Labour is offering to support the Withdrawal Agreement essentially in return for a promise about the government's future negotiating position. A promise enshrined in law - but no parliament can bind his successors, so still only a politician's promise.
But that's what Labour is asking for. So why shouldn't Theresa May agree to that, while being perfectly open about the possibility of a future parliament changing its mind?
Or have I really misunderstood?
I think that must be about right. There is only one WA around and, subject to the tiniest of tinkerings, that is it. The WA has an internationally binding nature which means that in general domestic politics can't overrule it. JC seems to have accepted that. He does want his principles enshrined in law. In domestic politics that's as far as you can go - it is always subject to the will of your successors.
This could give TM a way out, as JCs position is not far from one interpretation of the WA, namely that it is a precursor to a customs union and SM alignment. This emphasises the remarkable deal which the WA is - enabling no free movement while creating the possibility of close alignment. It is worth noting carefully that all along Kenneth Clarke has been willing to vote for the WA. I think it must follow that, for all its difficulties, there is enough in it for industry and commerce to cope.
The WA is as close as you can get to 'Norway for Now' without freedom of movement. It looks as if Labour may start to give it a fair wind. TM is about to land her helicopter on Rockall. It is very clever, but it is never going to be elegant.
Labour is offering to support the Withdrawal Agreement essentially in return for a promise about the government's future negotiating position. A promise enshrined in law - but no parliament can bind his successors, so still only a politician's promise.
But that's what Labour is asking for. So why shouldn't Theresa May agree to that, while being perfectly open about the possibility of a future parliament changing its mind?
Or have I really misunderstood?
Except he is not trying to bind future governments' negotiating position. He is trying to bind this current government in the forthcoming Trade Agreement talks would would follow on from passing the WTA and should be completed min then 3+ years before the next GE is due.
If I were Theresa May (which God forbid), I would be thinking about how to get through the next two months, and if I could do that by making agreements that were non-binding and/or revocable, I should jump at the chance.
My only consideration would be how politically damaging it would be for the Deal to pass as a result of Labour support and against a minority of my own party. But I would be thinking it looked distinctly less damaging than the alternatives.
I would also be thinking of resigning once Brexit was accomplished, and letting my successor tie up these few trifling loose ends.
Mr. Glenn, to be fair, she'd have a point. It's daft to 'leave' the EU then hand over huge amounts of power to them whilst losing what influence (and we can debate the size of that...) we had.
Dr. Foxy, it's deranged to vote to leave the EU, then have the political class throw vast amounts of authority over the UK to the EU.
At least those advocating Remain, even now, have a more coherent position.
Jeremy Corbyn's letter has the great merits of being both a workable solution and completely unacceptable to Theresa May.
It has the great demerit of being completely unacceptable, for very different reasons, to a large chunk of his party's support. So he had better have a back-up plan.
Doesn’t the second point get solved by the first? When May rejects it - as she will - Labour is free to suggest other things.
Well yes. That does seem to be Labour's approach. In its own, more sensible way, this proposal is a holding position between diametrically opposed positions, just as the Malthouse plan is for the Conservatives.
One wonders what Labour's back-up plan is.
Yep, that’s the interesting bit!
Question was ;One wonders what Labour's back-up plan is.
Open the gate to let May jump off the cliff and take the Tories with her?
<blockquote class="Quote" rel="OldKingCole">Open the gate to let may jump off the cliff and take the Tories with her? Might work, in electoral terms.</blockquote>
test
Edit: haha no safe to say that didn't work!
Edit2: irritating that as we come up to what is arguably an important time in the nation's history, vanilla becomes near unusable.
The lack or otherwise of a plan is down to the government of David Cameron. The CS Would automatically have options worked out unless they were specifically told not to. The only person who could stop them has the initials DC.
As the BBC doc showed, the EU actually blame Cameron for having the temerity to ask the people, and that's why their sympathy was muted. That's not the way they work. There's also no point kicking the can down the road. It will lie there gathering dust as far as the EU is concerned.
The EU have an aim. That aim is a united Europe. Only that aim will be worked at. If the UK want to leave, they can do so only if they continue to pay their dues and obey the rules. For now, they can hope, but the EU assume time is on their side so they will eventually win.
Remainers risk having the UK stay in the EU with a diminution of influence. I know some Remainers would welcome that. It's sad, but that's how angry they feel. Losing a referendum has hurt their pride, so they want their own back. Nose meet face.
Labour is offering to support the Withdrawal Agreement essentially in return for a promise about the government's future negotiating position. A promise enshrined in law - but no parliament can bind his successors, so still only a politician's promise.
But that's what Labour is asking for. So why shouldn't Theresa May agree to that, while being perfectly open about the possibility of a future parliament changing its mind?
Or have I really misunderstood?
Except he is not trying to bind future governments' negotiating position. He is trying to bind this current government in the forthcoming Trade Agreement talks would would follow on from passing the WTA and should be completed min then 3+ years before the next GE is due.
Um No. At least not as far as your timings go. The Trade Agreement talks would start sometime after March 29th. They would almost certainly not be completed - with a very fair wind and a lot of luck before 2021. That is 1 year before the next election is due. And that assumes there is no early election - something I think is very likely to occur.
I disagree. Launching her bid without a campaign manager, in a crowded field, and starting off in defence, cannot be good for her prospects.
Unfair, perhaps, but the timing is not good.
Doesn't she have a campaign manager? The Huffpost article is a bit mysterious about that part - they lead with
At least three people have withdrawn from consideration to lead Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s nascent 2020 presidential campaign"
...but they don't say anything else about that part. I don't even know what it means - I mean, if everyone says Baemy is terrible to work for and that's an open secret, why would you start being under consideration in the first place so you can withdraw from it?
I have no idea. This could all be smoke without fire spoiler tactics by one of her opponents, but it is not the ideal way to launch a campaign behind three or four frontrunners. And (FWIW, which could be nothing), there is this: https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1093279821604499457
<blockquote class="Quote" rel="OldKingCole">Open the gate to let may jump off the cliff and take the Tories with her? Might work, in electoral terms.</blockquote>
test
Edit: haha no safe to say that didn't work!
Edit2: irritating that as we come up to what is arguably an important time in the nation's history, vanilla becomes near unusable.
Mr T
hate to disillusion you but nothing any of us post on vanilla will change the nations direction
indeed nothing any of us post on vanilla will change much with other BTL posters re Brexit
The really interesting thing will be what Labour does when May says No to the proposals in Corbyn’s letter. In theory, her rejection will open the way to support for a referendum or even to revocation. In theory.
Why would she say anything ? She will say "nothing has changed".
The lack or otherwise of a plan is down to the government of David Cameron. The CS Would automatically have options worked out unless they were specifically told not to. The only person who could stop them has the initials DC.
as we have seen, if they had come up with any plan it would have been trashed by the Brexiteers as not having sufficient unicorns
The other point about this is, surely, that the Labour plan would be quite appealing to the EU.
To avoid No Deal we'll need an extension. Suppose the EU says - as it has been suggesting quite strongly already - that we can have a short extension if it's needed to pass the necessary legislation, but only if the Withdrawal Agreement passes the Commons by the existing deadline?
That would quite neatly turn the tables on Theresa May and her "running down the clock" strategy by turning the Deal v. No Deal choice, which she is currently trying to force on the Commons, into a choice between Corbyn's Deal and No Deal.
I disagree. Launching her bid without a campaign manager, in a crowded field, and starting off in defence, cannot be good for her prospects.
Unfair, perhaps, but the timing is not good.
Doesn't she have a campaign manager? The Huffpost article is a bit mysterious about that part - they lead with
At least three people have withdrawn from consideration to lead Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s nascent 2020 presidential campaign"
...but they don't say anything else about that part. I don't even know what it means - I mean, if everyone says Baemy is terrible to work for and that's an open secret, why would you start being under consideration in the first place so you can withdraw from it?
I have no idea. This could all be smoke without fire spoiler tactics by one of her opponents, but it is not the ideal way to launch a campaign behind three or four frontrunners. And (FWIW, which could be nothing), there is this: https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1093279821604499457
Presumably we're supposed to be channelling The Devil Wears Prada.
It's a good letter - Corbyn is playing to his strengths (polite, constructive). .
Polite? He always chucks a tanty with that big mad bulgy eye thing he does when he gets doorstepped by ITN or similar reptiles.
I have to agree. Nick often talks about Corbyn's politeness but he never strikes me as particularly polite. He often seems bored or irritated and almost completely without charm. Tony Blair was polite. Always. Even Theresa May-for all her faults -is polite. Corbyn....I can't see it.
I guess it's a matter of taste. I'm influenced by frequently seeing him talking with opponents inside and outside the party. In 50 years of acquaintance I've NEVER heard him be personally abusive about anyone, even when talking about an ultra-right-winger in private, and I've never seen him lose his temper beyond the minor irritation when he's doorstepped or asked repetitive questions. A more accurate criticism IMO is that he's buttoned up - you always have the feeling that he's being carefully restrained, like a head teacher choosing his words with precision. You can easily imagine John McDonnell or John Prescott or Ed Balls guffawing at a good joke, even at their expense. I can't imagine JC doing that.
That's interesting. Tony Blair is my template for a polite politician. He could face a hostile crowd and never show a flicker of irritation nor respond in kind to some very intrusive inquisitors. I can't imagine Corbyn dealing with that nor do I suspect the public can after his no shows during the Referendum debates. Obviously knowing him personally you have a different perspective but after working with Blair you must see why it's not obvious to eveybody?.
An interesting metaphor as Rockall a) has a British sovereignty claim that violates international law (UNCLOS) and b) is the subject of a long running dispute with the 28 counties.
It's a good letter - Corbyn is playing to his strengths (polite, constructive). .
Polite? He always chucks a tanty with that big mad bulgy eye thing he does when he gets doorstepped by ITN or similar reptiles.
I have to agree. Nick often talks about Corbyn's politeness but he never strikes me as particularly polite. He often seems bored or irritated and almost completely without charm. Tony Blair was polite. Always. Even Theresa May-for all her faults -is polite. Corbyn....I can't see it.
I guess it's a matter of taste. I'm influenced by frequently seeing him talking with opponents inside and outside the party. In 50 years of acquaintance I've NEVER heard him be personally abusive about anyone, even when talking about an ultra-right-winger in private, and I've never seen him lose his temper beyond the minor irritation when he's doorstepped or asked repetitive questions. A more accurate criticism IMO is that he's buttoned up - you always have the feeling that he's being carefully restrained, like a head teacher choosing his words with precision. You can easily imagine John McDonnell or John Prescott or Ed Balls guffawing at a good joke, even at their expense. I can't imagine JC doing that.
That's interesting. Tony Blair is my template for a polite politician. He could face a hostile crowd and never show a flicker of irritation nor respond in kind to some very intrusive inquisitors. I can't imagine Corbyn dealing with that nor do I suspect the public can after his no shows during the Referendum debates. Obviously knowing him personally you have a different perspective but after working with Blair you must see why it's not obvious to eveybody?.
An interesting metaphor as Rockall a) has a British sovereignty claim that violates international law (UNCLOS) and b) is the subject of a long running dispute with the 28 counties.
The FAA have put helicopters on it a few times.
With effect from 31 March 2014, the UK and Ireland published EEZ limits which include Rockall within the UK's EEZ.[6][7]
It's a good letter - Corbyn is playing to his strengths (polite, constructive). .
Polite? He always chucks a tanty with that big mad bulgy eye thing he does when he gets doorstepped by ITN or similar reptiles.
I have to agree. Nick often talks about Corbyn's politeness but he never strikes me as particularly polite. He often seems bored or irritated and almost completely without charm. Tony Blair was polite. Always. Even Theresa May-for all her faults -is polite. Corbyn....I can't see it.
I guess it's a matter of taste. I'm influenced by frequently seeing him talking with opponents inside and outside the party. In 50 years of acquaintance I've NEVER heard him be personally abusive about anyone, even when talking about an ultra-right-winger in private, and I've never seen him lose his temper beyond the minor irritation when he's doorstepped or asked repetitive questions. A more accurate criticism IMO is that he's buttoned up - you always have the feeling that he's being carefully restrained, like a head teacher choosing his words with precision. You can easily imagine John McDonnell or John Prescott or Ed Balls guffawing at a good joke, even at their expense. I can't imagine JC doing that.
That's interesting. Tony Blair is my template for a polite politician. He could face a hostile crowd and never show a flicker of irritation nor respond in kind to some very intrusive inquisitors. I can't imagine Corbyn dealing with that nor do I suspect the public can after his no shows during the Referendum debates. Obviously knowing him personally you have a different perspective but after working with Blair you must see why it's not obvious to eveybody?.
For all her faults TM is a polite politician
We'd be better off with a rude arsehole who had competence and integrity.
It's a good letter - Corbyn is playing to his strengths (polite, constructive). .
Polite? He always chucks a tanty with that big mad bulgy eye thing he does when he gets doorstepped by ITN or similar reptiles.
I have to agree. Nick often talks about Corbyn's politeness but he never strikes me as particularly polite. He often seems bored or irritated and almost completely without charm. Tony Blair was polite. Always. Even Theresa May-for all her faults -is polite. Corbyn....I can't see it.
I guess it's a matter of taste. I'm influenced by frequently seeing him talking with opponents inside and outside the party. In 50 years of acquaintance I've NEVER heard him be personally abusive about anyone, even when talking about an ultra-right-winger in private, and I've never seen him lose his temper beyond the minor irritation when he's doorstepped or asked repetitive questions. A more accurate criticism IMO is that he's buttoned up - you always have the feeling that he's being carefully restrained, like a head teacher choosing his words with precision. You can easily imagine John McDonnell or John Prescott or Ed Balls guffawing at a good joke, even at their expense. I can't imagine JC doing that.
That's interesting. Tony Blair is my template for a polite politician. He could face a hostile crowd and never show a flicker of irritation nor respond in kind to some very intrusive inquisitors. I can't imagine Corbyn dealing with that nor do I suspect the public can after his no shows during the Referendum debates. Obviously knowing him personally you have a different perspective but after working with Blair you must see why it's not obvious to eveybody?.
For all her faults TM is a polite politician
Some of those unelected Euro cads could watch and learn about civility and manners.
The CS options would leak and the fear was one or two might add credence to the concept of leave while DC was busily implementing Project Fear.
As for discussions with the EU … I only have experience on the scientific side where it was generally harmonious. I've only seen the political in-fighting from a distance, It reminded me strongly of a junior school playground. But I admit I'm not a fan of politicians anyway.
Emily Thornberry should be Labour leader. She's witty articulate and has a self confidence that party leaders need. She's also a female who sounds like she can look after herself. Always irresistable to the British and she's got no back story to cause problems.
Time to get it on Labour
Roger shes a woman
Labour dont do women except as window dressing
She also has some baggage over "white van man" disdaining patriotism. That might be good for momentum but I suspect it would not endear her to floating voters.
If you cant laugh at someone who drapes three cross of St George flags the size of tennis courts across the front of his house then you can't laugh at anything
When you want their vote, don't laugh at anything. (Personally, I'd take the vote away from anyone with plastic meerkats in their garden, but that would disenfranchise half of Torbay.)
Talking of bad taste what did you make of 'Can you ever forgive me' and Richard E Grant's Oscar nominated performance in it? I found his performance as unconvincing as I always do ('Withnail and I' notwithstanding) and his nomination quite bizarre.
It's a good letter - Corbyn is playing to his strengths (polite, constructive). .
Polite? He always chucks a tanty with that big mad bulgy eye thing he does when he gets doorstepped by ITN or similar reptiles.
I have to agree. Nick often talks about Corbyn's politeness but he never strikes me as particularly polite. He often seems bored or irritated and almost completely without charm. Tony Blair was polite. Always. Even Theresa May-for all her faults -is polite. Corbyn....I can't see it.
I guess it's a matter of taste. I'm influenced by frequently seeing him talking with opponents inside and outside the party. In 50 years of acquaintance I've NEVER heard him be personally abusive about anyone, even when talking about an ultra-right-winger in private, and I've never seen him lose his temper beyond the minor irritation when he's doorstepped or asked repetitive questions. A more accurate criticism IMO is that he's buttoned up - you always have the feeling that he's being carefully restrained, like a head teacher choosing his words with precision. You can easily imagine John McDonnell or John Prescott or Ed Balls guffawing at a good joke, even at their expense. I can't imagine JC doing that.
That's interesting. Tony Blair is my template for a polite politician. He could face a hostile crowd and never show a flicker of irritation nor respond in kind to some very intrusive inquisitors. I can't imagine Corbyn dealing with that nor do I suspect the public can after his no shows during the Referendum debates. Obviously knowing him personally you have a different perspective but after working with Blair you must see why it's not obvious to eveybody?.
For all her faults TM is a polite politician
We'd be better off with a rude arsehole who had competence and integrity.
It's a good letter - Corbyn is playing to his strengths (polite, constructive). .
Polite? He always chucks a tanty with that big mad bulgy eye thing he does when he gets doorstepped by ITN or similar reptiles.
I have to agree. Nick often talks about Corbyn's politeness but he never strikes me as particularly polite. He often seems bored or irritated and almost completely without charm. Tony Blair was polite. Always. Even Theresa May-for all her faults -is polite. Corbyn....I can't see it.
I guess it's a matter of taste. I'm influenced by frequently seeing him talking with opponents inside and outside the party. In 50 years of acquaintance I've NEVER heard him be personally abusive about anyone, even when talking about an ultra-right-winger in private, and I've never seen him lose his temper beyond the minor irritation when he's doorstepped or asked repetitive questions. A more accurate criticism IMO is that he's buttoned up - you always have the feeling that he's being carefully restrained, like a head teacher choosing his words with precision. You can easily imagine John McDonnell or John Prescott or Ed Balls guffawing at a good joke, even at their expense. I can't imagine JC doing that.
That's interesting. Tony Blair is my template for a polite politician. He could face a hostile crowd and never show a flicker of irritation nor respond in kind to some very intrusive inquisitors. I can't imagine Corbyn dealing with that nor do I suspect the public can after his no shows during the Referendum debates. Obviously knowing him personally you have a different perspective but after working with Blair you must see why it's not obvious to eveybody?.
For all her faults TM is a polite politician
We'd be better off with a rude arsehole who had competence and integrity.
It's a good letter - Corbyn is playing to his strengths (polite, constructive). .
Polite? He always chucks a tanty with that big mad bulgy eye thing he does when he gets doorstepped by ITN or similar reptiles.
I have to agree. Nick often talks about Corbyn's politeness but he never strikes me as particularly polite. He often seems bored or irritated and almost completely without charm. Tony Blair was polite. Always. Even Theresa May-for all her faults -is polite. Corbyn....I can't see it.
I guess it's a matter of taste. I'm influenced by frequently seeing him talking with opponents inside and outside the party. In 50 years of acquaintance I've NEVER heard him be personally abusive about anyone, even when talking about an ultra-right-winger in private, and I've never seen him lose his temper beyond the minor irritation when he's doorstepped or asked repetitive questions. A more accurate criticism IMO is that he's buttoned up - you always have the feeling that he's being carefully restrained, like a head teacher choosing his words with precision. You can easily imagine John McDonnell or John Prescott or Ed Balls guffawing at a good joke, even at their expense. I can't imagine JC doing that.
That's interesting. Tony Blair is my template for a polite politician. He could face a hostile crowd and never show a flicker of irritation nor respond in kind to some very intrusive inquisitors. I can't imagine Corbyn dealing with that nor do I suspect the public can after his no shows during the Referendum debates. Obviously knowing him personally you have a different perspective but after working with Blair you must see why it's not obvious to eveybody?.
For all her faults TM is a polite politician
We'd be better off with a rude arsehole who had competence and integrity.
Dont be a Philistine or you'll end up with a Trump.
The lack or otherwise of a plan is down to the government of David Cameron. The CS Would automatically have options worked out unless they were specifically told not to. The only person who could stop them has the initials DC.
as we have seen, if they had come up with any plan it would have been trashed by the Brexiteers as not having sufficient unicorns
Perhaps we are seeing now that David Cameron could have offered the referendum once the Leave campaigns had unanimously agreed a green paper on what Leave should look like. We'd probably still be waiting.
Meanwhile back in the real world I notice one of my customers has just rebranded themselves and changed their name to add EU at the end of it. They have also opened an office in Dublin. I don't know if any of their staff are actually based there, but they are certainly giving that impression. I'm hopeful I will keep their business, but inevitably they are now going to be spending at least some money in Dublin that they previously spent in Hampshire.
Well done to all the leavers. This whole debacle is going to cost a bomb.
It's a good letter - Corbyn is playing to his strengths (polite, constructive). .
Polite? He always chucks a tanty with that big mad bulgy eye thing he does when he gets doorstepped by ITN or similar reptiles.
I have to agree. Nick often talks about Corbyn's politeness but he never strikes me as particularly polite. He often seems bored or irritated and almost completely without charm. Tony Blair was polite. Always. Even Theresa May-for all her faults -is polite. Corbyn....I can't see it.
I guess it's a matter of taste. I'm influenced by frequently seeing him talking with opponents inside and outside the party. In 50 years of acquaintance I've NEVER heard him be personally abusive about anyone, even when talking about an ultra-right-winger in private, and I've never seen him lose his temper beyond the minor irritation when he's doorstepped or asked repetitive questions. A more accurate criticism IMO is that he's buttoned up - you always have the feeling that he's being carefully restrained, like a head teacher choosing his words with precision. You can easily imagine John McDonnell or John Prescott or Ed Balls guffawing at a good joke, even at their expense. I can't imagine JC doing that.
That's interesting. Tony Blair is my template for a polite politician. He could face a hostile crowd and never show a flicker of irritation nor respond in kind to some very intrusive inquisitors. I can't imagine Corbyn dealing with that nor do I suspect the public can after his no shows during the Referendum debates. Obviously knowing him personally you have a different perspective but after working with Blair you must see why it's not obvious to eveybody?.
For all her faults TM is a polite politician
We'd be better off with a rude arsehole who had competence and integrity.
It is useful because it starts to de-couple the WA from the PD, something which is logical and long overdue and will help the debate. The WA is actually more compatible with Labour's BINO brexit than it is with May's Chequers minus version of it. It's good to flush this out.
It is smart because Labour know full well that TM will not compromise. A Tory PM could not survive caving in to Opposition policy on the biggest issue of the day. So she will have to rebuff it and in doing so will look partisan and intransigent. That's a win for the red team.
What it also does is push her further into a corner. It leaves her with only 2 realistic options. Somehow get her deal through this parliament (which I still think is very possible) or call a general election.
And that GE, if it comes, will be fascinating. The Cons will have to fight on the May deal and what I think Labour might do is say we will negotiate our different deal (BINO) and - here comes the thrilling bit - we will put that deal to the public in a referendum vs remain.
The gamble would be that remainers will flock to them (the chance to stop brexit trumping everything) and that this will outweigh the hit with working class leave voters.
If it works, Corbyn sweeps to power and we do not leave the European Union.
So, there we go. The dream of a socialist Britain, the dream of Remain - this morning neither are dead.
Such a pity that a socialist Britain and EU membership are mutually exclusive.
Since Theresa May formally announced the legislation for her Energy Price Cap we've had 3 announcements about energy price rises in just 10 months, totaling a prospective 18% average increase in 10 months. I'd hate to see what energy prices "uncapped" would look like.
It's a good letter - Corbyn is playing to his strengths (polite, constructive). .
Polite? He always chucks a tanty with that big mad bulgy eye thing he does when he gets doorstepped by ITN or similar reptiles.
I have to agree. Nick often talks about Corbyn's politeness but he never strikes me as particularly polite. He often seems bored or irritated and almost completely without charm. Tony Blair was polite. Always. Even Theresa May-for all her faults -is polite. Corbyn....I can't see it.
I guess it's a matter of taste. I'm influenced by frequently seeing him talking with opponents inside and outside the party. In 50 years of acquaintance I've NEVER heard him be personally abusive about anyone, even when talking about an ultra-right-winger in private, and I've never seen him lose his temper beyond the minor irritation when he's doorstepped or asked repetitive questions. A more accurate criticism IMO is that he's buttoned up - you always have the feeling that he's being carefully restrained, like a head teacher choosing his words with precision. You can easily imagine John McDonnell or John Prescott or Ed Balls guffawing at a good joke, even at their expense. I can't imagine JC doing that.
That's interesting. Tony Blair is my template for a polite politician. He could face a hostile crowd and never show a flicker of irritation nor respond in kind to some very intrusive inquisitors. I can't imagine Corbyn dealing with that nor do I suspect the public can after his no shows during the Referendum debates. Obviously knowing him personally you have a different perspective but after working with Blair you must see why it's not obvious to eveybody?.
For all her faults TM is a polite politician
We'd be better off with a rude arsehole who had competence and integrity.
Emily Thornberry should be Labour leader. She's witty articulate and has a self confidence that party leaders need. She's also a female who sounds like she can look after herself. Always irresistable to the British and she's got no back story to cause problems.
Time to get it on Labour
Roger shes a woman
Labour dont do women except as window dressing
She also has some baggage over "white van man" disdaining patriotism. That might be good for momentum but I suspect it would not endear her to floating voters.
If you cant laugh at someone who drapes three cross of St George flags the size of tennis courts across the front of his house then you can't laugh at anything
When you want their vote, don't laugh at anything. (Personally, I'd take the vote away from anyone with plastic meerkats in their garden, but that would disenfranchise half of Torbay.)
Talking of bad taste what did you make of 'Can you ever forgive me' and Richard E Grant's Oscar nominated performance in it? I found his performance as unconvincing as I always do ('Withnail and I' notwithstanding) and his nomination quite bizarre.
I gather he was drafted in at the last minute, after Chris O'Dowd dropped out, so am inclined to give him a break.
•23/4/17 I'll cap energy bills •9/5/17 I'll cap energy bills •3/7/17 I'll cap energy bills •9/10/17 I'll cap energy bills •26/2/18 I'll cap energy bills •10/4/18 Energy Bills rise 5.5% •8/8/18 Energy bills rise 3.3% •7/2/19 Energy bills cap up £117
My colourful past behaviour in far flung exotic ports precludes a life in public service. The Daily Mail web site would have to put an extra shift on to cope with the scandals.
It is useful because it starts to de-couple the WA from the PD, something which is logical and long overdue and will help the debate. The WA is actually more compatible with Labour's BINO brexit than it is with May's Chequers minus version of it. It's good to flush this out.
It is smart because Labour know full well that TM will not compromise. A Tory PM could not survive caving in to Opposition policy on the biggest issue of the day. So she will have to rebuff it and in doing so will look partisan and intransigent. That's a win for the red team.
What it also does is push her further into a corner. It leaves her with only 2 realistic options. Somehow get her deal through this parliament (which I still think is very possible) or call a general election.
And that GE, if it comes, will be fascinating. The Cons will have to fight on the May deal and what I think Labour might do is say we will negotiate our different deal (BINO) and - here comes the thrilling bit - we will put that deal to the public in a referendum vs remain.
The gamble would be that remainers will flock to them (the chance to stop brexit trumping everything) and that this will outweigh the hit with working class leave voters.
If it works, Corbyn sweeps to power and we do not leave the European Union.
So, there we go. The dream of a socialist Britain, the dream of Remain - this morning neither are dead.
Such a pity that a socialist Britain and EU membership are mutually exclusive.
But we won't dwell on that.
However JC is irrelevant in this. TM can't and wont trust him to do any deal. Rightly so.
The backstop will be tweaked or no deal. A JC + TM deal is unicorn territory.
Surely a reasonable definition of 'Leave' is when you stop paying membership fees? If you carry on paying the same fees. you haven't left.
To clarify the position if you really want to, you could suggest a looser arrangement, one where you reduce the fees considerably for some advantages of membership. But that would be where you start from a position of having left and the onus would be on the EU to try and tempt you partially back.
It's the sort of thing a commercial organisation would do. "How about associate membership? We have three categories." The EU won't do that because they'd always insist on their 'precious',FOM, being included.
The lack or otherwise of a plan is down to the government of David Cameron. The CS Would automatically have options worked out unless they were specifically told not to. The only person who could stop them has the initials DC.
as we have seen, if they had come up with any plan it would have been trashed by the Brexiteers as not having sufficient unicorns
Perhaps we are seeing now that David Cameron could have offered the referendum once the Leave campaigns had unanimously agreed a green paper on what Leave should look like. We'd probably still be waiting.
Oh, not this again. Any Leave prospectus would have been completely meaningless since what is achievable depends largely on what the EU are prepared to accommodate. The EU would (presumably) not have agreed to negotiate without Article 50 being invoked (since that is what happened following the referendum), so there was simply no prospect of a meaningful prospectus ever being achieved.
It is useful because it starts to de-couple the WA from the PD, something which is logical and long overdue and will help the debate. The WA is actually more compatible with Labour's BINO brexit than it is with May's Chequers minus version of it. It's good to flush this out.
It is smart because Labour know full well that TM will not compromise. A Tory PM could not survive caving in to Opposition policy on the biggest issue of the day. So she will have to rebuff it and in doing so will look partisan and intransigent. That's a win for the red team.
What it also does is push her further into a corner. It leaves her with only 2 realistic options. Somehow get her deal through this parliament (which I still think is very possible) or call a general election.
And that GE, if it comes, will be fascinating. The Cons will have to fight on the May deal and what I think Labour might do is say we will negotiate our different deal (BINO) and - here comes the thrilling bit - we will put that deal to the public in a referendum vs remain.
The gamble would be that remainers will flock to them (the chance to stop brexit trumping everything) and that this will outweigh the hit with working class leave voters.
If it works, Corbyn sweeps to power and we do not leave the European Union.
So, there we go. The dream of a socialist Britain, the dream of Remain - this morning neither are dead.
Such a pity that a socialist Britain and EU membership are mutually exclusive.
But we won't dwell on that.
All roads lead to your GE which won't happen And we have a power cut and everywhere is so peaceful and quiet
The lack or otherwise of a plan is down to the government of David Cameron. The CS Would automatically have options worked out unless they were specifically told not to. The only person who could stop them has the initials DC.
as we have seen, if they had come up with any plan it would have been trashed by the Brexiteers as not having sufficient unicorns
Perhaps we are seeing now that David Cameron could have offered the referendum once the Leave campaigns had unanimously agreed a green paper on what Leave should look like. We'd probably still be waiting.
Oh, not this again. Any Leave prospectus would have been completely meaningless since what is achievable depends largely on what the EU are prepared to accommodate. The EU would (presumably) not have agreed to negotiate without Article 50 being invoked (since that is what happened following the referendum), so there was simply no prospect of a meaningful prospectus ever being achieved.
That isn't exactly consistent with the "we hold all the cards" message that Leave pumped out during the referendum campaign.
The lack or otherwise of a plan is down to the government of David Cameron. The CS Would automatically have options worked out unless they were specifically told not to. The only person who could stop them has the initials DC.
as we have seen, if they had come up with any plan it would have been trashed by the Brexiteers as not having sufficient unicorns
Perhaps we are seeing now that David Cameron could have offered the referendum once the Leave campaigns had unanimously agreed a green paper on what Leave should look like. We'd probably still be waiting.
Oh, not this again. Any Leave prospectus would have been completely meaningless since what is achievable depends largely on what the EU are prepared to accommodate. The EU would (presumably) not have agreed to negotiate without Article 50 being invoked (since that is what happened following the referendum), so there was simply no prospect of a meaningful prospectus ever being achieved.
The Uk should have said the default is WTO but we are prepared to add on some bits and pieces in these areas if the EU agrees. We might even pay £ for them. Plus some unilateral stuff on existing residency.
When the ROI brought up this hard border nonsense they should have focused on the Holyhead border instead - that is the one that screws the ROI if it gets clogged up.
The lack or otherwise of a plan is down to the government of David Cameron. The CS Would automatically have options worked out unless they were specifically told not to. The only person who could stop them has the initials DC.
as we have seen, if they had come up with any plan it would have been trashed by the Brexiteers as not having sufficient unicorns
Perhaps we are seeing now that David Cameron could have offered the referendum once the Leave campaigns had unanimously agreed a green paper on what Leave should look like. We'd probably still be waiting.
Oh, not this again. Any Leave prospectus would have been completely meaningless since what is achievable depends largely on what the EU are prepared to accommodate. The EU would (presumably) not have agreed to negotiate without Article 50 being invoked (since that is what happened following the referendum), so there was simply no prospect of a meaningful prospectus ever being achieved.
That isn't exactly consistent with the "we hold all the cards" message that Leave pumped out during the referendum campaign.
Well, I'm not inclined to defend that messaging (I voted Leave but thought it was obviously daft at the time - if the EU was that easy to negotiate with then I would probably have voted Remain). Either way, in retrospect it clearly Wasn't True, and both sides said a bunch of things that fall into that category.
It is useful because it starts to de-couple the WA from the PD, something which is logical and long overdue and will help the debate. The WA is actually more compatible with Labour's BINO brexit than it is with May's Chequers minus version of it. It's good to flush this out.
It is smart because Labour know full well that TM will not compromise. A Tory PM could not survive caving in to Opposition policy on the biggest issue of the day. So she will have to rebuff it and in doing so will look partisan and intransigent. That's a win for the red team.
What it also does is push her further into a corner. It leaves her with only 2 realistic options. Somehow get her deal through this parliament (which I still think is very possible) or call a general election.
And that GE, if it comes, will be fascinating. The Cons will have to fight on the May deal and what I think Labour might do is say we will negotiate our different deal (BINO) and - here comes the thrilling bit - we will put that deal to the public in a referendum vs remain.
The gamble would be that remainers will flock to them (the chance to stop brexit trumping everything) and that this will outweigh the hit with working class leave voters.
If it works, Corbyn sweeps to power and we do not leave the European Union.
So, there we go. The dream of a socialist Britain, the dream of Remain - this morning neither are dead.
Such a pity that a socialist Britain and EU membership are mutually exclusive.
But we won't dwell on that.
All roads lead to your GE which won't happen And we have a power cut and everywhere is so peaceful and quiet
Just as a matter of passing interest, there are 6 council by-elections tonight, although two are in Tower Hamlets. Andrew Teale, in Britain Elects sets our an amazing tale of corruption, mismanagement and infighting in that borough which probably renders any deduction from those contests of doubtful worth, and several of the others have chequered electoral pasts. See https://britainelects.com/2019/02/06/previews-07-feb-2019/
Let's imagine a commercial organisation uses the facilities of a larger organisation, and decide they're either not getting their money's worth or they don't like the service, so they cancel.
They agree to pay up to the end of the year or to wherever the contract specifies. The other company insult them for wanting to leave and claim their wants are unclear so they'll have to stay.
There would be two reactions by the directors to this. Either tell them to fuck off, or ask who signed us up to this silly contract that keeps you entangled whatever the circumstances.
On examining the contract you discover there's no legal bar to leaving, but the contract has been altered periodically in favour of the other company. The sensible reaction is to leave now and sack the incompetents, despite their bleating they know best.
Just as a matter of passing interest, there are 6 council by-elections tonight, although two are in Tower Hamlets. Andrew Teale, in Britain Elects sets our an amazing tale of corruption, mismanagement and infighting in that borough which probably renders any deduction from those contests of doubtful worth, and several of the others have chequered electoral pasts. See https://britainelects.com/2019/02/06/previews-07-feb-2019/
Housing benefit fraud seems to be a systemic issue for councillors at tower hamlets
Dont be a Philistine or you'll end up with a Trump.
Oh do not say that. Simply could not bear it.
Anyway, yes, the 'Gere frown', I know exactly what you mean! That expression he always has where he looks slightly confused about things. I like it. Plenty of men look like that.
In fact, just thinking about it now, this is at the heart of his appeal for me. He is not a 'good' actor but yet he is extremely realistic. People who have stunningly attractive faces, as he does, often also look a little bit dense - which he does.
And in real life people do not emote vividly and speak clearly. They find it hard to let themselves go, they are repressed, they are wooden, they mumble. Just like Gere.
Perhaps my favourite thing about a typical RG performance is how when he's speaking he tends to give the impression that he is thinking about something else entirely. This, in my experience, is authentic and very true to life. It is exactly what happens in the real world. Certainly in my world it does. When I have a conversation with somebody it usually becomes clear quite quickly that both of us are thinking about other matters.
The lack or otherwise of a plan is down to the government of David Cameron. The CS Would automatically have options worked out unless they were specifically told not to. The only person who could stop them has the initials DC.
As the BBC doc showed, the EU actually blame Cameron for having the temerity to ask the people, and that's why their sympathy was muted. That's not the way they work. There's also no point kicking the can down the road. It will lie there gathering dust as far as the EU is concerned.
The EU have an aim. That aim is a united Europe. Only that aim will be worked at. If the UK want to leave, they can do so only if they continue to pay their dues and obey the rules. For now, they can hope, but the EU assume time is on their side so they will eventually win.
Remainers risk having the UK stay in the EU with a diminution of influence. I know some Remainers would welcome that. It's sad, but that's how angry they feel. Losing a referendum has hurt their pride, so they want their own back. Nose meet face.
Whilst there is some truth in that it does not exonerate leave politicians who spent years campaigning for a Brexit without giving a second thought to planning how to achieve it if they won.
The fact they undertook zero preparation themselves has, apart from anything else, significantly decreases the chances of Brexit actually succeeding. Not clever on any count.
It is useful because it starts to de-couple the WA from the PD, something which is logical and long overdue and will help the debate. The WA is actually more compatible with Labour's BINO brexit than it is with May's Chequers minus version of it. It's good to flush this out.
It is smart because Labour know full well that TM will not compromise. A Tory PM could not survive caving in to Opposition policy on the biggest issue of the day. So she will have to rebuff it and in doing so will look partisan and intransigent. That's a win for the red team.
What it also does is push her further into a corner. It leaves her with only 2 realistic options. Somehow get her deal through this parliament (which I still think is very possible) or call a general election.
And that GE, if it comes, will be fascinating. The Cons will have to fight on the May deal and what I think Labour might do is say we will negotiate our different deal (BINO) and - here comes the thrilling bit - we will put that deal to the public in a referendum vs remain.
The gamble would be that remainers will flock to them (the chance to stop brexit trumping everything) and that this will outweigh the hit with working class leave voters.
If it works, Corbyn sweeps to power and we do not leave the European Union.
So, there we go. The dream of a socialist Britain, the dream of Remain - this morning neither are dead.
Such a pity that a socialist Britain and EU membership are mutually exclusive.
But we won't dwell on that.
Why would May call a general election rather than a referendum, if the issue has to be put to the public?
The lack or otherwise of a plan is down to the government of David Cameron. The CS Would automatically have options worked out unless they were specifically told not to. The only person who could stop them has the initials DC.
as we have seen, if they had come up with any plan it would have been trashed by the Brexiteers as not having sufficient unicorns
Perhaps we are seeing now that David Cameron could have offered the referendum once the Leave campaigns had unanimously agreed a green paper on what Leave should look like. We'd probably still be waiting.
Oh, not this again. Any Leave prospectus would have been completely meaningless since what is achievable depends largely on what the EU are prepared to accommodate. The EU would (presumably) not have agreed to negotiate without Article 50 being invoked (since that is what happened following the referendum), so there was simply no prospect of a meaningful prospectus ever being achieved.
It wouldn't have been meaningless but it would have torpedoed the Leave campaign because it would not have won the support of a majority of voters.
Listened to a report on 5 live this morning and the banned subject in the EU is how they deal with the Irish border in a no deal scenario. They do not discuss it with Varadkar as they know that customs checks would have to happen on mainland Europe and Ireland would be effectively a second tier member by default
They seem so confident in taking this to the wire but underneath there is huge disquiet over no deal and they will do anything to stop it
The lack or otherwise of a plan is down to the government of David Cameron. The CS Would automatically have options worked out unless they were specifically told not to. The only person who could stop them has the initials DC.
as we have seen, if they had come up with any plan it would have been trashed by the Brexiteers as not having sufficient unicorns
Perhaps we are seeing now that David Cameron could have offered the referendum once the Leave campaigns had unanimously agreed a green paper on what Leave should look like. We'd probably still be waiting.
Oh, not this again. Any Leave prospectus would have been completely meaningless since what is achievable depends largely on what the EU are prepared to accommodate. The EU would (presumably) not have agreed to negotiate without Article 50 being invoked (since that is what happened following the referendum), so there was simply no prospect of a meaningful prospectus ever being achieved.
What we are agreed upon, I think is that David Cameron's mismanagement of the whole business will be one of the subjects studied by Ydoethur's successors students.
It is useful because it starts to de-couple the WA from the PD, something which is logical and long overdue and will help the debate. The WA is actually more compatible with Labour's BINO brexit than it is with May's Chequers minus version of it. It's good to flush this out.
It is smart because Labour know full well that TM will not compromise. A Tory PM could not survive caving in to Opposition policy on the biggest issue of the day. So she will have to rebuff it and in doing so will look partisan and intransigent. That's a win for the red team.
What it also does is push her further into a corner. It leaves her with only 2 realistic options. Somehow get her deal through this parliament (which I still think is very possible) or call a general election.
And that GE, if it comes, will be fascinating. The Cons will have to fight on the May deal and what I think Labour might do is say we will negotiate our different deal (BINO) and - here comes the thrilling bit - we will put that deal to the public in a referendum vs remain.
The gamble would be that remainers will flock to them (the chance to stop brexit trumping everything) and that this will outweigh the hit with working class leave voters.
If it works, Corbyn sweeps to power and we do not leave the European Union.
So, there we go. The dream of a socialist Britain, the dream of Remain - this morning neither are dead.
Such a pity that a socialist Britain and EU membership are mutually exclusive.
But we won't dwell on that.
Good thinking. I'm going to have to adjust my betting positions. I had a Tory majority nailed on in an early GE. Corbyn's intervention changes that.
Mr. Meeks, whilst Remain had very many advantages in the referendum, it is worth noting the rather odd decision by Cameron not to have either an independent body or the official Leave campaign outline their preferred arrangements for the UK should we leave.
If the official Leave campaign had been required to outline it's preferred arrangements then it would have been all cake and unicorns. The EU would then have stated that they would not agree to that arrangement.
Leave would have been officially campaigning for a Brexit that could not happen.Not quite sure where things would have gone after that.
It is useful because it starts to de-couple the WA from the PD, something which is logical and long overdue and will help the debate. The WA is actually more compatible with Labour's BINO brexit than it is with May's Chequers minus version of it. It's good to flush this out.
It is smart because Labour know full well that TM will not compromise. A Tory PM could not survive caving in to Opposition policy on the biggest issue of the day. So she will have to rebuff it and in doing so will look partisan and intransigent. That's a win for the red team.
What it also does is push her further into a corner. It leaves her with only 2 realistic options. Somehow get her deal through this parliament (which I still think is very possible) or call a general election.
And that GE, if it comes, will be fascinating. The Cons will have to fight on the May deal and what I think Labour might do is say we will negotiate our different deal (BINO) and - here comes the thrilling bit - we will put that deal to the public in a referendum vs remain.
The gamble would be that remainers will flock to them (the chance to stop brexit trumping everything) and that this will outweigh the hit with working class leave voters.
If it works, Corbyn sweeps to power and we do not leave the European Union.
So, there we go. The dream of a socialist Britain, the dream of Remain - this morning neither are dead.
Such a pity that a socialist Britain and EU membership are mutually exclusive.
But we won't dwell on that.
Why would May call a general election rather than a referendum, if the issue has to be put to the public?
Not sure.
I always thought a 2nd ref would have been the least painful escape route for her (which is perhaps why Corbyn appears to have undermined it?) but it seems to be off the agenda. I can only assume it is because it doesn't fulfil her mantra of 'respecting the electorate's wishes'. A GE is a way of avoiding that.
None of it makes sense, except in political la-la land.
The lack or otherwise of a plan is down to the government of David Cameron. The CS Would automatically have options worked out unless they were specifically told not to. The only person who could stop them has the initials DC.
as we have seen, if they had come up with any plan it would have been trashed by the Brexiteers as not having sufficient unicorns
Perhaps we are seeing now that David Cameron could have offered the referendum once the Leave campaigns had unanimously agreed a green paper on what Leave should look like. We'd probably still be waiting.
Oh, not this again. Any Leave prospectus would have been completely meaningless since what is achievable depends largely on what the EU are prepared to accommodate. The EU would (presumably) not have agreed to negotiate without Article 50 being invoked (since that is what happened following the referendum), so there was simply no prospect of a meaningful prospectus ever being achieved.
It wouldn't have been meaningless but it would have torpedoed the Leave campaign because it would not have won the support of a majority of voters.
It could never have existed in the first place. It would have required the EU's co-operation, which would not have been forthcoming.
Why would May call a general election rather than a referendum, if the issue has to be put to the public?
The only referendum the HoC would allow is remain vs XX, which remain probably wins. If May could have had deal vs no-deal, she'd have happily taken it.
However, a general election gives the PM a mandate for whatever she likes, ie it's deal vs XX.
Listened to a report on 5 live this morning and the banned subject in the EU is how they deal with the Irish border in a no deal scenario. They do not discuss it with Varadkar as they know that customs checks would have to happen on mainland Europe and Ireland would be effectively a second tier member by default
They seem so confident in taking this to the wire but underneath there is huge disquiet over no deal and they will do anything to stop it
Where "anything" doesn't include canning the backstop.....
The lack or otherwise of a plan is down to the government of David Cameron. The CS Would automatically have options worked out unless they were specifically told not to. The only person who could stop them has the initials DC.
as we have seen, if they had come up with any plan it would have been trashed by the Brexiteers as not having sufficient unicorns
Perhaps we are seeing now that David Cameron could have offered the referendum once the Leave campaigns had unanimously agreed a green paper on what Leave should look like. We'd probably still be waiting.
Oh, not this again. Any Leave prospectus would have been completely meaningless since what is achievable depends largely on what the EU are prepared to accommodate. The EU would (presumably) not have agreed to negotiate without Article 50 being invoked (since that is what happened following the referendum), so there was simply no prospect of a meaningful prospectus ever being achieved.
What we are agreed upon, I think is that David Cameron's mismanagement of the whole business will be one of the subjects studied by Ydoethur's successors students.
If you like. I'm more inclined to blame the author of Article 50.
Listened to a report on 5 live this morning and the banned subject in the EU is how they deal with the Irish border in a no deal scenario. They do not discuss it with Varadkar as they know that customs checks would have to happen on mainland Europe and Ireland would be effectively a second tier member by default
They seem so confident in taking this to the wire but underneath there is huge disquiet over no deal and they will do anything to stop it
That's going to be Varadkar's thank-you note from the EU, for sticking with them over the concoction of the border as their leverage in the post-Brexit UK - to see his own country effectively kicked out of the customs union and a hard border imposed in Calais on Irish goods.
Well, that and the harmonised, QMV'd corporation tax rates.
Listened to a report on 5 live this morning and the banned subject in the EU is how they deal with the Irish border in a no deal scenario. They do not discuss it with Varadkar as they know that customs checks would have to happen on mainland Europe and Ireland would be effectively a second tier member by default
They seem so confident in taking this to the wire but underneath there is huge disquiet over no deal and they will do anything to stop it
Where "anything" doesn't include canning the backstop.....
Mr. Meeks, whilst Remain had very many advantages in the referendum, it is worth noting the rather odd decision by Cameron not to have either an independent body or the official Leave campaign outline their preferred arrangements for the UK should we leave.
If the official Leave campaign had been required to outline it's preferred arrangements then it would have been all cake and unicorns. The EU would then have stated that they would not agree to that arrangement.
Leave would have been officially campaigning for a Brexit that could not happen.Not quite sure where things would have gone after that.
Except the Leave campaign did outline preferred arrangements on many issues and the EU simply said it wasn't getting involved. Even after the referendum the EU only said it wasn't negotiating until A50 was invoked.
It was only after Article 50 was invoked that this absurd notion arose that the UK having it's own customs arrangements like almost every other independent sovereign country on the planet was for the realms of unicorns.
Just as a matter of passing interest, there are 6 council by-elections tonight, although two are in Tower Hamlets. Andrew Teale, in Britain Elects sets our an amazing tale of corruption, mismanagement and infighting in that borough which probably renders any deduction from those contests of doubtful worth, and several of the others have chequered electoral pasts. See https://britainelects.com/2019/02/06/previews-07-feb-2019/
Housing benefit fraud seems to be a systemic issue for councillors at tower hamlets
Just logging in to see the wonders of this new Vanilla system, and to give a public service announcement:
If you have a modern car and use electronic locking, always check your doors are locked after pressing the fob.
An acquaintance has just discovered this to his cost - and the company's as a work laptop was stolen.
Sometimes the old-fashioned systems are the best. Convenience is not a friend of security ...
You can't if your car self locks and opens. It has always bothered me. OK it beeps, lights flash and the mirrors go in (well one does the other is broken), but I'm never convinced. I can only check if I leave my keys some distance away.
Mr. Jessop, sorry to hear that. I'm not a fan of keyless car locks and contactless cards.
Humbug to this newfangled technological tomfoolery!
Yeah, you should forget this newfangled Internet technological tomfoolery and correspond with us on PB by writing letters to OGH, dispatched by a fast horseback dispatch rider. He'll then write out the thread on parchment and send it back to you.
The criminals are getting cleverer and cleverer, and people are getting more complacent - after all, the technology makes us more secure, right? ...
Listened to a report on 5 live this morning and the banned subject in the EU is how they deal with the Irish border in a no deal scenario. They do not discuss it with Varadkar as they know that customs checks would have to happen on mainland Europe and Ireland would be effectively a second tier member by default
They seem so confident in taking this to the wire but underneath there is huge disquiet over no deal and they will do anything to stop it
Where "anything" doesn't include canning the backstop.....
The only referendum the HoC would allow is remain vs XX, which remain probably wins. If May could have had deal vs no-deal, she'd have happily taken it.
However, a general election gives the PM a mandate for whatever she likes, ie it's deal vs XX.
Yes, if she could get away with simply My Deal, 'yes' or 'no' to ratification - no Remain option - she would love a Referendum.
But given this would not fly, it has to be a general election.
Unless she gets the deal through, of course, which let's not discount as a possibility. The pressure is going to mount on all parties.
Just logging in to see the wonders of this new Vanilla system, and to give a public service announcement:
If you have a modern car and use electronic locking, always check your doors are locked after pressing the fob.
An acquaintance has just discovered this to his cost - and the company's as a work laptop was stolen.
Sometimes the old-fashioned systems are the best. Convenience is not a friend of security ...
You can't if your car self locks and opens. It has always bothered me. OK it beeps, lights flash and the mirrors go in (well one does the other is broken), but I'm never convinced. I can only check if I leave my keys some distance away.
Oh and don't get me going on electronic handbrakes. As our key's slid nicely down the drain and our car door was still open I thought well its not the end of the world at least the car hasn't locked on me (because door is still open) so I will roll the car away from the drain cover and retrieve the keys. No keys so can't release handbrake!
Mr. Jessop, Castle Morris Dancer has never once been burgled. I rely on the tried and trusted methods: 1) moat 2) carnivorous fish in the moat 3) enormous walls 4) enormo-haddock
Mr. Jessop, Castle Morris Dancer has never once been burgled. I rely on the tried and trusted methods: 1) moat 2) carnivorous fish in the moat 3) enormous walls 4) enormo-haddock
The EU is presently a half-way house. It is a loose collective with 27 opposing views and resembles a massive bureaucracy bent on operating as inefficiently as possible. Once it becomes one country, it will save massively on operating costs. For now, there's no incentive to operate efficiently or save costs.
Listened to a report on 5 live this morning and the banned subject in the EU is how they deal with the Irish border in a no deal scenario. They do not discuss it with Varadkar as they know that customs checks would have to happen on mainland Europe and Ireland would be effectively a second tier member by default
They seem so confident in taking this to the wire but underneath there is huge disquiet over no deal and they will do anything to stop it
Where "anything" doesn't include canning the backstop.....
Give it time
If they were sensible (planet sized "if"), the EU would make an offer to time-limit the backstop. They don't want us to use it all (they say), so they certainly don't want us to use it indefinitely. So after maybe five years, either side can terminate it on 12 months notice. If 6 years isn't enough to sort out our trading relationship, then we really should just give up and accept WTO terms (but with proper preparations this time).
It gets over the ERG's Hotel California Brexit argument. It also demonstrates that the EU is not going to be acting in bad faith in the Trade Agreement negotaitions (or cuts them off if they try).
Mr. P, from a purely mercenary perspective, that would make my 6.5 tip some time ago a winner.
Also, as I stated earlier, a 2019 referendum is currently 4.5 on Ladbrokes. Not tempted, as I've already hedged my longer odds bet with 1.75 on no second referendum.
Just logging in to see the wonders of this new Vanilla system, and to give a public service announcement:
If you have a modern car and use electronic locking, always check your doors are locked after pressing the fob.
An acquaintance has just discovered this to his cost - and the company's as a work laptop was stolen.
Sometimes the old-fashioned systems are the best. Convenience is not a friend of security ...
You can't if your car self locks and opens. It has always bothered me. OK it beeps, lights flash and the mirrors go in (well one does the other is broken), but I'm never convinced. I can only check if I leave my keys some distance away.
A good point - we don't have that sort of keyless system on our new car, thank goodness.
My dad was very proud of the one on his new (and very expensive) car until I started to tell him about the problems. He didn't quite believe me - he was sure the new systems *must* be more secure. After all, they're electronic ...
Just logging in to see the wonders of this new Vanilla system, and to give a public service announcement:
If you have a modern car and use electronic locking, always check your doors are locked after pressing the fob.
An acquaintance has just discovered this to his cost - and the company's as a work laptop was stolen.
Sometimes the old-fashioned systems are the best. Convenience is not a friend of security ...
You can't if your car self locks and opens. It has always bothered me. OK it beeps, lights flash and the mirrors go in (well one does the other is broken), but I'm never convinced. I can only check if I leave my keys some distance away.
Oh and don't get me going on electronic handbrakes. As our key's slid nicely down the drain and our car door was still open I thought well its not the end of the world at least the car hasn't locked on me (because door is still open) so I will roll the car away from the drain cover and retrieve the keys. No keys so can't release handbrake!
Electric handbrakes are always on their own fuse so just pull it out.
Since Theresa May formally announced the legislation for her Energy Price Cap we've had 3 announcements about energy price rises in just 10 months, totaling a prospective 18% average increase in 10 months. I'd hate to see what energy prices "uncapped" would look like.
The price cap isn't a maximum price, as the underlying costs of supplying energy can and do rise, it's a mechanism to make suppliers justify what they charge customers on standard and prepay tariffs. So that the suppliers can't use the excuse of rising costs to simply whack up bills and fill their boots.
A better term might be something like "maximum fair price", but that price will change as costs rise and fall.
Mr. Jessop, Castle Morris Dancer has never once been burgled. I rely on the tried and trusted methods: 1) moat 2) carnivorous fish in the moat 3) enormous walls 4) enormo-haddock
Some of us suspect that you may have been burgled, but that any burglars apprehended by the enormo-haddock are quietly dealt with by relocating them to France in a giant trebuchet, rather than troubling the legal system....
The Uk should have said the default is WTO but we are prepared to add on some bits and pieces in these areas if the EU agrees. We might even pay £ for them. Plus some unilateral stuff on existing residency.
I agree with that, start from the base and work upwards would have been a better approach, and it would have emphasised the need to prepare for a hardish Brexit.
Surely a second referendum should be on two types of Leave?
We've already had a run-off between Leave and Remain and Remain was eliminated?
At the moment we have three options:
1) Revoke - This has legal certainty 1) Ratify the deal - This has legal certainty 1) No deal - What is it precisely? To what extent does it tie the hands of the government after exit day?
Just logging in to see the wonders of this new Vanilla system, and to give a public service announcement:
If you have a modern car and use electronic locking, always check your doors are locked after pressing the fob.
An acquaintance has just discovered this to his cost - and the company's as a work laptop was stolen.
Sometimes the old-fashioned systems are the best. Convenience is not a friend of security ...
You can't if your car self locks and opens. It has always bothered me. OK it beeps, lights flash and the mirrors go in (well one does the other is broken), but I'm never convinced. I can only check if I leave my keys some distance away.
Oh and don't get me going on electronic handbrakes. As our key's slid nicely down the drain and our car door was still open I thought well its not the end of the world at least the car hasn't locked on me (because door is still open) so I will roll the car away from the drain cover and retrieve the keys. No keys so can't release handbrake!
Electric handbrakes are always on their own fuse so just pull it out.
That is assuming I am at all competent at any thing practical. A very rash assumption.
That's interesting. Tony Blair is my template for a polite politician. He could face a hostile crowd and never show a flicker of irritation nor respond in kind to some very intrusive inquisitors. I can't imagine Corbyn dealing with that nor do I suspect the public can after his no shows during the Referendum debates. Obviously knowing him personally you have a different perspective but after working with Blair you must see why it's not obvious to eveybody?.
For all her faults TM is a polite politician
She is - she has other drawbacks but she maintains appropriate dignity for her role.
Tony was and is not only always polite but also very swift to engage with any argument you put. I've rarely met anyone better able to consider and assess an argument and come back with an intelligent reply within seconds. Gordon Brown, who I liked, was light-years worse at that, and it's not Jeremy's strength either.
On the other hand, I've heard Tony (and virtually every other politician) rubbish rival politicians in scathing terms. Jeremy doesn't do that, even when it would clearly be advantageous to stick the knife into Ministers embroiled in some sort of cockup. His default setting is "Irrespective of all that, the policy you should be following is..."
Comments
This could give TM a way out, as JCs position is not far from one interpretation of the WA, namely that it is a precursor to a customs union and SM alignment. This emphasises the remarkable deal which the WA is - enabling no free movement while creating the possibility of close alignment. It is worth noting carefully that all along Kenneth Clarke has been willing to vote for the WA. I think it must follow that, for all its difficulties, there is enough in it for industry and commerce to cope.
The WA is as close as you can get to 'Norway for Now' without freedom of movement. It looks as if Labour may start to give it a fair wind. TM is about to land her helicopter on Rockall. It is very clever, but it is never going to be elegant.
My only consideration would be how politically damaging it would be for the Deal to pass as a result of Labour support and against a minority of my own party. But I would be thinking it looked distinctly less damaging than the alternatives.
I would also be thinking of resigning once Brexit was accomplished, and letting my successor tie up these few trifling loose ends.
Dr. Foxy, it's deranged to vote to leave the EU, then have the political class throw vast amounts of authority over the UK to the EU.
At least those advocating Remain, even now, have a more coherent position.
Open the gate to let May jump off the cliff and take the Tories with her?
Might work, in electoral terms.
Edited for clarity.
<blockquote class="Quote" rel="OldKingCole">Open the gate to let may jump off the cliff and take the Tories with her? Might work, in electoral terms.</blockquote>
test
Edit: haha no safe to say that didn't work!
Edit2: irritating that as we come up to what is arguably an important time in the nation's history, vanilla becomes near unusable.
As the BBC doc showed, the EU actually blame Cameron for having the temerity to ask the people, and that's why their sympathy was muted. That's not the way they work. There's also no point kicking the can down the road. It will lie there gathering dust as far as the EU is concerned.
The EU have an aim. That aim is a united Europe. Only that aim will be worked at. If the UK want to leave, they can do so only if they continue to pay their dues and obey the rules. For now, they can hope, but the EU assume time is on their side so they will eventually win.
Remainers risk having the UK stay in the EU with a diminution of influence. I know some Remainers would welcome that. It's sad, but that's how angry they feel. Losing a referendum has hurt their pride, so they want their own back. Nose meet face.
https://twitter.com/MarkJohnstonLD/status/1093198217238450183
I have no idea. This could all be smoke without fire spoiler tactics by one of her opponents, but it is not the ideal way to launch a campaign behind three or four frontrunners.
And (FWIW, which could be nothing), there is this:
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1093279821604499457
hate to disillusion you but nothing any of us post on vanilla will change the nations direction
indeed nothing any of us post on vanilla will change much with other BTL posters re Brexit
To avoid No Deal we'll need an extension. Suppose the EU says - as it has been suggesting quite strongly already - that we can have a short extension if it's needed to pass the necessary legislation, but only if the Withdrawal Agreement passes the Commons by the existing deadline?
That would quite neatly turn the tables on Theresa May and her "running down the clock" strategy by turning the Deal v. No Deal choice, which she is currently trying to force on the Commons, into a choice between Corbyn's Deal and No Deal.
And (FWIW, which could be nothing), there is this:
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1093279821604499457
Presumably we're supposed to be channelling The Devil Wears Prada.
The FAA have put helicopters on it a few times.
The CS options would leak and the fear was one or two might add credence to the concept of leave while DC was busily implementing Project Fear.
As for discussions with the EU … I only have experience on the scientific side where it was generally harmonious. I've only seen the political in-fighting from a distance, It reminded me strongly of a junior school playground. But I admit I'm not a fan of politicians anyway.
Well done to all the leavers. This whole debacle is going to cost a bomb.
It is useful because it starts to de-couple the WA from the PD, something which is logical and long overdue and will help the debate. The WA is actually more compatible with Labour's BINO brexit than it is with May's Chequers minus version of it. It's good to flush this out.
It is smart because Labour know full well that TM will not compromise. A Tory PM could not survive caving in to Opposition policy on the biggest issue of the day. So she will have to rebuff it and in doing so will look partisan and intransigent. That's a win for the red team.
What it also does is push her further into a corner. It leaves her with only 2 realistic options. Somehow get her deal through this parliament (which I still think is very possible) or call a general election.
And that GE, if it comes, will be fascinating. The Cons will have to fight on the May deal and what I think Labour might do is say we will negotiate our different deal (BINO) and - here comes the thrilling bit - we will put that deal to the public in a referendum vs remain.
The gamble would be that remainers will flock to them (the chance to stop brexit trumping everything) and that this will outweigh the hit with working class leave voters.
If it works, Corbyn sweeps to power and we do not leave the European Union.
So, there we go. The dream of a socialist Britain, the dream of Remain - this morning neither are dead.
Such a pity that a socialist Britain and EU membership are mutually exclusive.
But we won't dwell on that.
Only on PB.
He won't win!
•23/4/17 I'll cap energy bills
•9/5/17 I'll cap energy bills
•3/7/17 I'll cap energy bills
•9/10/17 I'll cap energy bills
•26/2/18 I'll cap energy bills
•10/4/18 Energy Bills rise 5.5%
•8/8/18 Energy bills rise 3.3%
•7/2/19 Energy bills cap up £117
The backstop will be tweaked or no deal. A JC + TM deal is unicorn territory.
Surely a reasonable definition of 'Leave' is when you stop paying membership fees? If you carry on paying the same fees. you haven't left.
To clarify the position if you really want to, you could suggest a looser arrangement, one where you reduce the fees considerably for some advantages of membership. But that would be where you start from a position of having left and the onus would be on the EU to try and tempt you partially back.
It's the sort of thing a commercial organisation would do. "How about associate membership? We have three categories." The EU won't do that because they'd always insist on their 'precious',FOM, being included.
And we have a power cut and everywhere is so peaceful and quiet
When the ROI brought up this hard border nonsense they should have focused on the Holyhead border instead - that is the one that screws the ROI if it gets clogged up.
Would have eliminated all this knife edge stuff.
As revealed by Lewes Eye, the @DWP are now banning jobcentres from giving #UniversalCredit claimants a referral form.
WHY??
If you have a modern car and use electronic locking, always check your doors are locked after pressing the fob.
An acquaintance has just discovered this to his cost - and the company's as a work laptop was stolen.
Sometimes the old-fashioned systems are the best. Convenience is not a friend of security ...
Tories are 7% ahead
Blue Landslide
https://twitter.com/HTScotPol/status/1093213174315270144
Andrew Teale, in Britain Elects sets our an amazing tale of corruption, mismanagement and infighting in that borough which probably renders any deduction from those contests of doubtful worth, and several of the others have chequered electoral pasts.
See https://britainelects.com/2019/02/06/previews-07-feb-2019/
They agree to pay up to the end of the year or to wherever the contract specifies. The other company insult them for wanting to leave and claim their wants are unclear so they'll have to stay.
There would be two reactions by the directors to this. Either tell them to fuck off, or ask who signed us up to this silly contract that keeps you entangled whatever the circumstances.
On examining the contract you discover there's no legal bar to leaving, but the contract has been altered periodically in favour of the other company. The sensible reaction is to leave now and sack the incompetents, despite their bleating they know best.
Anyway, yes, the 'Gere frown', I know exactly what you mean! That expression he always has where he looks slightly confused about things. I like it. Plenty of men look like that.
In fact, just thinking about it now, this is at the heart of his appeal for me. He is not a 'good' actor but yet he is extremely realistic. People who have stunningly attractive faces, as he does, often also look a little bit dense - which he does.
And in real life people do not emote vividly and speak clearly. They find it hard to let themselves go, they are repressed, they are wooden, they mumble. Just like Gere.
Perhaps my favourite thing about a typical RG performance is how when he's speaking he tends to give the impression that he is thinking about something else entirely. This, in my experience, is authentic and very true to life. It is exactly what happens in the real world. Certainly in my world it does. When I have a conversation with somebody it usually becomes clear quite quickly that both of us are thinking about other matters.
The fact they undertook zero preparation themselves has, apart from anything else, significantly decreases the chances of Brexit actually succeeding. Not clever on any count.
They seem so confident in taking this to the wire but underneath there is huge disquiet over no deal and they will do anything to stop it
Humbug to this newfangled technological tomfoolery!
If the official Leave campaign had been required to outline it's preferred arrangements then it would have been all cake and unicorns. The EU would then have stated that they would not agree to that arrangement.
Leave would have been officially campaigning for a Brexit that could not happen.Not quite sure where things would have gone after that.
That’s what it was like under Labour. IDS changed that, and hence massive growth in food banks. Seems odd to ban it.
I always thought a 2nd ref would have been the least painful escape route for her (which is perhaps why Corbyn appears to have undermined it?) but it seems to be off the agenda. I can only assume it is because it doesn't fulfil her mantra of 'respecting the electorate's wishes'. A GE is a way of avoiding that.
None of it makes sense, except in political la-la land.
However, a general election gives the PM a mandate for whatever she likes, ie it's deal vs XX.
Well, that and the harmonised, QMV'd corporation tax rates.
(1) A snap GE is her only chance to fight another one. Redemption beckons. Seductive.
(2) A GE is easier to get through her party than a referendum.
(3) She thinks she could win a GE. She knows she would lose a Ref vs Remain on her deal.
(4) A GE is speedy and efficient. Can be done soup to nuts in 6 weeks.
(5) She believes in delivering Brexit and thinks her deal is the only practical way to do it.
(6) She genuinely thinks a 2nd Referendum would be divisive and wrong.
It was only after Article 50 was invoked that this absurd notion arose that the UK having it's own customs arrangements like almost every other independent sovereign country on the planet was for the realms of unicorns.
The criminals are getting cleverer and cleverer, and people are getting more complacent - after all, the technology makes us more secure, right? ...
But given this would not fly, it has to be a general election.
Unless she gets the deal through, of course, which let's not discount as a possibility. The pressure is going to mount on all parties.
1) moat
2) carnivorous fish in the moat
3) enormous walls
4) enormo-haddock
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1093454253455302656
Those pesky voters have a lot to answer for.
It gets over the ERG's Hotel California Brexit argument. It also demonstrates that the EU is not going to be acting in bad faith in the Trade Agreement negotaitions (or cuts them off if they try).
It really isn't that difficult.
Also, as I stated earlier, a 2019 referendum is currently 4.5 on Ladbrokes. Not tempted, as I've already hedged my longer odds bet with 1.75 on no second referendum.
My dad was very proud of the one on his new (and very expensive) car until I started to tell him about the problems. He didn't quite believe me - he was sure the new systems *must* be more secure. After all, they're electronic ...
My collection of antique wiffle sticks is priceless!
A better term might be something like "maximum fair price", but that price will change as costs rise and fall.
We've already had a run-off between Leave and Remain and Remain was eliminated?
Edit: Its what the man on the Clapham omnibus will think.
1) Revoke - This has legal certainty
1) Ratify the deal - This has legal certainty
1) No deal - What is it precisely? To what extent does it tie the hands of the government after exit day?
Tony was and is not only always polite but also very swift to engage with any argument you put. I've rarely met anyone better able to consider and assess an argument and come back with an intelligent reply within seconds. Gordon Brown, who I liked, was light-years worse at that, and it's not Jeremy's strength either.
On the other hand, I've heard Tony (and virtually every other politician) rubbish rival politicians in scathing terms. Jeremy doesn't do that, even when it would clearly be advantageous to stick the knife into Ministers embroiled in some sort of cockup. His default setting is "Irrespective of all that, the policy you should be following is..."