If the Con-Lab talks end in failure (which is probably the most likely option as both sides have too much to lose by going for it) and Cooper-Boles passes (again very likely). What do people think that May will give the EU as her reason for a long extension as it is then clear that this parliament cannot pass any Withdrawal Agreement? Referendum on her deal vs remain; General Election; more time to prepare for No Deal; Revoke (not that that one needs an extension)?
Her deal vs Remain might as well be called "The Establishment Stitch Up".To have the option that got 48% of the vote last time vs a portion of the option that got 52%, and that has been widely criticised by the people who campaigned for the 52% winner is so crooked it surely cant even be considered.
It has certainly been mentioned as a possibility, so I imagine it would be under consideration by May. This is, of course, part of the problem with a second referendum - what will the question be? I seriously doubt that (unless a so-called confirmatory vote is appended to a successful Con-Lab agreement) this parliament could agree a question or an electorate.
You seem like a sensible enough bloke, coming on here with your reasonable and well-argued points. What were the key reasons you voted Leave?
My interpretation of that is once we have left without a WA, the substantial document that was the WA could be re-negotiated so we could then get an agreement which would clear the Commons and enable us to discuss trade and other areas from outside the EU.
No
If we crash out the WA is dead.
Before we can negotiate anything else, they insist on all the things the ERG already hate
Anyone ever discovered what "research" the ERG has unearthed on Europe?
They released a PowerPoint presentation entitled 'Gillian Duffy's guide to the funny smells of Europeans and the associated rise in chronic unawesoneness of Britannia'
On topic, I'm disappointed that we can't manage to get paper candidates in more of the seats, just to give people the chance to vote Labour, and to make a contest where the Tories get a walkover. I did my bit last year (20% of the vote!) so I think a few CLPs / branches need to get their fingers out.
If the Con-Lab talks end in failure (which is probably the most likely option as both sides have too much to lose by going for it) and Cooper-Boles passes (again very likely). What do people think that May will give the EU as her reason for a long extension as it is then clear that this parliament cannot pass any Withdrawal Agreement? Referendum on her deal vs remain; General Election; more time to prepare for No Deal; Revoke (not that that one needs an extension)?
Her deal vs Remain might as well be called "The Establishment Stitch Up".To have the option that got 48% of the vote last time vs a portion of the option that got 52%, and that has been widely criticised by the people who campaigned for the 52% winner is so crooked it surely cant even be considered.
It has certainly been mentioned as a possibility, so I imagine it would be under consideration by May. This is, of course, part of the problem with a second referendum - what will the question be? I seriously doubt that (unless a so-called confirmatory vote is appended to a successful Con-Lab agreement) this parliament could agree a question or an electorate.
You seem like a sensible enough bloke, coming on here with your reasonable and well-argued points. What were the key reasons you voted Leave?
My interpretation of that is once we have left without a WA, the substantial document that was the WA could be re-negotiated so we could then get an agreement which would clear the Commons and enable us to discuss trade and other areas from outside the EU.
No
If we crash out the WA is dead.
Before we can negotiate anything else, they insist on all the things the ERG already hate
And of course if the WA doesn't go through guess who'll still be at the helm doing the negotiating (until December at least)...
Let's say its nine months and Brexit win the euros. Isn't anyone talking anything but no deal gonna look an absolute idiot after? I mean if they get given that hard steer by the electorate and are still talking about referenda and revoking?
Bit of a stretch to label that 'Breaking', given that they've been saying that for yonks.
Not quite. My interpretation of that is once we have left without a WA, the substantial document that was the WA could be re-negotiated so we could then get an agreement which would clear the Commons and enable us to discuss trade and other areas from outside the EU.
So if I was in the ERG or DUP, I'd say "let's crash out and next week we'll ask for re-negotiation of the previous WA which. with backstop items resolved, the Conservative Govenrment will get through the Commons and we can talk trade - over to you, Liam"
Doesn't that kind of misunderstand the whole point of the WA. The WA was not there to form the basis for us (as in the UK and the EU) to negotiate our future relationship. It was there purely to provide a stable exit and timescale within which both sides could undertake the negotiations.
If we have left without the WA then what is the point of resurrecting it? We will have left. There will be no transition period and we will start any future negotiations from scratch with both sides having red lines on when, how and whether we have those negotiations. The WA has no purpose in that as we would already have left.
My interpretation of that is once we have left without a WA, the substantial document that was the WA could be re-negotiated so we could then get an agreement which would clear the Commons and enable us to discuss trade and other areas from outside the EU.
No
If we crash out the WA is dead.
Before we can negotiate anything else, they insist on all the things the ERG already hate
And of course if the WA doesn't go through guess who'll still be at the helm doing the negotiating (until December at least)...
Let's say its nine months and Brexit win the euros. Isn't anyone talking anything but no deal gonna look an absolute idiot after? I mean if they get given that hard steer by the electorate and are still talking about referenda and revoking?
Let's say its nine months and Brexit win the euros. Isn't anyone talking anything but no deal gonna look an absolute idiot after? I mean if they get given that hard steer by the electorate and are still talking about referenda and revoking?
I think the only way Brexit (either the party or the principle) win the Euros is if UKIP and the Brexit Party have a shared ticket. And I think the egos are way to big for that to have any chance of happening.
Bit of a stretch to label that 'Breaking', given that they've been saying that for yonks.
Not quite. My interpretation of that is once we have left without a WA, the substantial document that was the WA could be re-negotiated so we could then get an agreement which would clear the Commons and enable us to discuss trade and other areas from outside the EU.
So if I was in the ERG or DUP, I'd say "let's crash out and next week we'll ask for re-negotiation of the previous WA which. with backstop items resolved, the Conservative Govenrment will get through the Commons and we can talk trade - over to you, Liam"
Doesn't that kind of misunderstand the whole point of the WA. The WA was not there to form the basis for us (as in the UK and the EU) to negotiate our future relationship. It was there purely to provide a stable exit and timescale within which both sides could undertake the negotiations.
If we have left without the WA then what is the point of resurrecting it? We will have left. There will be no transition period and we will start any future negotiations from scratch with both sides having red lines on when, how and whether we have those negotiations. The WA has no purpose in that as we would already have left.
We would need to agree to the substance of the WA first, even if it took a different legal form.
Let's say its nine months and Brexit win the euros. Isn't anyone talking anything but no deal gonna look an absolute idiot after? I mean if they get given that hard steer by the electorate and are still talking about referenda and revoking?
We voted to Leave but people still prefer hypothetical long term opinion polls, so I wouldn't rule it out
My interpretation of that is once we have left without a WA, the substantial document that was the WA could be re-negotiated so we could then get an agreement which would clear the Commons and enable us to discuss trade and other areas from outside the EU.
No
If we crash out the WA is dead.
Before we can negotiate anything else, they insist on all the things the ERG already hate
And of course if the WA doesn't go through guess who'll still be at the helm doing the negotiating (until December at least)...
who's negotiating? Everyone's posturing.
I think the WA took some negotiating. Of course I'm guessing that I, together with some others on here, will be extolling the virtues of the WA, long after it has become irrelevant. Just as with Dave's Deal.
You seem like a sensible enough bloke, coming on here with your reasonable and well-argued points. What were the key reasons you voted Leave?
Thank you! Partly Bennite (though I'm a Tory), in that I don't like that once we (or any nation) agree to a proposed EU policy there is essentially no way of undoing it, partly Washingtonian/Jeffersonian (friendly relations with all nations, entangling alliances with none) and partly pragmatic (we've never signed up to the main political projects of the EU [Schengen and the Euro] and are unlikely to do so and yet the EU is increasingly and understandably focused on the interests of Eurozone members. I don't much like elements of May's WA but I think it gives us the time we need to negotiate some form of free trade agreement with the EU while avoiding thee disruption of no deal.
Let's say its nine months and Brexit win the euros. Isn't anyone talking anything but no deal gonna look an absolute idiot after? I mean if they get given that hard steer by the electorate and are still talking about referenda and revoking?
Bit of a stretch to label that 'Breaking', given that they've been saying that for yonks.
Not quite. My interpretation of that is once we have left without a WA, the substantial document that was the WA could be re-negotiated so we could then get an agreement which would clear the Commons and enable us to discuss trade and other areas from outside the EU.
So if I was in the ERG or DUP, I'd say "let's crash out and next week we'll ask for re-negotiation of the previous WA which. with backstop items resolved, the Conservative Govenrment will get through the Commons and we can talk trade - over to you, Liam"
Doesn't that kind of misunderstand the whole point of the WA. The WA was not there to form the basis for us (as in the UK and the EU) to negotiate our future relationship. It was there purely to provide a stable exit and timescale within which both sides could undertake the negotiations.
If we have left without the WA then what is the point of resurrecting it? We will have left. There will be no transition period and we will start any future negotiations from scratch with both sides having red lines on when, how and whether we have those negotiations. The WA has no purpose in that as we would already have left.
We would need to agree to the substance of the WA first, even if it took a different legal form.
Oh I agree that whatever the EU came back with would be very similar but it would simply be a series of negotiating positions rather than a coherent single document. The idea that the ERG seem to have of resurrecting it minus the bits they don't like seems daft.
Clearly if you're a Tory Leaver you are not going to like Grieve and his allies. There is though, a logic and consistency in his opposition which the ERG nutcases totally lack.
Therefore, the ERG should be placed some way below the bottom of the list.
(Edit: IMHO)
Well I'm a Labour Remainer, but my reasoning is as follows.
The ERG at least have a reason for opposing which if one views the world as they do makes some sort of sense. They cannot bear the backstop. They feel it locks us into a close relationship with the EU, which is not Brexit. Bollox of course, but of a relatively straightforward kind.
The Grievers, however, are utterly at odds with what they stood on at GE17. And they are being dishonest. They argue for another referendum because "that is the only way to break the parliamentary impasse" while at the same time working furiously to maintain that impasse. They voted against all compromise options during the Letwin process. Their goal is Remain by hook or by crook (with emphasis on the latter) but they will not be upfront about it.
Let's say its nine months and Brexit win the euros. Isn't anyone talking anything but no deal gonna look an absolute idiot after? I mean if they get given that hard steer by the electorate and are still talking about referenda and revoking?
We voted to Leave but people still prefer hypothetical long term opinion polls, so I wouldn't rule it out
I think the leave vote in any EU elections will be far more split than the remain vote. Heck if the Lib Dems and Change run on a single platform outside of Scotland most remain voters would have a single party to vote for.
This should be the last government crippled for action by the FTPA, it's due for review next year and I'd be astonished if it survives
Absolutely. Speaking of manifesto commitments, the Tories pledged to abolish it in their 2017 manifesto so where's the urgent rush to respect that part of the manifesto?
When the superbrains behind the ERG launched their VONC bid against TMay in December they must, one assumes, have known the rules. If their effort to oust her failed then she'd be immune from a challenge for 12 months.
Perhaps they got confused as to their counting 1,2,3, 12, 4, 5, 6 etc
If the Con-Lab talks end in failure (which is probably the most likely option as both sides have too much to lose by going for it) and Cooper-Boles passes (again very likely). What do people think that May will give the EU as her reason for a long extension as it is then clear that this parliament cannot pass any Withdrawal Agreement? Referendum on her deal vs remain; General Election; more time to prepare for No Deal; Revoke (not that that one needs an extension)?
Her deal vs Remain might as well be called "The Establishment Stitch Up".To have the option that got 48% of the vote last time vs a portion of the option that got 52%, and that has been widely criticised by the people who campaigned for the 52% winner is so crooked it surely cant even be considered.
It has certainly been mentioned as a possibility, so I imagine it would be under consideration by May. This is, of course, part of the problem with a second referendum - what will the question be? I seriously doubt that (unless a so-called confirmatory vote is appended to a successful Con-Lab agreement) this parliament could agree a question or an electorate.
You seem like a sensible enough bloke, coming on here with your reasonable and well-argued points. What were the key reasons you voted Leave?
[Sorry messed up the quoting!] Thank you! Partly Bennite (though I'm a Tory), in that I don't like that once we (or any nation) agree to a proposed EU policy there is essentially no way of undoing it, partly Washingtonian/Jeffersonian (friendly relations with all nations, entangling alliances with none) and partly pragmatic (we've never signed up to the main political projects of the EU [Schengen and the Euro] and are unlikely to do so and yet the EU is increasingly and understandably focused on the interests of Eurozone members). I don't much like elements of May's WA but I think it gives us the time we need to negotiate some form of free trade agreement with the EU while avoiding thee disruption of no deal.
It remains ironic that if the SNP had won their referendum, Scotland would be out of the EU and England, Wales, and Northern Ireland would be in.
Explain? The Scots would certainly have been offered – and would have taken – EU membership as an independent nation, whatever the postering by the Spanish prior to the vote.
My interpretation of that is once we have left without a WA, the substantial document that was the WA could be re-negotiated so we could then get an agreement which would clear the Commons and enable us to discuss trade and other areas from outside the EU.
No
If we crash out the WA is dead.
Before we can negotiate anything else, they insist on all the things the ERG already hate
And of course if the WA doesn't go through guess who'll still be at the helm doing the negotiating (until December at least)...
who's negotiating? Everyone's posturing.
I think the WA took some negotiating. Of course I'm guessing that I, together with some others on here, will be extolling the virtues of the WA, long after it has become irrelevant. Just as with Dave's Deal.
I think the WA took some negotiating - look where that got us if you thunk right
Let's say its nine months and Brexit win the euros. Isn't anyone talking anything but no deal gonna look an absolute idiot after? I mean if they get given that hard steer by the electorate and are still talking about referenda and revoking?
Thank you! Partly Bennite (though I'm a Tory), in that I don't like that once we (or any nation) agree to a proposed EU policy there is essentially no way of undoing it, partly Washingtonian/Jeffersonian (friendly relations with all nations, entangling alliances with none) and partly pragmatic (we've never signed up to the main political projects of the EU [Schengen and the Euro] and are unlikely to do so and yet the EU is increasingly and understandably focused on the interests of Eurozone members. I don't much like elements of May's WA but I think it gives us the time we need to negotiate some form of free trade agreement with the EU while avoiding thee disruption of no deal.
Thanks.
Yes I see the irrevocability thing. I am none too sure what the process could or would be (or have been as we are leaving!).
And yes wrt the ever closer union although, as if to prove my point just now, I continue to believe that Dave's Deal would have addressed much of that but all moot now of course.
Let's say its nine months and Brexit win the euros. Isn't anyone talking anything but no deal gonna look an absolute idiot after? I mean if they get given that hard steer by the electorate and are still talking about referenda and revoking?
We voted to Leave but people still prefer hypothetical long term opinion polls, so I wouldn't rule it out
I think the leave vote in any EU elections will be far more split than the remain vote. Heck if the Lib Dems and Change run on a single platform outside of Scotland most remain voters would have a single party to vote for.
Hard to say, but the question I answered set out the condition that a Brexit party had won them
Let's say its nine months and Brexit win the euros. Isn't anyone talking anything but no deal gonna look an absolute idiot after? I mean if they get given that hard steer by the electorate and are still talking about referenda and revoking?
We voted to Leave but people still prefer hypothetical long term opinion polls, so I wouldn't rule it out
I think the leave vote in any EU elections will be far more split than the remain vote. Heck if the Lib Dems and Change run on a single platform outside of Scotland most remain voters would have a single party to vote for.
They'll also have Labour, and the Green Party (I don't know if Renew will feature in the elections).
Overall, I think that Leave voters have three parties to vote for (UKIP, Brexit, Conservative) while Remain voters have six (Labour, Plaid, SNP, Lib Dem, Change UK, Green).
Clearly if you're a Tory Leaver you are not going to like Grieve and his allies. There is though, a logic and consistency in his opposition which the ERG nutcases totally lack.
Therefore, the ERG should be placed some way below the bottom of the list.
(Edit: IMHO)
Well I'm a Labour Remainer, but my reasoning is as follows.
The ERG at least have a reason for opposing which if one views the world as they do makes some sort of sense. They cannot bear the backstop. They feel it locks us into a close relationship with the EU, which is not Brexit. Bollox of course, but of a relatively straightforward kind.
The Grievers, however, are utterly at odds with what they stood on at GE17. And they are being dishonest. They argue for another referendum because "that is the only way to break the parliamentary impasse" while at the same time working furiously to maintain that impasse. They voted against all compromise options during the Letwin process. Their goal is Remain by hook or by crook (with emphasis on the latter) but they will not be upfront about it.
My interpretation of that is once we have left without a WA, the substantial document that was the WA could be re-negotiated so we could then get an agreement which would clear the Commons and enable us to discuss trade and other areas from outside the EU.
No
If we crash out the WA is dead.
Before we can negotiate anything else, they insist on all the things the ERG already hate
And of course if the WA doesn't go through guess who'll still be at the helm doing the negotiating (until December at least)...
who's negotiating? Everyone's posturing.
I think the WA took some negotiating. Of course I'm guessing that I, together with some others on here, will be extolling the virtues of the WA, long after it has become irrelevant. Just as with Dave's Deal.
I think the WA took some negotiating - look where that got us if you thunk right
Well true - it was the only deal possible IMO given that, er, we didn't hold all the cards and I happen to think it neatly squared some problematic circles but not evidently all of them.
Plus it was only the effing transition! It was not a deal (as our premier historian* @Richard_Tyndall has noted) it was some space to negotiate a deal.
I don't think it's the case that because Labour has lots of new members that it automatically follows that they should have lots more candidates.
There are people who are attracted to contesting and winning elections whose politics align with Labour. Such people will always become members.
There are other people who have no interest in contesting and winning elections, and whose politics align with Labour. Such people have been much less likely to become members, because they saw little benefit in it.
In the last few years membership has become much more attractive to this second group of people while there is no change in the first group. Maybe the membership drive will persuade more people to stand but only slowly over a long period.
(FWIW: From principle I'm not a member f any political party)
My interpretation of that is once we have left without a WA, the substantial document that was the WA could be re-negotiated so we could then get an agreement which would clear the Commons and enable us to discuss trade and other areas from outside the EU.
No
If we crash out the WA is dead.
Before we can negotiate anything else, they insist on all the things the ERG already hate
And of course if the WA doesn't go through guess who'll still be at the helm doing the negotiating (until December at least)...
who's negotiating? Everyone's posturing.
I think the WA took some negotiating. Of course I'm guessing that I, together with some others on here, will be extolling the virtues of the WA, long after it has become irrelevant. Just as with Dave's Deal.
I think the WA took some negotiating - look where that got us if you thunk right
Well true - it was the only deal possible IMO given that, er, we didn't hold all the cards and I happen to think it neatly squared some problematic circles but not evidently all of them.
Plus it was only the effing transition! It was not a deal (as our premier historian* @Richard_Tyndall has noted) it was some space to negotiate a deal.
When the superbrains behind the ERG launched their VONC bid against TMay in December they must, one assumes, have known the rules. If their effort to oust her failed then she'd be immune from a challenge for 12 months.
Most rules are pretty "fluid" - Just look at FTPA for example.
And how did the Tories playing silly beggars with the FTPA work out for them in 2017?
Not well but they didn't play silly buggers with it at all, they followed it precisely regarding the provisions allowing early election.
Thank you! Partly Bennite (though I'm a Tory), in that I don't like that once we (or any nation) agree to a proposed EU policy there is essentially no way of undoing it, partly Washingtonian/Jeffersonian (friendly relations with all nations, entangling alliances with none) and partly pragmatic (we've never signed up to the main political projects of the EU [Schengen and the Euro] and are unlikely to do so and yet the EU is increasingly and understandably focused on the interests of Eurozone members. I don't much like elements of May's WA but I think it gives us the time we need to negotiate some form of free trade agreement with the EU while avoiding thee disruption of no deal.
Thanks.
Yes I see the irrevocability thing. I am none too sure what the process could or would be (or have been as we are leaving!).
And yes wrt the ever closer union although, as if to prove my point just now, I continue to believe that Dave's Deal would have addressed much of that but all moot now of course.
Thanks again.
Technically any policy could be reversed if enough national governments or the EP agreed to it but that seems vanishingly unlikely and impossible to affect from just one country. It's understandable, them's the rules. part of the problem of the UK's membership is that we never fully signed up to the rules, we've already pretended that they're different for us. It's why our membership has been so fraught, because our ministers have faced in two directions (telling Brussels one thing and Westminster something else). dave's deal might have lead to some sort of outer ring membership but again it is typical british policy of having cake and eating it.
Thank you! Partly Bennite (though I'm a Tory), in that I don't like that once we (or any nation) agree to a proposed EU policy there is essentially no way of undoing it, partly Washingtonian/Jeffersonian (friendly relations with all nations, entangling alliances with none) and partly pragmatic (we've never signed up to the main political projects of the EU [Schengen and the Euro] and are unlikely to do so and yet the EU is increasingly and understandably focused on the interests of Eurozone members. I don't much like elements of May's WA but I think it gives us the time we need to negotiate some form of free trade agreement with the EU while avoiding thee disruption of no deal.
Thanks.
Yes I see the irrevocability thing. I am none too sure what the process could or would be (or have been as we are leaving!).
And yes wrt the ever closer union although, as if to prove my point just now, I continue to believe that Dave's Deal would have addressed much of that but all moot now of course.
Thanks again.
Technically any policy could be reversed if enough national governments or the EP agreed to it but that seems vanishingly unlikely and impossible to affect from just one country. It's understandable, them's the rules. part of the problem of the UK's membership is that we never fully signed up to the rules, we've already pretended that they're different for us. It's why our membership has been so fraught, because our ministers have faced in two directions (telling Brussels one thing and Westminster something else). dave's deal might have lead to some sort of outer ring membership but again it is typical british policy of having cake and eating it.
I think with that deal we could (and likely would have - ref the fiscal compact, and that was without a deal) have said "STOP - EVER CLOSER UNION. We for sure would have been awkward and I'm not sure how that would have played out.
If the Con-Lab talks end in failure (which is probably the most likely option as both sides have too much to lose by going for it) and Cooper-Boles passes (again very likely). What do people think that May will give the EU as her reason for a long extension as it is then clear that this parliament cannot pass any Withdrawal Agreement? Referendum on her deal vs remain; General Election; more time to prepare for No Deal; Revoke (not that that one needs an extension)?
Her deal vs Remain might as well be called "The Establishment Stitch Up".To have the option that got 48% of the vote last time vs a portion of the option that got 52%, and that has been widely criticised by the people who campaigned for the 52% winner is so crooked it surely cant even be considered.
It has certainly been mentioned as a possibility, so I imagine it would be under consideration by May. This is, of course, part of the problem with a second referendum - what will the question be? I seriously doubt that (unless a so-called confirmatory vote is appended to a successful Con-Lab agreement) this parliament could agree a question or an electorate.
You seem like a sensible enough bloke, coming on here with your reasonable and well-argued points. What were the key reasons you voted Leave?
[Sorry messed up the quoting!] Thank you! Partly Bennite (though I'm a Tory), in that I don't like that once we (or any nation) agree to a proposed EU policy there is essentially no way of undoing it, partly Washingtonian/Jeffersonian (friendly relations with all nations, entangling alliances with none) and partly pragmatic (we've never signed up to the main political projects of the EU [Schengen and the Euro] and are unlikely to do so and yet the EU is increasingly and understandably focused on the interests of Eurozone members). I don't much like elements of May's WA but I think it gives us the time we need to negotiate some form of free trade agreement with the EU while avoiding thee disruption of no deal.
That is pretty much my view as well. Mine is somewhat more extreme to the extent I favour massive decentralisation of power and the EU is pretty much the exact opposite of that.
I don't think it's the case that because Labour has lots of new members that it automatically follows that they should have lots more candidates.
There are people who are attracted to contesting and winning elections whose politics align with Labour. Such people will always become members.
There are other people who have no interest in contesting and winning elections, and whose politics align with Labour. Such people have been much less likely to become members, because they saw little benefit in it.
In the last few years membership has become much more attractive to this second group of people while there is no change in the first group. Maybe the membership drive will persuade more people to stand but only slowly over a long period.
(FWIW: From principle I'm not a member f any political party)
Don't forget those of us attracted to contesting and losing elections!
So you think it will be easier to start again and reach a deal which requires unanimous formal ratification by 27 countries rather than being agreed by QMV in the European Council?
The point seems to be that if we think by crashing out without a WA we can go back to the EU and ask for a trade deal as though nothing had happened we would be mistaken.
Although the WA officially forms the basis on which we will leave the EU, it seems that as far as the EU is concerned, it is the integral part of the future relationship as well so the three principal areas (Ireland, citizens' rights and the financial settlement) don't just disappear because we crash out.
The EU in effect wants these areas resolved before it will talk to us about trade or anything else so crashing out without a WA resolves nothing in terms of the EU.
If the Con-Lab talks end in failure (which is probably the most likely option as both sides have too much to lose by going for it) and Cooper-Boles passes (again very likely). What do people think that May will give the EU as her reason for a long extension as it is then clear that this parliament cannot pass any Withdrawal Agreement? Referendum on her deal vs remain; General Election; more time to prepare for No Deal; Revoke (not that that one needs an extension)?
Her deal vs Remain might as well be called "The Establishment Stitch Up".To have the option that got 48% of the vote last time vs a portion of the option that got 52%, and that has been widely criticised by the people who campaigned for the 52% winner is so crooked it surely cant even be considered.
It has certainly been mentioned as a possibility, so I imagine it would be under consideration by May. This is, of course, part of the problem with a second referendum - what will the question be? I seriously doubt that (unless a so-called confirmatory vote is appended to a successful Con-Lab agreement) this parliament could agree a question or an electorate.
You seem like a sensible enough bloke, coming on here with your reasonable and well-argued points. What were the key reasons you voted Leave?
[Sorry messed up the quoting!] Thank you! Partly Bennite (though I'm a Tory), in that I don't like that once we (or any nation) agree to a proposed EU policy there is essentially no way of undoing it, partly Washingtonian/Jeffersonian (friendly relations with all nations, entangling alliances with none) and partly pragmatic (we've never signed up to the main political projects of the EU [Schengen and the Euro] and are unlikely to do so and yet the EU is increasingly and understandably focused on the interests of Eurozone members). I don't much like elements of May's WA but I think it gives us the time we need to negotiate some form of free trade agreement with the EU while avoiding thee disruption of no deal.
Why do you see Schengen as more of a political project than the customs union and single market? Non-EU members like Norway and Switzerland are in Schengen.
Sorry for the late reply, as I've been out leafleting, but in the previous thread eristdoof asked me what I'm comparing this year's positive Lib Dem canvassing responses to.
The answer is I'm comparing to last year, 2018. In my city the wards are all triple member wards with one of the three council seats in each ward up for election each year in turn (excluding the one year in four that we have county council elections instead).
My interpretation of that is once we have left without a WA, the substantial document that was the WA could be re-negotiated so we could then get an agreement which would clear the Commons and enable us to discuss trade and other areas from outside the EU.
No
If we crash out the WA is dead.
Before we can negotiate anything else, they insist on all the things the ERG already hate
And of course if the WA doesn't go through guess who'll still be at the helm doing the negotiating (until December at least)...
who's negotiating? Everyone's posturing.
I think the WA took some negotiating. Of course I'm guessing that I, together with some others on here, will be extolling the virtues of the WA, long after it has become irrelevant. Just as with Dave's Deal.
I think the WA took some negotiating - look where that got us if you thunk right
Well true - it was the only deal possible IMO given that, er, we didn't hold all the cards and I happen to think it neatly squared some problematic circles but not evidently all of them.
Plus it was only the effing transition! It was not a deal (as our premier historian* @Richard_Tyndall has noted) it was some space to negotiate a deal.
*ok let's not start that again.
I think that Mrs May did have a hand at the start but didn't have a scoobie how to play it and now we have 7 high.
So you think it will be easier to start again and reach a deal which requires unanimous formal ratification by 27 countries rather than being agreed by QMV in the European Council?
The point seems to be that if we think by crashing out without a WA we can go back to the EU and ask for a trade deal as though nothing had happened we would be mistaken.
Although the WA officially forms the basis on which we will leave the EU, it seems that as far as the EU is concerned, it is the integral part of the future relationship as well so the three principal areas (Ireland, citizens' rights and the financial settlement) don't just disappear because we crash out.
The EU in effect wants these areas resolved before it will talk to us about trade or anything else so crashing out without a WA resolves nothing in terms of the EU.
I'd misunderstood what you were saying, sorry. Yes, I agree with you.
Sorry for the late reply, as I've been out leafleting, but in the previous thread eristdoof asked me what I'm comparing this year's positive Lib Dem canvassing responses to.
The answer is I'm comparing to last year, 2018. In my city the wards are all triple member wards with one of the three council seats in each ward up for election each year in turn (excluding the one year in four that we have county council elections instead).
Local elections every year! There can't be many parts of the country that are blessed in that way.
Of course if we leave without a deal and the EU don't want to talk until we've signed away Ulster or whatever nonsense then a deal might not be done until we've signed other deals with say the USA - at which point it wont be possible to sign May's deal anyway..
If the Con-Lab talks end in failure (which is probably the most likely option as both sides have too much to lose by going for it) and Cooper-Boles passes (again very likely). What do people think that May will give the EU as her reason for a long extension as it is then clear that this parliament cannot pass any Withdrawal Agreement? Referendum on her deal vs remain; General Election; more time to prepare for No Deal; Revoke (not that that one needs an extension)?
Her deal vs Remain might as well be called "The Establishment Stitch Up".To have the option that got 48% of the vote last time vs a portion of the option that got 52%, and that has been widely criticised by the people who campaigned for the 52% winner is so crooked it surely cant even be considered.
It has certainly been mentioned as a possibility, so I imagine it would be under consideration by May. This is, of course, part of the problem with a second referendum - what will the question be? I seriously doubt that (unless a so-called confirmatory vote is appended to a successful Con-Lab agreement) this parliament could agree a question or an electorate.
You seem like a sensible enough bloke, coming on here with your reasonable and well-argued points. What were the key reasons you voted Leave?
[Sorry messed up the quoting!] Thank you! Partly Bennite (though I'm a Tory), in that I don't like that once we (or any nation) agree to a proposed EU policy there is essentially no way of undoing it, partly Washingtonian/Jeffersonian (friendly relations with all nations, entangling alliances with none) and partly pragmatic (we've never signed up to the main political projects of the EU [Schengen and the Euro] and are unlikely to do so and yet the EU is increasingly and understandably focused on the interests of Eurozone members). I don't much like elements of May's WA but I think it gives us the time we need to negotiate some form of free trade agreement with the EU while avoiding thee disruption of no deal.
That is pretty much my view as well. Mine is somewhat more extreme to the extent I favour massive decentralisation of power and the EU is pretty much the exact opposite of that.
Doesn't it say something about PB though, that I seem to be the only person on here motivated to vote Leave by immigration control, despite it being the biggest motivator of Leave voters?
If the Con-Lab talks end in failure (which is probably the most likely option as both sides have too much to lose by going for it) and Cooper-Boles passes (again very likely). What do people think that May will give the EU as her reason for a long extension as it is then clear that this parliament cannot pass any Withdrawal Agreement? Referendum on her deal vs remain; General Election; more time to prepare for No Deal; Revoke (not that that one needs an extension)?
Her deal vs Remain might as well be called "The Establishment Stitch Up".To have the option that got 48% of the vote last time vs a portion of the option that got 52%, and that has been widely criticised by the people who campaigned for the 52% winner is so crooked it surely cant even be considered.
It has certainly been mentioned as a possibility, so I imagine it would be under consideration by May. This is, of course, part of the problem with a second referendum - what will the question be? I seriously doubt that (unless a so-called confirmatory vote is appended to a successful Con-Lab agreement) this parliament could agree a question or an electorate.
You seem like a sensible enough bloke, coming on here with your reasonable and well-argued points. What were the key reasons you voted Leave?
[Sorry messed up the quoting!] Thank you! Partly Bennite (though I'm a Tory), in that I don't like that once we (or any nation) agree to a proposed EU policy there is essentially no way of undoing it, partly Washingtonian/Jeffersonian (friendly relations with all nations, entangling alliances with none) and partly pragmatic (we've never signed up to the main political projects of the EU [Schengen and the Euro] and are unlikely to do so and yet the EU is increasingly and understandably focused on the interests of Eurozone members). I don't much like elements of May's WA but I think it gives us the time we need to negotiate some form of free trade agreement with the EU while avoiding thee disruption of no deal.
Why do you see Schengen as more of a political project than the customs union and single market? Non-EU members like Norway and Switzerland are in Schengen.
They are all political of course but I would argue that the removal of invisible trade barriers is fundamentally different from the removal of physical borders themselves. I think (though others may correct) that Norway and Switzerland's membership of Schengen is for practical purposes (given that they are surrounded by Schengen countries) just as Ireland's non-membership is practical (because its physical border is with the UK, a non-Schengen country).
If the Con-Lab talks end in failure (which is probably the most likely option as both sides have too much to lose by going for it) and Cooper-Boles passes (again very likely). What do people think that May will give the EU as her reason for a long extension as it is then clear that this parliament cannot pass any Withdrawal Agreement? Referendum on her deal vs remain; General Election; more time to prepare for No Deal; Revoke (not that that one needs an extension)?
Her deal vs Remain might as well be called "The Establishment Stitch Up".To have the option that got 48% of the vote last time vs a portion of the option that got 52%, and that has been widely criticised by the people who campaigned for the 52% winner is so crooked it surely cant even be considered.
It has certainly been mentioned as a possibility, so I imagine it would be under consideration by May. This is, of course, part of the problem with a second referendum - what will the question be? I seriously doubt that (unless a so-called confirmatory vote is appended to a successful Con-Lab agreement) this parliament could agree a question or an electorate.
You seem like a sensible enough bloke, coming on here with your reasonable and well-argued points. What were the key reasons you voted Leave?
[Sorry messed up the quoting!] Thank you! Partly Bennite (though I'm a Tory), in that I don't like that once we (or any nation) agree to a proposed EU policy there is essentially no way of undoing it, partly Washingtonian/Jeffersonian (friendly relations with all nations, entangling alliances with none) and partly pragmatic (we've never signed up to the main political projects of the EU [Schengen and the Euro] and are unlikely to do so and yet the EU is increasingly and understandably focused on the interests of Eurozone members). I don't much like elements of May's WA but I think it gives us the time we need to negotiate some form of free trade agreement with the EU while avoiding thee disruption of no deal.
That is pretty much my view as well. Mine is somewhat more extreme to the extent I favour massive decentralisation of power and the EU is pretty much the exact opposite of that.
Doesn't it say something about PB though, that I seem to be the only person on here motivated to vote Leave by immigration control, despite it being the biggest motivator of Leave voters?
For me, it was one factor, but not the only factor.
Sometimes I wonder if there's an equivalent to Pb in, say Germany, where people discuss what on earth is going on in the once stable UK.
Or, maybe Ireland, where translation issues would be easier!
I am in Switzerland, skiing. I met Martin from Mannheim this morning, who is a senior chemist. He is scarily well informed about Brexit, May, and Corbyn.
My interpretation of that is once we have left without a WA, the substantial document that was the WA could be re-negotiated so we could then get an agreement which would clear the Commons and enable us to discuss trade and other areas from outside the EU.
No
If we crash out the WA is dead.
Before we can negotiate anything else, they insist on all the things the ERG already hate
And of course if the WA doesn't go through guess who'll still be at the helm doing the negotiating (until December at least)...
who's negotiating? Everyone's posturing.
I think the WA took some negotiating. Of course I'm guessing that I, together with some others on here, will be extolling the virtues of the WA, long after it has become irrelevant. Just as with Dave's Deal.
I can't claim to have read it. Nor am I a lawyer. But the deal is my preferred outcome and I'd be sad to see it fail. Even the backstop sounds like a place where the country could prosper indefinitely, much to the annoyance of rEU, while we pretend to negotiate to get out of it.
[Sorry messed up the quoting!] Thank you! Partly Bennite (though I'm a Tory), in that I don't like that once we (or any nation) agree to a proposed EU policy there is essentially no way of undoing it, partly Washingtonian/Jeffersonian (friendly relations with all nations, entangling alliances with none) and partly pragmatic (we've never signed up to the main political projects of the EU [Schengen and the Euro] and are unlikely to do so and yet the EU is increasingly and understandably focused on the interests of Eurozone members). I don't much like elements of May's WA but I think it gives us the time we need to negotiate some form of free trade agreement with the EU while avoiding thee disruption of no deal.
Why do you see Schengen as more of a political project than the customs union and single market? Non-EU members like Norway and Switzerland are in Schengen.
They are all political of course but I would argue that the removal of invisible trade barriers is fundamentally different from the removal of physical borders themselves. I think (though others may correct) that Norway and Switzerland's membership of Schengen is for practical purposes (given that they are surrounded by Schengen countries) just as Ireland's non-membership is practical (because its physical border is with the UK, a non-Schengen country).
The customs union and single market are also about removing physical borders. It's what allowed customs infrastructure on the Irish border to be dismantled.
Thank you! Partly Bennite (though I'm a Tory), in that I don't like that once we (or any nation) agree to a proposed EU policy there is essentially no way of undoing it, partly Washingtonian/Jeffersonian (friendly relations with all nations, entangling alliances with none) and partly pragmatic (we've never signed up to the main political projects of the EU [Schengen and the Euro] and are unlikely to do so and yet the EU is increasingly and understandably focused on the interests of Eurozone members. I don't much like elements of May's WA but I think it gives us the time we need to negotiate some form of free trade agreement with the EU while avoiding thee disruption of no deal.
Thanks.
Yes I see the irrevocability thing. I am none too sure what the process could or would be (or have been as we are leaving!).
And yes wrt the ever closer union although, as if to prove my point just now, I continue to believe that Dave's Deal would have addressed much of that but all moot now of course.
Thanks again.
Technically any policy could be reversed if enough national governments or the EP agreed to it but that seems vanishingly unlikely and impossible to affect from just one country. It's understandable, them's the rules. part of the problem of the UK's membership is that we never fully signed up to the rules, we've already pretended that they're different for us. It's why our membership has been so fraught, because our ministers have faced in two directions (telling Brussels one thing and Westminster something else). dave's deal might have lead to some sort of outer ring membership but again it is typical british policy of having cake and eating it.
I think with that deal we could (and likely would have - ref the fiscal compact, and that was without a deal) have said "STOP - EVER CLOSER UNION. We for sure would have been awkward and I'm not sure how that would have played out.
It was only an exemption from ever closer union for the UK. God knows how that would have worked, though it was a big paper concession by the EU, it didn't stop the overall project (and nor should it if that's what other Member States want) and was another example of us saying one thing in Westminster and another in Brussels sadly.
Her deal vs Remain might as well be called "The Establishment Stitch Up".To have the option that got 48% of the vote last time vs a portion of the option that got 52%, and that has been widely criticised by the people who campaigned for the 52% winner is so crooked it surely cant even be considered.
It has certainly been mentioned as a possibility, so I imagine it would be under consideration by May. This is, of course, part of the problem with a second referendum - what will the question be? I seriously doubt that (unless a so-called confirmatory vote is appended to a successful Con-Lab agreement) this parliament could agree a question or an electorate.
You seem like a sensible enough bloke, coming on here with your reasonable and well-argued points. What were the key reasons you voted Leave?
[Sorry messed up the quoting!] Thank you! Partly Bennite (though I'm a Tory), in that I don't like that once we (or any nation) agree to a proposed EU policy there is essentially no way of undoing it, partly Washingtonian/Jeffersonian (friendly relations with all nations, entangling alliances with none) and partly pragmatic (we've never signed up to the main political projects of the EU [Schengen and the Euro] and are unlikely to do so and yet the EU is increasingly and understandably focused on the interests of Eurozone members). I don't much like elements of May's WA but I think it gives us the time we need to negotiate some form of free trade agreement with the EU while avoiding thee disruption of no deal.
Why do you see Schengen as more of a political project than the customs union and single market? Non-EU members like Norway and Switzerland are in Schengen.
They are all political of course but I would argue that the removal of invisible trade barriers is fundamentally different from the removal of physical borders themselves. I think (though others may correct) that Norway and Switzerland's membership of Schengen is for practical purposes (given that they are surrounded by Schengen countries) just as Ireland's non-membership is practical (because its physical border is with the UK, a non-Schengen country).
I don’t think there’s much doubt that the day after Ireland reunites (which is inevitable now, one way or another, no matter the outcome of Brexit), the Irish government will announce it’s leaving the CTA and applying to join Schengen.
It's got a slight Great Escape feel to it. Either that or SMERSH.
She’s going to tell them that the government has lost confidence in the Parliamentary Conservative Party and is proposing to elect a new one.
I wonder if she might be telling them she will submit her resignation at the end of the week when a long A50 extension has been secured. It's hard to see how she could go on in those circumstances - her deal is dead and there is zero trust in her on all sides, both here and in the EU. There is no way the process can move forward with her in situ.
Why do you see Schengen as more of a political project than the customs union and single market? Non-EU members like Norway and Switzerland are in Schengen.
This is not a criticism of the EU, but the basic idea of Schengen seems to me to be very naïve and flawed. Freedom of Movement is a great idea but you don't need open borders for that. Schengen took away some important powers for Government's to monitor and control who could and could not move into their territories. It certainly seems to have facilitated the attacks in Paris by allowing people to move freely across borders with weapons and it is no surprise that quite a few countries have now chosen to suspend it indefinitely.
Allowing people to move in and out of your country is a good thing (IMHO) . Not actually knowing who is doing so seems both stupid and reckless.
Why do you see Schengen as more of a political project than the customs union and single market? Non-EU members like Norway and Switzerland are in Schengen.
This is not a criticism of the EU, but the basic idea of Schengen seems to me to be very naïve and flawed. Freedom of Movement is a great idea but you don't need open borders for that. Schengen took away some important powers for Government's to monitor and control who could and could not move into their territories. It certainly seems to have facilitated the attacks in Paris by allowing people to move freely across borders with weapons and it is no surprise that quite a few countries have now chosen to suspend it indefinitely.
Allowing people to move in and out of your country is a good thing (IMHO) . Not actually knowing who is doing so seems both stupid and reckless.
So you think we should abolish the CTA and have passport controls on the Irish border?
If the Con-Lab talks end in failure (which is probably the most likely option as both sides have too much to lose by going for it) and Cooper-Boles passes (again very likely). What do people think that May will give the EU as her reason for a long extension as it is then clear that this parliament cannot pass any Withdrawal Agreement? Referendum on her deal vs remain; General Election; more time to prepare for No Deal; Revoke (not that that one needs an extension)?
Her deal vs Remain might as well be called "The Establishment Stitch Up".To have the option that got 48% of the vote last time vs a portion of the option that got 52%, and that has been widely criticised by the people who campaigned for the 52% winner is so crooked it surely cant even be considered.
It has certainly been mentioned as a possibility, so I imagine it would be under consideration by May. This is, of course, part of the problem with a second referendum - what will the question be? I seriously doubt that (unless a so-called confirmatory vote is appended to a successful Con-Lab agreement) this parliament could agree a question or an electorate.
You seem like a sensible enough bloke, coming on here with your reasonable and well-argued points. What were the key reasons you voted Leave?
[Sorry messed up the quoting!] Thank you! Partly Bennite (though I'm a Tory), in that I don't like that once we (or any nation) agree to a proposed EU policy there is essentially no way of undoing it, partly Washingtonian/Jeffersonian (friendly relations with all nations, entangling alliances with none) and partly pragmatic (we've never signed up to the main political projects of the EU [Schengen and the Euro] and are unlikely to do so and yet the EU is increasingly and understandably focused on the interests of Eurozone members). I don't much like elements of May's WA but I think it gives us the time we need to negotiate some form of free trade agreement with the EU while avoiding thee disruption of no deal.
That is pretty much my view as well. Mine is somewhat more extreme to the extent I favour massive decentralisation of power and the EU is pretty much the exact opposite of that.
Doesn't it say something about PB though, that I seem to be the only person on here motivated to vote Leave by immigration control, despite it being the biggest motivator of Leave voters?
It is certainly part of my motivation. That and wanting to get off the sinking EU ship asap.
Doesn't it say something about PB though, that I seem to be the only person on here motivated to vote Leave by immigration control, despite it being the biggest motivator of Leave voters?
PB is 'polite company' - on the whole - and people can be reluctant to admit in polite company that their Leave vote was driven by a desire to make it harder for foreigners to come and live here.
It sounds more cerebral and civilized to say that their main concern was sovereignty.
My interpretation of that is once we have left without a WA, the substantial document that was the WA could be re-negotiated so we could then get an agreement which would clear the Commons and enable us to discuss trade and other areas from outside the EU.
No
If we crash out the WA is dead.
Before we can negotiate anything else, they insist on all the things the ERG already hate
That is their stated position, stated for the purpose of trying to dissuade the UK from an outcome that the EU really don't want. You don't need to accept it at face value, or, if you do, believe that they would persist with it with very long.
In the short term it would lead to significant tariffs on imported goods from the EU, particularly agricultural products. To a significant dent in the EU tourism industry this summer. To a big hole in the EU budget. To an Irish border which is either real and puts huge pressure on the Irish Govt to back down or which turns out to be a damp squib as the options floated by the UK turn out to be ones that are proven to work.
Her deal vs Remain might as well be called "The Establishment Stitch Up".To have the option that got 48% of the vote last time vs a portion of the option that got 52%, and that has been widely criticised by the people who campaigned for the 52% winner is so crooked it surely cant even be considered.
It has certainly been mentioned as a possibility, so I imagine it would be under consideration by May. This is, of course, part of the problem with a second referendum - what will the question be? I seriously doubt that (unless a so-called confirmatory vote is appended to a successful Con-Lab agreement) this parliament could agree a question or an electorate.
You seem like a sensible enough bloke, coming on here with your reasonable and well-argued points. What were the key reasons you voted Leave?
[Sorry messed up the quoting!] Thank you! Partly Bennite (though I'm a Tory), in that I don't like that once we (or any nation) agree to a proposed EU policy there is essentially no way of undoing it, partly Washingtonian/Jeffersonian (friendly relations with all nations, entangling alliances with none) and partly pragmatic (we've never signed up to the main political projects of the EU [Schengen and the Euro] and are unlikely to do so and yet the EU is increasingly and understandably focused on the interests of Eurozone members). I don't much like elements of May's WA but I think it gives us the time we need to negotiate some form of free trade agreement with the EU while avoiding thee disruption of no deal.
Why do you see Schengen as more of a political project than the customs union and single market? Non-EU members like Norway and Switzerland are in Schengen.
They are all political of course but I would argue that the removal of invisible trade barriers is fundamentally different from the removal of physical borders themselves. I think (though others may correct) that Norway and Switzerland's membership of Schengen is for practical purposes (given that they are surrounded by Schengen countries) just as Ireland's non-membership is practical (because its physical border is with the UK, a non-Schengen country).
I don’t think there’s much doubt that the day after Ireland reunites (which is inevitable now, one way or another, no matter the outcome of Brexit), the Irish government will announce it’s leaving the CTA and applying to join Schengen.
I think there is a huge amount of doubt about that. The CTA greatly benefits the Irish - all the more so if we have left the EU and so there is no automatic freedom of movement.
Either May agrees a CU-with-a-lock tonight, or we are facing an extension to end of December.
Said extension will allow time for a new Tory leader who will look to call a new election. If that goes ahead, Jeremy is PM.
To save the country, May should agree a referendum on her deal. It saves her deal, saves her honour, saves her country. I believe it is also best, long term, for her Party.
Good grief who are these 33% . It’s astonishing a third of the public want to inflict harm on the country .
Perhaps a New Dawn, "as swimmers into cleanness leaping" sort of delusion. Macron has just done his best to burst that bubble by saying that if we crash out they still won't be talking to us without a backstop in place, etc.
Good grief who are these 33% . It’s astonishing a third of the public want to inflict harm on the country .
All giddy on No Deal Eve hoping for Santa but just getting Mark Francois in stockings
I have nothing but contempt for those supporting no deal. I have no problem with sane Leavers wanting an orderly exit and a deal .
I might totally disagree with Leavers on Brexit but the dealers I can live with but those wanting no deal are a disgrace and should be ashamed of themselves .
It's got a slight Great Escape feel to it. Either that or SMERSH.
She’s going to tell them that the government has lost confidence in the Parliamentary Conservative Party and is proposing to elect a new one.
I wonder if she might be telling them she will submit her resignation at the end of the week when a long A50 extension has been secured. It's hard to see how she could go on in those circumstances - her deal is dead and there is zero trust in her on all sides, both here and in the EU. There is no way the process can move forward with her in situ.
Her deal vs Remain might as well be called "The Establishment Stitch Up".To have the option that got 48% of the vote last time vs a portion of the option that got 52%, and that has been widely criticised by the people who campaigned for the 52% winner is so crooked it surely cant even be considered.
It has certainly been mentioned as a possibility, so I imagine it would be under consideration by May. This is, of course, part of the problem with a second referendum - what will the question be? I seriously doubt that (unless a so-called confirmatory vote is appended to a successful Con-Lab agreement) this parliament could agree a question or an electorate.
You seem like a sensible enough bloke, coming on here with your reasonable and well-argued points. What were the key reasons you voted Leave?
[Sorry messed up the quoting!] Thank you! Partly Bennite (though I'm a Tory), in that I don't like that once we (or any nation) agree to a proposed EU policy there is essentially no way of undoing it, partly Washingtonian/Jeffersonian (friendly relations with all nations, entangling alliances with none) and partly pragmatic (we've never signed up to the main political projects of the EU [Schengen and the Euro] and are unlikely to do so and yet the EU is increasingly and understandably focused on the interests of Eurozone members). I don't much like elements of May's WA but I think it gives us the time we need to negotiate some form of free trade agreement with the EU while avoiding thee disruption of no deal.
Why do you see Schengen as more of a political project than the customs union and single market? Non-EU members like Norway and Switzerland are in Schengen.
They are all political of course but I would argue that the removal of invisible trade barriers is fundamentally different from the removal of physical borders themselves. I think (though others may correct) that Norway and Switzerland's membership of Schengen is for practical purposes (given that they are surrounded by Schengen countries) just as Ireland's non-membership is practical (because its physical border is with the UK, a non-Schengen country).
I don’t think there’s much doubt that the day after Ireland reunites (which is inevitable now, one way or another, no matter the outcome of Brexit), the Irish government will announce it’s leaving the CTA and applying to join Schengen.
Either May agrees a CU-with-a-lock tonight, or we are facing an extension to end of December.
Said extension will allow time for a new Tory leader who will look to call a new election. If that goes ahead, Jeremy is PM.
To save the country, May should agree a referendum on her deal. It saves her deal, saves her honour, saves her country. I believe it is also best, long term, for her Party.
...and what would be the other options on the ballot?
Doesn't it say something about PB though, that I seem to be the only person on here motivated to vote Leave by immigration control, despite it being the biggest motivator of Leave voters?
I am not really sure what it means. I certainly don't think you are the only person on here motivated in that way as there have been other Leavers making similar points. But given I am not in favour of restricting freedom of movement I am not really in a position to answer your question.
Either May agrees a CU-with-a-lock tonight, or we are facing an extension to end of December.
Said extension will allow time for a new Tory leader who will look to call a new election. If that goes ahead, Jeremy is PM.
To save the country, May should agree a referendum on her deal. It saves her deal, saves her honour, saves her country. I believe it is also best, long term, for her Party.
...and what would be the other option on the ballot?
Either May agrees a CU-with-a-lock tonight, or we are facing an extension to end of December.
Said extension will allow time for a new Tory leader who will look to call a new election. If that goes ahead, Jeremy is PM.
To save the country, May should agree a referendum on her deal. It saves her deal, saves her honour, saves her country. I believe it is also best, long term, for her Party.
...and what would be the other options on the ballot?
Your suggestion of Deal / Remain / Keep Negotiating was a good one. Although would have to be AV or a multiple vote.
Comments
If we crash out the WA is dead.
Before we can negotiate anything else, they insist on all the things the ERG already hate
Would be non-binding of course but if it revealed the parliamentary party has lost confidence in her it would put enormous pressure on 1922 to act...
If we have left without the WA then what is the point of resurrecting it? We will have left. There will be no transition period and we will start any future negotiations from scratch with both sides having red lines on when, how and whether we have those negotiations. The WA has no purpose in that as we would already have left.
The ERG at least have a reason for opposing which if one views the world as they do makes some sort of sense. They cannot bear the backstop. They feel it locks us into a close relationship with the EU, which is not Brexit. Bollox of course, but of a relatively straightforward kind.
The Grievers, however, are utterly at odds with what they stood on at GE17. And they are being dishonest. They argue for another referendum because "that is the only way to break the parliamentary impasse" while at the same time working furiously to maintain that impasse. They voted against all compromise options during the Letwin process. Their goal is Remain by hook or by crook (with emphasis on the latter) but they will not be upfront about it.
Yes I see the irrevocability thing. I am none too sure what the process could or would be (or have been as we are leaving!).
And yes wrt the ever closer union although, as if to prove my point just now, I continue to believe that Dave's Deal would have addressed much of that but all moot now of course.
Thanks again.
They really don't want the UK to leave without first having encumbered ourselves by the terms of May's treaty prior to the negotiations to come.
Overall, I think that Leave voters have three parties to vote for (UKIP, Brexit, Conservative) while Remain voters have six (Labour, Plaid, SNP, Lib Dem, Change UK, Green).
Plus it was only the effing transition! It was not a deal (as our premier historian* @Richard_Tyndall has noted) it was some space to negotiate a deal.
*ok let's not start that again.
There are people who are attracted to contesting and winning elections whose politics align with Labour. Such people will always become members.
There are other people who have no interest in contesting and winning elections, and whose politics align with Labour. Such people have been much less likely to become members, because they saw little benefit in it.
In the last few years membership has become much more attractive to this second group of people while there is no change in the first group. Maybe the membership drive will persuade more people to stand but only slowly over a long period.
(FWIW: From principle I'm not a member f any political party)
Although the WA officially forms the basis on which we will leave the EU, it seems that as far as the EU is concerned, it is the integral part of the future relationship as well so the three principal areas (Ireland, citizens' rights and the financial settlement) don't just disappear because we crash out.
The EU in effect wants these areas resolved before it will talk to us about trade or anything else so crashing out without a WA resolves nothing in terms of the EU.
A majority of the public will get behind the deal .
The answer is I'm comparing to last year, 2018. In my city the wards are all triple member wards with one of the three council seats in each ward up for election each year in turn (excluding the one year in four that we have county council elections instead).
Or, maybe Ireland, where translation issues would be easier!
48% worried about no deal
33% excited about no deal
Good grief who are these 33% . It’s astonishing a third of the public want to inflict harm on the country .
I met Martin from Mannheim this morning, who is a senior chemist. He is scarily well informed about Brexit, May, and Corbyn.
There is something 'exciting' (sort of) about watching a national crisis and associated response
Allowing people to move in and out of your country is a good thing (IMHO) . Not actually knowing who is doing so seems both stupid and reckless.
Fat Pang on r4 pushing Gove for leader on grounds inter alia that "he knows more about Boris Johnson's inadequacies than most of us".
It sounds more cerebral and civilized to say that their main concern was sovereignty.
In the short term it would lead to significant tariffs on imported goods from the EU, particularly agricultural products. To a significant dent in the EU tourism industry this summer. To a big hole in the EU budget. To an Irish border which is either real and puts huge pressure on the Irish Govt to back down or which turns out to be a damp squib as the options floated by the UK turn out to be ones that are proven to work.
Said extension will allow time for a new Tory leader who will look to call a new election. If that goes ahead, Jeremy is PM.
To save the country, May should agree a referendum on her deal. It saves her deal, saves her honour, saves her country. I believe it is also best, long term, for her Party.
I might totally disagree with Leavers on Brexit but the dealers I can live with but those wanting no deal are a disgrace and should be ashamed of themselves .