politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The weekend polling suggest that Trump is losing voter support
Comments
-
Quite right.TOPPING said:
"...No UK Government would risk that progress, including by willingly allowing a hard border to re-emerge."Philip_Thompson said:
No it is one unreasonable party and one craven coward trying to foist an unacceptable backstop that Parliament is reasonably blocking.Richard_Nabavi said:
The trouble is that it is two reasonable parties confirming to each other their reasonable agreement, but the obstacle is unreasonable MPs refusing to accept that it is a reasonable agreement. It's hard to see this changing things significantly, but equally most of the so-called alternatives being banded about by MPs and opposition parties wouldn't change anything either.TOPPING said:
From Tezza's letter the two stand out points for me:Richard_Nabavi said:*** The Tusk and May letters on the backstop ***
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/770770/Letter_from_the_Prime_Minister_to_President_Juncker_and_President_Tusk.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/770771/Response_from_President_Juncker_and_President_Tusk_to_the_Prime_Minister.pdf
First, this seems to limit the ability of the EU to head off into the sunset with NI in its jetstream following ever more and esoteric EU rules: "The Agreement is also clear that any new act that the Union proposes should be added to the Protocol will require the agreement of the United Kingdom in the Joint Committee."
But the most important part of the letter, a point often and idiotically ignored or misunderstood by most No Dealers is as follows:
"...The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement and is successor agreements are an achievement the UK Government is deeply committed to sustaining and that is the majority view in UK politics by an overwhelming margin. No UK Government would risk that progress, including by willingly allowing a hard border to re-emerge."
The PM herself said that no PM could agree to a border in the Irish Sea but her own Attorney General has already confirmed in his frank legal advice she tried to hide that this backstop creates one.0 -
I am sat quietly at my desk working, listening now to the third separate conversation that has sprung up this morning about the meaningful vote. My mum, who doesn't raise politics much, was talking about it at the weekend.
This seems to have really engaged the public, or at least the part of it I mix with.0 -
Let's put it this way, if they subsequently tried to say it wasn't we could quite happily tell them to do one.Richard_Nabavi said:
That's not quite true, they do say this:grabcocque said:May said that the month delay on the MV was to obtain a legally-binding guarantee of an end date to the backstop and a way for the UK to derogate from it.
What she's achieved is a statement from Juncker and Tusk that the EU is in no position to offer either of those things, and a recapitulation of the existing withdrawal agreement.
In this context, it can be stated that European Council conclusions have a legal value in the Union commensurate to the authority of the European Council under the Treaties to define directions and priorities for the European Union at the highest level and, in the specific context of withdrawal, to establish, in the form of guidelines, its framework. They may commit the European Union in the most solemn manner. European Council conclusions therefore constitute part of the context in which an international agreement, such as the Withdrawal Agreement, will be interpreted.
As for the link between the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration, to which you make reference in your letter, it can be made clear that these two documents, while being of a different nature, are part of the same negotiated package. In order to underline the close relationship between the two texts, they can be published side by side in the Official Journal in a manner reflecting the link between the two as provided for in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).
So it's sort-of legally binding.0 -
If you squint a bit. EUCO decisions establish a policy direction for the Union, and draws its authority from the sovereignty of the national leaders. But the EUCO decision once again simply recommitted the EU to the exisiting withdrawal agreement, and some vague aspirations.Richard_Nabavi said:
So it's sort-of legally binding.
May is a long, long way from what she set out to achieve.
0 -
But Bautista Agut breaks Murray's serve in the fifth set.OldKingCole said:Murray up to 2-2
0 -
Phew thank goodness. So you are a WA fan! There will be more joy in heaven over one sinner...Philip_Thompson said:
Quite right.TOPPING said:
"...No UK Government would risk that progress, including by willingly allowing a hard border to re-emerge."Philip_Thompson said:
No it is one unreasonable party and one craven coward trying to foist an unacceptable backstop that Parliament is reasonably blocking.Richard_Nabavi said:
The trouble is that it is two reasonable parties confirming to each other their reasonable agreement, but the obstacle is unreasonable MPs refusing to accept that it is a reasonable agreement. It's hard to see this changing things significantly, but equally most of the so-called alternatives being banded about by MPs and opposition parties wouldn't change anything either.TOPPING said:
From Tezza's letter the two stand out points for me:Richard_Nabavi said:*** The Tusk and May letters on the backstop ***
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/770770/Letter_from_the_Prime_Minister_to_President_Juncker_and_President_Tusk.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/770771/Response_from_President_Juncker_and_President_Tusk_to_the_Prime_Minister.pdf
First, this seems to limit the ability of the EU to head off into the sunset with NI in its jetstream following ever more and esoteric EU rules: "The Agreement is also clear that any new act that the Union proposes should be added to the Protocol will require the agreement of the United Kingdom in the Joint Committee."
But the most important part of the letter, a point often and idiotically ignored or misunderstood by most No Dealers is as follows:
"...The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement and is successor agreements are an achievement the UK Government is deeply committed to sustaining and that is the majority view in UK politics by an overwhelming margin. No UK Government would risk that progress, including by willingly allowing a hard border to re-emerge."
The PM herself said that no PM could agree to a border in the Irish Sea but her own Attorney General has already confirmed in his frank legal advice she tried to hide that this backstop creates one.0 -
What a shame a month has been wasted. The writing was on the wall in December and NOTHING HAS CHANGED. We could have had a leadership contest over the Christmas/New Year break giving someone fresh some impetus to change something and solve this logjam.DavidL said:I don't know if I am just worn down by this chaos but I seriously wonder if we are in the last week of May's Premiership in anything other than a caretaker capacity. She has run out of road and if her deal is rejected by 150+ tomorrow, which seems all too likely, she surely has to go.
0 -
LOL, is that kind of sort-of or maybe not really sort-of?Richard_Nabavi said:
That's not quite true, they do say this:grabcocque said:May said that the month delay on the MV was to obtain a legally-binding guarantee of an end date to the backstop and a way for the UK to derogate from it.
What she's achieved is a statement from Juncker and Tusk that the EU is in no position to offer either of those things, and a recapitulation of the existing withdrawal agreement.
In this context, it can be stated that European Council conclusions have a legal value in the Union commensurate to the authority of the European Council under the Treaties to define directions and priorities for the European Union at the highest level and, in the specific context of withdrawal, to establish, in the form of guidelines, its framework. They may commit the European Union in the most solemn manner. European Council conclusions therefore constitute part of the context in which an international agreement, such as the Withdrawal Agreement, will be interpreted.
As for the link between the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration, to which you make reference in your letter, it can be made clear that these two documents, while being of a different nature, are part of the same negotiated package. In order to underline the close relationship between the two texts, they can be published side by side in the Official Journal in a manner reflecting the link between the two as provided for in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).
So it's sort-of legally binding.0 -
And holds his serve to love in the next. Murray 1-3 down now.David_Evershed said:
But Bautista Agut breaks Murray's serve in the fifth set.OldKingCole said:Murray up to 2-2
0 -
https://twitter.com/joe_oliver/status/1084599583555178496Alistair said:I'm seeing chat that May voted for a Conservative ammendment to the Government of Wales bill that would have withdrawn the bill during its passage through the House.
Anyone got a link to proposed ammemdments and voting records thereof so that I can check this huge if true claim?
I can see from the hansard record that the ammendment was proposed but I do not know if it went anywhere.
https://twitter.com/joe_oliver/status/10846031356398673940 -
No of course not. The backstop is awful and establishes a hard border in the Irish Sea.TOPPING said:.
Phew thank goodness. So you are a WA fan! There will be more joy in heaven over one sinner...Philip_Thompson said:
Quite right.TOPPING said:
"...No UK Government would risk that progress, including by willingly allowing a hard border to re-emerge."Philip_Thompson said:
No it is one unreasonable party and one craven coward trying to foist an unacceptable backstop that Parliament is reasonably blocking.Richard_Nabavi said:
The trouble is that it is two reasonable parties confirming to each other their reasonable agreement, but the obstacle is unreasonable MPs refusing to accept that it is a reasonable agreement. It's hard to see this changing things significantly, but equally most of the so-called alternatives being banded about by MPs and opposition parties wouldn't change anything either.TOPPING said:
From Tezza's letter the two stand out points for me:Richard_Nabavi said:*** The Tusk and May letters on the backstop ***
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/770770/Letter_from_the_Prime_Minister_to_President_Juncker_and_President_Tusk.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/770771/Response_from_President_Juncker_and_President_Tusk_to_the_Prime_Minister.pdf
First, this seems to limit the ability of the EU to head off into the sunset with NI in its jetstream following ever more and esoteric EU rules: "The Agreement is also clear that any new act that the Union proposes should be added to the Protocol will require the agreement of the United Kingdom in the Joint Committee."
But the most important part of the letter, a point often and idiotically ignored or misunderstood by most No Dealers is as follows:
"...The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement and is successor agreements are an achievement the UK Government is deeply committed to sustaining and that is the majority view in UK politics by an overwhelming margin. No UK Government would risk that progress, including by willingly allowing a hard border to re-emerge."
The PM herself said that no PM could agree to a border in the Irish Sea but her own Attorney General has already confirmed in his frank legal advice she tried to hide that this backstop creates one.
The solution is as it always has been a trade deal.0 -
Yeah, she's been looking awful in those weekend photos.....Pulpstar said:The PM seems to have put on about 8 stone and grown a moustache.
0 -
Yes, it would give us complete cover to renege on our side of the deal without losing international credibility.DavidL said:
Let's put it this way, if they subsequently tried to say it wasn't we could quite happily tell them to do one.Richard_Nabavi said:
That's not quite true, they do say this:grabcocque said:May said that the month delay on the MV was to obtain a legally-binding guarantee of an end date to the backstop and a way for the UK to derogate from it.
What she's achieved is a statement from Juncker and Tusk that the EU is in no position to offer either of those things, and a recapitulation of the existing withdrawal agreement.
In this context, it can be stated that European Council conclusions have a legal value in the Union commensurate to the authority of the European Council under the Treaties to define directions and priorities for the European Union at the highest level and, in the specific context of withdrawal, to establish, in the form of guidelines, its framework. They may commit the European Union in the most solemn manner. European Council conclusions therefore constitute part of the context in which an international agreement, such as the Withdrawal Agreement, will be interpreted.
As for the link between the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration, to which you make reference in your letter, it can be made clear that these two documents, while being of a different nature, are part of the same negotiated package. In order to underline the close relationship between the two texts, they can be published side by side in the Official Journal in a manner reflecting the link between the two as provided for in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).
So it's sort-of legally binding.
In practice it's not an issue anyway - it's blindingly obvious to anyone who has actually looked at the backstop that the EU certainly wouldn't want it to endure, and would much prefer it never to be triggered.0 -
Tories have always been lying cheating rats.DanSmith said:
https://twitter.com/joe_oliver/status/1084599583555178496Alistair said:I'm seeing chat that May voted for a Conservative ammendment to the Government of Wales bill that would have withdrawn the bill during its passage through the House.
Anyone got a link to proposed ammemdments and voting records thereof so that I can check this huge if true claim?
I can see from the hansard record that the ammendment was proposed but I do not know if it went anywhere.
https://twitter.com/joe_oliver/status/10846031356398673940 -
Last thing Murry needed was a five-setter.......OldKingCole said:
And holds his serve to love in the next. Murray 1-3 down now.David_Evershed said:
But Bautista Agut breaks Murray's serve in the fifth set.OldKingCole said:Murray up to 2-2
0 -
Would have thought that would have improved herMarqueeMark said:
Yeah, she's been looking awful in those weekend photos.....Pulpstar said:The PM seems to have put on about 8 stone and grown a moustache.
0 -
Yeah right. If that was the case they could resolve a lot of upset by removing it.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, it would give us complete cover to renege on our side of the deal without losing international credibility.DavidL said:
Let's put it this way, if they subsequently tried to say it wasn't we could quite happily tell them to do one.Richard_Nabavi said:
That's not quite true, they do say this:grabcocque said:May said that the month delay on the MV was to obtain a legally-binding guarantee of an end date to the backstop and a way for the UK to derogate from it.
What she's achieved is a statement from Juncker and Tusk that the EU is in no position to offer either of those things, and a recapitulation of the existing withdrawal agreement.
In this context, it can be stated that European Council conclusions have a legal value in the Union commensurate to the authority of the European Council under the Treaties to define directions and priorities for the European Union at the highest level and, in the specific context of withdrawal, to establish, in the form of guidelines, its framework. They may commit the European Union in the most solemn manner. European Council conclusions therefore constitute part of the context in which an international agreement, such as the Withdrawal Agreement, will be interpreted.
As for the link between the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration, to which you make reference in your letter, it can be made clear that these two documents, while being of a different nature, are part of the same negotiated package. In order to underline the close relationship between the two texts, they can be published side by side in the Official Journal in a manner reflecting the link between the two as provided for in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).
So it's sort-of legally binding.
In practice it's not an issue anyway - it's blindingly obvious to anyone who has actually looked at the backstop that the EU certainly wouldn't want it to endure, and would much prefer it never to be triggered.0 -
By far the best part of the WA is that we are getting unrestricted access to the SM, with control of borders for immigration without paying into the pot as other countries do. There are downsides as well but that part of the agreement is not what the EU is going to want long term.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, it would give us complete cover to renege on our side of the deal without losing international credibility.DavidL said:
Let's put it this way, if they subsequently tried to say it wasn't we could quite happily tell them to do one.Richard_Nabavi said:
That's not quite true, they do say this:grabcocque said:May said that the month delay on the MV was to obtain a legally-binding guarantee of an end date to the backstop and a way for the UK to derogate from it.
What she's achieved is a statement from Juncker and Tusk that the EU is in no position to offer either of those things, and a recapitulation of the existing withdrawal agreement.
In this context, it can be stated that European Council conclusions have a legal value in the Union commensurate to the authority of the European Council under the Treaties to define directions and priorities for the European Union at the highest level and, in the specific context of withdrawal, to establish, in the form of guidelines, its framework. They may commit the European Union in the most solemn manner. European Council conclusions therefore constitute part of the context in which an international agreement, such as the Withdrawal Agreement, will be interpreted.
As for the link between the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration, to which you make reference in your letter, it can be made clear that these two documents, while being of a different nature, are part of the same negotiated package. In order to underline the close relationship between the two texts, they can be published side by side in the Official Journal in a manner reflecting the link between the two as provided for in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).
So it's sort-of legally binding.
In practice it's not an issue anyway - it's blindingly obvious to anyone who has actually looked at the backstop that the EU certainly wouldn't want it to endure, and would much prefer it never to be triggered.0 -
Just listening to the commentary. Sounds like Murray is battling and all credit to him for that. Amazing that a half (if that) fit Murray can still take an Open opponent to five sets.0
-
1-4 now. Surely we're approaching the end. However, we've been here before with Murray.0
-
A wonderful example of the 'anything the EU does must by definition be evil' mindset.Philip_Thompson said:Yeah right. If that was the case they could resolve a lot of upset by removing it.
0 -
Sean_F said:
I think that for some people, the very fact that an agreement was reached makes it unacceptable.grabcocque said:
You're right, of course. The withdrawal agreement is a totem. It doesn't need to be read, it just needs to exist.Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, it's fair enough to restate it, given that no-one seems to have actually read the Withdrawal Agreement.grabcocque said:I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that Theresa May wasted a month of everyone's time and all she has to show for it are these letters that simply restate what the Withdrawal Agreement already says.
NOTHING, as somebody wise once said, HAS CHANGED.
Of course, the fact that May still believes that all she had to do was help Parliament understand how to read the document properly with suitable clarifications and assurances and everyone would fall in line, suggests that she does not realise at all at how the WA has become totemic.
Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
The future arrangement is yet to be agreed so nothing is agreed - or shouldn't be.0 -
It's complicated. EUCO decisions are not laws, they're not even really EU documents, they're actually diplomatic communiques issued on behalf of member states. The Council is explicitly intergovernmental, and its decisions derive their authority from being the expressed will of the governments of the member states.
Lisbon says EUCO decisions set a policy direction for the Union and provide the impetus for its development. But the Council is not part of the EU's lawmaking machinery, and its decisions do not force the Union to act in any particular way.0 -
Yes, I bet. If May really is done for, and if Brexit really is screwed, one thing is by far and away the biggest reason for that - her calling of and then botching the 2017 GE.OldKingCole said:Agree with last para. Also I suspect that May would take a majority of one as enough!
I don't buy any of the shtick that she could have got a better or more popular deal by being tougher with the EU (a Brexiteer unicorn) or by reaching out earlier across the House and building a consensus for a softer Brexit (a Remainer unicorn).0 -
Yes, but saying ‘the legitimacy of the institution has never been seriously questioned’ when your own party fought an election trying to get rid of it is a strange statement: is she saying that Tory manifesto aspirations aren’t serious?tlg86 said:
I agree that doesn't look good for her. But my point was the one around the Tories having a referendum on Welsh Devolution in their 2005 manifesto.Polruan said:
AIUI she also voted against establishing the Assembly, despite the referendum result. Also, her ‘nobody seriously questioned’ comment is pretty broad.tlg86 said:
Not really analogous, is it? By the time of the 2001 GE (let alone 2005), the Welsh Assembly was up and running. No one has ever said that a political party should be prevented from pledging to rejoin the EU (with or without a referendum) after Brexit.SouthamObserver said:Presumably, May being a bare-faced liar has been done on here already:
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/1084602078419476482?s=210 -
Yes, the irony is that the backstop would be a fantastic deal for the UK.DavidL said:
By far the best part of the WA is that we are getting unrestricted access to the SM, with control of borders for immigration without paying into the pot as other countries do. There are downsides as well but that part of the agreement is not what the EU is going to want long term.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, it would give us complete cover to renege on our side of the deal without losing international credibility.DavidL said:
Let's put it this way, if they subsequently tried to say it wasn't we could quite happily tell them to do one.Richard_Nabavi said:
That's not quite true, they do say this:grabcocque said:May said that the month delay on the MV was to obtain a legally-binding guarantee of an end date to the backstop and a way for the UK to derogate from it.
What she's achieved is a statement from Juncker and Tusk that the EU is in no position to offer either of those things, and a recapitulation of the existing withdrawal agreement.
In this context, it can be stated that European Council conclusions have a legal value in the Union commensurate to the authority of the European Council under the Treaties to define directions and priorities for the European Union at the highest level and, in the specific context of withdrawal, to establish, in the form of guidelines, its framework. They may commit the European Union in the most solemn manner. European Council conclusions therefore constitute part of the context in which an international agreement, such as the Withdrawal Agreement, will be interpreted.
As for the link between the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration, to which you make reference in your letter, it can be made clear that these two documents, while being of a different nature, are part of the same negotiated package. In order to underline the close relationship between the two texts, they can be published side by side in the Official Journal in a manner reflecting the link between the two as provided for in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).
So it's sort-of legally binding.
In practice it's not an issue anyway - it's blindingly obvious to anyone who has actually looked at the backstop that the EU certainly wouldn't want it to endure, and would much prefer it never to be triggered.0 -
It is and always has been cherry-picking which is why the EU dislikes it so much.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, the irony is that the backstop would be a fantastic deal for the UK.DavidL said:
By far the best part of the WA is that we are getting unrestricted access to the SM, with control of borders for immigration without paying into the pot as other countries do. There are downsides as well but that part of the agreement is not what the EU is going to want long term.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, it would give us complete cover to renege on our side of the deal without losing international credibility.DavidL said:
Let's put it this way, if they subsequently tried to say it wasn't we could quite happily tell them to do one.Richard_Nabavi said:
That's not quite true, they do say this:grabcocque said:May said that the month delay on the MV was to obtain a legally-binding guarantee of an end date to the backstop and a way for the UK to derogate from it.
What she's achieved is a statement from Juncker and Tusk that the EU is in no position to offer either of those things, and a recapitulation of the existing withdrawal agreement.
In this context, it can be stated that European Council conclusions have a legal value in the Union commensurate to the authority of the European Council under the Treaties to define directions and priorities for the European Union at the highest level and, in the specific context of withdrawal, to establish, in the form of guidelines, its framework. They may commit the European Union in the most solemn manner. European Council conclusions therefore constitute part of the context in which an international agreement, such as the Withdrawal Agreement, will be interpreted.
As for the link between the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration, to which you make reference in your letter, it can be made clear that these two documents, while being of a different nature, are part of the same negotiated package. In order to underline the close relationship between the two texts, they can be published side by side in the Official Journal in a manner reflecting the link between the two as provided for in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).
So it's sort-of legally binding.
In practice it's not an issue anyway - it's blindingly obvious to anyone who has actually looked at the backstop that the EU certainly wouldn't want it to endure, and would much prefer it never to be triggered.IdiotsLeavers have almost universally failed to understand this0 -
Which should have been negotiated in parallel with the Withdrawal agreement.Philip_Thompson said:
No of course not. The backstop is awful and establishes a hard border in the Irish Sea.TOPPING said:.
Phew thank goodness. So you are a WA fan! There will be more joy in heaven over one sinner...Philip_Thompson said:
Quite right.TOPPING said:
"...No UK Government would risk that progress, including by willingly allowing a hard border to re-emerge."Philip_Thompson said:
No it is one unreasonable party and one craven coward trying to foist an unacceptable backstop that Parliament is reasonably blocking.Richard_Nabavi said:
The trouble is that it is two reasonable parties confirming to each other their reasonable agreement, but the obstacle is unreasonable MPs refusing to accept that it is a reasonable agreement. It's hard to see this changing things significantly, but equally most of the so-called alternatives being banded about by MPs and opposition parties wouldn't change anything either.TOPPING said:
From Tezza's letter the two stand out points for me:Richard_Nabavi said:*** The Tusk and May letters on the backstop ***
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/770770/Letter_from_the_Prime_Minister_to_President_Juncker_and_President_Tusk.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/770771/Response_from_President_Juncker_and_President_Tusk_to_the_Prime_Minister.pdf
First, this seems to limit the ability of the EU to head off into the sunset with NI in its jetstream following ever more and esoteric EU rules: "The Agreement is also clear that any new act that the Union proposes should be added to the Protocol will require the agreement of the United Kingdom in the Joint Committee."
But the most important part of the letter, a point often and idiotically ignored or misunderstood by most No Dealers is as follows:
"...The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement and is successor agreements are an achievement the UK Government is deeply committed to sustaining and that is the majority view in UK politics by an overwhelming margin. No UK Government would risk that progress, including by willingly allowing a hard border to re-emerge."
The PM herself said that no PM could agree to a border in the Irish Sea but her own Attorney General has already confirmed in his frank legal advice she tried to hide that this backstop creates one.
The solution is as it always has been a trade deal.
And still can be after a No Deal Bexit first.0 -
AnyonePulpstar said:
I don't understand this line, paralysis would imply no primary legislation being able to be moved. If no primary legislation can be moved then we leave without a deal on 29th March.TOPPING said:Paralysis in parliament risks no Brexit "most likely."
Wowee!
Can someone explain the mechanisms to me of how parliament can force that off the table without the acquiescence of the Gov't ?
? 0 -
Murray 1-5 down now, and it's Bautista Agut's service0
-
I think she could have peeled off a handful of Labour MPs had she reached out, but there was no chance that Corbyn would ever agree to anything she came up with (why should he?) let alone the Lib Dems or SNP.kinabalu said:
Yes, I bet. If May really is done for, and if Brexit really is screwed, one thing is by far and away the biggest reason for that - her calling of and then botching the 2017 GE.OldKingCole said:Agree with last para. Also I suspect that May would take a majority of one as enough!
I don't buy any of the shtick that she could have got a better or more popular deal by being tougher with the EU (a Brexiteer unicorn) or by reaching out earlier across the House and building a consensus for a softer Brexit (a Remainer unicorn).0 -
Not at all.Richard_Nabavi said:
A wonderful example of the 'anything the EU does must by definition be evil' mindset.Philip_Thompson said:Yeah right. If that was the case they could resolve a lot of upset by removing it.
I'm saying what the EU does here is what they want to do.
You wish away the backstop by pretending it is unimportant and not what the EU wants.
I see how the EU have fought vigorously for this, jeopardised the entire deal to ensure they get it and spent the last 18 months dominated on this.
Reality unlike your pretence is the EU have shown they want the backstop by their deeds.0 -
And there we go. The press should crucify May for this, and every hard Bexiter who voted Aye like the hypocrites they are.DanSmith said:
https://twitter.com/joe_oliver/status/1084599583555178496Alistair said:I'm seeing chat that May voted for a Conservative ammendment to the Government of Wales bill that would have withdrawn the bill during its passage through the House.
Anyone got a link to proposed ammemdments and voting records thereof so that I can check this huge if true claim?
I can see from the hansard record that the ammendment was proposed but I do not know if it went anywhere.
https://twitter.com/joe_oliver/status/10846031356398673940 -
The EU will offer nothing, not as long as a re-run of the referendum is an option. It's always their default position.0
-
LOL.DanSmith said:
https://twitter.com/joe_oliver/status/1084599583555178496Alistair said:I'm seeing chat that May voted for a Conservative ammendment to the Government of Wales bill that would have withdrawn the bill during its passage through the House.
Anyone got a link to proposed ammemdments and voting records thereof so that I can check this huge if true claim?
I can see from the hansard record that the ammendment was proposed but I do not know if it went anywhere.
https://twitter.com/joe_oliver/status/10846031356398673940 -
Well not this one and rather more importantly not the likes of Gove or even Fox (so it really can't be that complicated). But if the deal is rejected by a substantial majority tomorrow I fear that will be it.0 -
They think it's an insurance policy, or (more to the point) Ireland does, and the other 26 states are taking the side of their own fellow member state. I happen to think they have misjudged this, but that doesn't alter the fact that the backstop is most definitely something that they don't want to happen, as it drives a coach and horses through their four freedoms and their principle that full access to the SM requires payment into the budget.Philip_Thompson said:
Not at all.Richard_Nabavi said:
A wonderful example of the 'anything the EU does must by definition be evil' mindset.Philip_Thompson said:Yeah right. If that was the case they could resolve a lot of upset by removing it.
I'm saying what the EU does here is what they want to do.
You wish away the backstop by pretending it is unimportant and not what the EU wants.
I see how the EU have fought vigorously for this, jeopardised the entire deal to ensure they get it and spent the last 18 months dominated on this.
Reality unlike your pretence is the EU have shown they want the backstop by their deeds.0 -
Except we won't have full access to the SM in the backstop will we?Richard_Nabavi said:
They think it's an insurance policy, or (more to the point) Ireland does, and the other 26 states are taking the side of their own member. I happen to think they have misjudged this, but that doesn't alter to fact that the backstop is most definitely something that they don't want to happen, as it drives a coach and horses through their four freedoms and their principle that full access to the SM requires payment into the budget.Philip_Thompson said:
Not at all.Richard_Nabavi said:
A wonderful example of the 'anything the EU does must by definition be evil' mindset.Philip_Thompson said:Yeah right. If that was the case they could resolve a lot of upset by removing it.
I'm saying what the EU does here is what they want to do.
You wish away the backstop by pretending it is unimportant and not what the EU wants.
I see how the EU have fought vigorously for this, jeopardised the entire deal to ensure they get it and spent the last 18 months dominated on this.
Reality unlike your pretence is the EU have shown they want the backstop by their deeds.
Will our financial firms in London have a financial passport while in the backstop because of the backstop?0 -
I think it’s easiest to understand if you assume that there might not be an overlap between ‘May says it’ and ‘it’s true’.Pulpstar said:
AnyonePulpstar said:
I don't understand this line, paralysis would imply no primary legislation being able to be moved. If no primary legislation can be moved then we leave without a deal on 29th March.TOPPING said:Paralysis in parliament risks no Brexit "most likely."
Wowee!
Can someone explain the mechanisms to me of how parliament can force that off the table without the acquiescence of the Gov't ? ?
Parliamentary paralysis would indeed mean we hit no deal, with massive gaps in our legislative preparedness to boot. A parliamentary majority overriding the government, and the government not having the decency to resign *could* mean Parliament finding ways to pass legislation but the exact route isn’t yet clear. In the end a majority can amend the standing orders of the House, so most things can flow from there.0 -
It looks like Andrew Selous will vote for the WA (which doesn't surprise me, but he was on Con Home's list of possibles).
Edit: Confirmed. https://www.facebook.com/AndrewSelousMP/?ref=settings
0 -
I'm going to guess that they also voted against the legislation for the Welsh referendum in the first place so it's not quite as hypocritical as those MPs who voted for the EU referendum but don't want to implement the result.Alistair said:
And there we go. The press should crucify May for this, and every hard Bexiter who voted Aye like the hypocrites they are.DanSmith said:
https://twitter.com/joe_oliver/status/1084599583555178496Alistair said:I'm seeing chat that May voted for a Conservative ammendment to the Government of Wales bill that would have withdrawn the bill during its passage through the House.
Anyone got a link to proposed ammemdments and voting records thereof so that I can check this huge if true claim?
I can see from the hansard record that the ammendment was proposed but I do not know if it went anywhere.
https://twitter.com/joe_oliver/status/10846031356398673940 -
I don't think that's news. There are other MPs whose decisions are more in doubt, including some who have yet to give any indication at all.Sean_F said:
It looks like Andrew Selous will vote for the WA (which doesn't surprise me, but he was on Con Home's list of possibles).0 -
It is hard to see how she can carry on if the deal goes down by a big margin.DavidL said:I don't know if I am just worn down by this chaos but I seriously wonder if we are in the last week of May's Premiership in anything other than a caretaker capacity. She has run out of road and if her deal is rejected by 150+ tomorrow, which seems all too likely, she surely has to go.
0 -
You are right, it is for goods only, so Brexiteers in particular should be delighted by it as it means we can set our own regulations on financial services, just like in the 'Canada+' deal they claim they want.Philip_Thompson said:
Except we won't have full access to the SM in the backstop will we?Richard_Nabavi said:
They think it's an insurance policy, or (more to the point) Ireland does, and the other 26 states are taking the side of their own member. I happen to think they have misjudged this, but that doesn't alter to fact that the backstop is most definitely something that they don't want to happen, as it drives a coach and horses through their four freedoms and their principle that full access to the SM requires payment into the budget.Philip_Thompson said:
Not at all.Richard_Nabavi said:
A wonderful example of the 'anything the EU does must by definition be evil' mindset.Philip_Thompson said:Yeah right. If that was the case they could resolve a lot of upset by removing it.
I'm saying what the EU does here is what they want to do.
You wish away the backstop by pretending it is unimportant and not what the EU wants.
I see how the EU have fought vigorously for this, jeopardised the entire deal to ensure they get it and spent the last 18 months dominated on this.
Reality unlike your pretence is the EU have shown they want the backstop by their deeds.
Will our financial firms in London have a financial passport while in the backstop because of the backstop?0 -
That's the bizarre thing. In that last respect, May got a deal that was better than many were expecting. Yet it was instantly trashed by much of her own party.Richard_Nabavi said:
They think it's an insurance policy, or (more to the point) Ireland does, and the other 26 states are taking the side of their own fellow member state. I happen to think they have misjudged this, but that doesn't alter the fact that the backstop is most definitely something that they don't want to happen, as it drives a coach and horses through their four freedoms and their principle that full access to the SM requires payment into the budget.Philip_Thompson said:
Not at all.Richard_Nabavi said:
A wonderful example of the 'anything the EU does must by definition be evil' mindset.Philip_Thompson said:Yeah right. If that was the case they could resolve a lot of upset by removing it.
I'm saying what the EU does here is what they want to do.
You wish away the backstop by pretending it is unimportant and not what the EU wants.
I see how the EU have fought vigorously for this, jeopardised the entire deal to ensure they get it and spent the last 18 months dominated on this.
Reality unlike your pretence is the EU have shown they want the backstop by their deeds.0 -
I am sure that is the case but with no clear and certain way to exit the backstop,there is no good reason to enter the WA even if it otherwise had merit, which is debatable to say the least. The fact that the EU have sided with Eire in the negotiations is perfectly natural and understandable. It doesn’t however provide any reason for us to enter into it. It suits ROI not us.Richard_Nabavi said:
They think it's an insurance policy, or (more to the point) Ireland does, and the other 26 states are taking the side of their own fellow member state. I happen to think they have misjudged this, but that doesn't alter to fact that the backstop is most definitely something that they don't want to happen, as it drives a coach and horses through their four freedoms and their principle that full access to the SM requires payment into the budget.Philip_Thompson said:
Not at all.Richard_Nabavi said:
A wonderful example of the 'anything the EU does must by definition be evil' mindset.Philip_Thompson said:Yeah right. If that was the case they could resolve a lot of upset by removing it.
I'm saying what the EU does here is what they want to do.
You wish away the backstop by pretending it is unimportant and not what the EU wants.
I see how the EU have fought vigorously for this, jeopardised the entire deal to ensure they get it and spent the last 18 months dominated on this.
Reality unlike your pretence is the EU have shown they want the backstop by their deeds.
I think Philip’s point about how hard the EU have fought for the backstop, at the risk of jeopardising all else, means it would be foolish to rely on the assurance of a non binding letter.
0 -
And how does that help anythinganothernick said:
It is hard to see how she can carry on if the deal goes down by a big margin.DavidL said:I don't know if I am just worn down by this chaos but I seriously wonder if we are in the last week of May's Premiership in anything other than a caretaker capacity. She has run out of road and if her deal is rejected by 150+ tomorrow, which seems all too likely, she surely has to go.
0 -
And further, we know they'd all be pushing for a further vote now, had it been 52-48 Remain, because they told us so in the days before the 2016 one.Alistair said:
And there we go. The press should crucify May for this, and every hard Bexiter who voted Aye like the hypocrites they are.DanSmith said:
https://twitter.com/joe_oliver/status/1084599583555178496Alistair said:I'm seeing chat that May voted for a Conservative ammendment to the Government of Wales bill that would have withdrawn the bill during its passage through the House.
Anyone got a link to proposed ammemdments and voting records thereof so that I can check this huge if true claim?
I can see from the hansard record that the ammendment was proposed but I do not know if it went anywhere.
https://twitter.com/joe_oliver/status/10846031356398673940 -
Shameless, mendacious and hypocritical. God bless the Buccaneering Brexiteers and our Prime Minister ...
https://twitter.com/stevepeers/status/1084607886095982592?s=210 -
Murray out!0
-
So what should happen instead?Big_G_NorthWales said:
And how does that help anythinganothernick said:
It is hard to see how she can carry on if the deal goes down by a big margin.DavidL said:I don't know if I am just worn down by this chaos but I seriously wonder if we are in the last week of May's Premiership in anything other than a caretaker capacity. She has run out of road and if her deal is rejected by 150+ tomorrow, which seems all too likely, she surely has to go.
0 -
anothernick said:
It is hard to see how she can carry on if the deal goes down by a big margin.DavidL said:I don't know if I am just worn down by this chaos but I seriously wonder if we are in the last week of May's Premiership in anything other than a caretaker capacity. She has run out of road and if her deal is rejected by 150+ tomorrow, which seems all too likely, she surely has to go.
Have you not being following how Mrs May works?
She will announce a new trip to Brussels and a new vote in a week or two's time.
There'll be a row, because precedence says you can't put same vote again in same session, but she'll argue there has been some minor textual change imho.0 -
May's no buccaneer.SouthamObserver said:Shameless, mendacious and hypocritical. God bless the Buccaneering Brexiteers and our Prime Minister ...
https://twitter.com/stevepeers/status/1084607886095982592?s=210 -
Let’s hope so.DavidL said:I don't know if I am just worn down by this chaos but I seriously wonder if we are in the last week of May's Premiership in anything other than a caretaker capacity. She has run out of road and if her deal is rejected by 150+ tomorrow, which seems all too likely, she surely has to go.
0 -
Bring on Remain!AmpfieldAndy said:
Let’s hope so.DavidL said:I don't know if I am just worn down by this chaos but I seriously wonder if we are in the last week of May's Premiership in anything other than a caretaker capacity. She has run out of road and if her deal is rejected by 150+ tomorrow, which seems all too likely, she surely has to go.
0 -
I was surprised that he was on the list of waverers.AlastairMeeks said:
I don't think that's news. There are other MPs whose decisions are more in doubt, including some who have yet to give any indication at all.Sean_F said:
It looks like Andrew Selous will vote for the WA (which doesn't surprise me, but he was on Con Home's list of possibles).0 -
In retrospect it should always have been obvious that that would be the case.IanB2 said:That's the bizarre thing. In that last respect, May got a deal that was better than many were expecting. Yet it was instantly trashed by much of her own party.
0 -
OK, this is the sort of stuff I'm looking for - there is a whole bunch ofPolruan said:In the end a majority can amend the standing orders of the House, so most things can flow from there.
duty bound
forced to (When it is not strictly speaking a forcing)
hard to see
can't (When the person putting forward the argument means 'I think they probably won't')
And other stuff being put forward both here and on the twittersphere.
I'm looking for actual concrete mechanisms.0 -
precedence is now deadrottenborough said:anothernick said:
It is hard to see how she can carry on if the deal goes down by a big margin.DavidL said:I don't know if I am just worn down by this chaos but I seriously wonder if we are in the last week of May's Premiership in anything other than a caretaker capacity. She has run out of road and if her deal is rejected by 150+ tomorrow, which seems all too likely, she surely has to go.
Have you not being following how Mrs May works?
She will announce a new trip to Brussels and a new vote in a week or two's time.
There'll be a row, because precedence says you can't put same vote again in same session, but she'll argue there has been some minor textual change imho.0 -
However, the Speaker has now holed "precedence" under the waterline. Sauce for the goose and all that.rottenborough said:anothernick said:
It is hard to see how she can carry on if the deal goes down by a big margin.DavidL said:I don't know if I am just worn down by this chaos but I seriously wonder if we are in the last week of May's Premiership in anything other than a caretaker capacity. She has run out of road and if her deal is rejected by 150+ tomorrow, which seems all too likely, she surely has to go.
Have you not being following how Mrs May works?
She will announce a new trip to Brussels and a new vote in a week or two's time.
There'll be a row, because precedence says you can't put same vote again in same session, but she'll argue there has been some minor textual change imho.0 -
Because she signed a backstop she spent 12 months insisting no PM could sign.Richard_Nabavi said:
In retrospect it should always have been obvious that that would be the case.IanB2 said:That's the bizarre thing. In that last respect, May got a deal that was better than many were expecting. Yet it was instantly trashed by much of her own party.
Had she honoured her own word none of this would be a problem.0 -
Yes, the Welsh referendum example completely blows a hole in the government's 'undemocratic to have a second referendum' argument. To be honest, I'm surprised we hadn't thought of this one before now!!SouthamObserver said:Shameless, mendacious and hypocritical. God bless the Buccaneering Brexiteers and our Prime Minister ...
https://twitter.com/stevepeers/status/1084607886095982592?s=210 -
Hence the “and”.Philip_Thompson said:
May's no buccaneer.SouthamObserver said:Shameless, mendacious and hypocritical. God bless the Buccaneering Brexiteers and our Prime Minister ...
https://twitter.com/stevepeers/status/1084607886095982592?s=21
0 -
I expect that the amendments and the HOC will dictate the way forward and, as said, TM will act in a caretaker capacity until the way forward is agreedPhilip_Thompson said:
So what should happen instead?Big_G_NorthWales said:
And how does that help anythinganothernick said:
It is hard to see how she can carry on if the deal goes down by a big margin.DavidL said:I don't know if I am just worn down by this chaos but I seriously wonder if we are in the last week of May's Premiership in anything other than a caretaker capacity. She has run out of road and if her deal is rejected by 150+ tomorrow, which seems all too likely, she surely has to go.
0 -
I must say it does take a politician of unique talents to make an important day on Brexit into a massive own-goal over some long-forgotten votes on the Welsh Assembly two decades ago.0
-
What have the Buccaneers done wrong here? It is May being a hypocritical liar once again. The Buccaneers voted against her.SouthamObserver said:
Hence the “and”.Philip_Thompson said:
May's no buccaneer.SouthamObserver said:Shameless, mendacious and hypocritical. God bless the Buccaneering Brexiteers and our Prime Minister ...
https://twitter.com/stevepeers/status/1084607886095982592?s=210 -
Don't forget the lectern appearance which will excite everyone greatly for three hours until she stands up and announces NOTHING HAS CHANGED yet again.rottenborough said:anothernick said:
It is hard to see how she can carry on if the deal goes down by a big margin.DavidL said:I don't know if I am just worn down by this chaos but I seriously wonder if we are in the last week of May's Premiership in anything other than a caretaker capacity. She has run out of road and if her deal is rejected by 150+ tomorrow, which seems all too likely, she surely has to go.
Have you not being following how Mrs May works?
She will announce a new trip to Brussels and a new vote in a week or two's time.
There'll be a row, because precedence says you can't put same vote again in same session, but she'll argue there has been some minor textual change imho.0 -
Not really, because its Mr Speaker will get to rule if it's in order for the government to ask the House to vote again.MarqueeMark said:
However, the Speaker has now holed "precedence" under the waterline. Sauce for the goose and all that.
But let's be realistic here, if May's about to get the historically notable galactic-scale shellacking most observers think, bringing it back in its current form is for the birbs.
0 -
Another referendum after we leave is entirely democratic and what the Tories proposed in 2005.Anazina said:
Yes, the Welsh referendum example completely blows a hole in the government's 'undemocratic to have a second referendum' argument. To be honest, I'm surprised we hadn't thought of this one before now!!SouthamObserver said:Shameless, mendacious and hypocritical. God bless the Buccaneering Brexiteers and our Prime Minister ...
https://twitter.com/stevepeers/status/1084607886095982592?s=210 -
Bollocks. The ERGers and your ultra-europhobic ilk would have found a problem somewhere.Philip_Thompson said:
Because she signed a backstop she spent 12 months insisting no PM could sign.Richard_Nabavi said:
In retrospect it should always have been obvious that that would be the case.IanB2 said:That's the bizarre thing. In that last respect, May got a deal that was better than many were expecting. Yet it was instantly trashed by much of her own party.
Had she honoured her own word none of this would be a problem.
As someone beautifully put it, if one turned the Tory Right's water into wine they'd complain about the vintage.0 -
Well said. Sums May up well.Richard_Nabavi said:I must say it does take a politician of unique talents to make an important day on Brexit into a massive own-goal over some long-forgotten votes on the Welsh Assembly two decades ago.
0 -
0
-
Maybe a stupid row about the 2005 welsh assembly campaign is a Dead Cat?Richard_Nabavi said:I must say it does take a politician of unique talents to make an important day on Brexit into a massive own-goal over some long-forgotten votes on the Welsh Assembly two decades ago.
0 -
Richard_Nabavi said:
I must say it does take a politician of unique talents to make an important day on Brexit into a massive own-goal over some long-forgotten votes on the Welsh Assembly two decades ago.
Indeed one can only wonder why someone didn't spot the flaw in the plan.0 -
An alternative is she could come back and amend the MV by adding "subject to approval in a Referendum versus No Deal and Remain (with a consequent extension of A50)".Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect that the amendments and the HOC will dictate the way forward and, as said, TM will act in a caretaker capacity until the way forward is agreedPhilip_Thompson said:
So what should happen instead?Big_G_NorthWales said:
And how does that help anythinganothernick said:
It is hard to see how she can carry on if the deal goes down by a big margin.DavidL said:I don't know if I am just worn down by this chaos but I seriously wonder if we are in the last week of May's Premiership in anything other than a caretaker capacity. She has run out of road and if her deal is rejected by 150+ tomorrow, which seems all too likely, she surely has to go.
That would pass in the HoC imo.
In any event, we won't be exiting on March 29th.0 -
I can think of nothing worseGallowgate said:
Bring on Remain!AmpfieldAndy said:
Let’s hope so.DavidL said:I don't know if I am just worn down by this chaos but I seriously wonder if we are in the last week of May's Premiership in anything other than a caretaker capacity. She has run out of road and if her deal is rejected by 150+ tomorrow, which seems all too likely, she surely has to go.
0 -
Keep kicking that can.rottenborough said:anothernick said:
It is hard to see how she can carry on if the deal goes down by a big margin.DavidL said:I don't know if I am just worn down by this chaos but I seriously wonder if we are in the last week of May's Premiership in anything other than a caretaker capacity. She has run out of road and if her deal is rejected by 150+ tomorrow, which seems all too likely, she surely has to go.
Have you not being following how Mrs May works?
She will announce a new trip to Brussels and a new vote in a week or two's time.
There'll be a row, because precedence says you can't put same vote again in same session, but she'll argue there has been some minor textual change imho. 0 -
My only issue is the backstop same as May's was in the summer of last year.Anazina said:
Bollocks. The ERGers and your ultra-europhobic ilk would have found a problem somewhere.Philip_Thompson said:
Because she signed a backstop she spent 12 months insisting no PM could sign.Richard_Nabavi said:
In retrospect it should always have been obvious that that would be the case.IanB2 said:That's the bizarre thing. In that last respect, May got a deal that was better than many were expecting. Yet it was instantly trashed by much of her own party.
Had she honoured her own word none of this would be a problem.
As someone beautifully put it, if one turned the Tory Right's water into wine they'd complain about the vintage.
I'm not a Europhobe I nearly voted Remain but the backstop is an abomination.0 -
And I can think of nothing better!AmpfieldAndy said:
I can think of nothing worseGallowgate said:
Bring on Remain!AmpfieldAndy said:
Let’s hope so.DavidL said:I don't know if I am just worn down by this chaos but I seriously wonder if we are in the last week of May's Premiership in anything other than a caretaker capacity. She has run out of road and if her deal is rejected by 150+ tomorrow, which seems all too likely, she surely has to go.
0 -
It's also seriously pissing off our counter party in the negotiations. They feel like they've conceded a lot and that it was pointless because it's not being recognised as a concession in the UK.IanB2 said:
That's the bizarre thing. In that last respect, May got a deal that was better than many were expecting. Yet it was instantly trashed by much of her own party.Richard_Nabavi said:
They think it's an insurance policy, or (more to the point) Ireland does, and the other 26 states are taking the side of their own fellow member state. I happen to think they have misjudged this, but that doesn't alter the fact that the backstop is most definitely something that they don't want to happen, as it drives a coach and horses through their four freedoms and their principle that full access to the SM requires payment into the budget.Philip_Thompson said:
Not at all.Richard_Nabavi said:
A wonderful example of the 'anything the EU does must by definition be evil' mindset.Philip_Thompson said:Yeah right. If that was the case they could resolve a lot of upset by removing it.
I'm saying what the EU does here is what they want to do.
You wish away the backstop by pretending it is unimportant and not what the EU wants.
I see how the EU have fought vigorously for this, jeopardised the entire deal to ensure they get it and spent the last 18 months dominated on this.
Reality unlike your pretence is the EU have shown they want the backstop by their deeds.
This gives them no incentive to concede anything to us in any future negotiations.0 -
No deal as an option won't get through the Commons or the Lords.Benpointer said:
An alternative is she could come back and amend the MV by adding "subject to approval in a Referendum versus No Deal and Remain (with a consequent extension of A50)".Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect that the amendments and the HOC will dictate the way forward and, as said, TM will act in a caretaker capacity until the way forward is agreedPhilip_Thompson said:
So what should happen instead?Big_G_NorthWales said:
And how does that help anythinganothernick said:
It is hard to see how she can carry on if the deal goes down by a big margin.DavidL said:I don't know if I am just worn down by this chaos but I seriously wonder if we are in the last week of May's Premiership in anything other than a caretaker capacity. She has run out of road and if her deal is rejected by 150+ tomorrow, which seems all too likely, she surely has to go.
That would pass in the HoC imo.
In any event, we won't be exiting on March 29th.0 -
Probably no one remembered.Anazina said:Richard_Nabavi said:I must say it does take a politician of unique talents to make an important day on Brexit into a massive own-goal over some long-forgotten votes on the Welsh Assembly two decades ago.
Indeed one can only wonder why someone didn't spot the flaw in the plan.0 -
I never knew Salmond was such a champion for women's health issues.Richard_Nabavi said:0 -
I was supposed to be having a meeting with the financial managers of our pension fund tomorrow. It has been delayed until 4th February. I wonder how much use the material prepared for tomorrow will be by then.
The FTSE is down another 1% today but that is broadly in line with other European markets and Sterling is having a reasonable day. When will we see the markets react to the fiasco in the Commons, positively or negatively? It's almost as if this matters a little less economically than some people like to claim.0 -
It's hardly our fault that you have such a limited imagination.AmpfieldAndy said:
I can think of nothing worseGallowgate said:
Bring on Remain!AmpfieldAndy said:
Let’s hope so.DavidL said:I don't know if I am just worn down by this chaos but I seriously wonder if we are in the last week of May's Premiership in anything other than a caretaker capacity. She has run out of road and if her deal is rejected by 150+ tomorrow, which seems all too likely, she surely has to go.
0 -
They've conceded nothing. If they want to concede something then drop the backstop. Some here pretend they don't even want it so it shouldn't be too difficult to do so.OblitusSumMe said:
It's also seriously pissing off our counter party in the negotiations. They feel like they've conceded a lot and that it was pointless because it's not being recognised as a concession in the UK.IanB2 said:
That's the bizarre thing. In that last respect, May got a deal that was better than many were expecting. Yet it was instantly trashed by much of her own party.Richard_Nabavi said:
They think it's an insurance policy, or (more to the point) Ireland does, and the other 26 states are taking the side of their own fellow member state. I happen to think they have misjudged this, but that doesn't alter the fact that the backstop is most definitely something that they don't want to happen, as it drives a coach and horses through their four freedoms and their principle that full access to the SM requires payment into the budget.Philip_Thompson said:
Not at all.Richard_Nabavi said:
A wonderful example of the 'anything the EU does must by definition be evil' mindset.Philip_Thompson said:Yeah right. If that was the case they could resolve a lot of upset by removing it.
I'm saying what the EU does here is what they want to do.
You wish away the backstop by pretending it is unimportant and not what the EU wants.
I see how the EU have fought vigorously for this, jeopardised the entire deal to ensure they get it and spent the last 18 months dominated on this.
Reality unlike your pretence is the EU have shown they want the backstop by their deeds.
This gives them no incentive to concede anything to us in any future negotiations.0 -
Electoral mandates aren’t your thing though are they ?Benpointer said:
And I can think of nothing better!AmpfieldAndy said:
I can think of nothing worseGallowgate said:
Bring on Remain!AmpfieldAndy said:
Let’s hope so.DavidL said:I don't know if I am just worn down by this chaos but I seriously wonder if we are in the last week of May's Premiership in anything other than a caretaker capacity. She has run out of road and if her deal is rejected by 150+ tomorrow, which seems all too likely, she surely has to go.
0 -
Because it is not the same situation. In the case of the Welsh Assembly the original result of the referendum had been enacted and the assembly had been set up in 1999. What is now being proposed is to have a second referendum before the first has even been enacted.Anazina said:
Yes, the Welsh referendum example completely blows a hole in the government's 'undemocratic to have a second referendum' argument. To be honest, I'm surprised we hadn't thought of this one before now!!SouthamObserver said:Shameless, mendacious and hypocritical. God bless the Buccaneering Brexiteers and our Prime Minister ...
https://twitter.com/stevepeers/status/1084607886095982592?s=21
Now I am very happy for you to have another referendum on rejoining the EU in, say, 9 or 10 years which would be exactly the same as what the Tories campaigned for in 2005.0 -
Apart from TM deal, I agreeBenpointer said:
And I can think of nothing better!AmpfieldAndy said:
I can think of nothing worseGallowgate said:
Bring on Remain!AmpfieldAndy said:
Let’s hope so.DavidL said:I don't know if I am just worn down by this chaos but I seriously wonder if we are in the last week of May's Premiership in anything other than a caretaker capacity. She has run out of road and if her deal is rejected by 150+ tomorrow, which seems all too likely, she surely has to go.
Just listened to Marie Caulfield of ERG, they are economic illiterates and a serious threat to all our futures
They have to be stopped0 -
These are, after all, the same people who told remainers that voting against her deal meant "no deal", and told leavers that voting against her deal meant "no brexit", and somehow overlooked that one side could hear what she was saying to the other side.Anazina said:Richard_Nabavi said:I must say it does take a politician of unique talents to make an important day on Brexit into a massive own-goal over some long-forgotten votes on the Welsh Assembly two decades ago.
Indeed one can only wonder why someone didn't spot the flaw in the plan.
Number 10's strong suit is not campaigning.0 -
Old friends, sat on the park bench like bookends.Richard_Nabavi said:0 -
How so? She'll still believe we shouldn't, she may just do it any way through lack of choice.rottenborough said:0 -
Better than lacking all imagination which seems to be your problemIanB2 said:
It's hardly our fault that you have such a limited imagination.AmpfieldAndy said:
I can think of nothing worseGallowgate said:
Bring on Remain!AmpfieldAndy said:
Let’s hope so.DavidL said:I don't know if I am just worn down by this chaos but I seriously wonder if we are in the last week of May's Premiership in anything other than a caretaker capacity. She has run out of road and if her deal is rejected by 150+ tomorrow, which seems all too likely, she surely has to go.
0 -
It has been demonstrated the UK constitution is insufficiently resilient to thick Tories.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Apart from TM deal, I agreeBenpointer said:
And I can think of nothing better!AmpfieldAndy said:
I can think of nothing worseGallowgate said:
Bring on Remain!AmpfieldAndy said:
Let’s hope so.DavidL said:I don't know if I am just worn down by this chaos but I seriously wonder if we are in the last week of May's Premiership in anything other than a caretaker capacity. She has run out of road and if her deal is rejected by 150+ tomorrow, which seems all too likely, she surely has to go.
Just listened to Marie Caulfield of ERG, they are economic illiterates and a serious threat to all our futures
They have to be stopped0 -
Yes, I think you are right on that point. She could offer it but it will be amended out.Philip_Thompson said:
No deal as an option won't get through the Commons or the Lords.Benpointer said:
An alternative is she could come back and amend the MV by adding "subject to approval in a Referendum versus No Deal and Remain (with a consequent extension of A50)".Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect that the amendments and the HOC will dictate the way forward and, as said, TM will act in a caretaker capacity until the way forward is agreedPhilip_Thompson said:
So what should happen instead?Big_G_NorthWales said:
And how does that help anythinganothernick said:
It is hard to see how she can carry on if the deal goes down by a big margin.DavidL said:I don't know if I am just worn down by this chaos but I seriously wonder if we are in the last week of May's Premiership in anything other than a caretaker capacity. She has run out of road and if her deal is rejected by 150+ tomorrow, which seems all too likely, she surely has to go.
That would pass in the HoC imo.
In any event, we won't be exiting on March 29th.
So her offer becomes My Deal versus Remain, which is an easier vote to run (no AV required).
Result could be close but it would be an interesting campaign.
Right now, I think this is what will happen, whether introduced by May, Corbyn, Grieve or whoever.0 -
Indeed. Pile on as much as one is comfortable with on that.Benpointer said:
An alternative is she could come back and amend the MV by adding "subject to approval in a Referendum versus No Deal and Remain (with a consequent extension of A50)".Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect that the amendments and the HOC will dictate the way forward and, as said, TM will act in a caretaker capacity until the way forward is agreedPhilip_Thompson said:
So what should happen instead?Big_G_NorthWales said:
And how does that help anythinganothernick said:
It is hard to see how she can carry on if the deal goes down by a big margin.DavidL said:I don't know if I am just worn down by this chaos but I seriously wonder if we are in the last week of May's Premiership in anything other than a caretaker capacity. She has run out of road and if her deal is rejected by 150+ tomorrow, which seems all too likely, she surely has to go.
That would pass in the HoC imo.
In any event, we won't be exiting on March 29th.0 -
That is a variation on my early suggestion that the HOC will amend the deal to subject to a deal/ remain referendum and TM will enact the legislation on a cross party basis and effectively head a GNUBenpointer said:
An alternative is she could come back and amend the MV by adding "subject to approval in a Referendum versus No Deal and Remain (with a consequent extension of A50)".Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect that the amendments and the HOC will dictate the way forward and, as said, TM will act in a caretaker capacity until the way forward is agreedPhilip_Thompson said:
So what should happen instead?Big_G_NorthWales said:
And how does that help anythinganothernick said:
It is hard to see how she can carry on if the deal goes down by a big margin.DavidL said:I don't know if I am just worn down by this chaos but I seriously wonder if we are in the last week of May's Premiership in anything other than a caretaker capacity. She has run out of road and if her deal is rejected by 150+ tomorrow, which seems all too likely, she surely has to go.
That would pass in the HoC imo.
In any event, we won't be exiting on March 29th.0
