But Corbyn doesn't have the backing of his own PLP. They are up in arms about it.
I still think the most likely outcome now is a take-it-or-leave-it half-compromise aka Theresa's fudge. Why? Because that's where the numbers are. 'All' she has to do is convince enough of her hardliners + DUP that it really is this or not Brexit and she'll get it through. Around 15 Labour leavers are more-or-less on her side. So that's where the maths is, not Corbyn's plan which will never win mainstream tory support.
We were assured that the referendum vote would be honoured. "You, the people, will decide." Remember that?
Now Jezza is suggesting a deal where we stay in the CU with FOM and continue to pay the same billions a year to the EU. This deal is essential to enable it to get through Parliament which is suddenly the over-seeing arbitrator.
Do they really think they'd ever be trusted again?
It's barmy and I sense real trouble brewing for the first time. No sensible politician could ever go down this route and that's why it can't happen.
The referendum asked if we wanted to "leave the European Union". If a deal where we leave the European Union isn't honouring a referendum asking of we should leave the European Union then the question surely to ask if what do you interpret the word "leave" and the words "European Union" to mean, as it evidently isn't what the dictionary / legal / sane definitions are
On topic, while Tusk and the EU might be in love with Corbyn’s plan of eternal servitude, it still doesn’t resolve the NI backstop Issue, and doesn’t stop the vote of no confidence in the government that happens immediately after it passes the Commons. Not to mention that a number of ministers would resign to vote against it, the plan being completely contradictory to the Conservative manifesto.
Is Motherwell a unionist stronghold? Because QT is the SNP are rubbish from audience member after audience member.
BBC QT has a very special audience selection policy when in Scotland. The ranting bloke in the red trackie top is on QT for at least his third time, and strangely he always gets to say his piece.
They send out invites to the local parties, charities and ngos. They don’t want fired up people who are entertaining. They don’t chase particular individuals, but they also don’t want disengaged people who probably don’t vote either.
Chairman “You sir, at the back” Audience member “me? nah, I nee bother voting, ma tea’s on and the wee man is in the bath, i’ll have to go”.
Yeah, QT just loves engaged voters, though I'm not quite sure where the local aspect applies to Mr Ranty Man.
This guy, a failed UKIP candidate (something of a tautology in Scotland) & member of the Livi True Blues Loyalist marching band, has thus far travelled to Dundee, Stirling & now Motherwell, and gets to spout off every time; he's certainly putting the miles in for engagement.
It's the QT freak show policy that has contributed so much to the state we're in now in microcosm.
"My sense is that it is becoming more likely that the UK will leave on March 29th making the odds of 27% on Betfair good value."
If there is a deal, it is very unlikely to be March 29.
Us exiting on 29 March is effectively "no deal"
If a deal was done and was supported by the vast majority of the House, say by a margin of 5-1, surely everything could happen pretty quickly? We've had anti-terror legislation pass in less than 24 hours, a bunch of legislation that has the effect of keeping the law the same for a standstill transition doesn't really have to take too long. If necessary I would think they might pass something to the effect of "nothing has changed... and we'll sort out the details later".
On topic, while Tusk and the EU might be in love with Corbyn’s plan of eternal servitude, it still doesn’t resolve the NI backstop Issue, and doesn’t stop the vote of no confidence in the government that happens immediately after it passes the Commons. Not to mention that a number of ministers would resign to vote against it, the plan being completely contradictory to the Conservative manifesto.
"My sense is that it is becoming more likely that the UK will leave on March 29th making the odds of 27% on Betfair good value."
If there is a deal, it is very unlikely to be March 29.
Us exiting on 29 March is effectively "no deal"
If a deal was done and was supported by the vast majority of the House, say by a margin of 5-1, surely everything could happen pretty quickly? We've had anti-terror legislation pass in less than 24 hours, a bunch of legislation that has the effect of keeping the law the same for a standstill transition doesn't really have to take too long. If necessary I would think they might pass something to the effect of "nothing has changed... and we'll sort out the details later".
The Theresa May Act 2019
Recived Royal Assent on 29th March 2019
Clause 1 Relationship of the United Kingdom with the Europen Union
"My sense is that it is becoming more likely that the UK will leave on March 29th making the odds of 27% on Betfair good value."
If there is a deal, it is very unlikely to be March 29.
Us exiting on 29 March is effectively "no deal"
If a deal was done and was supported by the vast majority of the House, say by a margin of 5-1, surely everything could happen pretty quickly? We've had anti-terror legislation pass in less than 24 hours, a bunch of legislation that has the effect of keeping the law the same for a standstill transition doesn't really have to take too long. If necessary I would think they might pass something to the effect of "nothing has changed... and we'll sort out the details later".
The Theresa May Act 2019
Recived Royal Assent on 29th March 2019
Clause 1 Relationship of the United Kingdom with the Europen Union
I seem to recall predicting that we would end up with the CU about a month ago. It is another consequence of the idiocies of the ERG who should have backed May's deal in its original form.
We will be in the CU for the transitional period. It removes any cliff edge, it takes the heat out of the NI issue, it makes up for the gross incompetence of Fox in failing to agree deals which effectively maintain our existing trade agreements with third party countries, it is an essential part of the reasons why deal is better than no deal.
Do we really want to commit ourselves to being in it indefinitely? I think that is a more complicated question. On the one hand the EU itself said we couldn't have that. They said that we could not pick and choose and the price of the CU was FoM. If they are now offering the CU without FoM then that is a big concession that we should think about carefully.
On the other there has to be a price for being in the CU and that is going to be regulatory. If our goods can freely move through the EU they have to be fully EU compliant. We will therefore be committed to whatever form of light bulbs the EU say we can have next and to not allowing ones that actually work back into the UK. That may prove irritating.
It has been obvious for some time that the EU regard the WA as the template for our future relationship. They have said as much. I think we would want to keep the option of being in the CU on the table but I am not so sure we should irrevocably commit to it now. But, personally, it is a price I would be willing to pay to get this damn deal through and allow us to move on.
Most EU regulations are very sensible.
Your facile example about light bulbs is a case in point - the old bulbs were inefficient and wasteful, land fill fodder.
People never want to change anything. Regulations drive things forward.
I really objected to the ban on incandescent light bulbs, especially when the early LEDs had a white light that made rooms look like toilets. My anti-authority streak came into play and it was a big negative in my mind about the EU. Pathetic in retrospect.
I've now replaced all my bulbs with warm light 5W LEDs and reduced my electricity consumption on lighting by a factor of 10-20. And I paid less than £2 per LED bulb. Terrific ROI.
People never want to change anything. Regulations drive things forward.
"My sense is that it is becoming more likely that the UK will leave on March 29th making the odds of 27% on Betfair good value."
If there is a deal, it is very unlikely to be March 29.
Us exiting on 29 March is effectively "no deal"
If a deal was done and was supported by the vast majority of the House, say by a margin of 5-1, surely everything could happen pretty quickly? We've had anti-terror legislation pass in less than 24 hours, a bunch of legislation that has the effect of keeping the law the same for a standstill transition doesn't really have to take too long. If necessary I would think they might pass something to the effect of "nothing has changed... and we'll sort out the details later".
So my theory is that due to a childhood trauma the Prime Minister has some piece of small but unpopular legislation that she really, really wants to pass, like replacing police dogs with llamas or banning toffee. So she's going to string out the Brexit negotiations until 25 minutes before the deadline then give parliament 40,000 pages of must-pass legislation, all about Brexit except for that one paragraph on page 32,142...
On topic, while Tusk and the EU might be in love with Corbyn’s plan of eternal servitude, it still doesn’t resolve the NI backstop Issue, and doesn’t stop the vote of no confidence in the government that happens immediately after it passes the Commons. Not to mention that a number of ministers would resign to vote against it, the plan being completely contradictory to the Conservative manifesto.
I seem to recall predicting that we would end up with the CU about a month ago. It is another consequence of the idiocies of the ERG who should have backed May's deal in its original form.
We will be in the CU for the transitional period. It removes any cliff edge, it takes the heat out of the NI issue, it makes up for the gross incompetence of Fox in failing to agree deals which effectively maintain our existing trade agreements with third party countries, it is an essential part of the reasons why deal is better than no deal.
Do we really want to commit ourselves to being in it indefinitely? I think that is a more complicated question. On the one hand the EU itself said we couldn't have that. They said that we could not pick and choose and the price of the CU was FoM. If they are now offering the CU without FoM then that is a big concession that we should think about carefully.
On the other there has to be a price for being in the CU and that is going to be regulatory. If our goods can freely move through the EU they have to be fully EU compliant. We will therefore be committed to whatever form of light bulbs the EU say we can have next and to not allowing ones that actually work back into the UK. That may prove irritating.
It has been obvious for some time that the EU regard the WA as the template for our future relationship. They have said as much. I think we would want to keep the option of being in the CU on the table but I am not so sure we should irrevocably commit to it now. But, personally, it is a price I would be willing to pay to get this damn deal through and allow us to move on.
Most EU regulations are very sensible.
Your facile example about light bulbs is a case in point - the old bulbs were inefficient and wasteful, land fill fodder.
People never want to change anything. Regulations drive things forward.
I really objected to the ban on incandescent light bulbs, especially when the early LEDs had a white light that made rooms look like toilets. My anti-authority streak came into play and it was a big negative in my mind about the EU. Pathetic in retrospect.
I've now replaced all my bulbs with warm light 5W LEDs and reduced my electricity consumption on lighting by a factor of 10-20. And I paid less than £2 per LED bulb. Terrific ROI.
People never want to change anything. Regulations drive things forward.
Wait until you see OLED panel lighting, it makes standard LEDs look pretty crap.
I think implicit in Tusk's comment is that although the 17.4m people were mislead by the leaders of the campaign, the voters nevertheless weren't quite bright enough to realise that they were being mislead.
I think implicit in Tusk's comment is that although the 17.4m people were mislead by the leaders of the campaign, the voters nevertheless weren't quite bright enough to realise that they were being mislead.
Which shows just how they are a) patronising and b) totally out of touch
I think implicit in Tusk's comment is that although the 17.4m people were mislead by the leaders of the campaign, the voters nevertheless weren't quite bright enough to realise that they were being mislead.
Which shows just how they are a) patronising and b) totally out of touch
On topic, while Tusk and the EU might be in love with Corbyn’s plan of eternal servitude, it still doesn’t resolve the NI backstop Issue, and doesn’t stop the vote of no confidence in the government that happens immediately after it passes the Commons. Not to mention that a number of ministers would resign to vote against it, the plan being completely contradictory to the Conservative manifesto.
Is Motherwell a unionist stronghold? Because QT is the SNP are rubbish from audience member after audience member.
BBC QT has a very special audience selection policy when in Scotland. The ranting bloke in the red trackie top is on QT for at least his third time, and strangely he always gets to say his piece.
They send out invites to the local parties, charities and ngos. They don’t want fired up people who are entertaining. They don’t chase particular individuals, but they also don’t want disengaged people who probably don’t vote either.
Chairman “You sir, at the back” Audience member “me? nah, I nee bother voting, ma tea’s on and the wee man is in the bath, i’ll have to go”.
Yeah, QT just loves engaged voters, though I'm not quite sure where the local aspect applies to Mr Ranty Man.
This guy, a failed UKIP candidate (something of a tautology in Scotland) & member of the Livi True Blues Loyalist marching band, has thus far travelled to Dundee, Stirling & now Motherwell, and gets to spout off every time; he's certainly putting the miles in for engagement.
It's the QT freak show policy that has contributed so much to the state we're in now in microcosm.
I wonder if you've got buried in your post the reason he's been selected. If their quota for the audience says they should have a UKIP supporter in the audience then maybe this guy is the only Kipper supporter they can find?
Comments
I still think the most likely outcome now is a take-it-or-leave-it half-compromise aka Theresa's fudge. Why? Because that's where the numbers are. 'All' she has to do is convince enough of her hardliners + DUP that it really is this or not Brexit and she'll get it through. Around 15 Labour leavers are more-or-less on her side. So that's where the maths is, not Corbyn's plan which will never win mainstream tory support.
Level heads and sensible compromises now.
If there is a deal, it is very unlikely to be March 29.
Us exiting on 29 March is effectively "no deal"
This guy, a failed UKIP candidate (something of a tautology in Scotland) & member of the Livi True Blues Loyalist marching band, has thus far travelled to Dundee, Stirling & now Motherwell, and gets to spout off every time; he's certainly putting the miles in for engagement.
It's the QT freak show policy that has contributed so much to the state we're in now in microcosm.
We've had anti-terror legislation pass in less than 24 hours, a bunch of legislation that has the effect of keeping the law the same for a standstill transition doesn't really have to take too long. If necessary I would think they might pass something to the effect of "nothing has changed... and we'll sort out the details later".
JRM is a finance guy (he remains regulated by the FCA) and should know that the City's motto is dictum meum pactum.
Recived Royal Assent on 29th March 2019
Clause 1 Relationship of the United Kingdom with the Europen Union
Nothing has changed.
Clause 2 Sanity Clause
There ain't no Sanity Clause.
https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1093780664762155008?s=21
I've now replaced all my bulbs with warm light 5W LEDs and reduced my electricity consumption on lighting by a factor of 10-20. And I paid less than £2 per LED bulb. Terrific ROI.
People never want to change anything. Regulations drive things forward.
NEW THREAD