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.
I’m sure the main driver for Schengen is to eliminate the costs of maintaining physical infrastructure along borders that are next to impossible to fully secure anyway. AIUI minor roads along France’s borders were only occasionally policed with random checkpoints long before Schengen, and let’s not forget that passports and visas as we understand them today are only around a century old. Schengen has lots of other ways to keep tabs on people’s movements, such as ANPR cameras, compulsory police registration of hotel guests etc.
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.
Thank you, Richard. That was very much my beef with the EU (amongst others) and one of the main reasons why even a Europhile nut like me seriously thought about voting Leave.
Let's have a serious debate about FOM, devoid of racist and xenophobic overtones, and we might just get somewhere. Let's start by figuring out how we police a border 9,000 miles long, and who is responsible for seeing to it that decent humanitarian objectives are properly reconciled with economic objectives and security needs.
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?
Remain obviously.
If you could put aside your own favoured outcome, do you honestly think a referendum between something that got 48% last time and a much maligned subset of the option that got 52% is fair?
What about people who want to Leave but don't like May's deal?
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.
I keep my front door locked. That says no more about me than that I want to chose those I let in (and those I try to keep out).
Obviously they're going to cobble something together but how on earth they'll get Parliament to vote for it god knows....
I am not at all sure about that. If they do agree and the vote is whipped I would expect it to pass but with fury from ERG and peoples vote supporters
More likely I expect that TM will seek a small extension which the EU will reject for a much longer one involving our participation in the EU elections
At that point I expect TM to open a leadership race, while staying PM for continuity and seeing her successor installed as PM by mid June and a new cabinet appointed
There are no elections in Buckinghamshire for Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern, South Bucks and Wycombe districts. These councils are being abolished in 2020 so the election has been held-over until then.
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.
Thanks, yes I think Remain would have to get over 50% to carry the vote.
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.
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.
Blessing or curse... we're not sure which. Still, it keeps us on our toes...
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.
The A50 extension conditions already rule out further negotiations on the WA, so any negotiations would be between the parties only.
Look everyone, we need to pretend we're potentially going to agree something so the EU can pretend that's a reason to have a long extension for no reason, ok?
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.
I think you are flat out wrong. There are a lot of Leavers on here who simply do not care about immigration as an issue, and have said as such long before the referendum campaigning even began. There are many leavers on here who would be entirely happy with EFTA membership, and seeing as we'd be in the Single Market we'd still have free movement if that was the case.
Of course PB Leavers are not representative of Leavers as a whole, but then that's true for PB posters for any issue, political party, or cause.
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?
Well both the British and Irish Governments already know there are issues with the CTA which is why the 2011 agreement established the basis for moving to electronic monitoring of people moving across the border. In addition in 1997 the Irish changed their legislation so they can now demand to see identification from anyone entering Eire from anywhere else in the CTA and can refuse entry.
If the Con-Lab talks don't come up with a deal by breakfast time tomorrow, Tezzie will trot off to Berlin and Paris with nothing to justify an exentsion. I hope Macron tells her to bugger off, then it will be Revoke O'clock on Friday evening. And the Tory Party will implode over the weekend.
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.
I agree with the middle para - a GE in Oct and Labour will win it.
But not to worry, you will get your referendum. Labour will offer it in their manifesto. That is why they will win.
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.
If the Con-Lab talks don't come up with a deal by breakfast time tomorrow, Tezzie will trot off to Berlin and Paris with nothing to justify an exentsion. I hope Macron tells her to bugger off, then it will be Revoke O'clock on Friday evening. And the Tory Party will implode over the weekend.
And tell me is that your desired end result or do you not care for our Country
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?
I've said several times I couldn't give a fig about immigration as it has very little impact on me personally. What I do care about is the direct effect it has on pressure for public services, housing etc, particularly for the poor. I'm also concerned about allowing people who don't share our values to settle here - the parents protesting LGBT tolerance lessons in Birmingham being a recent example. There is also the utterly absurd situation where a highly skilled worker from outside the EU has to jump through hoops to get here whereas any old numpty from inside the EU can come here and work in a car wash, sell the big issue, etc.
What I want is for immigration to be controllable, and for the politicians responsible for deciding how many people we allow in to have to make a case for that number to the electorate, then be held democratically accountable for those choices. For years we've seen successive politicians shrug their shoulders and say there's nothing they can do. Ultimately immigration is a smaller piece of a larger puzzle called sovereignty. I believe our politicians should be held accountable, not just for immigration but for all the decisions that affect us. And that is why I voted to leave.
If the Con-Lab talks don't come up with a deal by breakfast time tomorrow, Tezzie will trot off to Berlin and Paris with nothing to justify an exentsion. I hope Macron tells her to bugger off, then it will be Revoke O'clock on Friday evening. And the Tory Party will implode over the weekend.
I doubt Mark Francois would do anything as nancyboy as implode. He strikes me as a man who firmly believes in exploding, like any good Englishman should.
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?
I've said several times I couldn't give a fig about immigration as it has very little impact on me personally. What I do care about is the direct effect it has on pressure for public services, housing etc, particularly for the poor. I'm also concerned about allowing people who don't share our values to settle here - the parents protesting LGBT tolerance lessons in Birmingham being a recent example. There is also the utterly absurd situation where a highly skilled worker from outside the EU has to jump through hoops to get here whereas any old numpty from inside the EU can come here and work in a car wash, sell the big issue, etc.
What I want is for immigration to be controllable, and for the politicians responsible for deciding how many people we allow in to have to make a case for that number to the electorate, then be held democratically accountable for those choices. For years we've seen successive politicians shrug their shoulders and say there's nothing they can do. Ultimately immigration is a smaller piece of a larger puzzle called sovereignty. I believe our politicians should be held accountable, not just for immigration but for all the decisions that affect us. And that is why I voted to leave.
You want the state to "pick winners" at the level of individuals?
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.
It's quite common, I believe - the idea is to keep a level of party activism all the time and to effect change gradually rather than have a sudden swing from one party to another. Whether the voters like being consulted/pestered more often I don't know.
If the Con-Lab talks don't come up with a deal by breakfast time tomorrow, Tezzie will trot off to Berlin and Paris with nothing to justify an exentsion. I hope Macron tells her to bugger off, then it will be Revoke O'clock on Friday evening. And the Tory Party will implode over the weekend.
And tell me is that your desired end result or do you not care for our Country
Sandy might think an "imploding" Tory party is in the interests of the country (especially it if paves the way to Corbyn becoming PM )
If the Con-Lab talks don't come up with a deal by breakfast time tomorrow, Tezzie will trot off to Berlin and Paris with nothing to justify an exentsion. I hope Macron tells her to bugger off, then it will be Revoke O'clock on Friday evening. And the Tory Party will implode over the weekend.
I doubt Mark Francois would do anything as nancyboy as implode. He strikes me as a man who firmly believes in exploding, like any good Englishman should.
Good Englishman and Marc Francois are a contradiction
If the Con-Lab talks don't come up with a deal by breakfast time tomorrow, Tezzie will trot off to Berlin and Paris with nothing to justify an exentsion. I hope Macron tells her to bugger off, then it will be Revoke O'clock on Friday evening. And the Tory Party will implode over the weekend.
And tell me is that your desired end result or do you not care for our Country
Sandy might think an "imploding" Tory party is in the interests of the country (especially it if paves the way to Corbyn becoming PM )
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?
Not the only one, though I suspect most leave voters were motivated by both political/sovereignty issues and immigration to a greater or lesser extent. But yes the demographics of PB Leavers seems to tend towards the more liberal end, which is...niche.
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.
Thank you, Richard. That was very much my beef with the EU (amongst others) and one of the main reasons why even a Europhile nut like me seriously thought about voting Leave.
Let's have a serious debate about FOM, devoid of racist and xenophobic overtones, and we might just get somewhere. Let's start by figuring out how we police a border 9,000 miles long, and who is responsible for seeing to it that decent humanitarian objectives are properly reconciled with economic objectives and security needs.
As I noted this morning the UK has had a problem with foreigners that long pre dated the EU.
It makes it all the more remarkable that successive governments, including one that came to power pledging to reduce it, have done absolutely nothing about immigration.
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.
It's quite common, I believe - the idea is to keep a level of party activism all the time and to effect change gradually rather than have a sudden swing from one party to another. Whether the voters like being consulted/pestered more often I don't know.
It seems like a dreadful system to me, maximising expense while doing nothing to raise turnout.
In Sweden, all elections for all levels of government take place on the same day every 4 years. That sounds like a much better solution.
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.
It's quite common, I believe - the idea is to keep a level of party activism all the time and to effect change gradually rather than have a sudden swing from one party to another. Whether the voters like being consulted/pestered more often I don't know.
I'd quite like HoC elections for 1/5th of the seats each year. Hopefully governments would take a more long term view instead of coming up with bribes every 4 or 5 years.
If the Con-Lab talks don't come up with a deal by breakfast time tomorrow, Tezzie will trot off to Berlin and Paris with nothing to justify an exentsion. I hope Macron tells her to bugger off, then it will be Revoke O'clock on Friday evening. And the Tory Party will implode over the weekend.
And tell me is that your desired end result or do you not care for our Country
Sandy might think an "imploding" Tory party is in the interests of the country (especially it if paves the way to Corbyn becoming PM )
TM will not revoke under any circumstances
You mean like she wouldn't call an early general election? Delay Brexit? Water any of her red lines?
Yeah, right. I wouldn't put too much on that belief.
If the Con-Lab talks don't come up with a deal by breakfast time tomorrow, Tezzie will trot off to Berlin and Paris with nothing to justify an exentsion. I hope Macron tells her to bugger off, then it will be Revoke O'clock on Friday evening. And the Tory Party will implode over the weekend.
And tell me is that your desired end result or do you not care for our Country
Sandy might think an "imploding" Tory party is in the interests of the country (especially it if paves the way to Corbyn becoming PM )
TM will not revoke under any circumstances
You mean like she wouldn't call an early general election? Delay Brexit? Water any of her red lines?
Yeah, right. I wouldn't put too much on that belief.
She cannot do it without constitutional agreement and she is more likely to agree a referendum than revoke
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?
Not the only one, though I suspect most leave voters were motivated by both political/sovereignty issues and immigration to a greater or lesser extent. But yes the demographics of PB Leavers seems to tend towards the more liberal end, which is...niche.
Not really. As I keep repeating, a poll by Yougov shortly before the referendum showed that 42% of Leave voters would be happy with an EFTA type arrangement that retained FoM whilst 45% wanted to end FoM.
It was not a majority view amongst Leavers but it certainly wasn't niche either.
Breaking: Cross-bench amendment to Cooper-Letwin passes the Lords, providing the PM with more flexibility over an extension
Does that mean more delay when it comes back to the HOC as it has been amended
Depends if they accept it . If yes no delay it gets Royal Consent . Indeed this amendment is co authored by Lord Pannick , who I trust implicitly and has a minimum extension point past May 22. The problem with the original bill is the time constraints .
Let’s say the Commons wants 6 months and the EU say no 9 months May couldn’t agree that and would have to come back to the Commons on Thursday to get their permission , the EU summit would have finished and how do you then quickly agree that with them . Perhaps the EU would agree to something which then needs to be rubber stamped but there’s not a great deal of time to play with .
At the 2015 local elections, Labour got a projected national share of 30%. It'll be interesting to see what they get this time. I think it could be around 30% again.
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?
Not the only one, though I suspect most leave voters were motivated by both political/sovereignty issues and immigration to a greater or lesser extent. But yes the demographics of PB Leavers seems to tend towards the more liberal end, which is...niche.
If the Con-Lab talks don't come up with a deal by breakfast time tomorrow, Tezzie will trot off to Berlin and Paris with nothing to justify an exentsion. I hope Macron tells her to bugger off, then it will be Revoke O'clock on Friday evening. And the Tory Party will implode over the weekend.
And tell me is that your desired end result or do you not care for our Country
The implosion of the Tory Party is indeed my desired result, and I think that would be good for the country.
Given the choice of Revoke or No Deal, I'll go with Revoke. And I believe the majority of the electorate would now vote Remain in a second Ref., so fair enough.
Good grief who are these 33% . It’s astonishing a third of the public want to inflict harm on the country .
Not mutually exclusive. In fact worry and excitement often go together. Laser eye surgery is a great example. Excitement at the prospect of a life without spectacles. Worry about it going wrong and needing a guide dog. So you weigh it up, are you more excited or more worried? If the former you go for it, the latter and you don't.
So the poll question should have been, No Deal Brexit, does it worry you more than it excites you, or the opposite? That would have been far more meaningful.
If the Con-Lab talks don't come up with a deal by breakfast time tomorrow, Tezzie will trot off to Berlin and Paris with nothing to justify an exentsion. I hope Macron tells her to bugger off, then it will be Revoke O'clock on Friday evening. And the Tory Party will implode over the weekend.
And tell me is that your desired end result or do you not care for our Country
The implosion of the Tory Party is indeed my desired result, and I think that would be good for the country.
Given the choice of Revoke or No Deal, I'll go with Revoke. And I believe the majority of the electorate would now vote Remain in a second Ref., so fair enough.
who needs another referendum when we can have a guesserendum ?
Breaking: Cross-bench amendment to Cooper-Letwin passes the Lords, providing the PM with more flexibility over an extension
Does that mean more delay when it comes back to the HOC as it has been amended
Depends if they accept it . If yes no delay it gets Royal Consent . Indeed this amendment is co authored by Lord Pannick , who I trust implicitly and has a minimum extension point past May 22. The problem with the original bill is the time constraints .
Let’s say the Commons wants 6 months and the EU say no 9 months May couldn’t agree that and would have to come back to the Commons on Thursday to get their permission , the EU summit would have finished and how do you then quickly agree that with them . Perhaps the EU would agree to something which then needs to be rubber stamped but there’s not a great deal of time to play with .
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 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?
Not the only one, though I suspect most leave voters were motivated by both political/sovereignty issues and immigration to a greater or lesser extent. But yes the demographics of PB Leavers seems to tend towards the more liberal end, which is...niche.
Not really. As I keep repeating, a poll by Yougov shortly before the referendum showed that 42% of Leave voters would be happy with an EFTA type arrangement that retained FoM whilst 45% wanted to end FoM.
It was not a majority view amongst Leavers but it certainly wasn't niche either.
So a plurality of Leavers wanted to end FoM then. In any case EU migration to the UK has fallen to the UK since the referendum It is now less of an issue
If the Con-Lab talks don't come up with a deal by breakfast time tomorrow, Tezzie will trot off to Berlin and Paris with nothing to justify an exentsion. I hope Macron tells her to bugger off, then it will be Revoke O'clock on Friday evening. And the Tory Party will implode over the weekend.
And tell me is that your desired end result or do you not care for our Country
The implosion of the Tory Party is indeed my desired result, and I think that would be good for the country.
Given the choice of Revoke or No Deal, I'll go with Revoke. And I believe the majority of the electorate would now vote Remain in a second Ref., so fair enough.
The implosion of the conservative party is going hand in hand with the implosion of labour, if recent polls are to be believed.
And a heartfelt plea for the Labour Party cluedo game to have more suspects than 'the jews' Kick the racism into the long grass guys we will all forget about it
If the Con-Lab talks don't come up with a deal by breakfast time tomorrow, Tezzie will trot off to Berlin and Paris with nothing to justify an exentsion. I hope Macron tells her to bugger off, then it will be Revoke O'clock on Friday evening. And the Tory Party will implode over the weekend.
And tell me is that your desired end result or do you not care for our Country
The implosion of the Tory Party is indeed my desired result, and I think that would be good for the country.
Given the choice of Revoke or No Deal, I'll go with Revoke. And I believe the majority of the electorate would now vote Remain in a second Ref., so fair enough.
The median voter wants neither but Brexit with a Deal just Tories and Leavers preferred choice is No Deal and Labour voters and Remainers preferred choice is revoke. However as Deltapoll showed a plurality of both Tory and Labour voters back Deal plus Customs Union so finally we could find an imperfect solution but one the country could accept
Good grief who are these 33% . It’s astonishing a third of the public want to inflict harm on the country .
Not mutually exclusive. In fact worry and excitement often go together. Laser eye surgery is a great example. Excitement at the prospect of a life without spectacles. Worry about it going wrong and needing a guide dog. So you weigh it up, are you more excited or more worried? If the former you go for it, the latter and you don't.
So the poll question should have been, No Deal Brexit, does it worry you more than it excites you, or the opposite? That would have been far more meaningful.
Oh for heaven's sake. I need a break.
Don't we all but I am more relaxed as this seems to be heading for a lengthy extension, EU elections, a conservative leadership race, and a new PM and cabinet by the mid summer.
There is a part of me, but only a very small part, that would like Boris to take this on and see the EU still insist on a backstop, deal or no deal
Breaking: Cross-bench amendment to Cooper-Letwin passes the Lords, providing the PM with more flexibility over an extension
Does that mean more delay when it comes back to the HOC as it has been amended
Depends if they accept it . If yes no delay it gets Royal Consent . Indeed this amendment is co authored by Lord Pannick , who I trust implicitly and has a minimum extension point past May 22. The problem with the original bill is the time constraints .
Let’s say the Commons wants 6 months and the EU say no 9 months May couldn’t agree that and would have to come back to the Commons on Thursday to get their permission , the EU summit would have finished and how do you then quickly agree that with them . Perhaps the EU would agree to something which then needs to be rubber stamped but there’s not a great deal of time to play with .
Thank you for that. Seems sensible for once
You’re welcome. Lord Pannick is the QC who won the Gina Miller case . He’s a brilliant lawyer , I followed that case and read the entire manuscript of proceedings . I know I should get out more !
That case was crucial for our rights and was one of the most important decisions in recent history. Whilst the rabid right wing press was whipping up the hate , they forget to tell readers that if the government had won they could in future use that decision to strip our rights in domestic law by Royal Perogative .
If the Con-Lab talks don't come up with a deal by breakfast time tomorrow, Tezzie will trot off to Berlin and Paris with nothing to justify an exentsion. I hope Macron tells her to bugger off, then it will be Revoke O'clock on Friday evening. And the Tory Party will implode over the weekend.
And tell me is that your desired end result or do you not care for our Country
The implosion of the Tory Party is indeed my desired result, and I think that would be good for the country.
Given the choice of Revoke or No Deal, I'll go with Revoke. And I believe the majority of the electorate would now vote Remain in a second Ref., so fair enough.
who needs another referendum when we can have a guesserendum ?
We can have a second Ref after we revoke, if May's successor can come up with a question to put on the ballot.
Breaking: Cross-bench amendment to Cooper-Letwin passes the Lords, providing the PM with more flexibility over an extension
Does that mean more delay when it comes back to the HOC as it has been amended
Depends if they accept it . If yes no delay it gets Royal Consent . Indeed this amendment is co authored by Lord Pannick , who I trust implicitly and has a minimum extension point past May 22. The problem with the original bill is the time constraints .
Let’s say the Commons wants 6 months and the EU say no 9 months May couldn’t agree that and would have to come back to the Commons on Thursday to get their permission , the EU summit would have finished and how do you then quickly agree that with them . Perhaps the EU would agree to something which then needs to be rubber stamped but there’s not a great deal of time to play with .
Thank you for that. Seems sensible for once
You’re welcome. Lord Pannick is the QC who won the Gina Miller case . He’s a brilliant lawyer , I followed that case and read the entire manuscript of proceedings . I know I should get out more !
That case was crucial for our rights and was one of the most important decisions in recent history. Whilst the rabid right wing press was whipping up the hate , they forget to tell readers that if the government had won they could in future use that decision to strip our rights in domestic law by Royal Perogative .
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".
I’ve been rewatching Jonathan Dimbleby’s The Last Governor over the past week and have found myself with a huge new respect for Patten.
He fought like a tiger to leave the best possible legacy he could for Hong Kong, and had to strive against both the Chinese Government and our Foreign Office to do it.
Breaking: Cross-bench amendment to Cooper-Letwin passes the Lords, providing the PM with more flexibility over an extension
Does that mean more delay when it comes back to the HOC as it has been amended
Depends if they accept it . If yes no delay it gets Royal Consent . Indeed this amendment is co authored by Lord Pannick , who I trust implicitly and has a minimum extension point past May 22. The problem with the original bill is the time constraints .
Let’s say the Commons wants 6 months and the EU say no 9 months May couldn’t agree that and would have to come back to the Commons on Thursday to get their permission , the EU summit would have finished and how do you then quickly agree that with them . Perhaps the EU would agree to something which then needs to be rubber stamped but there’s not a great deal of time to play with .
Thank you for that. Seems sensible for once
You’re welcome. Lord Pannick is the QC who won the Gina Miller case . He’s a brilliant lawyer , I followed that case and read the entire manuscript of proceedings . I know I should get out more !
That case was crucial for our rights and was one of the most important decisions in recent history. Whilst the rabid right wing press was whipping up the hate , they forget to tell readers that if the government had won they could in future use that decision to strip our rights in domestic law by Royal Perogative .
Good lawyer, bad client.
Always the way
To you maybe, Gina Miller is an absolute heroine to me .
Breaking: Cross-bench amendment to Cooper-Letwin passes the Lords, providing the PM with more flexibility over an extension
Does that mean more delay when it comes back to the HOC as it has been amended
Depends if they accept it . If yes no delay it gets Royal Consent . Indeed this amendment is co authored by Lord Pannick , who I trust implicitly and has a minimum extension point past May 22. The problem with the original bill is the time constraints .
Let’s say the Commons wants 6 months and the EU say no 9 months May couldn’t agree that and would have to come back to the Commons on Thursday to get their permission , the EU summit would have finished and how do you then quickly agree that with them . Perhaps the EU would agree to something which then needs to be rubber stamped but there’s not a great deal of time to play with .
Thank you for that. Seems sensible for once
You’re welcome. Lord Pannick is the QC who won the Gina Miller case . He’s a brilliant lawyer , I followed that case and read the entire manuscript of proceedings . I know I should get out more !
That case was crucial for our rights and was one of the most important decisions in recent history. Whilst the rabid right wing press was whipping up the hate , they forget to tell readers that if the government had won they could in future use that decision to strip our rights in domestic law by Royal Perogative .
I also agreed with the Miller case even though the result was clearly going to be bad for my preferred Brexit choice. But to be honest the Government don't need Royal Prerogative to strip most of our rights. They already have the malodorous Civil Contingencies Act to allow them to do that.
If the Con-Lab talks don't come up with a deal by breakfast time tomorrow, Tezzie will trot off to Berlin and Paris with nothing to justify an exentsion. I hope Macron tells her to bugger off, then it will be Revoke O'clock on Friday evening. And the Tory Party will implode over the weekend.
And tell me is that your desired end result or do you not care for our Country
The implosion of the Tory Party is indeed my desired result, and I think that would be good for the country.
Given the choice of Revoke or No Deal, I'll go with Revoke. And I believe the majority of the electorate would now vote Remain in a second Ref., so fair enough.
who needs another referendum when we can have a guesserendum ?
We can have a second Ref after we revoke, if May's successor can come up with a question to put on the ballot.
you want BOTH - that's "not another one" squared! Would the EU be any happier than Brenda?
Breaking: Cross-bench amendment to Cooper-Letwin passes the Lords, providing the PM with more flexibility over an extension
Does that mean more delay when it comes back to the HOC as it has been amended
Depends if they accept it . If yes no delay it gets Royal Consent . Indeed this amendment is co authored by Lord Pannick , who I trust implicitly and has a minimum extension point past May 22. The problem with the original bill is the time constraints .
Let’s say the Commons wants 6 months and the EU say no 9 months May couldn’t agree that and would have to come back to the Commons on Thursday to get their permission , the EU summit would have finished and how do you then quickly agree that with them . Perhaps the EU would agree to something which then needs to be rubber stamped but there’s not a great deal of time to play with .
Thank you for that. Seems sensible for once
You’re welcome. Lord Pannick is the QC who won the Gina Miller case . He’s a brilliant lawyer , I followed that case and read the entire manuscript of proceedings . I know I should get out more !
That case was crucial for our rights and was one of the most important decisions in recent history. Whilst the rabid right wing press was whipping up the hate , they forget to tell readers that if the government had won they could in future use that decision to strip our rights in domestic law by Royal Perogative .
I also agreed with the Miller case even though the result was clearly going to be bad for my preferred Brexit choice. But to be honest the Government don't need Royal Prerogative to strip most of our rights. They already have the malodorous Civil Contingencies Act to allow them to do that.
It’s really the meaningful vote aspect that would have caused a problem for you . Gina Miller was just about Article 50 and the RP.
I accept your concerns re the CCA but winning the case for all those who treasure their rights was crucial .
Not really. As I keep repeating, a poll by Yougov shortly before the referendum showed that 42% of Leave voters would be happy with an EFTA type arrangement that retained FoM whilst 45% wanted to end FoM.
It was not a majority view amongst Leavers but it certainly wasn't niche either.
Exactly the response you'd expect to such a black and white question if the underlying attitude was normally distributed, as I implied by saying most people will have a mix of views.
Hence the number of people at the extremes, totally unconcerned with immigration or totally unconcerned about sovereignty, are niche.
And a heartfelt plea for the Labour Party cluedo game to have more suspects than 'the jews' Kick the racism into the long grass guys we will all forget about it
If I was a Con candidate I really wouldn't bother...
Don't you think both main parties are likely to do equally badly?
No.
Past experience suggests people will vote Labour come what may (look how well Brown did in 2010 for example)
Labour will do quite badly in Leave voting areas in the north but that won't help Con as they'll all go to UKIP and Brexit Party.
But Con will get an absolute drubbing in these EU elections. They're lucky its a PR election so they should keep some MEPs. If it was FPTP they would probably be looking at a Scotland/Wales 1997 style total wipe out.
Comments
Let's have a serious debate about FOM, devoid of racist and xenophobic overtones, and we might just get somewhere. Let's start by figuring out how we police a border 9,000 miles long, and who is responsible for seeing to it that decent humanitarian objectives are properly reconciled with economic objectives and security needs.
Bring back hanging or kittens called Kevin?
What about people who want to Leave but don't like May's deal?
More likely I expect that TM will seek a small extension which the EU will reject for a much longer one involving our participation in the EU elections
At that point I expect TM to open a leadership race, while staying PM for continuity and seeing her successor installed as PM by mid June and a new cabinet appointed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks's
Probably but given what's been happening with elections and referendums recently I don't think anyone should take anything for granted.
Remember in Newport West Con held up remarkably well given the circumstances...
Of course PB Leavers are not representative of Leavers as a whole, but then that's true for PB posters for any issue, political party, or cause.
But not to worry, you will get your referendum. Labour will offer it in their manifesto. That is why they will win.
What I want is for immigration to be controllable, and for the politicians responsible for deciding how many people we allow in to have to make a case for that number to the electorate, then be held democratically accountable for those choices. For years we've seen successive politicians shrug their shoulders and say there's nothing they can do. Ultimately immigration is a smaller piece of a larger puzzle called sovereignty. I believe our politicians should be held accountable, not just for immigration but for all the decisions that affect us. And that is why I voted to leave.
There is no further indication that the bet was paid, or even how they would check it if it was claimed.
Will do my absolute best to ensure no recurrence.
It makes it all the more remarkable that successive governments, including one that came to power pledging to reduce it, have done absolutely nothing about immigration.
In Sweden, all elections for all levels of government take place on the same day every 4 years. That sounds like a much better solution.
Delay Brexit?
Water any of her red lines?
Yeah, right. I wouldn't put too much on that belief.
It was not a majority view amongst Leavers but it certainly wasn't niche either.
Let’s say the Commons wants 6 months and the EU say no 9 months May couldn’t agree that and would have to come back to the Commons on Thursday to get their permission , the EU summit would have finished and how do you then quickly agree that with them . Perhaps the EU would agree to something which then needs to be rubber stamped but there’s not a great deal of time to play with .
Given the choice of Revoke or No Deal, I'll go with Revoke. And I believe the majority of the electorate would now vote Remain in a second Ref., so fair enough.
So the poll question should have been, No Deal Brexit, does it worry you more than it excites you, or the opposite? That would have been far more meaningful.
Oh for heaven's sake. I need a break.
Edit - I see that we're unshaded but it still differs from the Wikipedia map.
And a heartfelt plea for the Labour Party cluedo game to have more suspects than 'the jews'
Kick the racism into the long grass guys we will all forget about it
There is a part of me, but only a very small part, that would like Boris to take this on and see the EU still insist on a backstop, deal or no deal
That case was crucial for our rights and was one of the most important decisions in recent history. Whilst the rabid right wing press was whipping up the hate , they forget to tell readers that if the government had won they could in future use that decision to strip our rights in domestic law by Royal Perogative .
Always the way
He fought like a tiger to leave the best possible legacy he could for Hong Kong, and had to strive against both the Chinese Government and our Foreign Office to do it.
And his majority in Plymouth Moor View is only 5,000. He might not even be an MP after the next election....
Is there any doubt now that May is pursuing an exist from Brexit strategy?
I accept your concerns re the CCA but winning the case for all those who treasure their rights was crucial .
Hence the number of people at the extremes, totally unconcerned with immigration or totally unconcerned about sovereignty, are niche.
The latter could end up causing a lot of problems . That has to pass both Houses and is amendable .
Those seeking a second vote might still get that chance . Personally it’s not my preferred choice even though I’m hugely pro EU .
Past experience suggests people will vote Labour come what may (look how well Brown did in 2010 for example)
Labour will do quite badly in Leave voting areas in the north but that won't help Con as they'll all go to UKIP and Brexit Party.
But Con will get an absolute drubbing in these EU elections. They're lucky its a PR election so they should keep some MEPs. If it was FPTP they would probably be looking at a Scotland/Wales 1997 style total wipe out.