politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On this day lets not forget the 1998 Good Friday Agreement tha
Comments
-
Instantaneously.RobD said:
I wonder how quick they’d be booted out of the party.Gardenwalker said:
As predicted. But Parliament should not let her get away with it. It is a negligent running down of the clock.eek said:Old news but in case it wasn't posted. Plan B is just try again https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1085170937358700544
If I were a Tory Remainer I would seriously consider supporting a VONC if she responds with “Nothing has Changed”.
The Conservatives should be expelling the rebel remainers from the party in order to appoint new Conservative candidates in their constituencies in readiness for a general election to get more Leave MPs in place.0 -
Has John Mann announced his intentions yet ?AlastairMeeks said:
He was in my "expected" category to vote for the deal. I haven't yet seen what Kelvin Hopkins is planning.AmpfieldAndy said:Frank Field says he will support the deal. Surprised at that.
John Woodcock is against, which surprised me a bit.0 -
Except those other two conditions quoted earlier. If we were never serious about it it isn't an unequivocal revocation.Danny565 said:
On what grounds would the EU Commission challenge it? They'd have to prove it was against the UK's "constitutional requirements", since that was the only caveat to our right to revoke.RobD said:
You really think after revoking and invoking after five minutes that the EU Commission wouldn't challenge that at the ECJ?Danny565 said:
Eh? It would be unequivocal and unconditional. No-one's suggesting we'd say "we revoke Article 50, only on condition that our contributions to the EU Budget are reduced".RobD said:
No, it's not. It needs to be "unequivocal and unconditional". I wouldn't call revoking for five minutes unequivocal.Danny565 said:
Well, quite - so in effect our right to revoke A50 is absolute, even if we were to re-invoke it just 5 minutes later.notme2 said:
Our 'Constitutional Requirements' are whatever the last person got away with.Danny565 said:
That's wrong. The advocate general's recommendation was that we shouldn't be able to revoke, only to re-invoke later -- but the ECJ's final ruling rejected that recommendation. The ECJ's only caveat to our right to revoke A50 was that it had to be within the UK's own constitutional requirements.eek said:
I think it was stated earlier that we can't revoke just to decide how to leaveGardenwalker said:I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country.
It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.0 -
He's for, I believe.Pulpstar said:
Has John Mann announced his intentions yet ?AlastairMeeks said:
He was in my "expected" category to vote for the deal. I haven't yet seen what Kelvin Hopkins is planning.AmpfieldAndy said:Frank Field says he will support the deal. Surprised at that.
John Woodcock is against, which surprised me a bit.
https://news.sky.com/story/labour-mp-john-mann-set-to-break-ranks-and-back-pms-brexit-deal-116065020 -
"There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it."notme2 said:
WTF is a "vote leave commitment"?AmpfieldAndy said:
It was a Vote Leave commitment in the campaign. May didn’t have to honour that. She saw it as the only way to stop freedom of movement, which it is, but then she only ever saw the referendum result in terms of stopping freedom of movement.notme2 said:
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken by the Prime Minister when she took office.AmpfieldAndy said:grabcocque said:Lest we forget
Hannan’s Interest has only ever been trade. Nothing wrong with that but negotiating trade deals with others if you’re bound by the SM regs would be a challenge.
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken early on in the campaign, by Gove I think, precisely to facilitate trade deals with other countries.
What could this possibly be describing if not the EEA?0 -
The referendum campaign obviously passed you by.notme2 said:
WTF is a "vote leave commitment"?AmpfieldAndy said:
It was a Vote Leave commitment in the campaign. May didn’t have to honour that. She saw it as the only way to stop freedom of movement, which it is, but then she only ever saw the referendum result in terms of stopping freedom of movement.notme2 said:
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken by the Prime Minister when she took office.AmpfieldAndy said:grabcocque said:Lest we forget
Hannan’s Interest has only ever been trade. Nothing wrong with that but negotiating trade deals with others if you’re bound by the SM regs would be a challenge.
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken early on in the campaign, by Gove I think, precisely to facilitate trade deals with other countries.0 -
I emailed him to vote for it. But now this is costing us a few pennies... sorry about that ^^;AlastairMeeks said:
He's for, I believe.Pulpstar said:
Has John Mann announced his intentions yet ?AlastairMeeks said:
He was in my "expected" category to vote for the deal. I haven't yet seen what Kelvin Hopkins is planning.AmpfieldAndy said:Frank Field says he will support the deal. Surprised at that.
John Woodcock is against, which surprised me a bit.
https://news.sky.com/story/labour-mp-john-mann-set-to-break-ranks-and-back-pms-brexit-deal-116065020 -
I wonder if the Mays have packed.0
-
He said on Sky on sunday he will be voting for the deal and does not expect to be the only one from labourPulpstar said:
Has John Mann announced his intentions yet ?AlastairMeeks said:
He was in my "expected" category to vote for the deal. I haven't yet seen what Kelvin Hopkins is planning.AmpfieldAndy said:Frank Field says he will support the deal. Surprised at that.
John Woodcock is against, which surprised me a bit.0 -
0
-
It's not a non-story. It's one of several (we will not run out of medicines, there will be enough food after March 29th) the need for which, if only to dismiss the premise, is mind-boggling.Richard_Nabavi said:
It's millions of people in the EU27/EEA countries who might not be able to claim - and that is because the EU has screwed up.Beverley_C said:
Is there ANY section of life in which Brexit does not cause a balls-up? Seriously??Scott_P said:
And hordes of people still think that this shambles of an idea is a good one?
Unbelievable!!
In practice I can't see it being a problem, the EU will just extend a blanket extension to the authorisations, so it's probably a non-story.0 -
Yes it is. Again you seem to be basing your arguments on what the advocate general said, as opposed to what the ECJ said -- revoking Article 50 only "unequivocally and unconditionally" brings that particular withdrawal process to an end, it doesn't require a pledge of lifelong loyalty to the EU.RobD said:
Except those other two conditions quoted earlier. If we were never serious about it it isn't an unequivocal revocation.Danny565 said:
On what grounds would the EU Commission challenge it? They'd have to prove it was against the UK's "constitutional requirements", since that was the only caveat to our right to revoke.RobD said:
You really think after revoking and invoking after five minutes that the EU Commission wouldn't challenge that at the ECJ?Danny565 said:
Eh? It would be unequivocal and unconditional. No-one's suggesting we'd say "we revoke Article 50, only on condition that our contributions to the EU Budget are reduced".RobD said:
No, it's not. It needs to be "unequivocal and unconditional". I wouldn't call revoking for five minutes unequivocal.Danny565 said:
Well, quite - so in effect our right to revoke A50 is absolute, even if we were to re-invoke it just 5 minutes later.notme2 said:
Our 'Constitutional Requirements' are whatever the last person got away with.Danny565 said:
That's wrong. The advocate general's recommendation was that we shouldn't be able to revoke, only to re-invoke later -- but the ECJ's final ruling rejected that recommendation. The ECJ's only caveat to our right to revoke A50 was that it had to be within the UK's own constitutional requirements.eek said:
I think it was stated earlier that we can't revoke just to decide how to leaveGardenwalker said:I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country.
It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.0 -
Watching the convoluted speeches from utterly committed remainers claiming that somehow their objection based on some technicality. If that technicality wasnt there, they would find another.
Those dumb witted leavers who have been told that it is Brexit In Name Only, and believe it. One MP just said that we should respect the decision, but that the WA had us half in and half out. Seriously, this is a pretty darn hard and clean brexit. We arent half in and half out. On that basis there's absolutely no Brexit agreement he could sign up to that didnt involve us building a wall at Dover.
Utter cretins. And those leavers who are going to vote against it because they think they might get an even harder brexist? You clueless muppets you are going to lose everything you have fought for decades.0 -
Not curious, because isn’t that basically just the Dunning–Kruger effect in action.Anorak said:Very interesting article. Can be applied to lots of other areas, including evolution and (maybe) Brexit.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/14/gm-foods-scientific-ignorance-fuels-extremist-views-study
The results from more than 2,500 respondents revealed the curious trend. “What we found is that as the extremity of opposition increased, objective knowledge went down, but self-assessed knowledge went up,” Fernbach said.
“The extremists are more poorly calibrated. If you don’t know much, it’s hard to assess how much you know,” Fernbach added. “The feeling of understanding that they have then stops them from learning the truth. Extremism can be perverse in that way.”0 -
I remember reading a private members bill put up in the Lords that simply stated that the FTPA was repealed. They forgot that the FTPA also repealed the Septennial Act, and therefore it would have meant parliament did not have a finite duration, rendering elections purely optional.rpjs said:
You can’t restore an extinguished prerogative but I would have thought some form of words along the lines of “Her Majesty, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, may make anRobD said:
A damn shame the Tories didn't get a majority at the last election - it would have been ditched (although quite how you close pandora's box wrt the prerogative is beyond me).Alanbrooke said:
once again the inadequacies of the FTPA come to the foreBeverley_C said:I like the way people are talking like an 80 vote defeat is a victory. What comes next? Redefining black as white? Wet as dry?
A defeat of 80 is still a defeat. And a big one.
order-in-council to dissolve Parliament” would do the trick.0 -
No, I'm basing it on the use of those two terms in the actual judgement. It's not an unequivocal declaration if you know you are going to renege on it in a few minutes.Danny565 said:
Yes it is. Again you seem to be basing your arguments on what the advocate general said, as opposed to what the ECJ said -- revoking Article 50 only "unequivocally and unconditionally" brings that particular withdrawal process to an end, it doesn't require a pledge of lifelong loyalty to the EU.RobD said:
Except those other two conditions quoted earlier. If we were never serious about it it isn't an unequivocal revocation.Danny565 said:
On what grounds would the EU Commission challenge it? They'd have to prove it was against the UK's "constitutional requirements", since that was the only caveat to our right to revoke.RobD said:
You really think after revoking and invoking after five minutes that the EU Commission wouldn't challenge that at the ECJ?Danny565 said:
Eh? It would be unequivocal and unconditional. No-one's suggesting we'd say "we revoke Article 50, only on condition that our contributions to the EU Budget are reduced".RobD said:
No, it's not. It needs to be "unequivocal and unconditional". I wouldn't call revoking for five minutes unequivocal.Danny565 said:
Well, quite - so in effect our right to revoke A50 is absolute, even if we were to re-invoke it just 5 minutes later.notme2 said:
Our 'Constitutional Requirements' are whatever the last person got away with.Danny565 said:
That's wrong. The advocate general's recommendation was that we shouldn't be able to revoke, only to re-invoke later -- but the ECJ's final ruling rejected that recommendation. The ECJ's only caveat to our right to revoke A50 was that it had to be within the UK's own constitutional requirements.eek said:
I think it was stated earlier that we can't revoke just to decide how to leaveGardenwalker said:I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country.
It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.0 -
The FTPA is a good idea badly implemented. It's wrong for the PM to be able to decide when an election takes place.rpjs said:
You can’t restore an extinguished prerogative but I would have thought some form of words along the lines of “Her Majesty, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, may make anRobD said:
A damn shame the Tories didn't get a majority at the last election - it would have been ditched (although quite how you close pandora's box wrt the prerogative is beyond me).Alanbrooke said:
once again the inadequacies of the FTPA come to the foreBeverley_C said:I like the way people are talking like an 80 vote defeat is a victory. What comes next? Redefining black as white? Wet as dry?
A defeat of 80 is still a defeat. And a big one.
order-in-council to dissolve Parliament” would do the trick.0 -
It all started with a bus...williamglenn said:0 -
Tbh though Field, Mann, Flint are the lowest of low hanging labour fruit for May to pick up on this.0
-
Yes but people seize on these headlines, don't read the article, and react as though what was being said was that millions of UK residents were going to be left uninsured. In this case (as the article makes clear) it's the other way round: the UK has sensibly sorted this out already, but the EU hasn't.TOPPING said:
It's not a non-story. It's one of several (we will not run out of medicines, there will be enough food after March 29th) the need for which, if only to dismiss the premise, is mind-boggling.Richard_Nabavi said:
It's millions of people in the EU27/EEA countries who might not be able to claim - and that is because the EU has screwed up.Beverley_C said:
Is there ANY section of life in which Brexit does not cause a balls-up? Seriously??Scott_P said:
And hordes of people still think that this shambles of an idea is a good one?
Unbelievable!!
In practice I can't see it being a problem, the EU will just extend a blanket extension to the authorisations, so it's probably a non-story.0 -
The campaign for a referendum is not a manifesto for government. Not even remotely close.AmpfieldAndy said:
The referendum campaign obviously passed you by.notme2 said:
WTF is a "vote leave commitment"?AmpfieldAndy said:
It was a Vote Leave commitment in the campaign. May didn’t have to honour that. She saw it as the only way to stop freedom of movement, which it is, but then she only ever saw the referendum result in terms of stopping freedom of movement.notme2 said:
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken by the Prime Minister when she took office.AmpfieldAndy said:grabcocque said:Lest we forget
Hannan’s Interest has only ever been trade. Nothing wrong with that but negotiating trade deals with others if you’re bound by the SM regs would be a challenge.
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken early on in the campaign, by Gove I think, precisely to facilitate trade deals with other countries.0 -
Yes, which is mentioned in the piece. I'm just glad someone is willing to call it out: "you're against this because you're a dumbass".FrancisUrquhart said:
Not curious, because isn’t that basically just the Dunning–Kruger effect in action.Anorak said:Very interesting article. Can be applied to lots of other areas, including evolution and (maybe) Brexit.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/14/gm-foods-scientific-ignorance-fuels-extremist-views-study
The results from more than 2,500 respondents revealed the curious trend. “What we found is that as the extremity of opposition increased, objective knowledge went down, but self-assessed knowledge went up,” Fernbach said.
“The extremists are more poorly calibrated. If you don’t know much, it’s hard to assess how much you know,” Fernbach added. “The feeling of understanding that they have then stops them from learning the truth. Extremism can be perverse in that way.”0 -
Iceland is a member of the Single Market and has, for example, an FTA with China. (As does Switzerland, although it is only a member of the SM for goods.)AmpfieldAndy said:grabcocque said:Lest we forget
Hannan’s Interest has only ever been trade. Nothing wrong with that but negotiating trade deals with others if you’re bound by the SM regs would be a challenge.
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken early on in the campaign, by Gove I think, precisely to facilitate trade deals with other countries.
The biggest issue, really, is the US, where the recent renegotiation of NAFTA specifically forbids either Mexico or Canada from having FTAs with China. Nations must choose: do I wish a close trading relationship with the US, or with China?0 -
its also wrong to keep a lame duck government in place and to absolve MPs from the consequencesof their actions.not_on_fire said:
The FTPA is a good idea badly implemented. It's wrong for the PM to be able to decide when an election takes place.rpjs said:
You can’t restore an extinguished prerogative but I would have thought some form of words along the lines of “Her Majesty, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, may make anRobD said:
A damn shame the Tories didn't get a majority at the last election - it would have been ditched (although quite how you close pandora's box wrt the prerogative is beyond me).Alanbrooke said:
once again the inadequacies of the FTPA come to the foreBeverley_C said:I like the way people are talking like an 80 vote defeat is a victory. What comes next? Redefining black as white? Wet as dry?
A defeat of 80 is still a defeat. And a big one.
order-in-council to dissolve Parliament” would do the trick.0 -
In the fiercely contested category of dumbest Brexiteer with a pulse, a very strong contender...
https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/10852150039328481340 -
I really don't know why you're interpreting "unequivocal" as "permanent".RobD said:
No, I'm basing it on the use of those two terms in the actual judgement. It's not an unequivocal declaration if you know you are going to renege on it in a few minutes.
But I can unequivocally say that I'm bored of this argument now, so whatever
0 -
I saw that paraphrased earlierAnorak said:Very interesting article. Can be applied to lots of other areas, including evolution and (maybe) Brexit.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/14/gm-foods-scientific-ignorance-fuels-extremist-views-study
The results from more than 2,500 respondents revealed the curious trend. “What we found is that as the extremity of opposition increased, objective knowledge went down, but self-assessed knowledge went up,” Fernbach said.
“The extremists are more poorly calibrated. If you don’t know much, it’s hard to assess how much you know,” Fernbach added. “The feeling of understanding that they have then stops them from learning the truth. Extremism can be perverse in that way.”
Those who know the least, know it the loudest0 -
But we are in the zone where the people need to read the article to be reassured that we won't be uninsured, or run out of Chocolate Bourbon biscuits, come March 30th. There would be no headline saying "People over 5ft tall to be denied passports."Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes but people seize on these headlines, don't read the article, and react as though what was being said was that millions of UK residents were going to be left uninsured. In this case (as the article makes clear) it's the other way round: the UK has sensibly sorted this out already, but the EU hasn't.TOPPING said:
It's not a non-story. It's one of several (we will not run out of medicines, there will be enough food after March 29th) the need for which, if only to dismiss the premise, is mind-boggling.Richard_Nabavi said:
It's millions of people in the EU27/EEA countries who might not be able to claim - and that is because the EU has screwed up.Beverley_C said:
Is there ANY section of life in which Brexit does not cause a balls-up? Seriously??Scott_P said:
And hordes of people still think that this shambles of an idea is a good one?
Unbelievable!!
In practice I can't see it being a problem, the EU will just extend a blanket extension to the authorisations, so it's probably a non-story.0 -
We currently dont have one with the USA, do we?rcs1000 said:
Iceland is a member of the Single Market and has, for example, an FTA with China. (As does Switzerland, although it is only a member of the SM for goods.)AmpfieldAndy said:grabcocque said:Lest we forget
Hannan’s Interest has only ever been trade. Nothing wrong with that but negotiating trade deals with others if you’re bound by the SM regs would be a challenge.
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken early on in the campaign, by Gove I think, precisely to facilitate trade deals with other countries.
The biggest issue, really, is the US, where the recent renegotiation of NAFTA specifically forbids either Mexico or Canada from having FTAs with China. Nations must choose: do I wish a close trading relationship with the US, or with China?0 -
Explains Cox, Johnson, Farage...Scott_P said:
I saw that paraphrased earlierAnorak said:Very interesting article. Can be applied to lots of other areas, including evolution and (maybe) Brexit.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/14/gm-foods-scientific-ignorance-fuels-extremist-views-study
The results from more than 2,500 respondents revealed the curious trend. “What we found is that as the extremity of opposition increased, objective knowledge went down, but self-assessed knowledge went up,” Fernbach said.
“The extremists are more poorly calibrated. If you don’t know much, it’s hard to assess how much you know,” Fernbach added. “The feeling of understanding that they have then stops them from learning the truth. Extremism can be perverse in that way.”
Those who know the least, know it the loudest
0 -
Blame the headline writers for that.TOPPING said:But we are in the zone where the people need to read the article to be reassured that we won't be uninsured, or run out of Chocolate Bourbon biscuits, come March 30th. There would be no headline saying "People over 5ft tall to be denied passports."
0 -
It's not reneging. The CJEU ruling dropped the 'good faith' clause from the advocate general's opinion. It is legally possible to revoke and invoke on the same afternoon. How the politics of that would play out is a different matter.RobD said:
No, I'm basing it on the use of those two terms in the actual judgement. It's not an unequivocal declaration if you know you are going to renege on it in a few minutes.Danny565 said:
Yes it is. Again you seem to be basing your arguments on what the advocate general said, as opposed to what the ECJ said -- revoking Article 50 only "unequivocally and unconditionally" brings that particular withdrawal process to an end, it doesn't require a pledge of lifelong loyalty to the EU.RobD said:
Except those other two conditions quoted earlier. If we were never serious about it it isn't an unequivocal revocation.Danny565 said:
On what grounds would the EU Commission challenge it? They'd have to prove it was against the UK's "constitutional requirements", since that was the only caveat to our right to revoke.RobD said:
You really think after revoking and invoking after five minutes that the EU Commission wouldn't challenge that at the ECJ?Danny565 said:
Eh? It would be unequivocal and unconditional. No-one's suggesting we'd say "we revoke Article 50, only on condition that our contributions to the EU Budget are reduced".RobD said:
No, it's not. It needs to be "unequivocal and unconditional". I wouldn't call revoking for five minutes unequivocal.Danny565 said:
Well, quite - so in effect our right to revoke A50 is absolute, even if we were to re-invoke it just 5 minutes later.notme2 said:
Our 'Constitutional Requirements' are whatever the last person got away with.Danny565 said:
That's wrong. The advocate general's recommendation was that we shouldn't be able to revoke, only to re-invoke later -- but the ECJ's final ruling rejected that recommendation. The ECJ's only caveat to our right to revoke A50 was that it had to be within the UK's own constitutional requirements.eek said:
I think it was stated earlier that we can't revoke just to decide how to leaveGardenwalker said:I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country.
It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.0 -
Thought the same thing. Embarrassed to be on the same side.Scott_P said:In the fiercely contested category of dumbest Brexiteer with a pulse, a very strong contender...
https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/10852150039328481340 -
Lets chalk him up as a 'Nay'.Scott_P said:In the fiercely contested category of dumbest Brexiteer with a pulse, a very strong contender...
https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/10852150039328481340 -
I still contest it wouldn't be unequivocal, and would at least be tested at the ECJ.david_herdson said:
It's not reneging. The CJEU ruling dropped the 'good faith' clause from the advocate general's opinion. It is legally possible to revoke and invoke on the same afternoon. How the politics of that would play out is a different matter.0 -
Although I can imagine that Overseas Aid would come a cropper in a referendum. Probably by 52/48. But yes, absolutely, it was Leave or Remain, c'est ca. And if Leave won and we leave - and because of that people are poorer - then QED people voted to be poorer. The phrase is actually just code for 'people did not understand the consequences of their vote.'Sean_F said:People do vote to be poorer (eg overseas aid) and the only questions on the ballot were leave and remain.
0 -
Will he not be disqualified if he votes 3 times?Pulpstar said:
Lets chalk him up as a 'Nay'.Scott_P said:In the fiercely contested category of dumbest Brexiteer with a pulse, a very strong contender...
https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/10852150039328481340 -
And me, conservative mps are making me despair and ashamed of many of themnotme2 said:
Thought the same thing. Embarrassed to be on the same side.Scott_P said:In the fiercely contested category of dumbest Brexiteer with a pulse, a very strong contender...
https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/10852150039328481340 -
Sure - but arguing that leaving the SM was a decision made by May that came out of the blue is just plain wrong. It was fully discussed as part of the referendum. As I said earlier, May didn’t have to honour that but she chose to.notme2 said:
The campaign for a referendum is not a manifesto for government. Not even remotely close.AmpfieldAndy said:
The referendum campaign obviously passed you by.notme2 said:
WTF is a "vote leave commitment"?AmpfieldAndy said:
It was a Vote Leave commitment in the campaign. May didn’t have to honour that. She saw it as the only way to stop freedom of movement, which it is, but then she only ever saw the referendum result in terms of stopping freedom of movement.notme2 said:
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken by the Prime Minister when she took office.AmpfieldAndy said:grabcocque said:Lest we forget
Hannan’s Interest has only ever been trade. Nothing wrong with that but negotiating trade deals with others if you’re bound by the SM regs would be a challenge.
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken early on in the campaign, by Gove I think, precisely to facilitate trade deals with other countries.0 -
Corbyn's dilemma:
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/10852127656718336010 -
The level of ignorance about the difference between the Withdrawal Agreement and a long term arrangement is - frankly - appalling.notme2 said:Watching the convoluted speeches from utterly committed remainers claiming that somehow their objection based on some technicality. If that technicality wasnt there, they would find another.
Those dumb witted leavers who have been told that it is Brexit In Name Only, and believe it. One MP just said that we should respect the decision, but that the WA had us half in and half out. Seriously, this is a pretty darn hard and clean brexit. We arent half in and half out. On that basis there's absolutely no Brexit agreement he could sign up to that didnt involve us building a wall at Dover.
Utter cretins. And those leavers who are going to vote against it because they think they might get an even harder brexist? You clueless muppets you are going to lose everything you have fought for decades.
Frankly, you get a great deal better expertise on this board. (With the exception of a few posters whose names I shall not mention.)0 -
I'd venture that Cox knows rather more about Brexit than you.....Gardenwalker said:
Explains Cox, Johnson, Farage...Scott_P said:
I saw that paraphrased earlierAnorak said:Very interesting article. Can be applied to lots of other areas, including evolution and (maybe) Brexit.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/14/gm-foods-scientific-ignorance-fuels-extremist-views-study
The results from more than 2,500 respondents revealed the curious trend. “What we found is that as the extremity of opposition increased, objective knowledge went down, but self-assessed knowledge went up,” Fernbach said.
“The extremists are more poorly calibrated. If you don’t know much, it’s hard to assess how much you know,” Fernbach added. “The feeling of understanding that they have then stops them from learning the truth. Extremism can be perverse in that way.”
Those who know the least, know it the loudest0 -
It's certainly possible to write legislation to enable either the PM or the sovereign to dissolve parliament but the wording as proposed is a nasty mismash. Either the power should lie with the PM - in which case he or she should be able to exercise it unfettered (this is a bad idea) - or it should rest with the crown as a reserve power, in which case HM should *not* be obliged by legislation to act on the PM's advice.rpjs said:
You can’t restore an extinguished prerogative but I would have thought some form of words along the lines of “Her Majesty, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, may make anRobD said:
A damn shame the Tories didn't get a majority at the last election - it would have been ditched (although quite how you close pandora's box wrt the prerogative is beyond me).Alanbrooke said:
once again the inadequacies of the FTPA come to the foreBeverley_C said:I like the way people are talking like an 80 vote defeat is a victory. What comes next? Redefining black as white? Wet as dry?
A defeat of 80 is still a defeat. And a big one.
order-in-council to dissolve Parliament” would do the trick.
Before the FTPA, PMs could only request a dissolution, not advise one. That's a crucial distinction as it provides a slight constitutional check in normal times (Wilson didn't request an immediate election after forming a government in March 1974 because he didn't know whether the Palace would allow it), but it also acts as a constitutional safety valve if, say, a government was proposing something deeply undemocratic (e.g. extending parliaments to 20 years).0 -
Meanwhile, it's worth noting that for Marks & Spencer, Leave means leave:
https://twitter.com/johannketel/status/10851762070528901130 -
I thought that stopping speaking as soon as he had set out his full knowledge, understanding and insight of the subject was an example to be followed, frankly. I greatly wish that other members would do the same.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And me, conservative mps are making me despair and ashamed of many of themnotme2 said:
Thought the same thing. Embarrassed to be on the same side.Scott_P said:In the fiercely contested category of dumbest Brexiteer with a pulse, a very strong contender...
https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/10852150039328481340 -
I think you are wilfully missing my point but I can live with it.Richard_Nabavi said:
Blame the headline writers for that.TOPPING said:But we are in the zone where the people need to read the article to be reassured that we won't be uninsured, or run out of Chocolate Bourbon biscuits, come March 30th. There would be no headline saying "People over 5ft tall to be denied passports."
0 -
I've been unable to find any certain information about Kelvin Hopkins.AlastairMeeks said:0 -
It really is pitiful and yet it seems to be a significant element in ERG opposition to the deal.rcs1000 said:
The level of ignorance about the difference between the Withdrawal Agreement and a long term arrangement is - frankly - appalling.notme2 said:Watching the convoluted speeches from utterly committed remainers claiming that somehow their objection based on some technicality. If that technicality wasnt there, they would find another.
Those dumb witted leavers who have been told that it is Brexit In Name Only, and believe it. One MP just said that we should respect the decision, but that the WA had us half in and half out. Seriously, this is a pretty darn hard and clean brexit. We arent half in and half out. On that basis there's absolutely no Brexit agreement he could sign up to that didnt involve us building a wall at Dover.
Utter cretins. And those leavers who are going to vote against it because they think they might get an even harder brexist? You clueless muppets you are going to lose everything you have fought for decades.
Frankly, you get a great deal better expertise on this board. (With the exception of a few posters whose names I shall not mention.)0 -
Bridgen sweeps all before him. It's a battle for second place, and always has been.Scott_P said:In the fiercely contested category of dumbest Brexiteer with a pulse, a very strong contender...
https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/10852150039328481340 -
I think some (both Remain and Leave) are well aware of the difference, but pretend to mix up the two.rcs1000 said:
The level of ignorance about the difference between the Withdrawal Agreement and a long term arrangement is - frankly - appalling.notme2 said:Watching the convoluted speeches from utterly committed remainers claiming that somehow their objection based on some technicality. If that technicality wasnt there, they would find another.
Those dumb witted leavers who have been told that it is Brexit In Name Only, and believe it. One MP just said that we should respect the decision, but that the WA had us half in and half out. Seriously, this is a pretty darn hard and clean brexit. We arent half in and half out. On that basis there's absolutely no Brexit agreement he could sign up to that didnt involve us building a wall at Dover.
Utter cretins. And those leavers who are going to vote against it because they think they might get an even harder brexist? You clueless muppets you are going to lose everything you have fought for decades.
Frankly, you get a great deal better expertise on this board. (With the exception of a few posters whose names I shall not mention.)
Others, like Guto Bebb, are just thick.
0 -
Change of timing for tomorrow
https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1085218412597600258
You have to love Parliament...0 -
Pleasantly surprised that their store in Dundee is not on that list to be honest.AlastairMeeks said:Meanwhile, it's worth noting that for Marks & Spencer, Leave means leave:
https://twitter.com/johannketel/status/10851762070528901130 -
Roger, for example, as one of those few posters?rcs1000 said:
The level of ignorance about the difference between the Withdrawal Agreement and a long term arrangement is - frankly - appalling.notme2 said:Watching the convoluted speeches from utterly committed remainers claiming that somehow their objection based on some technicality. If that technicality wasnt there, they would find another.
Those dumb witted leavers who have been told that it is Brexit In Name Only, and believe it. One MP just said that we should respect the decision, but that the WA had us half in and half out. Seriously, this is a pretty darn hard and clean brexit. We arent half in and half out. On that basis there's absolutely no Brexit agreement he could sign up to that didnt involve us building a wall at Dover.
Utter cretins. And those leavers who are going to vote against it because they think they might get an even harder brexist? You clueless muppets you are going to lose everything you have fought for decades.
Frankly, you get a great deal better expertise on this board. (With the exception of a few posters whose names I shall not mention.)
0 -
That suggests to me that he is minded to vote for the deal. He's on the naughty step still and this will hardly improve his image with much of institutional Labour (the top might be more indulgent). So if he is going to vote for it, he'll probably not want to boast about it.Sean_F said:
I've been unable to find any certain information about Kelvin Hopkins.AlastairMeeks said:0 -
The Hull one is very much we don't want to be the only shop left in this desolate shopping centre... Even though it was obviously going to happen it has still gone down like a lead balloon...AlastairMeeks said:Meanwhile, it's worth noting that for Marks & Spencer, Leave means leave:
https://twitter.com/johannketel/status/10851762070528901130 -
That bit about "If there is any hope, it lies with the Labour party" sounds strangely familiar...williamglenn said:Corbyn's dilemma:
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/10852127656718336010 -
Quite right too. It would be a democratic outrage if due consideration of the proposal to ban low-level letterboxes was jeopardised.eek said:Change of timing for tomorrow
https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1085218412597600258
You have to love Parliament...0 -
More I think a maverick with a colourful past including infiltration of other partiesPulpstar said:
Lets chalk him up as a 'Nay'.Scott_P said:In the fiercely contested category of dumbest Brexiteer with a pulse, a very strong contender...
https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1085215003932848134
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Lewis
and opposed to war in Syria, i.e. capable of independent thought.0 -
Fun and amendments..eek said:Change of timing for tomorrow
https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1085218412597600258
You have to love Parliament...
I propose that this house bans low level letter boxes and revokes Article 500 -
This is an interesting poll finding...
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/425422-a-majority-of-americans-support-raising-the-top-tax-rate-to-700 -
I used to hate low level letterboxes when delivering newspapers. They were never big enough, chewed up the paper and all too often had a really annoying yappy dog on the other side of it trying to get your fingers. Sign me up for that one.eek said:Change of timing for tomorrow
https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1085218412597600258
You have to love Parliament...0 -
He is indeed and he is my mp but for how long is a good question.Sean_F said:
I think some (both Remain and Leave) are well aware of the difference, but pretend to mix up the two.rcs1000 said:
The level of ignorance about the difference between the Withdrawal Agreement and a long term arrangement is - frankly - appalling.notme2 said:Watching the convoluted speeches from utterly committed remainers claiming that somehow their objection based on some technicality. If that technicality wasnt there, they would find another.
Those dumb witted leavers who have been told that it is Brexit In Name Only, and believe it. One MP just said that we should respect the decision, but that the WA had us half in and half out. Seriously, this is a pretty darn hard and clean brexit. We arent half in and half out. On that basis there's absolutely no Brexit agreement he could sign up to that didnt involve us building a wall at Dover.
Utter cretins. And those leavers who are going to vote against it because they think they might get an even harder brexist? You clueless muppets you are going to lose everything you have fought for decades.
Frankly, you get a great deal better expertise on this board. (With the exception of a few posters whose names I shall not mention.)
Others, like Guto Bebb, are just thick.
I have already asked for his de-selection0 -
I move a motion "... That this House has no confidence in low letter boxes".Pulpstar said:
Fun and amendments..eek said:Change of timing for tomorrow
https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1085218412597600258
You have to love Parliament...
I propose that this house bans low level letter boxes and revokes Article 500 -
I think the biggest issue that the FTPA has brought to light is that by prescribing the form that a confidence motion must take, it has denuded what were previously confidence issues from acting as such, and we end up with a curious situation like the current one where the government has de jure but not de facto confidence, and it's a mess.david_herdson said:
Before the FTPA, PMs could only request a dissolution, not advise one. That's a crucial distinction as it provides a slight constitutional check in normal times (Wilson didn't request an immediate election after forming a government in March 1974 because he didn't know whether the Palace would allow it), but it also acts as a constitutional safety valve if, say, a government was proposing something deeply undemocratic (e.g. extending parliaments to 20 years).
At the very least we should restore things that were previously considered confidence matters (queen's speeches, finance bills) as well as allowing the Prime Minister to ask the Speaker to rule other votes confidence votes too, so it could include things like the Meaningful Vote.
I'm not sure there's a desire to return the process behind the choice to dissolve Parliament to an anonymous letter written in the Times. But if the FTPA made *explicit* the process by which the Crown would and would not grant a dissolution at the request of the Prime Minister, that might assuage people.0 -
What is the rationale for banning low-level letterboxes? Has Graham Brady's postman been given a bad back?Richard_Nabavi said:
Quite right too. It would be a democratic outrage if due consideration of the proposal to ban low-level letterboxes was jeopardised.eek said:Change of timing for tomorrow
https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1085218412597600258
You have to love Parliament...0 -
That's not what the article says. Some UK insurers have started the process (not all of them, although this is not mentioned in the article), but because not all the Part VIIs can complete before April, there will be rEU policyholders left holding policies with UK insurance entities on which they can no longer claim.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes but people seize on these headlines, don't read the article, and react as though what was being said was that millions of UK residents were going to be left uninsured. In this case (as the article makes clear) it's the other way round: the UK has sensibly sorted this out already, but the EU hasn't.TOPPING said:
It's not a non-story. It's one of several (we will not run out of medicines, there will be enough food after March 29th) the need for which, if only to dismiss the premise, is mind-boggling.Richard_Nabavi said:
It's millions of people in the EU27/EEA countries who might not be able to claim - and that is because the EU has screwed up.Beverley_C said:
Is there ANY section of life in which Brexit does not cause a balls-up? Seriously??Scott_P said:
And hordes of people still think that this shambles of an idea is a good one?
Unbelievable!!
In practice I can't see it being a problem, the EU will just extend a blanket extension to the authorisations, so it's probably a non-story.
On the flip side, very few EU insurers (again, I know of some exceptions) have started the process of partitioning their business into UK and EU entities, which means that any UK citizens with insurance policies incepting before Brexit day will no longer be able to make claims for events occurring afterwards.
So although the article doesn't explicitly say this, a reasonable inference is that there are a lot of UK citizens who may be left uninsured (in practice they won't be, as it's trivial for the insurers to simply decide to honour claims anyway, but there are some interesting questions on corporate governance as to whether they should).0 -
I'll ask what Kelvin is doing. I have an in....AlastairMeeks said:
He was in my "expected" category to vote for the deal. I haven't yet seen what Kelvin Hopkins is planning.AmpfieldAndy said:Frank Field says he will support the deal. Surprised at that.
John Woodcock is against, which surprised me a bit.0 -
Matthew Parris, OTOH, is very intelligent, so we can assume that when we mixes up the WA and long term agreement, he is just intending to deceive his readers.Big_G_NorthWales said:
He is indeed and he is my mp but for how long is a good question.Sean_F said:
I think some (both Remain and Leave) are well aware of the difference, but pretend to mix up the two.rcs1000 said:
The level of ignorance about the difference between the Withdrawal Agreement and a long term arrangement is - frankly - appalling.notme2 said:Watching the convoluted speeches from utterly committed remainers claiming that somehow their objection based on some technicality. If that technicality wasnt there, they would find another.
Those dumb witted leavers who have been told that it is Brexit In Name Only, and believe it. One MP just said that we should respect the decision, but that the WA had us half in and half out. Seriously, this is a pretty darn hard and clean brexit. We arent half in and half out. On that basis there's absolutely no Brexit agreement he could sign up to that didnt involve us building a wall at Dover.
Utter cretins. And those leavers who are going to vote against it because they think they might get an even harder brexist? You clueless muppets you are going to lose everything you have fought for decades.
Frankly, you get a great deal better expertise on this board. (With the exception of a few posters whose names I shall not mention.)
Others, like Guto Bebb, are just thick.
I have already asked for his de-selection0 -
A vote of low confidence.RobD said:
I move a motion "... That this House has no confidence in low letter boxes".Pulpstar said:
Fun and amendments..eek said:Change of timing for tomorrow
https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1085218412597600258
You have to love Parliament...
I propose that this house bans low level letter boxes and revokes Article 500 -
Not a political activist, I see!williamglenn said:
What is the rationale for banning low-level letterboxes? Has Graham Brady's postman been given a bad back?Richard_Nabavi said:
Quite right too. It would be a democratic outrage if due consideration of the proposal to ban low-level letterboxes was jeopardised.eek said:Change of timing for tomorrow
https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1085218412597600258
You have to love Parliament...
0 -
MPs are campaigners, they all know how much of a ball-ache low level letter boxes are. Only a d e g e n e r a t e would have one.williamglenn said:
What is the rationale for banning low-level letterboxes? Has Graham Brady's postman been given a bad back?Richard_Nabavi said:
Quite right too. It would be a democratic outrage if due consideration of the proposal to ban low-level letterboxes was jeopardised.eek said:Change of timing for tomorrow
https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1085218412597600258
You have to love Parliament...0 -
Anyone who has ever done party leafletting would sign up for that in a flash!DavidL said:
I used to hate low level letterboxes when delivering newspapers. They were never big enough, chewed up the paper and all too often had a really annoying yappy dog on the other side of it trying to get your fingers. Sign me up for that one.eek said:Change of timing for tomorrow
https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1085218412597600258
You have to love Parliament...0 -
Sky sticking to their 225 vote margin: 199 plays 4240
-
Use a wooden spoon to poke them through. Bit of luck, you'll choke the litte yappy sod too.....Foxy said:
Anyone who has ever done party leafletting would sign up for that in a flash!DavidL said:
I used to hate low level letterboxes when delivering newspapers. They were never big enough, chewed up the paper and all too often had a really annoying yappy dog on the other side of it trying to get your fingers. Sign me up for that one.eek said:Change of timing for tomorrow
https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1085218412597600258
You have to love Parliament...0 -
It seems to be a campaign by the Communication Workers Union, and would apply only to new builds or changes requiring building regs:williamglenn said:
What is the rationale for banning low-level letterboxes? Has Graham Brady's postman been given a bad back?Richard_Nabavi said:
Quite right too. It would be a democratic outrage if due consideration of the proposal to ban low-level letterboxes was jeopardised.eek said:Change of timing for tomorrow
https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1085218412597600258
You have to love Parliament...
The CWU has been striving for the European Standard (EN13724) to be added to U.K building regulations- this requires letterboxes being at a height accessible to postal workers, significantly reducing possible injuries such as, dog bites, fingers being trapped or back strain caused when bending excessively to reach ground level boxes.
This issue was first raised as far back as 1958 when the British Standards Agency deemed it appropriate that letter boxes be at a proper height. Unfortunately it was not enshrined into building standards Law. Half a century later and several high profile campaigns later the problem still exists. The Union would stress that it does not expect householders or businesses to change their doors immediately
https://cwue5.org/2016/10/03/low-level-letter-boxes-the-cwu-low-level-letter-box-campaign/
Actually seems quite sensible.0 -
Surely May has to go if she doesn't even make the 200 mark. Shorely !SandyRentool said:Sky sticking to their 225 vote margin: 199 plays 424
0 -
Arf. Excellent!williamglenn said:
A vote of low confidence.RobD said:
I move a motion "... That this House has no confidence in low letter boxes".Pulpstar said:
Fun and amendments..eek said:Change of timing for tomorrow
https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1085218412597600258
You have to love Parliament...
I propose that this house bans low level letter boxes and revokes Article 500 -
Well, Theresa May said the nation needed to heal our divisions. Guess we start with low-level letterboxes.Richard_Nabavi said:
Actually seems quite sensible.0 -
Advocates of the deal are the most guilty of conflating the two. You can't simultaneously argue on the basis of the virtues of the future relationship (e.g. "free movement will end") while admitting that the future relationship is undefined.Sean_F said:
Matthew Parris, OTOH, is very intelligent, so we can assume that when we mixes up the WA and long term agreement, he is just intending to deceive his readers.Big_G_NorthWales said:
He is indeed and he is my mp but for how long is a good question.Sean_F said:
I think some (both Remain and Leave) are well aware of the difference, but pretend to mix up the two.rcs1000 said:
The level of ignorance about the difference between the Withdrawal Agreement and a long term arrangement is - frankly - appalling.notme2 said:Watching the convoluted speeches from utterly committed remainers claiming that somehow their objection based on some technicality. If that technicality wasnt there, they would find another.
Those dumb witted leavers who have been told that it is Brexit In Name Only, and believe it. One MP just said that we should respect the decision, but that the WA had us half in and half out. Seriously, this is a pretty darn hard and clean brexit. We arent half in and half out. On that basis there's absolutely no Brexit agreement he could sign up to that didnt involve us building a wall at Dover.
Utter cretins. And those leavers who are going to vote against it because they think they might get an even harder brexist? You clueless muppets you are going to lose everything you have fought for decades.
Frankly, you get a great deal better expertise on this board. (With the exception of a few posters whose names I shall not mention.)
Others, like Guto Bebb, are just thick.
I have already asked for his de-selection0 -
It should definitely be a standard for new builds.Richard_Nabavi said:
It seems to be a campaign by the Communication Workers Union, and would apply only to new builds:williamglenn said:
What is the rationale for banning low-level letterboxes? Has Graham Brady's postman been given a bad back?Richard_Nabavi said:
Quite right too. It would be a democratic outrage if due consideration of the proposal to ban low-level letterboxes was jeopardised.eek said:Change of timing for tomorrow
https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1085218412597600258
You have to love Parliament...
The CWU has been striving for the European Standard (EN13724) to be added to U.K building regulations- this requires letterboxes being at a height accessible to postal workers, significantly reducing possible injuries such as, dog bites, fingers being trapped or back strain caused when bending excessively to reach ground level boxes.
This issue was first raised as far back as 1958 when the British Standards Agency deemed it appropriate that letter boxes be at a proper height. Unfortunately it was not enshrined into building standards Law. Half a century later and several high profile campaigns later the problem still exists. The Union would stress that it does not expect householders or businesses to change their doors immediately
https://cwue5.org/2016/10/03/low-level-letter-boxes-the-cwu-low-level-letter-box-campaign/
Actually seems quite sensible.0 -
That looks a bit too low to me now. I think it's going to be somewhere close to 210 now.SandyRentool said:Sky sticking to their 225 vote margin: 199 plays 424
0 -
If that were true, he’d never have opened his mouth.DavidL said:
I thought that stopping speaking as soon as he had set out his full knowledge, understanding and insight of the subject was an example to be followed, frankly. I greatly wish that other members would do the same.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And me, conservative mps are making me despair and ashamed of many of themnotme2 said:
Thought the same thing. Embarrassed to be on the same side.Scott_P said:In the fiercely contested category of dumbest Brexiteer with a pulse, a very strong contender...
https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1085215003932848134
0 -
Convention has it that the Speaker rule riders that are irrelevant to the subject at hand out of order.Pulpstar said:
I propose that this house bans low level letter boxes and revokes Article 50
That's doesn't mean he would
0 -
-
Very true and for similar reasons. They are indeed an evil menace which have been left unregulated for far too long.Foxy said:
Anyone who has ever done party leafletting would sign up for that in a flash!DavidL said:
I used to hate low level letterboxes when delivering newspapers. They were never big enough, chewed up the paper and all too often had a really annoying yappy dog on the other side of it trying to get your fingers. Sign me up for that one.eek said:Change of timing for tomorrow
https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1085218412597600258
You have to love Parliament...0 -
How about "This house bans low level letter boxes and moves that the government should not stoop so low as to ask for a second vote on the Withdrawal Agreement"? Would that be in order?grabcocque said:
Convention has it that the Speaker rule riders that are irrelevant to the subject at hand out of order.Pulpstar said:
I propose that this house bans low level letter boxes and revokes Article 50
That's doesn't mean he would0 -
I'm told Kelvin Hopkins will likely vote against the deal, holding the party line for the party he's currently suspended from...... After all, he is bessy mates with Corbyn and was one of his nominators.0
-
Is that referring to private members bills and the Speaker ?MarqueeMark said:
Use a wooden spoon to poke them through. Bit of luck, you'll choke the litte yappy sod too.....Foxy said:
Anyone who has ever done party leafletting would sign up for that in a flash!DavidL said:
I used to hate low level letterboxes when delivering newspapers. They were never big enough, chewed up the paper and all too often had a really annoying yappy dog on the other side of it trying to get your fingers. Sign me up for that one.eek said:Change of timing for tomorrow
https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1085218412597600258
You have to love Parliament...
0 -
Rolled up Sunday Times was my fave. Wait till the furry rat took a hold and then whack the other end.MarqueeMark said:
Use a wooden spoon to poke them through. Bit of luck, you'll choke the litte yappy sod too.....Foxy said:
Anyone who has ever done party leafletting would sign up for that in a flash!DavidL said:
I used to hate low level letterboxes when delivering newspapers. They were never big enough, chewed up the paper and all too often had a really annoying yappy dog on the other side of it trying to get your fingers. Sign me up for that one.eek said:Change of timing for tomorrow
https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1085218412597600258
You have to love Parliament...
[EDIT: That second sentence looks like a jolly amusing euphemism for something or other]0 -
I have been off-line for a few days and the climate of opinion seems even warmer now than it was before.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes but people seize on these headlines, don't read the article, and react as though what was being said was that millions of UK residents were going to be left uninsured. In this case (as the article makes clear) it's the other way round: the UK has sensibly sorted this out already, but the EU hasn't.TOPPING said:
It's not a non-story. It's one of several (we will not run out of medicines, there will be enough food after March 29th) the need for which, if only to dismiss the premise, is mind-boggling.Richard_Nabavi said:
It's millions of people in the EU27/EEA countries who might not be able to claim - and that is because the EU has screwed up.Beverley_C said:
Is there ANY section of life in which Brexit does not cause a balls-up? Seriously??Scott_P said:
And hordes of people still think that this shambles of an idea is a good one?
Unbelievable!!
In practice I can't see it being a problem, the EU will just extend a blanket extension to the authorisations, so it's probably a non-story.
People who want to Leave, don't want the Deal, they'd rather Remain. People who want to Remain, don't want the Deal, they'd rather Leave No-deal.
All these MPs are thinking purely of the good of the country. Very encouraging: it seems that the actual on-the-ground outcomes of both Remain and the No-deal Brexit are so lacking in threat that the MPs are happy risking an all-or-nothing gamble on them.
Glad to hear it.
Good evening, everyone.0 -
I think they will prove to be out by at least 50 abstentions but they may be near right about the level of support for May.SandyRentool said:Sky sticking to their 225 vote margin: 199 plays 424
0 -
0
-
0
-
1984? An analogy too close to the truth...Chris said:
That bit about "If there is any hope, it lies with the Labour party" sounds strangely familiar...williamglenn said:Corbyn's dilemma:
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/1085212765671833601
0 -
Rubbish. The point of the deal is that we leave the EU on good terms having met our agreed responsibilities and having joint aspirations for a close relationship in the future. That is what it is about and anyone thinking we are going to get a FTA with the EU after walking away from it is deluding themselves. So they are linked, they are just not the same.williamglenn said:
Advocates of the deal are the most guilty of conflating the two. You can't simultaneously argue on the basis of the virtues of the future relationship (e.g. "free movement will end") while admitting that the future relationship is undefined.Sean_F said:
Matthew Parris, OTOH, is very intelligent, so we can assume that when we mixes up the WA and long term agreement, he is just intending to deceive his readers.Big_G_NorthWales said:
He is indeed and he is my mp but for how long is a good question.Sean_F said:
I think some (both Remain and Leave) are well aware of the difference, but pretend to mix up the two.rcs1000 said:
The level of ignorance about the difference between the Withdrawal Agreement and a long term arrangement is - frankly - appalling.notme2 said:Watching the convoluted speeches from utterly committed remainers claiming that somehow their objection based on some technicality. If that technicality wasnt there, they would find another.
Those dumb witted leavers who have been told that it is Brexit In Name Only, and believe it. One MP just said that we should respect the decision, but that the WA had us half in and half out. Seriously, this is a pretty darn hard and clean brexit. We arent half in and half out. On that basis there's absolutely no Brexit agreement he could sign up to that didnt involve us building a wall at Dover.
Utter cretins. And those leavers who are going to vote against it because they think they might get an even harder brexist? You clueless muppets you are going to lose everything you have fought for decades.
Frankly, you get a great deal better expertise on this board. (With the exception of a few posters whose names I shall not mention.)
Others, like Guto Bebb, are just thick.
I have already asked for his de-selection0 -
M&S confirms no Deal.AlastairMeeks said:Meanwhile, it's worth noting that for Marks & Spencer, Leave means leave:
https://twitter.com/johannketel/status/10851762070528901130 -
Yes. But what about the letterboxes?DavidL said:
Very true and for similar reasons. They are indeed an evil menace which have been left unregulated for far too long.Foxy said:
Anyone who has ever done party leafletting would sign up for that in a flash!DavidL said:
I used to hate low level letterboxes when delivering newspapers. They were never big enough, chewed up the paper and all too often had a really annoying yappy dog on the other side of it trying to get your fingers. Sign me up for that one.eek said:Change of timing for tomorrow
https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1085218412597600258
You have to love Parliament...
I'll get my coat0 -
That'll probably be Lucy Powell against the deal too then from the Labour side.AlastairMeeks said:0 -
Too right!TOPPING said:
Not a political activist, I see!williamglenn said:
What is the rationale for banning low-level letterboxes? Has Graham Brady's postman been given a bad back?Richard_Nabavi said:
Quite right too. It would be a democratic outrage if due consideration of the proposal to ban low-level letterboxes was jeopardised.eek said:Change of timing for tomorrow
https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1085218412597600258
You have to love Parliament...
The next thing we can ban is describing houses exclusively with names rather than numbers.0 -
I just can't imagine MPs abstaining on this en masse. Just imagine how ridiculous you'd look public stating that after all the time you've had you still can't make your mind up?0
