Nobody who keeps making these hints they might leave deserves sympathy or respect. It's not an easy decision for any of them to take, there's a lot of emotion in it, there's calculation of whether it would do more harm than good and all the rest. But enough is bloody enough. They leak their unhappiness, they bitch and moan, they whine constantly about how things are not as they desire. It's just too much. No, they are not obliged to take such grand action for our amusement or to satisfy our own desires for a split or realignment, but it's beyond a joke now.
When an organisation's culture turns toxic, there are a number of human behaviours that you see over and over again. One of the most common and, possibly, the most toxic is cowardice - a failure to stand up for what is right, a failure to speak up, a failure to challenge, a failure to act when action was needed. Most people are cowards.
They justify it in lots of ways: loyalty to colleagues, wanting to stay and fight and change from "within", not wanting to give up, thinking that someone else was doing something, it's not my responsibility, what can I do - I'm too unimportant, fear of the consequences, concern for their families etc etc. And all those reasons can seem justifiable and reasonable. But in the end people are rationalising their unwillingness to act, their cowardice.
Most people aren't heroes, most people don't want to be heroes, most people don't want to stick out or speak up or be left out in the cold, outside the group, treated as snitches or as disloyal or as "traitors" to a group or a cause. Most of us are like this.
Physical courage is admired. Moral courage is rarer and is not much admired. In theory maybe. But not in practice. Loyalty is valued. Little wonder that we get lots of huddling within the group and relatively few examples of moral courage.
It’s probably a survival mechanism that’s evolved into us.
Back in the day, if you stood out from your tribe or rebelled against it, unless you won over the leaders or became the leader, you’d be killed or thrown out. That’s in a time where exile into the wilderness was also effectively a death sentence and you certainly wouldn’t be able to raise a family, leading to your sterility.
Interesting that Peston seems to think that not only will the British not get a significant extension to faff around, they also won't get one for a referendum.
Get your money on those options then....
Yeah I think that's bollocks. Europe is heading for a nasty recession, Brexit - deal or no deal - is gonna make this worse for everyone. If we asked for an extension, for a referendum, my guess is the EU would eagerly grant it. Why not? What have they got to lose? If we vote Leave again, well we were leaving anyway, in some chaos, so what. It we vote Remain, it is a huge boost for the EU, and the ornery-but-humbled Brits would have to shut up for a decade.
This is why I think the EU strategy for Brexit has been so dumb. They should have very quickly locked in their trade surplus with a mutually benefical deal. Then they should have locked in political co-operation. The UK is a permanent member of the UN, member of the G7 and G20 and useful as an ally against Trump.
There is an article on the LSE blogs today from the Chief Economist at Allianz and he has said that the uncertainty caused by the EU not getting the trade sorted early has meant that the EU27 over the past 2 years has lost 60bill of exports.
If they continue this then the RoW will continue to eat into their exports to the UK.
Dumb and Dumber run the EU.
Interesting insight.
History will not be kind on the EU's position over Brexit. Not that it will adversely affect any of their players. The are untouchable. Which is why we were right to get the fuck out.
Based upon the activities of my (extremely pro Remain) firm, and what I’ve observed of the sourcing of products by the major supermarket chains, they’ve spent the last 18 months diversifying their business and supply chains to RoW, whilst opening a shell office in the EU just in case but without any major opportunities to pursue there.
Interesting that Peston seems to think that not only will the British not get a significant extension to faff around, they also won't get one for a referendum.
Get your money on those options then....
Yeah I think that's bollocks. Europe is heading for a nasty recession, Brexit - deal or no deal - is gonna make this worse for everyone. If we asked for an extension, for a referendum, my guess is the EU would eagerly grant it. Why not? What have they got to lose? If we vote Leave again, well we were leaving anyway, in some chaos, so what. It we vote Remain, it is a huge boost for the EU, and the ornery-but-humbled Brits would have to shut up for a decade.
This is why I think the EU strategy for Brexit has been so dumb. They should have very quickly locked in their trade surplus with a mutually benefical deal. Then they should have locked in political co-operation. The UK is a permanent member of the UN, member of the G7 and G20 and useful as an ally against Trump.
There is an article on the LSE blogs today from the Chief Economist at Allianz and he has said that the uncertainty caused by the EU not getting the trade sorted early has meant that the EU27 over the past 2 years has lost 60bill of exports.
If they continue this then the RoW will continue to eat into their exports to the UK.
Dumb and Dumber run the EU.
Yes, the EU has badly overplayed its hand, to end up 40 days from a Very Possible No Deal. This may be fine for Brussels ideologues, but it is going down very badly with farmers in Ireland, carmakers in Germany, vineyard-owners in France. The EU was meant to get a Nice Deal in Goods and fuck the UK in Services, they now risk getting nothing at all and chaos thereafter.
The political declaration effectively says just that.
Interesting that Peston seems to think that not only will the British not get a significant extension to faff around, they also won't get one for a referendum.
Get your money on those options then....
Yeah I think that's bollocks. Europe is heading for a nasty recession, Brexit - deal or no deal - is gonna make this worse for everyone. If we asked for an extension, for a referendum, my guess is the EU would eagerly grant it. Why not? What have they got to lose? If we vote Leave again, well we were leaving anyway, in some chaos, so what. It we vote Remain, it is a huge boost for the EU, and the ornery-but-humbled Brits would have to shut up for a decade.
Agree with Sean. I reckon we get any extension we ask for. Because if they say no, I reckon there will be such a backlash here that it'll be impossible to avoid no deal and a wave of patriotic fervour will mean a huge majority blaming it on the EU. Would create a focus to take it all out on Brussels.
I'm sure it will. I'm sure every Leaver in the UK will blame the EU. Because every Leaver in the UK blames the EU for everything, everytime, regardless of reason. It's a conditioned reflex at this point.
Like the Brexit vote itself, both the UK and EU Governments were responsible for the events that led up to it, largely through a disconnect in policy between them and the UK electorate.
The EU provokes a stronger reaction because we have little emotional identity with it, and it isn’t shy of showing it and loudly advocating how much further it wants to go.
Anyone been able to decipher these cryptic Brexiteer words?
'Olly Robbins is a draughts player in a chess world'
It doesn't help that I've forgotten how to play draughts. What could this possibly mean?
Well, draughts is a much simpler game than chess. All the pieces look alike and move alike, whereas in chess you have half a dozen different types of pieces, wot can move in different ways: Porns, Rooks, Knights, Bishops, Kings and Queens.
Pawns, not porns! Anyone saying otherwise is nakedly wrong.
Chess ends with mating, while draughts ends with one on top of the other surely?
Interesting that Peston seems to think that not only will the British not get a significant extension to faff around, they also won't get one for a referendum.
Get your money on those options then....
Yeah.
This is why I think the EU strategy for Brexit has been so dumb. They should have very quickly locked in their trade surplus with a mutually benefical deal. Then they should have locked in political co-operation. The UK is a permanent member of the UN, member of the G7 and G20 and useful as an ally against Trump.
There is an article on the LSE blogs today from the Chief Economist at Allianz and he has said that the uncertainty caused by the EU not getting the trade sorted early has meant that the EU27 over the past 2 years has lost 60bill of exports.
If they continue this then the RoW will continue to eat into their exports to the UK.
Dumb and Dumber run the EU.
Interesting insight.
History will not be kind on the EU's position over Brexit. Not that it will adversely affect any of their players. The are untouchable. Which is why we were right to get the fuck out.
Based upon the activities of my (extremely pro Remain) firm, and what I’ve observed of the sourcing of products by the major supermarket chains, they’ve spent the last 18 months diversifying their business and supply chains to RoW, whilst opening a shell office in the EU just in case but without any major opportunities to pursue there.
I've seen companies opening 'shell offices' in the EU just in case. I am investigating doing the same myself. It may well turn out that you need an EU presence for any number of reasons. I'm not sure "just in case but without any major opportunities to pursue there" is a good way to describe it though. I think "moving investment that would have been made in the UK to other countries because of Brexit" is more accurate.
The thing is, I don't think this process is even close to getting up to full speed yet. I am still hoping the whole Brexit process will collapse and I can go back to building a UK business based in the UK. But if we crash out without a deal I can imagine switching my activities to the continent. I don't think anything spectacular will happen at the end of March even in the event of no deal. But the effects are still going to be huge and generally bad in the medium term. Anyone who really cares about the UK should be pushing for revocation of Article 50.
Anyone been able to decipher these cryptic Brexiteer words?
'Olly Robbins is a draughts player in a chess world'
It doesn't help that I've forgotten how to play draughts. What could this possibly mean?
Well, draughts is a much simpler game than chess. All the pieces look alike and move alike, whereas in chess you have half a dozen different types of pieces, wot can move in different ways: Porns, Rooks, Knights, Bishops, Kings and Queens.
Pawns, not porns! Anyone saying otherwise is nakedly wrong.
Chess ends with mating, while draughts ends with one on top of the other surely?
I thought they were both racist games, depicting a bloody fight between ethnic whites and ethnic blacks.
Anyone been able to decipher these cryptic Brexiteer words?
'Olly Robbins is a draughts player in a chess world'
It doesn't help that I've forgotten how to play draughts. What could this possibly mean?
Well, draughts is a much simpler game than chess. All the pieces look alike and move alike, whereas in chess you have half a dozen different types of pieces, wot can move in different ways: Porns, Rooks, Knights, Bishops, Kings and Queens.
Pawns, not porns! Anyone saying otherwise is nakedly wrong.
Chess ends with mating, while draughts ends with one on top of the other surely?
Anyone been able to decipher these cryptic Brexiteer words?
'Olly Robbins is a draughts player in a chess world'
It doesn't help that I've forgotten how to play draughts. What could this possibly mean?
Well, draughts is a much simpler game than chess. All the pieces look alike and move alike, whereas in chess you have half a dozen different types of pieces, wot can move in different ways: Porns, Rooks, Knights, Bishops, Kings and Queens.
Pawns, not porns! Anyone saying otherwise is nakedly wrong.
Chess ends with mating, while draughts ends with one on top of the other surely?
I thought they were both racist games, depicting a bloody fight between ethnic whites and blacks.
On the other hand there is the feminist perspective that the Queen is the most powerful piece, and the social mobility permitted by pawns to become anything that they choose.
Interesting that Peston seems to think that not only will the British not get a significant extension to faff around, they also won't get one for a referendum.
Get your money on those options then....
Yeah.
This is why I think the EU strategy for Brexit has been so dumb. They should have very quickly locked in their trade surplus with a mutually benefical deal. Then they should have locked in political co-operation.
If they continue this then the RoW will continue to eat into their exports to the UK.
Dumb and Dumber run the EU.
Interesting insight.
History will not be kind on the EU's position over Brexit. Not that it will adversely affect any of their players. The are untouchable. Which is why we were right to get the fuck out.
Based upon the activities of my (extremely pro Remain) firm, and what I’ve observed of the sourcing of products by the major supermarket chains, they’ve spent the last 18 months diversifying their business and supply chains to RoW, whilst opening a shell office in the EU just in case but without any major opportunities to pursue there.
I've seen companies opening 'shell offices' in the EU just in case. I am investigating doing the same myself. It may well turn out that you need an EU presence for any number of reasons. I'm not sure "just in case but without any major opportunities to pursue there" is a good way to describe it though. I think "moving investment that would have been made in the UK to other countries because of Brexit" is more accurate.
The thing is, I don't think this process is even close to getting up to full speed yet. I am still hoping the whole Brexit process will collapse and I can go back to building a UK business based in the UK. But if we crash out without a deal I can imagine switching my activities to the continent. I don't think anything spectacular will happen at the end of March even in the event of no deal. But the effects are still going to be huge and generally bad in the medium term. Anyone who really cares about the UK should be pushing for revocation of Article 50.
My firm is opening a small office in Berlin but there’s no work there; we do major/ strategic projects advisory.
On the other hand, we’ve secured two major jobs in Canada in the last 4 months and are also looking at the US and Australia where there is work.
Anyone been able to decipher these cryptic Brexiteer words?
'Olly Robbins is a draughts player in a chess world'
It doesn't help that I've forgotten how to play draughts. What could this possibly mean?
Well, draughts is a much simpler game than chess. All the pieces look alike and move alike, whereas in chess you have half a dozen different types of pieces, wot can move in different ways: Porns, Rooks, Knights, Bishops, Kings and Queens.
Pawns, not porns! Anyone saying otherwise is nakedly wrong.
Chess ends with mating, while draughts ends with one on top of the other surely?
I'll check and get back to you.
I think that we will get board of these puns soon enough.
Interesting that Peston seems to think that not only will the British not get a significant extension to faff around, they also won't get one for a referendum.
Get your money on those options then....
Yeah.
There is an article on the LSE blogs today from the Chief Economist at Allianz and he has said that the uncertainty caused by the EU not getting the trade sorted early has meant that the EU27 over the past 2 years has lost 60bill of exports.
If they continue this then the RoW will continue to eat into their exports to the UK.
Dumb and Dumber run the EU.
Interesting insight.
History will not be kind on the EU's position over Brexit. Not that it will adversely affect any of their players. The are untouchable. Which is why we were right to get the fuck out.
Based upon the activities of my (extremely pro Remain) firm, and what I’ve observed of the sourcing of products by the major supermarket chains, they’ve spent the last 18 months diversifying their business and supply chains to RoW, whilst opening a shell office in the EU just in case but without any major opportunities to pursue there.
I've seen companies opening 'shell offices' in the EU just in case. I am investigating doing the same myself. It may well turn out that you need an EU presence for any number of reasons. I'm not sure "just in case but without any major opportunities to pursue there" is a good way to describe it though. I think "moving investment that would have been made in the UK to other countries because of Brexit" is more accurate.
The thing is, I don't think this process is even close to getting up to full speed yet. I am still hoping the whole Brexit process will collapse and I can go back to building a UK business based in the UK. But if we crash out without a deal I can imagine switching my activities to the continent. I don't think anything spectacular will happen at the end of March even in the event of no deal. But the effects are still going to be huge and generally bad in the medium term. Anyone who really cares about the UK should be pushing for revocation of Article 50.
I disagree with your second paragraph. The UK’s survival does not depend upon its EU membership.
I think the impact on services over the longer term would be negligible, we’ll just diversify into global markets, and the main challenge will be over manufacturing.
Ultimately, it’s a political issue not one of economic survival.
Anyone been able to decipher these cryptic Brexiteer words?
'Olly Robbins is a draughts player in a chess world'
It doesn't help that I've forgotten how to play draughts. What could this possibly mean?
Well, draughts is a much simpler game than chess. All the pieces look alike and move alike, whereas in chess you have half a dozen different types of pieces, wot can move in different ways: Porns, Rooks, Knights, Bishops, Kings and Queens.
Pawns, not porns! Anyone saying otherwise is nakedly wrong.
Chess ends with mating, while draughts ends with one on top of the other surely?
I'll check and get back to you.
I think that we will get board of these puns soon enough.
I missed a few questions on the carrier deployment in the old thread. This is the situation...
QNLZ is still conducting sea trials and has no declared combat capability. It will not achieve "Initial Operating Capability (Carrier Strike) until late 2020/2021 at which point it will go on its EASTPAC deployment which, according to the Fireplace Salesman, will shit up the Chinese.
IOC(CS) is very basic and includes no AEW capability and "up to" 12 embarked F-35B. The second squadron of the air wing on the Pacific deployment will be USMC. The strike group will be brought up to strength by the French and Dutch navies.
Full Operating Capability (Carrier Strike) is planned for 2023 and will still only be a single F-35B squadron but now with AEW provided by a flight of Merlin HM2 with CROWSNEST radar.
IOC for Carrier Enabled Power Projection (ie both carriers operating to FOC(CS) standard) is late 2023. Although QNLZ will probably enter a lengthy refit at that point. Funds permitting...
Full Operating Capability (Carrier Enabled Power Projection) is scheduled, if nothing else goes wrong, for mid 2026. This schedule is largely being driven by the miserly rate of acquisition of F-35B. The delivery of the full 48 jets of the order will not be complete until the end of 2024.
So that's the story with the carriers despite what the Fireplace Salesman imagines.
It wouldn’t surprise me if PoW simply enters “extended readiness” as soon as it is finished, and/or ends up getting cannibalised for spares.
I missed a few questions on the carrier deployment in the old thread. This is the situation...
QNLZ is still conducting sea trials and has no declared combat capability. It will not achieve "Initial Operating Capability (Carrier Strike) until late 2020/2021 at which point it will go on its EASTPAC deployment which, according to the Fireplace Salesman, will shit up the Chinese.
IOC(CS) is very basic and includes no AEW capability and "up to" 12 embarked F-35B. The second squadron of the air wing on the Pacific deployment will be USMC. The strike group will be brought up to strength by the French and Dutch navies.
Full Operating Capability (Carrier Strike) is planned for 2023 and will still only be a single F-35B squadron but now with AEW provided by a flight of Merlin HM2 with CROWSNEST radar.
IOC for Carrier Enabled Power Projection (ie both carriers operating to FOC(CS) standard) is late 2023. Although QNLZ will probably enter a lengthy refit at that point. Funds permitting...
Full Operating Capability (Carrier Enabled Power Projection) is scheduled, if nothing else goes wrong, for mid 2026. This schedule is largely being driven by the miserly rate of acquisition of F-35B. The delivery of the full 48 jets of the order will not be complete until the end of 2024.
So that's the story with the carriers despite what the Fireplace Salesman imagines.
It wouldn’t surprise me if PoW simply enters “extended readiness” as soon as it is finished, and/or ends up getting cannibalised for spares.
There has been talk of PoW "focusing" on amphibious and rotary wing ops. ie they are not going to qualify it for fixed wing ops.
Having said that it is still a hell of a lot more carrier capability than the RN has had for many decades - it's just hollowed out and without a full spectrum of capabilities (no EW, no AAR, no SEAD) due to cost constraints.
The simple truth is nobody could actually do it within the parameters set. We can either stay in the EU and boost the economy while accepting a load of non-British people we have very little say over the appointment of will run our affairs, or leave it and increase Parliamentary authority in our own affairs while suffering an economic contraction as a result.
There is nothing inherently vicious about either decision, contrary to what may be said by some. It's easy to see arguments on either side. Really, it comes down to what you prize more, although that isn't the way it was sold.
But there is no way of having both, and that is what far too many people are effectively demanding.
The simple truth is nobody could actually do it within the parameters set. We can either stay in the EU and boost the economy while accepting a load of non-British people we have very little say over the appointment of will run our affairs, or leave it and increase Parliamentary authority in our own affairs while suffering an economic contraction as a result.
There is nothing inherently vicious about either decision, contrary to what may be said by some. It's easy to see arguments on either side. Really, it comes down to what you prize more, although that isn't the way it was sold.
But there is no way of having both, and that is what far too many people are effectively demanding.
May set the parameters! She chose the timeline. She prioritised ending FOM over the economy. The rest is history.
Mr. Walker, the time frame is in Article 50, in the Lisbon Treaty. May can be blamed for a lot of things, but she's not the one who reneged on a referendum promise and then signed the Lisbon Treaty.
The simple truth is nobody could actually do it within the parameters set. We can either stay in the EU and boost the economy while accepting a load of non-British people we have very little say over the appointment of will run our affairs, or leave it and increase Parliamentary authority in our own affairs while suffering an economic contraction as a result.
There is nothing inherently vicious about either decision, contrary to what may be said by some. It's easy to see arguments on either side. Really, it comes down to what you prize more, although that isn't the way it was sold.
But there is no way of having both, and that is what far too many people are effectively demanding.
May set the parameters! She chose the timeline. She prioritised ending FOM over the economy. The rest is history.
No, the voters did. If it had been clear that people accepted an economic hit to leave the EU, her job would have been much easier. Precisely because it was narrow and ambiguous but for Leave, her hands were tied. Just as if it had been 52-48 Remain, which is what I expected, we would have accepted we were in but couldn't go any further in and would have to take opportunities to loosen ties in some areas.
I missed a few questions on the carrier deployment in the old thread. This is the situation...
QNLZ is still conducting sea trials and has no declared combat capability. It will not achieve "Initial Operating Capability (Carrier Strike) until late 2020/2021 at which point it will go on its EASTPAC deployment which, according to the Fireplace Salesman, will shit up the Chinese.
IOC(CS) is very basic and includes no AEW capability and "up to" 12 embarked F-35B. The second squadron of the air wing on the Pacific deployment will be USMC. The strike group will be brought up to strength by the French and Dutch navies.
Full Operating Capability (Carrier Strike) is planned for 2023 and will still only be a single F-35B squadron but now with AEW provided by a flight of Merlin HM2 with CROWSNEST radar.
IOC for Carrier Enabled Power Projection (ie both carriers operating to FOC(CS) standard) is late 2023. Although QNLZ will probably enter a lengthy refit at that point. Funds permitting...
Full Operating Capability (Carrier Enabled Power Projection) is scheduled, if nothing else goes wrong, for mid 2026. This schedule is largely being driven by the miserly rate of acquisition of F-35B. The delivery of the full 48 jets of the order will not be complete until the end of 2024.
So that's the story with the carriers despite what the Fireplace Salesman imagines.
It wouldn’t surprise me if PoW simply enters “extended readiness” as soon as it is finished, and/or ends up getting cannibalised for spares.
There has been talk of PoW "focusing" on amphibious and rotary wing ops. ie they are not going to qualify it for fixed wing ops.
Having said that it is still a hell of a lot more carrier capability than the RN has had for many decades - it's just hollowed out and without a full spectrum of capabilities (no EW, no AAR, no SEAD) due to cost constraints.
Indeed, but given you think our defence should just focus on GIUK why would you want it anyway?
Interesting that Peston seems to think that not only will the British not get a significant extension to faff around, they also won't get one for a referendum.
Get your money on those options then....
Yeah.
There is an article on the LSE blogs today from the Chief Economist at Allianz and he has said that the uncertainty caused by the EU not getting the trade sorted early has meant that the EU27 over the past 2 years has lost 60bill of exports.
If they continue this then the RoW will continue to eat into their exports to the UK.
Dumb and Dumber run the EU.
In
Ba.
.
The thing is, I don't think this process is even close to getting up to full speed yet. I am still hoping the whole Brexit process will collapse and I can go back to building a UK business based in the UK. But if we crash out without a deal I can imagine switching my activities to the continent. I don't think anything spectacular will happen at the end of March even in the event of no deal. But the effects are still going to be huge and generally bad in the medium term. Anyone who really cares about the UK should be pushing for revocation of Article 50.
I disagree with your second paragraph. The UK’s survival does not depend upon its EU membership.
I think the impact on services over the longer term would be negligible, we’ll just diversify into global markets, and the main challenge will be over manufacturing.
Ultimately, it’s a political issue not one of economic survival.
Yes but services and manufacturing are not two different planets. In fact I will be doing a bit of both before lunchtime today.
No work in Berlin? I've only got one customer there, so maybe. But last time I was on the train back to the airport from central Berlin I noticed a big industrial park being completed intended for just the kind of business I work with. In the EU I can just pitch up and compete. Outside the EU there will inevitably be some barriers. We want to get away from EU regulations remember? And if we lose our manufacturing base I'll only be able to offer services, not UK sourced products.
If whatever it is about the EU that is so intolerable to you that you are willing to endure being behind France and Germany economically, well that is your choice. But don't imagine we are doing something that is remotely advantageous to our businesses.
Who the feck is David Henig.. Is his opinion worth more than anyone elses>? Why is it being posted as something important>?
He’s an ex-Department for International Trade wonk. I don’t agree with the argument of the thread but I think it’s a good example of how technocrats are at the end of their tether with May’s approach.
Right now I’d settle for a politician that could play noughts and crosses.
That is just the sort of constrained thinking that bedevils our political process. When I become PM, I will strive for a third way, a way between noughts and crosses - an ampersand perhaps, or chicken nuggets (*). There is no reason why noughts and crosses cannot be improved for the modern high-tech digital age by adding another symbol or two.
I missed a few questions on the carrier deployment in the old thread. This is the situation...
QNLZ is still conducting sea trials and has no declared combat capability. It will not achieve "Initial Operating Capability (Carrier Strike) until late 2020/2021 at which point it will go on its EASTPAC deployment which, according to the Fireplace Salesman, will shit up the Chinese.
IOC(CS) is very basic and includes no AEW capability and "up to" 12 embarked F-35B. The second squadron of the air wing on the Pacific deployment will be USMC. The strike group will be brought up to strength by the French and Dutch navies.
Full Operating Capability (Carrier Strike) is planned for 2023 and will still only be a single F-35B squadron but now with AEW provided by a flight of Merlin HM2 with CROWSNEST radar.
IOC for Carrier Enabled Power Projection (ie both carriers operating to FOC(CS) standard) is late 2023. Although QNLZ will probably enter a lengthy refit at that point. Funds permitting...
Full Operating Capability (Carrier Enabled Power Projection) is scheduled, if nothing else goes wrong, for mid 2026. This schedule is largely being driven by the miserly rate of acquisition of F-35B. The delivery of the full 48 jets of the order will not be complete until the end of 2024.
So that's the story with the carriers despite what the Fireplace Salesman imagines.
It wouldn’t surprise me if PoW simply enters “extended readiness” as soon as it is finished, and/or ends up getting cannibalised for spares.
There has been talk of PoW "focusing" on amphibious and rotary wing ops. ie they are not going to qualify it for fixed wing ops.
Having said that it is still a hell of a lot more carrier capability than the RN has had for many decades - it's just hollowed out and without a full spectrum of capabilities (no EW, no AAR, no SEAD) due to cost constraints.
Indeed, but given you think our defence should just focus on GIUK why would you want it anyway?
I didn't say I did want it. If it were up to me, and it certainly should be, the RN should have spent the QE money on top tier helicopter carriers for North Atlantic/GIUK ASW and ASuW Ops. Something like the Japanese Hyuga class which are gunned up to fuck (VLS, ESSM, ASROC) and can embark 24 Seahawk Romeos. Not many nuts you can't crack with that...
Tracey Crouch behaved well over FBOTs. Tobias Ellwood acted with great courage and compassion trying to save the policeman killed in the Commons (though that was not politics). Rory Stewart has tried to approach Brexit thoughtfully.
The rest seem stuck in a quagmire and are rapidly sinking, bringing the rest of us down with them.
Who the feck is David Henig.. Is his opinion worth more than anyone elses>? Why is it being posted as something important>?
He’s an ex-Department for International Trade wonk. I don’t agree with the argument of the thread but I think it’s a good example of how technocrats are at the end of their tether with May’s approach.
And maybe we are at the end of our tether with technocratic Eurocrats.
Who the feck is David Henig.. Is his opinion worth more than anyone elses>? Why is it being posted as something important>?
He’s an ex-Department for International Trade wonk. I don’t agree with the argument of the thread but I think it’s a good example of how technocrats are at the end of their tether with May’s approach.
And maybe we are at the end of our tether with technocratic Eurocrats.
I'm at the end of my tether with Brexit generally, and its advocates in particular.
Who the feck is David Henig.. Is his opinion worth more than anyone elses>? Why is it being posted as something important>?
He’s an ex-Department for International Trade wonk. I don’t agree with the argument of the thread but I think it’s a good example of how technocrats are at the end of their tether with May’s approach.
And maybe we are at the end of our tether with technocratic Eurocrats.
I'm at the end of my tether with Brexit generally, and its advocates in particular.
Polling suggests that, overwhelmingly, both Leavers and Remainers, are bored by Brexit and want it to end.
A movement which focused on the utter waste of time, cost, confusion, and chaos of Brexit might get traction - and a referendum has the merit of a clean decision: sort it or abort it.
Kamikaze Leadsom on R4 says we still need to go over the cliff even if we are not ready, because the certainty of seeing the ground coming up towards us will be better than the uncertainty of sitting at the cliff top having a rethink.
Lots of complaints about politicians on this thread.
We get those we deserve. There is very little scouting of talent, training for those interested or financial support for those who want to go into politics (which is expensive), the salaries are unremarkable for the responsibilities and skills expected, the hours are long and any personal indiscretion at all in your past, or a gaffe in the present, can kill your career and/or reputation stone dead for good.
Is it any wonder we mainly get those who’ve operated in or near the political world since graduation, who know the rules of the game, have “done their time” ground campaigning in no-hope areas, and are well-connected?
We want the saints, the brave, the talented, but also “real world” people with experience. Very few fall into all of the categories.
I missed a few questions on the carrier deployment in the old thread. This is the situation...
QNLZ is still conducting sea trials and has no declared combat capability. It will not achieve "Initial Operating Capability (Carrier Strike) until late 2020/2021 at which point it will go on its EASTPAC deployment which, according to the Fireplace Salesman, will shit up the Chinese.
IOC(CS) is very basic and includes no AEW capability and "up to" 12 embarked F-35B. The second squadron of the air wing on the Pacific deployment will be USMC. The strike group will be brought up to strength by the French and Dutch navies.
Full Operating Capability (Carrier Strike) is planned for 2023 and will still only be a single F-35B squadron but now with AEW provided by a flight of Merlin HM2 with CROWSNEST radar.
IOC for Carrier Enabled Power Projection (ie both carriers operating to FOC(CS) standard) is late 2023. Although QNLZ will probably enter a lengthy refit at that point. Funds permitting...
Full Operating Capability (Carrier Enabled Power Projection) is scheduled, if nothing else goes wrong, for mid 2026. This schedule is largely being driven by the miserly rate of acquisition of F-35B. The delivery of the full 48 jets of the order will not be complete until the end of 2024.
So that's the story with the carriers despite what the Fireplace Salesman imagines.
Thanks for the update. Whenever I am in Portsmouth it's moored up, and I haven't seen it at sea at all. When it arrived I saw it sail past my window.
Meanwhile we almost have an EU navy; oh, the irony.
Who the feck is David Henig.. Is his opinion worth more than anyone elses>? Why is it being posted as something important>?
He’s an ex-Department for International Trade wonk. I don’t agree with the argument of the thread but I think it’s a good example of how technocrats are at the end of their tether with May’s approach.
And maybe we are at the end of our tether with technocratic Eurocrats.
I'm at the end of my tether with Brexit generally, and its advocates in particular.
Polling suggests that, overwhelmingly, both Leavers and Remainers, are bored by Brexit and want it to end.
A movement which focused on the utter waste of time, cost, confusion, and chaos of Brexit might get traction - and a referendum has the merit of a clean decision: sort it or abort it.
I missed a few questions on the carrier deployment in the old thread. This is the situation...
QNLZ is still conducting sea trials and has no declared combat capability. It will not achieve "Initial Operating Capability (Carrier Strike) until late 2020/2021 at which point it will go on its EASTPAC deployment which, according to the Fireplace Salesman, will shit up the Chinese.
IOC(CS) is very basic and includes no AEW capability and "up to" 12 embarked F-35B. The second squadron of the air wing on the Pacific deployment will be USMC. The strike group will be brought up to strength by the French and Dutch navies.
Full Operating Capability (Carrier Strike) is planned for 2023 and will still only be a single F-35B squadron but now with AEW provided by a flight of Merlin HM2 with CROWSNEST radar.
IOC for Carrier Enabled Power Projection (ie both carriers operating to FOC(CS) standard) is late 2023. Although QNLZ will probably enter a lengthy refit at that point. Funds permitting...
Full Operating Capability (Carrier Enabled Power Projection) is scheduled, if nothing else goes wrong, for mid 2026. This schedule is largely being driven by the miserly rate of acquisition of F-35B. The delivery of the full 48 jets of the order will not be complete until the end of 2024.
So that's the story with the carriers despite what the Fireplace Salesman imagines.
It wouldn’t surprise me if PoW simply enters “extended readiness” as soon as it is finished, and/or ends up getting cannibalised for spares.
There has been talk of PoW "focusing" on amphibious and rotary wing ops. ie they are not going to qualify it for fixed wing ops.
Having said that it is still a hell of a lot more carrier capability than the RN has had for many decades - it's just hollowed out and without a full spectrum of capabilities (no EW, no AAR, no SEAD) due to cost constraints.
Indeed, but given you think our defence should just focus on GIUK why would you want it anyway?
I didn't say I did want it. If it were up to me, and it certainly should be, the RN should have spent the QE money on top tier helicopter carriers for North Atlantic/GIUK ASW and ASuW Ops. Something like the Japanese Hyuga class which are gunned up to fuck (VLS, ESSM, ASROC) and can embark 24 Seahawk Romeos. Not many nuts you can't crack with that...
I missed a few questions on the carrier deployment in the old thread. This is the situation...
QNLZ is still conducting sea trials and has no declared combat capability. It will not achieve "Initial Operating Capability (Carrier Strike) until late 2020/2021 at which point it will go on its EASTPAC deployment which, according to the Fireplace Salesman, will shit up the Chinese.
IOC(CS) is very basic and includes no AEW capability and "up to" 12 embarked F-35B. The second squadron of the air wing on the Pacific deployment will be USMC. The strike group will be brought up to strength by the French and Dutch navies.
Full Operating Capability (Carrier Strike) is planned for 2023 and will still only be a single F-35B squadron but now with AEW provided by a flight of Merlin HM2 with CROWSNEST radar.
IOC for Carrier Enabled Power Projection (ie both carriers operating to FOC(CS) standard) is late 2023. Although QNLZ will probably enter a lengthy refit at that point. Funds permitting...
Full Operating Capability (Carrier Enabled Power Projection) is scheduled, if nothing else goes wrong, for mid 2026. This schedule is largely being driven by the miserly rate of acquisition of F-35B. The delivery of the full 48 jets of the order will not be complete until the end of 2024.
So that's the story with the carriers despite what the Fireplace Salesman imagines.
Thanks for the update. Whenever I am in Portsmouth it's moored up, and I haven't seen it at sea at all. When it arrived I saw it sail past my window.
Meanwhile we almost have an EU navy; oh, the irony.
I thought we werent having an EU army or navy ? Urban myth etc,
Anyone been able to decipher these cryptic Brexiteer words?
'Olly Robbins is a draughts player in a chess world'
It doesn't help that I've forgotten how to play draughts. What could this possibly mean?
Well, draughts is a much simpler game than chess. All the pieces look alike and move alike, whereas in chess you have half a dozen different types of pieces, wot can move in different ways: Porns, Rooks, Knights, Bishops, Kings and Queens.
Pawns, not porns! Anyone saying otherwise is nakedly wrong.
Chess ends with mating, while draughts ends with one on top of the other surely?
Considers Czech-mating joke and thinks better of it
She’s faced confidence votes both within her party and within parliament over the last two months and been endorsed by both by comfortable margins.
As ever, there’s no credible alternative, so people grumble and whine and then stick with her regardless.
There are plenty of credible alternatives. May could.be hit by a bus tomorrow and life would go on.
I don't want her to be hit by a bus. In fact I lived in Maidenhead for a while and she is a very good constituency MP. I just want Brexit cancelled. She can carry on as PM for all I care.
All the more amazing then that with such a monster brain and modest disposition, he failed to convince the voters in the Referendum.....
#FightingOldBattles
James O’Brien is rather obsessed by being seen to be right in the eyes of the world.
It rather makes me suspect that, secretly, he fears he’s not.
James O'Brien has become the mouth piece of the full remainers and his show has classic discussions. Worth listening to him quiz JRM about importing beef from Australia etc. I am sure he thinks he is 100% right.
On last night's evidence there are about 50 hardline ERG.
The HOC has 650 mps. They must take control and marginalise ERG and stop no deal
ERG are a side show - at most, about 1 in 9 of MPs.
But they prove a handy smoke-screen for the 8 in 9 MPs, who don't know what the want. They are like Little Britain's Andy Pipkin. "I want that one...." "I don't like it...."
It's the 8 in 9 MPs keeping No Deal on life-support.
On last night's evidence there are about 50 hardline ERG.
The HOC has 650 mps. They must take control and marginalise ERG and stop no deal
No deal is the legal backstop of Article 50. It is literally written into the Lisbon Treaty.
The only way to remove it is to agree a deal or revoke. Short of that the Lisbon Treaty no deal end date remains even if there is an extension.
Parliament will stop it
How? Parliament can only stop it by voting for the deal agreed between the Government and the EU. To extend requires the 27 other EU members to agree. To revoke requires the PM
How does Parliament make one of the other 2 options occur when they cannot control either?
Deputy PM Simon Coveney said "Brexit is costing Ireland hundreds of millions of euro in terms of working capital facilities, loans, upgrading ports and other incentives."
I could imagine This Week presented by someone else. What I find hard to imagine is This Week without Portillo. I always find it amusing when he's away doing his railway stuff to see which Tory thinks it's a good idea to step into his shoes. Invariably, all they achieve is showing themselves to be complete no-marks (Grant Shapps and Sam Gyimah come to mind).
Lots of complaints about politicians on this thread.
We get those we deserve. There is very little scouting of talent, training for those interested or financial support for those who want to go into politics (which is expensive), the salaries are unremarkable for the responsibilities and skills expected, the hours are long and any personal indiscretion at all in your past, or a gaffe in the present, can kill your career and/or reputation stone dead for good.
Is it any wonder we mainly get those who’ve operated in or near the political world since graduation, who know the rules of the game, have “done their time” ground campaigning in no-hope areas, and are well-connected?
We want the saints, the brave, the talented, but also “real world” people with experience. Very few fall into all of the categories.
Good post. I only know the Labour side well, but certainly for us there is very little head-hunting - the system is simply that a number of people apply and then you have a think. It's very like a medium-sized businesss where you advertise a vacancy - there will be a few internal applications and a bunch of people you've never heard of.
You do get people related to existing politicians applying and they usually get some extra interest (e.g. the Benn family - if you liked Tony you wondered whether the kids were of the same ilk), but as you say it's mostly because they've always been involved even as children and they know the score. Actual nepotism is rare (because you need to persuade hundreds of members) but so is recruitment of exceptional talent from outside. Nor does it always work well when it happens (cf. Archie Norman) - a leader in their field who has not previously been involved with the pleasures of casework and wipped committees may well not find it appealing.
I could imagine This Week presented by someone else. What I find hard to imagine is This Week without Portillo. I always find it amusing when he's away doing his railway stuff to see which Tory thinks it's a good idea to step into his shoes. Invariably, all they achieve is showing themselves to be complete no-marks (Grant Shapps and Sam Gyimah come to mind).
Yes, the Labour spot had a lower bar to clear in stepping in for Ms Abbott.
brexit has been very straightforward and it's only the Remainers who've been trying to make it as complicated as possible.
"a referendum has the merit of a clean decision." exactly, Mr Walker, and we had one in 2016. Since then, we've had the Remainers demanding to have their voice heard, telling us what we meant by it.
We voted to leave. To stop paying membership fees. It's not Rocket science. The only discussion should have been how long the transition period should be. As it took forty years to entangle ourselves, it will take a year or two to unentangle completely. The EU has no intention of expediting our leaving. It won't help to destabilise itself.
If the EU is worried, it can allow us an associate membership period with a rapidly descending fee to pay, or more likely as the EU doesn't do logical discussion, being 27 countries with 27 viewpoints, we can leave at a specified point.
Pretending "Oh, it's all so difficult, we have to stay in" is both transparent and insulting. From day 1, we 've had MPs whose only idea has been to thwart the referendum decision, and hysterical reactions to any barrier they've contrived to make up.
Why has no one has even wondered why we joined an organisation that locks you irrevocably into the system (according to them)?. And you trust them to tell the truth? Ever?
On last night's evidence there are about 50 hardline ERG.
The HOC has 650 mps. They must take control and marginalise ERG and stop no deal
No deal is the legal backstop of Article 50. It is literally written into the Lisbon Treaty.
The only way to remove it is to agree a deal or revoke. Short of that the Lisbon Treaty no deal end date remains even if there is an extension.
Parliament will stop it
How? Parliament can only stop it by voting for the deal agreed between the Government and the EU. To extend requires the 27 other EU members to agree. To revoke requires the PM
How does Parliament make one of the other 2 options occur when they cannot control either?
I could imagine This Week presented by someone else. What I find hard to imagine is This Week without Portillo. I always find it amusing when he's away doing his railway stuff to see which Tory thinks it's a good idea to step into his shoes. Invariably, all they achieve is showing themselves to be complete no-marks (Grant Shapps and Sam Gyimah come to mind).
Yes, the Labour spot had a lower bar to clear in stepping in for Ms Abbott.
I always quite liked her on This Week, but then I think Alan Johnson is quite good too. Funny how the BBC want to make it about Andrew Neil, though.
On last night's evidence there are about 50 hardline ERG.
The HOC has 650 mps. They must take control and marginalise ERG and stop no deal
No deal is the legal backstop of Article 50. It is literally written into the Lisbon Treaty.
The only way to remove it is to agree a deal or revoke. Short of that the Lisbon Treaty no deal end date remains even if there is an extension.
Parliament will stop it
How? Parliament can only stop it by voting for the deal agreed between the Government and the EU. To extend requires the 27 other EU members to agree. To revoke requires the PM
How does Parliament make one of the other 2 options occur when they cannot control either?
It will be stopped
I'm sure that many MP's, perhaps a majority, would like to prevent Brexit, but dare they?
Tracey Crouch behaved well over FBOTs. Tobias Ellwood acted with great courage and compassion trying to save the policeman killed in the Commons (though that was not politics). Rory Stewart has tried to approach Brexit thoughtfully.
The rest seem stuck in a quagmire and are rapidly sinking, bringing the rest of us down with them.
All Tories...
Objectively I think Starmer and Cooper and perhaps Benn have enhanced their reputations on the Labour side, and more controversially I think McDonnell is doing a good job of inching things forward without knocking over the furniture (OK, we can debate Churchill...).
If we're talking more generally than Brexit, as Cyclefree was, there are quite a lot of Labour achievers in policy terms - the one whose work I know best, Sue Hayman, is a real star in detailed policy-making, though eclipsed by her counterpart Gove in terms of eye-catching pronouncements.
I could imagine This Week presented by someone else. What I find hard to imagine is This Week without Portillo. I always find it amusing when he's away doing his railway stuff to see which Tory thinks it's a good idea to step into his shoes. Invariably, all they achieve is showing themselves to be complete no-marks (Grant Shapps and Sam Gyimah come to mind).
Yes, the Labour spot had a lower bar to clear in stepping in for Ms Abbott.
Disappointing news. I really like This Week (except the annoying bit at the end, but I go to bed then).
Alan Johnson and Portillo were a great double act when they were together.
Surely someone else could take this role? Andrew Rawnsley?
All the more amazing then that with such a monster brain and modest disposition, he failed to convince the voters in the Referendum.....
#FightingOldBattles
James O’Brien is rather obsessed by being seen to be right in the eyes of the world.
It rather makes me suspect that, secretly, he fears he’s not.
I tend to be more worried by people with too little self-doubt then by those with too much.
It's why an interview question along the lines of, 'tell me about a time when you made a mistake,' can be so revealing. I can imagine that the responses of some of our leading politicians of recent years - Brown, Cameron, Clegg, May, etc - could be so revealing.
There's generally a disproportionate sense of certainty on here as well. I'm sure of it.
I could imagine This Week presented by someone else. What I find hard to imagine is This Week without Portillo. I always find it amusing when he's away doing his railway stuff to see which Tory thinks it's a good idea to step into his shoes. Invariably, all they achieve is showing themselves to be complete no-marks (Grant Shapps and Sam Gyimah come to mind).
Yes, the Labour spot had a lower bar to clear in stepping in for Ms Abbott.
I always quite liked her on This Week, but then I think Alan Johnson is quite good too. Funny how the BBC want to make it about Andrew Neil, though.
Objectively, it is though, isn't it? His personality can be irritating and overbearing at times, but it's the essence of the show; Portillo et al are simply his foils.
Edit/ And part of the story with Abbott is that it doesn't work with a serving politician who has skin in the game. Portillo and Johnson are able to sit back and criticise their own side in a way that a current MP never can. It almost works with Kendall because she's so far from her own party right now.
On last night's evidence there are about 50 hardline ERG.
The HOC has 650 mps. They must take control and marginalise ERG and stop no deal
No deal is the legal backstop of Article 50. It is literally written into the Lisbon Treaty.
The only way to remove it is to agree a deal or revoke. Short of that the Lisbon Treaty no deal end date remains even if there is an extension.
Parliament will stop it
How? Parliament can only stop it by voting for the deal agreed between the Government and the EU. To extend requires the 27 other EU members to agree. To revoke requires the PM
How does Parliament make one of the other 2 options occur when they cannot control either?
It will be stopped
So you keep saying but Article 50 removes that choice from Parliament.
Parliament can agree a deal or choose to revoke. It can't simply stop no deal without either of those choices being made.
Don't blame the ERG for that blame those who ratified Article 50 and those who invoked it. If Parliament wants to remove no deal then it must agree a deal or revoke Article 50. That is the law.
Comments
Back in the day, if you stood out from your tribe or rebelled against it, unless you won over the leaders or became the leader, you’d be killed or thrown out. That’s in a time where exile into the wilderness was also effectively a death sentence and you certainly wouldn’t be able to raise a family, leading to your sterility.
Based upon the activities of my (extremely pro Remain) firm, and what I’ve observed of the sourcing of products by the major supermarket chains, they’ve spent the last 18 months diversifying their business and supply chains to RoW, whilst opening a shell office in the EU just in case but without any major opportunities to pursue there.
Like the Brexit vote itself, both the UK and EU Governments were responsible for the events that led up to it, largely through a disconnect in policy between them and the UK electorate.
The EU provokes a stronger reaction because we have little emotional identity with it, and it isn’t shy of showing it and loudly advocating how much further it wants to go.
The thing is, I don't think this process is even close to getting up to full speed yet. I am still hoping the whole Brexit process will collapse and I can go back to building a UK business based in the UK. But if we crash out without a deal I can imagine switching my activities to the continent. I don't think anything spectacular will happen at the end of March even in the event of no deal. But the effects are still going to be huge and generally bad in the medium term. Anyone who really cares about the UK should be pushing for revocation of Article 50.
An apparent break-away party not happening as indicated?
My gast was not flabbered.
On the other hand, we’ve secured two major jobs in Canada in the last 4 months and are also looking at the US and Australia where there is work.
I think the impact on services over the longer term would be negligible, we’ll just diversify into global markets, and the main challenge will be over manufacturing.
Ultimately, it’s a political issue not one of economic survival.
It was generally agreed that a horse would however make better laws than our current MPs.
Having said that it is still a hell of a lot more carrier capability than the RN has had for many decades - it's just hollowed out and without a full spectrum of capabilities (no EW, no AAR, no SEAD) due to cost constraints.
There is nothing inherently vicious about either decision, contrary to what may be said by some. It's easy to see arguments on either side. Really, it comes down to what you prize more, although that isn't the way it was sold.
But there is no way of having both, and that is what far too many people are effectively demanding.
She chose the timeline. She prioritised ending FOM over the economy. The rest is history.
Even Richard Burton, Casanova, Genghis Khan, Frederick Augustus and Tiger Woods on a rota would have their work cut out.
Mr. Walker, the time frame is in Article 50, in the Lisbon Treaty. May can be blamed for a lot of things, but she's not the one who reneged on a referendum promise and then signed the Lisbon Treaty.
No work in Berlin? I've only got one customer there, so maybe. But last time I was on the train back to the airport from central Berlin I noticed a big industrial park being completed intended for just the kind of business I work with. In the EU I can just pitch up and compete. Outside the EU there will inevitably be some barriers. We want to get away from EU regulations remember? And if we lose our manufacturing base I'll only be able to offer services, not UK sourced products.
If whatever it is about the EU that is so intolerable to you that you are willing to endure being behind France and Germany economically, well that is your choice. But don't imagine we are doing something that is remotely advantageous to our businesses.
(*) What my son calls quotation marks...
https://www.reuters.com/article/europe-banks-santander/update-1-banco-santander-opts-to-roll-over-coco-bond-idUSL5N2076DX
Probably not what they meant though.
A movement which focused on the utter waste of time, cost, confusion, and chaos of Brexit might get traction - and a referendum has the merit of a clean decision: sort it or abort it.
With Sid James as Jean-Claude “Juanker”.
Carry On Tessy
Sivia Sins is PM, Barabara Windsor does Anna Soubry, Charles Hawtry is Hilary Benn, Kenneth Williams is JRM etc
We get those we deserve. There is very little scouting of talent, training for those interested or financial support for those who want to go into politics (which is expensive), the salaries are unremarkable for the responsibilities and skills expected, the hours are long and any personal indiscretion at all in your past, or a gaffe in the present, can kill your career and/or reputation stone dead for good.
Is it any wonder we mainly get those who’ve operated in or near the political world since graduation, who know the rules of the game, have “done their time” ground campaigning in no-hope areas, and are well-connected?
We want the saints, the brave, the talented, but also “real world” people with experience. Very few fall into all of the categories.
She’s faced confidence votes both within her party and within parliament over the last two months and been endorsed by both by comfortable margins.
As ever, there’s no credible alternative, so people grumble and whine and then stick with her regardless.
Meanwhile we almost have an EU navy; oh, the irony.
https://ukm.propstoreauction.com/m/view-auctions/catalog/id/166/?page=2
The HOC has 650 mps. They must take control and marginalise ERG and stop no deal
#FightingOldBattles
The only way to remove it is to agree a deal or revoke. Short of that the Lisbon Treaty no deal end date remains even if there is an extension.
It rather makes me suspect that, secretly, he fears he’s not.
Even if alternatives have less support they do exist.
https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/allisland-border-threat-sparks-fear-well-be-cut-adrift-37818858.html
But they prove a handy smoke-screen for the 8 in 9 MPs, who don't know what the want. They are like Little Britain's Andy Pipkin. "I want that one...." "I don't like it...."
It's the 8 in 9 MPs keeping No Deal on life-support.
To extend requires the 27 other EU members to agree.
To revoke requires the PM
How does Parliament make one of the other 2 options occur when they cannot control either?
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsPR/status/1096188128132558848
I could imagine This Week presented by someone else. What I find hard to imagine is This Week without Portillo. I always find it amusing when he's away doing his railway stuff to see which Tory thinks it's a good idea to step into his shoes. Invariably, all they achieve is showing themselves to be complete no-marks (Grant Shapps and Sam Gyimah come to mind).
You do get people related to existing politicians applying and they usually get some extra interest (e.g. the Benn family - if you liked Tony you wondered whether the kids were of the same ilk), but as you say it's mostly because they've always been involved even as children and they know the score. Actual nepotism is rare (because you need to persuade hundreds of members) but so is recruitment of exceptional talent from outside. Nor does it always work well when it happens (cf. Archie Norman) - a leader in their field who has not previously been involved with the pleasures of casework and wipped committees may well not find it appealing.
"a referendum has the merit of a clean decision." exactly, Mr Walker, and we had one in 2016. Since then, we've had the Remainers demanding to have their voice heard, telling us what we meant by it.
We voted to leave. To stop paying membership fees. It's not Rocket science. The only discussion should have been how long the transition period should be. As it took forty years to entangle ourselves, it will take a year or two to unentangle completely. The EU has no intention of expediting our leaving. It won't help to destabilise itself.
If the EU is worried, it can allow us an associate membership period with a rapidly descending fee to pay, or more likely as the EU doesn't do logical discussion, being 27 countries with 27 viewpoints, we can leave at a specified point.
Pretending "Oh, it's all so difficult, we have to stay in" is both transparent and insulting. From day 1, we 've had MPs whose only idea has been to thwart the referendum decision, and hysterical reactions to any barrier they've contrived to make up.
Why has no one has even wondered why we joined an organisation that locks you irrevocably into the system (according to them)?. And you trust them to tell the truth? Ever?
If we're talking more generally than Brexit, as Cyclefree was, there are quite a lot of Labour achievers in policy terms - the one whose work I know best, Sue Hayman, is a real star in detailed policy-making, though eclipsed by her counterpart Gove in terms of eye-catching pronouncements.
Alan Johnson and Portillo were a great double act when they were together.
Surely someone else could take this role? Andrew Rawnsley?
It's why an interview question along the lines of, 'tell me about a time when you made a mistake,' can be so revealing. I can imagine that the responses of some of our leading politicians of recent years - Brown, Cameron, Clegg, May, etc - could be so revealing.
There's generally a disproportionate sense of certainty on here as well. I'm sure of it.
Edit/ And part of the story with Abbott is that it doesn't work with a serving politician who has skin in the game. Portillo and Johnson are able to sit back and criticise their own side in a way that a current MP never can. It almost works with Kendall because she's so far from her own party right now.
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1096307216536219649
Parliament can agree a deal or choose to revoke. It can't simply stop no deal without either of those choices being made.
Don't blame the ERG for that blame those who ratified Article 50 and those who invoked it. If Parliament wants to remove no deal then it must agree a deal or revoke Article 50. That is the law.