo. The only choice you have left is which one”, or “Nope, you chose that guy, you have to marry him, I don’t care if he beats you now, just choose what flowers you want for the wedding”, or “No, you said you’d jump off the bridge, you can only change your mind after jumping, your only choice is head-first or feet-first”
If this is as important as marrying someone, getting a tattoo, choosing a college or career, jumping off a bridge, or whatever, then I see no issues with asking the public to confirm they really want to go ahead.
Then again, I was never that invested in the EU either way (I was always a soft Eurosceptic), and I disliked both campaigns cordially last time.
That is a very long way of saying we should keep asking the same question until we get the answer we want.
I think there’s a sort of entire worldview thing going on with some of the views on a fresh referendum.
There’s the one where it’s like a sport, or game. “Why should they have two bites of the cherry? We won, we get the spoils, they have to suck it up.”
There’s the one where it’s like consulting someone on what they should do in the future. “Are you sure of this? Have you changed your mind?”
If you view it as an adversarial contest, divided into them-and-us (and supporters of each), then it’s manifestly unfair that the losers get a rematch before you get to enjoy your trophy/winnings/spoils (delete as applicable). You would also assume by default that if the losers were convinced they’d lose again, they’d not even want to take the field. And, as they are “them”, they’ll obviously try some other underhanded cheating tactics to deprive you of your hard won victory. In this worldview, winning is the important thing, and reconciling with the losers is all-but-irrelevant (and probably impossible in any case). Asking the same question again (or even asking a question where one of the answers could overturn the outcome of the previous game vote is downright unfair. Totally unacceptable.
If you view it as consulting the people on what they think is best for the country, then there’s no issue whatsoever with that. Even asking the exact same question again. If it was a loved one of yours, you’d do it all the time:
“Are you sure you want to go through with this?” -vs- “No, you decided you’d have a tattoo. The only choice you have left is which one”, or “Nope, you chose that guy, you have to marry him, I don’t care if he beats you now, just choose what flowers you want for the wedding”, or “No, you said you’d jump off the bridge, you can only change your mind after jumping, your only choice is head-first or feet-first”
If this is as important as marrying someone, getting a tattoo, choosing a college or career, jumping off a bridge, or whatever, then I see no issues with asking the public to confirm they really want to go ahead.
Then again, I was never that invested in the EU either way (I was always a soft Eurosceptic), and I disliked both campaigns cordially last time.
That is a very long way of saying we should keep asking the same question until we get the answer we want.
I expect that what Anna Soubry, Sarah Wollaston et al really want is a choice between 1. Remain, 2 Remain and join the Euro.
Support for Theresa May's Brexit deal has risen, but only slowly. 27% of Brits now support the deal (up 12 on two weeks ago), but 45% still oppose the deal.
Conservative Remainers are most likely to back the Brexit deal, at 52%. They are, however, outweighed by the much more numerous Conservative Leavers who oppose the deal by 45% to 38%
When it comes to what MPs should do, Britons think they should vote down the deal UNLESS this would see the UK leave the EU without any deal, in which case Brits think they should support it by 42% to 32% ...
"should vote down the deal UNLESS this would see the UK leave the EU without any deal..."
Problem with that is the only way of finding out for sure is by taking a very large risk that no deal will indeed be the outcome.
The only cohort that actually wants this deal is Con remainers- which aligns with the only people in this place which supports the deal being Con remainers.
Interesting that May has stopped calling Con remainers "saboteurs" now they're the only people supporting her deal.
I'm a Leaver, and I support it.
It's funny, you and Richard Nabavi are both reluctant dealers, and you both seem to support it for the same reasons, though approaching from two completely different angles.
The risk for the second referendum lobby is that May might win.
Then, MPs would be expected to vote through something they don't want.
I think they could suck that up but couldn't you avoid it by making the referendum binding in the first place, like the AV one?
Possibly, but it would also mean that MPs have no option but to back the government on all the Parliamentary votes that are coming up (not just the meaningful vote).
I think there’s a sort of entire worldview thing going on with some of the views on a fresh referendum.
There’s the one where it’s like a sport, or game. “Why should they have two bites of the cherry? We won, we get the spoils, they have to suck it up.”
There’s the one where it’s like consulting someone on what they should do in the future. “Are you sure of this? Have you changed your mind?”
If you view it as an adversarial contest, divided into them-and-us (and supporters of each), then it’s manifestly unfair that the losers get a rematch before you get to enjoy your trophy/winnings/spoils (delete as applicable). You would also assume by default that if the losers were convinced they’d lose again, they’d not even want to take the field. And, as they are “them”, they’ll obviously try some other underhanded cheating tactics to deprive you of your hard won victory. In this worldview, winning is the important thing, and reconciling with the losers is all-but-irrelevant (and probably impossible in any case). Asking the same question again (or even asking a question where one of the answers could overturn the outcome of the previous game vote is downright unfair. Totally unacceptable.
If you view it as consulting the people on what they think is best for the country, then there’s no issue whatsoever with that. Even asking the exact same question again. If it was a loved one of yours, you’d do it all the time:
“Are you sure you want to go through with this?” -vs- “No, you decided you’d have a tattoo. The only choice you have left is which one”, or “Nope, you chose that guy, you have to marry him, I don’t care if he beats you now, just choose what flowers you want for the wedding”, or “No, you said you’d jump off the bridge, you can only change your mind after jumping, your only choice is head-first or feet-first”
If this is as important as marrying someone, getting a tattoo, choosing a college or career, jumping off a bridge, or whatever, then I see no issues with asking the public to confirm they really want to go ahead.
Then again, I was never that invested in the EU either way (I was always a soft Eurosceptic), and I disliked both campaigns cordially last time.
That is a very long way of saying we should keep asking the same question until we get the answer we want.
I expect that what Anna Soubry, Sarah Wollaston et al really want is a choice between 1. Remain, 2 Remain and join the Euro.
I know people think I'm crazy, but I would be happy with a choice of:
1 Leave No Deal 2 Remain with Euro and all the bells and whistles.
They are the only 2 options that are clear, have known knowns and don't have unknown unknowns or unknown knowns. I think I would go for 2
The only cohort that actually wants this deal is Con remainers- which aligns with the only people in this place which supports the deal being Con remainers.
Interesting that May has stopped calling Con remainers "saboteurs" now they're the only people supporting her deal.
I'm a Leaver, and I support it.
It's funny, you and Richard Nabavi are both reluctant dealers, and you both seem to support it for the same reasons, though approaching from two completely different angles.
Brexit is Brexit.
It's not my preferred Imperial Full English Brexit where we leave with all our Angevin possessions restored, but them's the breaks.
I think there’s a sort of entire worldview thing going on with some of the views on a fresh referendum.
There’s the one where it’s like a sport, or game. “Why should they have two bites of the cherry? We won, we get the spoils, they have to suck it up.”
There’s the one where it’s like consulting someone on what they should do in the future. “Are you sure of this? Have you changed your mind?”
If you view it as an adversarial contest, divided into them-and-us (and supporters of each), then it’s manifestly unfair that the losers get a rematch before you get to enjoy your trophy/winnings/spoils (delete as applicable). You would also assume by default that if the losers were convinced they’d lose again, they’d not even want to take the field. And, as they are “them”, they’ll obviously try some other underhanded cheating tactics to deprive you of your hard won victory. In this worldview, winning is the important thing, and reconciling with the losers is all-but-irrelevant (and probably impossible in any case). Asking the same question again (or even asking a question where one of the answers could overturn the outcome of the previous game vote is downright unfair. Totally unacceptable.
If you view it as consulting the people on what they think is best for the country, then there’s no issue whatsoever with that. Even asking the exact same question again. If it was a loved one of yours, you’d do it all the time:
If this is as important as marrying someone, getting a tattoo, choosing a college or career, jumping off a bridge, or whatever, then I see no issues with asking the public to confirm they really want to go ahead.
Then again, I was never that invested in the EU either way (I was always a soft Eurosceptic), and I disliked both campaigns cordially last time.
That is a very long way of saying we should keep asking the same question until we get the answer we want.
I expect that what Anna Soubry, Sarah Wollaston et al really want is a choice between 1. Remain, 2 Remain and join the Euro.
I know people think I'm crazy, but I would be happy with a choice of:
1 Leave No Deal 2 Remain with Euro and all the bells and whistles.
They are the only 2 options that are clear, have known knowns and don't have unknown unknowns or unknown knowns. I think I would go for 2
A parliament can't bind its successors, but it can bind itself only up to a point.
You can automate procedures, but you can't automate people doing what the procedure says they should. There's always a chance that, whatever the referendum says, Parliament will go "nope, not doing it, sorry".
On the day rail fare increases of 3.1% are announced Sadiq Khan and TFL are starring at a one billion pound loss
He has frozen fares until 2020, handed 18,000 staff a 3.5% wage increase, banned advertising in an act of political correctness, seen a fall in passenger numbers and has encountered problems with crossrail
I think we have labour policy in transparency right there. Labour always leaves the country in a financial mess and the conservatives have to clear it up.
I thought you had a good memory ?
Roy Jenkins in 1970 , left the economy in a better state, than the Conservatives gave us in 1974. Never mind , never let your Daily Mail facts get in way of the truth.
I think there’s a sort of entire worldview thing going on with some of the views on a fresh referendum.
There’s the one where it’s like a sport, or game. “Why should they have two bites of the cherry? We won, we get the spoils, they have to suck it up.”
There’s the one where it’s like consulting someone on what they should do in the future. “Are you sure of this? Have you changed your mind?”
If you view it as an adversarial contest, divided into them-and-us (and supporters of each), then it’s manifestly unfair that the losers get a rematch before you get to enjoy your trophy/winnings/spoils (delete as applicable). You would also assume by default that if the losers were convinced they’d lose again, they’d not even want to take the field. And, as they are “them”, they’ll obviously try some other underhanded cheating tactics to deprive you of your hard won victory. In this worldview, winning is the important thing, and reconciling with the losers is all-but-irrelevant (and probably impossible in any case). Asking the same question again (or even asking a question where one of the answers could overturn the outcome of the previous game vote is downright unfair. Totally unacceptable.
If you view it as consulting the people on what they think is best for the country, then there’s no issue whatsoever with that. Even asking the exact same question again. If it was a loved one of yours, you’d do it all the time:
If this is as important as marrying someone, getting a tattoo, choosing a college or career, jumping off a bridge, or whatever, then I see no issues with asking the public to confirm they really want to go ahead.
Then again, I was never that invested in the EU either way (I was always a soft Eurosceptic), and I disliked both campaigns cordially last time.
That is a very long way of saying we should keep asking the same question until we get the answer we want.
I expect that what Anna Soubry, Sarah Wollaston et al really want is a choice between 1. Remain, 2 Remain and join the Euro.
I know people think I'm crazy, but I would be happy with a choice of:
1 Leave No Deal 2 Remain with Euro and all the bells and whistles.
They are the only 2 options that are clear, have known knowns and don't have unknown unknowns or unknown knowns. I think I would go for 2
That would be some contest.
I'd enjoy it! It is also far more sensible than an unstable hybrid version. Tell the EU we are having a referendum on those choices, after the referendum 2 years to implement the result. Incentive to them to get us fully on board or to be rid of a recalcitrant member.
The risk for the second referendum lobby is that May might win.
Then, MPs would be expected to vote through something they don't want.
I think they could suck that up but couldn't you avoid it by making the referendum binding in the first place, like the AV one?
Possibly, but it would also mean that MPs have no option but to back the government on all the Parliamentary votes that are coming up (not just the meaningful vote).
Not sure, possibly. It sounds like procedurally parliament can't just amend the Meaningful Vote to tack on "but subject to a referendum, and here's how it's done", so you'd need new legislation for the referendum anyhow. So maybe you could just stuff everything in there together? The Leaving The EU Subject To A Referendum This Is Exactly How We Will Do It In Exhaustive Detail But Only If The Voters Vote For It I Dunno ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Bill.
I'd enjoy it! It is also far more sensible than an unstable hybrid version. Tell the EU we are having a referendum on those choices, after the referendum 2 years to implement the result. Incentive to them to get us fully on board or to be rid of a recalcitrant member.
Is your business export based at all ? From my business PoV joining the Euro would only leave USD currency risk for us.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1068363730990350336 Theresa May reveals what she hopes to achieve with the debate: close down any compromise with Labour. Interesting strategy, which means she will need the votes of every one of her MPs and also of the DUP, who have said they will vote against and may actually prefer a soft Brexit if it keeps NI aligned with GB.
Strange strategy since she will need Labour votes to ever have a chance of getting it through.
Maybe she is resigned to it not passing and is wanting justification for a new referendum. Or possibly a no deal Brexit. It's all rather exciting.
TM strategy is simple. No other deal, no second referendum, this is it.
Brexiteers should accept her deal, move on and put in hard negotiators to take on the EU and challenge them even in international courts but the way they are behaving risks finishing off their dreams. It is madness by them
"Hard negotiators" like May?
Of course not. Whoever leads the party post brexit, if ERG have not sabotaged it, needs a committed brexiteer cabinet member with hard nosed negotiators drawn from business and law to drive the separation
Gove.
Yes
There's a lot of us on this site that back Gove. He'd have been infinitely better than May in the first place - visionary, willing to take on vested interest, actually saw this as an opportunity. He's not great with the public, but neither was May.
He backs the deal and sees the way forward. I am a great admirer of Gove, especially for COE
Trouble is I don't want him to move from DEFRA where he is starting to make a real difference. I can see all his good work being swept away by another Environment Secretary who cares only for short termism and keeping the farmers happy.
Even if we have a soft Norway+ Brexit we will still be leaving the CAP and CFP so it's the one place we need one of our more talented ministers
On the day rail fare increases of 3.1% are announced Sadiq Khan and TFL are starring at a one billion pound loss
He has frozen fares until 2020, handed 18,000 staff a 3.5% wage increase, banned advertising in an act of political correctness, seen a fall in passenger numbers and has encountered problems with crossrail
I think we have labour policy in transparency right there. Labour always leaves the country in a financial mess and the conservatives have to clear it up.
I thought you had a good memory ?
Roy Jenkins in 1970 , left the economy in a better state, than the Conservatives gave us in 1974. Never mind , never let your Daily Mail facts get in way of the truth.
There was an increase in the oil price from $3 to $12 a barrel in 1973 which caused a global economic crisis.
Comments
Vote Leave is hoping to secure the backing of British Asians by telling them that if Britain quits the EU, it will mean more immigration from elsewhere in the world.
The official Out campaign is drawing up leaflets aimed at Punjabi, Hindi and Urdu speakers arguing that a British exit from the EU would help to stem the flow of Eastern Europeans into the UK — allowing more incomers from Commonwealth countries to take their place.
Saqib Bhatti, a board member for Vote Leave, said English-language leaflets had been sent out to Muslim voters, while others in different languages were set to follow.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/94adcefa-1dd5-11e6-a7bc-ee846770ec15
Right to leave: 42%
Wrong to leave: 48%
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/fv1c5v409t/TheTimes_181127_BrexitDeal_VI_Trackers_bpc_w.pdf
The casual racism of some Remainers who basically imply "ah yes but these are [white] European migrants so they're good" is sickening.
That said there was a report the other evening that highlighted the fact that of course it doesn't stop you getting other very nasty STDs so the best way to help yourself is to avoid risky behaviour.
Can you provide links to their comments.
AIUI it’s mostly down to those who wish to play by the increasingly-complex rules getting refused, while those willing to “bend” the rules seem to be okay. Possibly also a willingness of those in certain cultures to be happy living away from their wives for several years.
Some of the rules themselves are particularly egregious, such as that income earned abroad or a job offer in the U.K. cannot be taken into account (only several years of U.K. earnings), and that there is active discrimination against spouses of Britons as opposed to other Europeans - A Romanian has the “right” to live with his wife in the U.K., no matter which country in the world she comes from, but a British citizen doesn’t.
It’s worth noting that there have been several immigration lawyers struck off in the past couple of years for various sorts of malpractice.
Whereas leave's incompatibilities and inconsistencies were much more direct and obvious. And have led us to the brink of a disastrous no-deal bodged Brexit.
That's the whole point of taking back control. We ultimately get the power to kick out the government if they get it wrong. We can#'t kick out the Commission.
Being on PrEP certainly does not obviate the need to get regular sexual health checkups. But, of course, any GUM or HIV clinic worth their salt will do a full bank of screenings when they prescribe PrEP or do HIV tests as a matter of course.
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1068407226153533440
Mr. Tokyo, in Cameron's defence, it's easy to predict those things with hindsight. He made some mistakes but an inability to see the future of the migrant crisis was not one for which he deserves especial criticism.
You are going to lose brexit in an act of colossal self harm
I have no problem with Indian doctors or Philipino Nurses, but visas and recognition of qualifications is a much more elaborate and time consuming affair than recruiting Greek doctors or Portuguese nurses. My department recruited 4 Philipinno nurses a year ago, but still they cannot start because of these issues.
What’s vitally important is that whoever is next in No 10 sees the situation as a positive opportunity for the country.
Answers on a postcard to BBC …..
He has frozen fares until 2020, handed 18,000 staff a 3.5% wage increase, banned advertising in an act of political correctness, seen a fall in passenger numbers and has encountered problems with crossrail
I think we have labour policy in transparency right there. Labour always leaves the country in a financial mess and the conservatives have to clear it up.
It should be a matter of deep shame to this country that we refuse asylum to this poor woman because we are afraid of extremists here having the same views as those who are threatening her in Pakistan while at the same time allowing into this country hate preachers from Pakistan who spread their hate and incite murder.
Should've been a solo mauling by bloodthirsty Yorkshiremen.
Edited extra bit: if this ends up going ahead, that is. With no Corbyn, what is it?
There’s probably also a need to reform the existing U.K. training scheme with both carrots and sticks to reduce the drop out rates.
Remainers are already terrified of no deal, and Brexiteers are just convinced they're being lied to and so won't listen whatever anyone says.
Have you seen what the Tories have done to the national debt since 2010. Is "almost doubling it" welsh for "clear it up"?
There’s the one where it’s like a sport, or game. “Why should they have two bites of the cherry? We won, we get the spoils, they have to suck it up.”
There’s the one where it’s like consulting someone on what they should do in the future. “Are you sure of this? Have you changed your mind?”
If you view it as an adversarial contest, divided into them-and-us (and supporters of each), then it’s manifestly unfair that the losers get a rematch before you get to enjoy your trophy/winnings/spoils (delete as applicable). You would also assume by default that if the losers were convinced they’d lose again, they’d not even want to take the field. And, as they are “them”, they’ll obviously try some other underhanded cheating tactics to deprive you of your hard won victory. In this worldview, winning is the important thing, and reconciling with the losers is all-but-irrelevant (and probably impossible in any case). Asking the same question again (or even asking a question where one of the answers could overturn the outcome of the previous
gamevote is downright unfair. Totally unacceptable.If you view it as consulting the people on what they think is best for the country, then there’s no issue whatsoever with that. Even asking the exact same question again. If it was a loved one of yours, you’d do it all the time:
“Are you sure you want to go through with this?” -vs- “No, you decided you’d have a tattoo. The only choice you have left is which one”, or “Nope, you chose that guy, you have to marry him, I don’t care if he beats you now, just choose what flowers you want for the wedding”, or “No, you said you’d jump off the bridge, you can only change your mind after jumping, your only choice is head-first or feet-first”
If this is as important as marrying someone, getting a tattoo, choosing a college or career, jumping off a bridge, or whatever, then I see no issues with asking the public to confirm they really want to go ahead.
Then again, I was never that invested in the EU either way (I was always a soft Eurosceptic), and I disliked both campaigns cordially last time.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/11/30/public-support-theresa-mays-deal-has-increased-far?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=brexit_deal_tracker_30_Nov_2018
Conservative Remainers are most likely to back the Brexit deal, at 52%. They are, however, outweighed by the much more numerous Conservative Leavers who oppose the deal by 45% to 38%
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/11/30/public-support-theresa-mays-deal-has-increased-far?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=brexit_deal_tracker_30_Nov_2018
When it comes to what MPs should do, Britons think they should vote down the deal UNLESS this would see the UK leave the EU without any deal, in which case Brits think they should support it by 42% to 32%
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/lajwilf9ez/TheTimes_181129_Brexit_w.pdf
(Source https://twitter.com/YouGov)
Then, MPs would be expected to vote through something they don't want.
Interesting that May has stopped calling Con remainers "saboteurs" now they're the only people supporting her deal.
Something to do with "tens of thousands".
https://www.ft.com/content/7d5244a0-f22d-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9d0d
'Why the idea of a united Ireland is back in play'?
Basically, it's time for a United Ireland. Brexit, once again, bringing people together. Almost brings a tear to one's eye.
Suggests Gove should be off to Transport next.
If that is support I'll pass, thank you.
Problem with that is the only way of finding out for sure is by taking a very large risk that no deal will indeed be the outcome.
Stick to the facts, ma'am.
1 Leave No Deal
2 Remain with Euro and all the bells and whistles.
They are the only 2 options that are clear, have known knowns and don't have unknown unknowns or unknown knowns.
I think I would go for 2
It's not my preferred Imperial Full English Brexit where we leave with all our Angevin possessions restored, but them's the breaks.
You can automate procedures, but you can't automate people doing what the procedure says they should. There's always a chance that, whatever the referendum says, Parliament will go "nope, not doing it, sorry".
Roy Jenkins in 1970 , left the economy in a better state, than the Conservatives gave us in 1974.
Never mind , never let your Daily Mail facts get in way of the truth.
It is also far more sensible than an unstable hybrid version.
Tell the EU we are having a referendum on those choices, after the referendum 2 years to implement the result.
Incentive to them to get us fully on board or to be rid of a recalcitrant member.