I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Although given the vast, unneeded, and probably irreversible ecological damage it has caused, arguably an ability to leave the CFP is one of the more understandable reasons for being a Leaver.
The CFP gets a bad press, but it is actually helping fish stocks recover. The biggest problem is politicians ignoring the science and allowing overfishing.
Too true, And all this talk of "keeping our fish" ignores the fact that the herring and mackerel caught in UK waters aren't to British taste (75% of the UK catch is exported, much to the EU) with most of the fare served across the counters of our "British" fish and chip shops being imported, much from the EU.
A lot of the discards used to be fish that people didn't want to eat. There's been some good campaigning to get people eating unpopular fish like gurnard.
I worry that in the excitement at taking back control, we will return to overfishing.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Although given the vast, unneeded, and probably irreversible ecological damage it has caused, arguably an ability to leave the CFP is one of the more understandable reasons for being a Leaver.
The CFP gets a bad press, but it is actually helping fish stocks recover. The biggest problem is politicians ignoring the science and allowing overfishing.
Too true, And all this talk of "keeping our fish" ignores the fact that the herring and mackerel caught in UK waters aren't to British taste (75% of the UK catch is exported, much to the EU) with most of the fare served across the counters of our "British" fish and chip shops being imported, much from the EU.
A lot of the discards used to be fish that people didn't want to eat. There's been some good campaigning to get people eating unpopular fish like gurnard.
I worry that in the excitement at taking back control, we will return to overfishing.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.
Apols for shouting this but:
I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.
The Withdrawal Agreement should be supported because we don't have a real choice and never have done. Incidentally it isn't May's Deal. It's EU Demands, which haven't changed hugely over the past two years. They have added Level Playing Field requirements. Otherwise it's money, citizens' rights and Irish border provisions for a two year extension of the status quo and subsequent negotiations on the final arrangement.
The Political Statement isn't worth the paper it's written on but there is nevertheless no reason to support it.
There was a twitter thread posted here a week or so ago showing that it was more balanced than that. Both sides have made concessions, it's not true to say the EU just said "no" until they got what they want.
I think the Withdrawal Agreement is decent as far as it goes. I also think the Irish border backstop is necessary. It forces us to confront the Irish border issue, when we pretended there's no problem and we made no commitment to maintaining a soft GFA border.
I don't think the GFA precludes customs checks on the border.
Look at the bigger picture. Do you think economic divergence on the island of Ireland is consistent with the peace settlement?
Jezza should seek to build bridges and offer the job to Hilary Benn.
Of course he won't do that. He will play the identity politics card and choose an MP of colour because that fits his view of what International Development needs.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.
Apols for shouting this but:
I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.
The Withdrawal Agreement should be supported because we don't have a real choice and never have done. Incidentally it isn't May's Deal. It's EU Demands, which haven't changed hugely over the past two years. They have added Level Playing Field requirements. Otherwise it's money, citizens' rights and Irish border provisions for a two year extension of the status quo and subsequent negotiations on the final arrangement.
The Political Statement isn't worth the paper it's written on but there is nevertheless no reason to support it.
There was a twitter thread posted here a week or so ago showing that it was more balanced than that. Both sides have made concessions, it's not true to say the EU just said "no" until they got what they want.
I think the Withdrawal Agreement is decent as far as it goes. I also think the Irish border backstop is necessary. It forces us to confront the Irish border issue, when we pretended there's no problem and we made no commitment to maintaining a soft GFA border.
I don't think the GFA precludes customs checks on the border.
I disagree. In any case itsi important there aren't any. The backstop ensures this.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.
Apols for shouting this but:
I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.
The Withdrawal Agreement should be supported because we don't have a real choice and never have done. Incidentally it isn't May's Deal. It's EU Demands, which haven't changed hugely over the past two years. They have added Level Playing Field requirements. Otherwise it's money, citizens' rights and Irish border provisions for a two year extension of the status quo and subsequent negotiations on the final arrangement.
The Political Statement isn't worth the paper it's written on but there is nevertheless no reason to support it.
There was a twitter thread posted here a week or so ago showing that it was more balanced than that. Both sides have made concessions, it's not true to say the EU just said "no" until they got what they want.
I think the Withdrawal Agreement is decent as far as it goes. I also think the Irish border backstop is necessary. It forces us to confront the Irish border issue, when we pretended there's no problem and we made no commitment to maintaining a soft GFA border.
I don't think the GFA precludes customs checks on the border.
Look at the bigger picture. Do you think economic divergence on the island of Ireland is consistent with the peace settlement?
If you read the FT article I linked yesterday, economic divergence has already taken place, very much to NI's disadvantage.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Although given the vast, unneeded, and probably irreversible ecological damage it has caused, arguably an ability to leave the CFP is one of the more understandable reasons for being a Leaver.
The CFP gets a bad press, but it is actually helping fish stocks recover. The biggest problem is politicians ignoring the science and allowing overfishing.
Too true, And all this talk of "keeping our fish" ignores the fact that the herring and mackerel caught in UK waters aren't to British taste (75% of the UK catch is exported, much to the EU) with most of the fare served across the counters of our "British" fish and chip shops being imported, much from the EU.
Does it matter where the fish end up? I thought the argument was about who gets to do the fishing in the waters around Britain.
The point is that out industry's future depends rather more on being able to continue importing and exporting fish from the EU than it does on being able to catch more of the fish that happen to be swimming about our own shores.
The current situation is crazy, long tv report the other day about Dutch boats fishing in uk waters, fish processed in Holland and imported back to the UK. Explains the CFP vitriol from coastal communities.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Although given the vast, unneeded, and probably irreversible ecological damage it has caused, arguably an ability to leave the CFP is one of the more understandable reasons for being a Leaver.
The CFP gets a bad press, but it is actually helping fish stocks recover. The biggest problem is politicians ignoring the science and allowing overfishing.
Too true, And all this talk of "keeping our fish" ignores the fact that the herring and mackerel caught in UK waters aren't to British taste (75% of the UK catch is exported, much to the EU) with most of the fare served across the counters of our "British" fish and chip shops being imported, much from the EU.
A lot of the discards used to be fish that people didn't want to eat. There's been some good campaigning to get people eating unpopular fish like gurnard.
I worry that in the excitement at taking back control, we will return to overfishing.
More likely the fishing industry would do what it did before and flog post-Brexit quotas to Spanish trawlers -- unless the government plans to subsidise the development of a modern British fishing fleet, which seems unlikely.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.
Apols for shouting this but:
I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.
Rejecting May's deal increases the chances of a Labour government. That’s why we aren't supporting it.
That is a convincing enough argument from where I sit.
You've more chance of a Labour government by approving May's deal for the following reasons:
1. Rejecting the deal and heading for no deal won't might remove May but won't remove the the Tories.
2. Approving the deal will put the DUP in a position where they would very likely pull support for the government and support a VoNC (the only way you can get an early GE).
3. Labour will fare better in a GE once Brexit is (significantly) settled - when voters will focus on the mess the Tories have made of public services.
Either a No Deal Brexit or No Brexit will tear the Tories apart. That is our best route to No. 10
Both would leave you picking up a country in economic (No Deal) or political (No Brexit) turmoil. But it's academic cos there wouldn't be a GE in such a situation.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.
Apols for shouting this but:
I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.
The Withdrawal Agreement should be supported because we don't have a real choice and never have done. Incidentally it isn't May's Deal. It's EU Demands, which haven't changed hugely over the past two years. They have added Level Playing Field requirements. Otherwise it's money, citizens' rights and Irish border provisions for a two year extension of the status quo and subsequent negotiations on the final arrangement.
The Political Statement isn't worth the paper it's written on but there is nevertheless no reason to support it.
There was a twitter thread posted here a week or so ago showing that it was more balanced than that. Both sides have made concessions, it's not true to say the EU just said "no" until they got what they want.
I think the Withdrawal Agreement is decent as far as it goes. I also think the Irish border backstop is necessary. It forces us to confront the Irish border issue, when we pretended there's no problem and we made no commitment to maintaining a soft GFA border.
I don't think the GFA precludes customs checks on the border.
Look at the bigger picture. Do you think economic divergence on the island of Ireland is consistent with the peace settlement?
There is already economic divergence, but peace seems to be holding.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.
Apols for shouting this but:
I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.
The Political Statement isn't worth the paper it's written on but there is nevertheless no reason to support it.
There was a twitter thread posted here a week or so ago showing that it was more balanced than that. Both sides have made concessions, it's not true to say the EU just said "no" until they got what they want.
I think the Withdrawal Agreement is decent as far as it goes. I also think the Irish border backstop is necessary. It forces us to confront the Irish border issue, when we pretended there's no problem and we made no commitment to maintaining a soft GFA border.
I don't think the GFA precludes customs checks on the border.
Look at the bigger picture. Do you think economic divergence on the island of Ireland is consistent with the peace settlement?
If you read the FT article I linked yesterday, economic divergence has already taken place, very much to NI's disadvantage.
NI will do well out of the FTZ afforded by the backstop if we do diverge. In any case it's possible NI would do better integrated into the Irish economy than as a stranded satellite of the UK economy.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.
Apols for shouting this but:
I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.
Rejecting May's deal increases the chances of a Labour government. That’s why we aren't supporting it.
That is a convincing enough argument from where I sit.
You've more chance of a Labour government by approving May's deal for the following reasons:
1. Rejecting the deal and heading for no deal won't might remove May but won't remove the the Tories.
2. Approving the deal will put the DUP in a position where they would very likely pull support for the government and support a VoNC (the only way you can get an early GE).
3. Labour will fare better in a GE once Brexit is (significantly) settled - when voters will focus on the mess the Tories have made of public services.
Either a No Deal Brexit or No Brexit will tear the Tories apart. That is our best route to No. 10
Both would leave you picking up a country in economic (No Deal) or political (No Brexit) turmoil. But it's academic cos there wouldn't be a GE in such a situation.
In truth either would pull the country apart, not just the conservatives
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.
Apols for shouting this but:
I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.
The Political Statement isn't worth the paper it's written on but there is nevertheless no reason to support it.
There was a twitter thread posted here a week or so ago showing that it was more balanced than that. Both sides have made concessions, it's not true to say the EU just said "no" until they got what they want.
I think the Withdrawal Agreement is decent as far as it goes. I also think the Irish border backstop is necessary. It forces us to confront the Irish border issue, when we pretended there's no problem and we made no commitment to maintaining a soft GFA border.
I don't think the GFA precludes customs checks on the border.
Look at the bigger picture. Do you think economic divergence on the island of Ireland is consistent with the peace settlement?
If you read the FT article I linked yesterday, economic divergence has already taken place, very much to NI's disadvantage.
NI will do well out of the FTZ afforded by the backstop if we do diverge. In any case it's possible NI would do better integrated into the Irish economy than as a stranded satellite of the UK economy.
An Irish commentator said the other day they do not want unification as they could not afford the 11 billion euros annual bill
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Although given the vast, unneeded, and probably irreversible ecological damage it has caused, arguably an ability to leave the CFP is one of the more understandable reasons for being a Leaver.
The CFP gets a bad press, but it is actually helping fish stocks recover. The biggest problem is politicians ignoring the science and allowing overfishing.
Really? Funny how the Norwegians managed to maintain stocks outside the CFP whilst the EU oversaw collapses in fish stocks. Just look at the effect on the Irish Box after it was opened up to EU fishing.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.
Apols for shouting this but:
I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.
Rejecting May's deal increases the chances of a Labour government. That’s why we aren't supporting it.
That is a convincing enough argument from where I sit.
You've more chance of a Labour government by approving May's deal for the following reasons:
1. Rejecting the deal and heading for no deal won't might remove May but won't remove the the Tories.
2. Approving the deal will put the DUP in a position where they would very likely pull support for the government and support a VoNC (the only way you can get an early GE).
3. Labour will fare better in a GE once Brexit is (significantly) settled - when voters will focus on the mess the Tories have made of public services.
The only quibble is that Labour did well last time by turning what was called as a Brexit election into a contest about domestic issues of greater concern to voters. But I don't think they will be able to repeat that trick in an election called now under current circumstances.
I disagree there. Brexit would not be the dominant issue in a 5 or 6 week election campaign however obsessed the commentariat is with it. It is far too technical for most people who are heartily sick to death of the subject. Voters would again be very receptive to Corbyn - and others - raising matters to which they can much more readily relate.
Yes the term No Deal is meant in different ways depending on the context and on who is using it. If you are going to include it in a referendum it will have to be defined and I don't see how anything other than its literal meaning will be suitable for that purpose. So that is no withdrawal agreement, hence no transition. Crash out on 29 March 2019, free at last, free at last.
You can't have that extreme version of Brexit as a binary versus Remain. It stacks the deck. The whole exercise would be seen quite rightly as a scam to discard the 2016 vote.
That works both ways - and Theresa has a history of it.
But this time it is Corbyn running scared of having to declare a coherrent position under interrogation
But there is no precedent for a debate between party leaders outside an election period. The idea is a load of nonsense , and nothing more than an attempt by May to divert attention from her failure and obvious weakness.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Although given the vast, unneeded, and probably irreversible ecological damage it has caused, arguably an ability to leave the CFP is one of the more understandable reasons for being a Leaver.
The CFP gets a bad press, but it is actually helping fish stocks recover. The biggest problem is politicians ignoring the science and allowing overfishing.
Really? Funny how the Norwegians managed to maintain stocks outside the CFP whilst the EU oversaw collapses in fish stocks. Just look at the effect on the Irish Box after it was opened up to EU fishing.
I don't doubt that Norway have done a great job, there's a lot we can learn from them.
Mr. 124, I agree the 'debate' is only occurring because of May's weakness. But she is the PM, and the one proposing a deal. Corbyn demanding she change formats and channel and join him is unlikely to be seen as reasonable, I suspect.
He is ducking and weaving as he has little idea of the subject. He even admits he hasn't read the WDA
Because she appears to be refusing to appear on ITV!
No - she was presented with options and made a choice. That is no refusing.
Corbyn came up with some specious nonsense about 'respecting' I'm A Celeb viewers and is now quibbling about the format.
It is May's debate - she called it. She gets to set the terms. Corbyn has to live with it.
That is a non sequitur. Did any of the party leaders get to set the rules of Debate at the elections of 2010, 2015 & 2017? If they cannot agree a format, then it will not happen.
He is ducking and weaving as he has little idea of the subject. He even admits he hasn't read the WDA
Because she appears to be refusing to appear on ITV!
No - she was presented with options and made a choice. That is no refusing.
Corbyn came up with some specious nonsense about 'respecting' I'm A Celeb viewers and is now quibbling about the format.
It is May's debate - she called it. She gets to set the terms. Corbyn has to live with it.
That is a non sequitur. Did any of the party leaders get to set the rules of Debate at the elections of 2010, 2015 & 2017? If they cannot agree a format, then it will not happen.
This isn't an election debate. May challenged Corbyn to debate one issue and one issue alone. Broadcasters pitched their ideas. She chose one - as is her right as the person calling the debate. He is now doing everything possible to get out of it.
He is ducking and weaving as he has little idea of the subject. He even admits he hasn't read the WDA
Because she appears to be refusing to appear on ITV!
No - she was presented with options and made a choice. That is no refusing.
Corbyn came up with some specious nonsense about 'respecting' I'm A Celeb viewers and is now quibbling about the format.
It is May's debate - she called it. She gets to set the terms. Corbyn has to live with it.
That is a non sequitur. Did any of the party leaders get to set the rules of Debate at the elections of 2010, 2015 & 2017? If they cannot agree a format, then it will not happen.
This isn't an election debate. May challenged Corbyn to debate one issue and one issue alone. Broadcasters pitched their ideas. She chose one - as is her right as the person calling the debate. He is now doing everything possible to get out of it.
You don't want to admit the truth of this.
No party leader should be obliged to accept the terms of debate imposed by another party leader - or by the broadcasters. May chose one option - Corbyn went for another. If they cannot agree, it simply won't happen and I doubt that the public will care less.
He is ducking and weaving as he has little idea of the subject. He even admits he hasn't read the WDA
Because she appears to be refusing to appear on ITV!
No - she was presented with options and made a choice. That is no refusing.
Corbyn came up with some specious nonsense about 'respecting' I'm A Celeb viewers and is now quibbling about the format.
It is May's debate - she called it. She gets to set the terms. Corbyn has to live with it.
That is a non sequitur. Did any of the party leaders get to set the rules of Debate at the elections of 2010, 2015 & 2017? If they cannot agree a format, then it will not happen.
This isn't an election debate. May challenged Corbyn to debate one issue and one issue alone. Broadcasters pitched their ideas. She chose one - as is her right as the person calling the debate. He is now doing everything possible to get out of it.
You don't want to admit the truth of this.
No party leader should be obliged to accept the terms of debate imposed by another party leader - or by the broadcasters. May chose one option - Corbyn went for another. If they cannot agree, it simply won't happen and I doubt that the public will care less.
That is a very naive view of the reality of the current situation.
This was a direct personal challenge. If he walks away, he is the one who suffers.
He is ducking and weaving as he has little idea of the subject. He even admits he hasn't read the WDA
Because she appears to be refusing to appear on ITV!
No - she was presented with options and made a choice. That is no refusing.
Corbyn came up with some specious nonsense about 'respecting' I'm A Celeb viewers and is now quibbling about the format.
It is May's debate - she called it. She gets to set the terms. Corbyn has to live with it.
That is a non sequitur. Did any of the party leaders get to set the rules of Debate at the elections of 2010, 2015 & 2017? If they cannot agree a format, then it will not happen.
This isn't an election debate. May challenged Corbyn to debate one issue and one issue alone. Broadcasters pitched their ideas. She chose one - as is her right as the person calling the debate. He is now doing everything possible to get out of it.
You don't want to admit the truth of this.
No party leader should be obliged to accept the terms of debate imposed by another party leader - or by the broadcasters. May chose one option - Corbyn went for another. If they cannot agree, it simply won't happen and I doubt that the public will care less.
That is a very naive view of the reality of the current situation.
This was a direct personal challenge. If he walks away, he is the one who suffers.
Not at all - May is the one desperate for the debate not Corbyn.
Comments
https://twitter.com/KateOsamor/status/1068889478905892866
Short and sweet.
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1068895662924865537
Ah, my coat..
Some curious omissions, but perhaps the story isn't over.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46414477
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1068896402871369728
He clearly doesn't want to debate - and is doing all he can to manage expectations
'I didn't win the debate but that was the fault of the format not me guv'
Yes the term No Deal is meant in different ways depending on the context and on who is using it. If you are going to include it in a referendum it will have to be defined and I don't see how anything other than its literal meaning will be suitable for that purpose. So that is no withdrawal agreement, hence no transition. Crash out on 29 March 2019, free at last, free at last.
You can't have that extreme version of Brexit as a binary versus Remain. It stacks the deck. The whole exercise would be seen quite rightly as a scam to discard the 2016 vote.
He is ducking and weaving as he has little idea of the subject. He even admits he hasn't read the WDA
Corbyn came up with some specious nonsense about 'respecting' I'm A Celeb viewers and is now quibbling about the format.
It is May's debate - she called it. She gets to set the terms. Corbyn has to live with it.
NEW THREAD
You don't want to admit the truth of this.
This was a direct personal challenge. If he walks away, he is the one who suffers.