I don't think parliament should be prorogued to force through No Deal. But I also don't see why Dominic Grieve"s version of suspending democracy via devious behind the scenes legalistic mucking about, is any better than Johnson/Baker/Cash/whoever doing so by riding a coach and horses through it.
Getting binding decisions of Parliament passed by majority is not "devious behind the scenes legalistic mucking about", nor is it a "version of suspending democracy". You just don't like the policy outcome.
I disagreed with Grieve's attempts to shut down No Deal by preventing any money being spent. That was just dumb. But I can't disagree with him on this move. Proroguing Parliament for political ends seems fundamentally wrong to me so I cannot see any circumstances where it would be right. What Grieve is doing today is necessary to prevent a greater travesty.
I don't think parliament should be prorogued to force through No Deal. But I also don't see why Dominic Grieve"s version of suspending democracy via devious behind the scenes legalistic mucking about, is any better than Johnson/Baker/Cash/whoever doing so by riding a coach and horses through it.
Getting binding decisions of Parliament passed by majority is not "devious behind the scenes legalistic mucking about", nor is it a "version of suspending democracy". You just don't like the policy outcome.
They couldn't get Parliament to outright vote to ban No Deal, so they've tried to amend a bill that has ostensibly nothing to do with Brexit in such a way that forces Parliament to legally be around so as to give them another go. That's mucking around. I'd be just as annoyed if the other side were doing it (they are, a bit, and I don't like it).
That doesn't clarify what Labour would campaign on in a general election.
It appears to be to negotiate a Labour deal to leave (to satisfy the Leavers) but put it to the people in a referendum where Labour would campaign for Remain (to satisfy the Remainers) and against the Leave deal they have just negotiated. Have I got that right?
This shouldn’t be good enough for remain supporting labour voters it’s not a cast iron promise to have referendumand campaign for remain. He can’t be trusted.
That doesn't clarify what Labour would campaign on in a general election.
It appears to be to negotiate a Labour deal to leave (to satisfy the Leavers) but put it to the people in a referendum where Labour would campaign for Remain (to satisfy the Remainers) and against the Leave deal they have just negotiated. Have I got that right?
Do you accept that the weather has changed? The day after EUref, the result was accepted by almost everyone. Now about half the country does not accept it.
I gave a number of possible reasons. What are yours?
I have already given the main one - at least in part.
The ineptitude and complete lack of understanding of the one person given all the power to actually get a deal with the EU. Bear in mind I want a 'soft' Brexit and would have supported the WA although I think it is very flawed. But May completely failed to build a consensus on this and instead decided to play politics with it. She should, at every turn, have tried to consult and include all the sides in these decisions. She failed to build a consensus in Parliament, in the country and even in her own party because she initially went for a hard Brexit and made a huge number of basic mistakes which turned people on all sides against her and against a reasonable deal.
There were also far more people who refused to accept the result than you claim.
Because one thing everyone, whatever side of the Brexit debate they're on, can agree with is his assessment of the complete disaster that is Theresa May?
She successfully kicked the can this far. No mean feat.
'Was May merely the fall guy for an inevitable failure or was she utterly incompetent? The answer is of course both – May was doomed to fail but she and her government sure managed, to adapt Samuel Beckett, to fail better.'
I think respecting the result of an election or referendum in the UK is like forming an orderly queue at a bus stop. We just do it. We don't need a law to enforce it. Even if the result is close, role is to represent the interests of the people. If that conflicts with the result of the referendum (and it seems to) then it puts a question mark against mindlessly executing the result of the referendum. People are divided on that question.
The result of the referendum is no longer accepted as holy writ. People who declare it would be the end of democracy to ask the people again are greeted with a big yawn.
The trouble with your argument is that every single one of your points is wrong.
1. We did not have a Leaver in charge of trying to enact the result, we had a Remainer - and a particularly inept one at that. It was her inability to either understand or seriously try to enact a reasonable Leave that has led us to this point.
2. There are not a significant proportion that have changed their minds. As far as the polls go there is little difference between the polls today and those in advance of the referendum itself.
3. The magnitude of the change was always clear. Indeed the Remain camp spent the whole referendum campaign telling us just how important and irreversible this decision would be.
4. Parliament do not see their role as representing the interests of the people. They see it as achieving their own personal political ends. When almost three quarters of MPs are Remain voters and they put their own personal views and advancement ahead of the interests of the people they can in no way be considered representative nor fit for purpose.
You compare polls with the result, not with polls before the vote. There is data now on how people voted last time and on turnout that wasnt available before, and the level of public understanding and engagement is much higher. Real elections also confirm the growing opposition to Brexjt.
1. We did not have a Leaver in charge of trying to enact the result, we had a Remainer - and a particularly inept one at that. It was her inability to either understand or seriously try to enact a reasonable Leave that has led us to this point.
Your biggest criticism of her is that she listened to what the Leave campaigns said and tried to deliver it.
This shouldn’t be good enough for remain supporting labour voters it’s not a cast iron promise to have referendumand campaign for remain. He can’t be trusted.
Yeah, much better to have a Tory government and no referendum at all
That doesn't clarify what Labour would campaign on in a general election.
It appears to be to negotiate a Labour deal to leave (to satisfy the Leavers) but put it to the people in a referendum where Labour would campaign for Remain (to satisfy the Remainers) and against the Leave deal they have just negotiated. Have I got that right?
I don't think I've seen anything to contradict the stuff quoted on the last thread, namely that they want to negotiate their own Brexit deal, which they'll have a referendum on, but whether they recommend that or Remain depends on the deal they end up negotiating.
Do you accept that the weather has changed? The day after EUref, the result was accepted by almost everyone. Now about half the country does not accept it.
I gave a number of possible reasons. What are yours?
Mine would be that about half the country never accepted it.
- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”
It is literally suspending democracy. You can dress it up however you like, but you are advocating suspending the body that is democratically elected to achieve your aim. Note, that body was elected after the referendum result, so you don't even have that excuse.
The Conservative party is now controlled by enemies of democracy.
Parliamentary democracy is not the only form of democracy..
True, but it is the one we have.
If you want to overthrow it and instal a revolutionary council, then ok, but we will have to get the guillotines and revolutionary calendar, and it's difficult to get good tumbrils during the summer holidays. Would you care for a more cut-rate Rwandan revolution? We seem to have no shortage of zombie knives to serve as machetes...
Do you accept that the weather has changed? The day after EUref, the result was accepted by almost everyone. Now about half the country does not accept it.
I gave a number of possible reasons. What are yours?
I have already given the main one - at least in part.
The ineptitude and complete lack of understanding of the one person given all the power to actually get a deal with the EU. Bear in mind I want a 'soft' Brexit and would have supported the WA although I think it is very flawed. But May completely failed to build a consensus on this and instead decided to play politics with it. She should, at every turn, have tried to consult and include all the sides in these decisions. She failed to build a consensus in Parliament, in the country and even in her own party because she initially went for a hard Brexit and made a huge number of basic mistakes which turned people on all sides against her and against a reasonable deal.
Yep. The only proviso being I'm not sure any sane* PM would have ended up anywhere else. The WA covers the key issues which are germane to an orderly and sensible Brexit. As you say it is how she approached the whole problem that was, er, problematic.
Interesting telegraph article about RoI saying a border would be necessary with no deal. Everyone seems to be at the top of the hill and I have no idea how anyone marches back down.
Do you accept that the weather has changed? The day after EUref, the result was accepted by almost everyone. Now about half the country does not accept it.
I gave a number of possible reasons. What are yours?
Mine would be that about half the country never accepted it.
The ERG, rather like badgers, continue to move the goalposts
Our ambassador has done nothing wrong and yet, because of the behaviour of others, is likely going to have his career ruined. He ought to be promoted so as to make clear to the leaker and anyone else hoping to profit by their misbehaviour that they won’t prosper.
What would count as promotion for the Ambassador to the USA?
Given that one of the main jobs of that ambassador is to gain influence for the UK with the world's most powerful nation's government, fairly or unfairly the incumbent is now damaged goods (unfairly, obviously). That would be the case even if the present president wasn't a thin-skinned egotist. He will need to be replaced. The president doesn't get to choose the replacement but he is within his rights (even if he is being an arse about it) if he doesn't want to deal with someone who doesn't respect him.
A proper leak inquiry should be conducted and the culprit should be strung up by their nether regions. Leaking such confidential briefings for partisan advantage is treacherous.
Agree completely with your final paragraph. I would only add that anyone who the leak was intended to benefit should be put beyond the pale.
But it is the unfairness to Darroch which really grates with me. A civil servant doing his job, being completely undermined and potentially having his career ruined as a result. It is unforgivable. The damage to him should be mitigated as far as possible. If it is not, then he would have a pretty good employment claim I’d have thought.
Politicians depend on civil servants. If they do not stand behind them at a time like this, why should civil servants trust them? This is so corrosive of the trust essential to the proper functioning of our institutions.
As for Trump, if he does not want the British Ambassador anymore, let him formally declare him persona non grata, not via this bitchy tweeting. And then let us respond formally in the strongest possible terms - up to and including doing the same to the US Ambassador here. We should point out that to behave in this way, given the recent State visit, the British blood expended fighting the US’s wars, etc etc is not something we do lightly but the way the US President is behaving towards an ally and its representative is simply unworthy of the US and its best traditions.
Bullies should never be appeased, including US ones. There was a time when one could have assumed that Britain understood that point instinctively. Not any more, it seems. Our cravenness towards the US shames us.
1. We did not have a Leaver in charge of trying to enact the result, we had a Remainer - and a particularly inept one at that. It was her inability to either understand or seriously try to enact a reasonable Leave that has led us to this point.
Your biggest criticism of her is that she listened to what the Leave campaigns said and tried to deliver it.
Nope she did not. And even had she done so she would have failed. Her job was to govern fot the whole country not just those who voted Leave.
I think respecting the result of an election or referendum in the UK is like forming an orderly queue at a bus stop. We just do it. We don't need a law to enforce it. Even if the result is close, role is to represent the interests of the people. If that conflicts with the result of the referendum (and it seems to) then it puts a question mark against mindlessly executing the result of the referendum. People are divided on that question.
The result of the referendum is no longer accepted as holy writ. People who declare it would be the end of democracy to ask the people again are greeted with a big yawn.
The trouble with your argument is that every single one of your points is wrong.
1. We did not have a Leaver in charge of trying to enact the result, we had a Remainer - and a particularly inept one at that. It was her inability to either understand or seriously try to enact a reasonable Leave that has led us to this point.
2. There are not a significant proportion that have changed their minds. As far as the polls go there is little difference between the polls today and those in advance of the referendum itself.
3. The magnitude of the change was always clear. Indeed the Remain camp spent the whole referendum campaign telling us just how important and irreversible this decision would be.
4. Parliament do not see their role as representing the interests of the people. They see it as achieving their own personal political ends. When almost three quarters of MPs are Remain voters and they put their own personal views and advancement ahead of the interests of the people they can in no way be considered representative nor fit for purpose.
You compare polls with the result, not with polls before the vote. There is data now on how people voted last time and on turnout that wasnt available before, and the level of public understanding and engagement is much higher. Real elections also confirm the growing opposition to Brexjt.
Nope. If the polls before the result could not be trusted then why should the polls now be considered an accurate representation. The only way to glean anything is to look at the polling trends.
I don't think that Labour have actually said what people think they have said. Corbyn's letter to party members says this:
Whoever becomes the new Prime Minister should have the confidence to put their deal, or No Deal, back to the people in a public vote.
In those circumstances, I want to make it clear that Labour would campaign for Remain against either No Deal or a Tory deal that does not protect the economy and jobs.
In other words, IF there is a referendum on Revoke vs No Deal (or a wicked Tory-branded deal indistinguishable from the warm cuddly Labour-branded deal which Corbyn could magic up if he were PM), then Labour would campaign for Revoke. But they've always said they would oppose No Deal or a wicked Tory-branded deal, so there doesn't seem much new here.
What is very conspicuously missing is a commitment to support such a referendum in the first place.
Is it me that has missed something, or is it every journalist reporting on this who has failed to spot this?
Will that be more or less meaningful than Owen Smith's win in Scotland?
Suits me.
Boris knowing that he is unloved in Scotland, even by SCons, will hurt his sense of entitlement. That could have some interesting effects.
Ruth's dilemma will certainly be fascinating to witness.
If Boris follows Jezza's Scotch example it'll be day trips with carefully angled photo ops to make a few loyalists (probably Ross Thomson and whoever he can pick up in a pub) look like a crowd.
I don't think that Labour have actually said what people think they have said. Corbyn's letter to party members says this:
Whoever becomes the new Prime Minister should have the confidence to put their deal, or No Deal, back to the people in a public vote.
In those circumstances, I want to make it clear that Labour would campaign for Remain against either No Deal or a Tory deal that does not protect the economy and jobs.
In other words, IF there is a referendum on Revoke vs No Deal (or a wicked Tory-branded deal indistinguishable from the warm cuddly Labour-branded deal which Corbyn could magic up if he were PM), then Labour would campaign for Revoke. But they've always said they would oppose No Deal or a wicked Tory-branded deal, so there doesn't seem much new here.
What is very conspicuously missing is a commitment to support such a referendum in the first place.
Is it me that has missed something, or is it every journalist reporting on this who has failed to spot this?
I'd take it as a clear pivot to a second referendum actually. But it's too late, Labour won't see the polling boost the hypothetical 2nd ref would have given them.
New Zealand looked in trouble - but now India are a bowler short through injury, and Kohli will probably need to bowl a few overs... could get interesting.
I don't think that Labour have actually said what people think they have said. Corbyn's letter to party members says this:
Whoever becomes the new Prime Minister should have the confidence to put their deal, or No Deal, back to the people in a public vote.
In those circumstances, I want to make it clear that Labour would campaign for Remain against either No Deal or a Tory deal that does not protect the economy and jobs.
In other words, IF there is a referendum on Revoke vs No Deal (or a wicked Tory-branded deal indistinguishable from the warm cuddly Labour-branded deal which Corbyn could magic up if he were PM), then Labour would campaign for Revoke. But they've always said they would oppose No Deal or a wicked Tory-branded deal, so there doesn't seem much new here.
What is very conspicuously missing is a commitment to support such a referendum in the first place.
Is it me that has missed something, or is it every journalist reporting on this who has failed to spot this?
I'd take it as a clear pivot to a second referendum actually. But it's too late, Labour won't see the polling boost the hypothetical 2nd ref would have given them.
Which will be used by some as evidence that they were right not to support it (missing the point somewhat, of course).
I think respecting the result of an election or referendum in the UK is like forming an orderly queue at a bus stop. We just do it. We don't need a law to enforce it. Even if the result is close, role is to represent the interests of the people. If that conflicts with the result of the referendum (and it seems to) then it puts a question mark against mindlessly executing the result of the referendum. People are divided on that question.
The result of the referendum is no longer accepted as holy writ. People who declare it would be the end of democracy to ask the people again are greeted with a big yawn.
The trouble with your argument is that every single one of your points is wrong.
1. We did not have a Leaver in charge of trying to enact the result, we had a Remainer - and a particularly inept one at that. It was her inability to either understand or seriously try to enact a reasonable Leave that has led us to this point.
2. There are not a significant proportion that have changed their minds. As far as the polls go there is little difference between the polls today and those in advance of the referendum itself.
3. The magnitude of the change was always clear. Indeed the Remain camp spent the whole referendum campaign telling us just how important and irreversible this decision would be.
4. Parliament do not see their role as representing the interests of the people. They see it as achieving their own personal political ends. When almost three quarters of MPs are Remain voters and they put their own personal views and advancement ahead of the interests of the people they can in no way be considered representative nor fit for purpose.
You compare polls with the result, not with polls before the vote. There is data now on how people voted last time and on turnout that wasnt available before, and the level of public understanding and engagement is much higher. Real elections also confirm the growing opposition to Brexjt.
Nope. If the polls before the result could not be trusted then why should the polls now be considered an accurate representation.
I'd take it as a clear pivot to a second referendum actually. But it's too late, Labour won't see the polling boost the hypothetical 2nd ref would have given them.
They may not see a polling boost now but they should have a much easier job getting tactical support in a GE.
Because one thing everyone, whatever side of the Brexit debate they're on, can agree with is his assessment of the complete disaster that is Theresa May?
She successfully kicked the can this far. No mean feat.
'Was May merely the fall guy for an inevitable failure or was she utterly incompetent? The answer is of course both – May was doomed to fail but she and her government sure managed, to adapt Samuel Beckett, to fail better.'
New Zealand looked in trouble - but now India are a bowler short through injury, and Kohli will probably need to bowl a few overs... could get interesting.
NZ still need a big ton from Williamson. Pandya will be a massive loss if India make it to the final.
I don't think that's an accurate reading. He's leaving himself room to campaign for Leave in the event of a Labour deal that protects the economy and jobs.
Chinese and Indian ethnic group workers have higher average earnings than their white British counterparts, the first official figures on the issue show.
But the data on the ethnicity pay gap, showed all other ethnic groups have lower wages than white British workers.
The Office for National Statistics said employees in the Bangladeshi ethnic group have the largest pay gap, earning 20% less than white British employees.
I don't think that Labour have actually said what people think they have said. Corbyn's letter to party members says this:
Whoever becomes the new Prime Minister should have the confidence to put their deal, or No Deal, back to the people in a public vote.
In those circumstances, I want to make it clear that Labour would campaign for Remain against either No Deal or a Tory deal that does not protect the economy and jobs.
In other words, IF there is a referendum on Revoke vs No Deal (or a wicked Tory-branded deal indistinguishable from the warm cuddly Labour-branded deal which Corbyn could magic up if he were PM), then Labour would campaign for Revoke. But they've always said they would oppose No Deal or a wicked Tory-branded deal, so there doesn't seem much new here.
What is very conspicuously missing is a commitment to support such a referendum in the first place.
Is it me that has missed something, or is it every journalist reporting on this who has failed to spot this?
The first sentence you quote is calling on the new PM to call a referendum. How much more support do you want?
So basically the Lib Dem position is two fingers to the 2016 referendum . Yet at the time vince cable said the referendum should be honoured . Hypocrites the lot of them
Because one thing everyone, whatever side of the Brexit debate they're on, can agree with is his assessment of the complete disaster that is Theresa May?
She successfully kicked the can this far. No mean feat.
'Was May merely the fall guy for an inevitable failure or was she utterly incompetent? The answer is of course both – May was doomed to fail but she and her government sure managed, to adapt Samuel Beckett, to fail better.'
On the ideas floating around in Whitehall for the Border, one official asks Cook: “Has someone told you about facial recognition for pigs?”
Fucking hell. However bad you think this is in the repining hours before dawn; it's actually worse.
May’s joint chief of staff Fiona Hill instructs Britain’s most senior civil servant, the cabinet secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood, to commission experts to come up with technological solutions [for the Irish border]. Her actual instruction is: “spaff some money on some geeks”.
The first sentence you quote is calling on the new PM to call a referendum. How much more support do you want?
Well, if he means that Labour would now vote in parliament for a referendum on Revoke vs No Deal, or Revoke vs Tory Deal, then why doesn't he say so? The words I quoted seem to imply that it's entirely a matter for the new Conservative leader to decide on whether to hold a referendum. Perhaps Labour will be present but not involved again?
There was also alleged, IIRC, to be a 'problem' with identifying which constituency people identified with.
That's odd, because the rule is quite clear even under boudary changes or constituency name changes. The last address at which you were registered as an "inland" voter determines which constituency. How appropriate it is that the vote counts in a constitiency in which someone lived years ago is questionable, but in a FPTP system it is hard to justify any other system, ...unless..... we are given our own MP. A constituency for all overseas voters. I think it would be a good idea, but I can't see it being popular in Westminster or the Daily Telegraph.
It's hardly disenfraishment if you don't live here. Even maxing out their gerrymandering the separatists managed to get that part right in indyref1
Yes only cheating was done by the cretinous colonists
Morning Malky!
You're not making to much sense but I can explain to posters and lurkers how the separatists vote-rigged indyref1-
1. They used a question that miraculously managed to leave out the term "United Kingdom". Can you imagine the EUref without the term "European Union" ?. It was extremely silly. For shame Electoral Commission.
2. They expanded the franchise purely as a (correct) gamble that the youth would be more nationalistic. Expand the franchise all you want - but as a one off just to push up your vote share it was rather disgusting.
And you still lost!
Roll on #indyref2
LOL Morning. you mean the unionists could not rig it 100% and also prevent democracy by excluding living people and adding the dead back in as they did previously. It will be different story next time for sure.
If in opposition, push for Ref2 on any Tory deal or on No Deal.
If in government, offer Ref2 on any Labour deal.
Ref2 in all cases to have Remain as an option.
It's crystal clear.
It's great. They're being attacked by the Lib Dems for being too pro-Leave, and by the Tories for failing to honour their commitment to uphold the referendum result.
Crystal clear it may be, but it's rotten positioning.
So basically the Lib Dem position is two fingers to the 2016 referendum . Yet at the time vince cable said the referendum should be honoured . Hypocrites the lot of them
I am rather surprised that you have not realised the Lib Dems whole objective is to stop Brexit as indicated on their T shirts at the EU parliament
At least they are honest unlike the nonense coming out of labour
Because one thing everyone, whatever side of the Brexit debate they're on, can agree with is his assessment of the complete disaster that is Theresa May?
She successfully kicked the can this far. No mean feat.
'Was May merely the fall guy for an inevitable failure or was she utterly incompetent? The answer is of course both – May was doomed to fail but she and her government sure managed, to adapt Samuel Beckett, to fail better.'
“The cohort of senior officials working on Brexit were nearly all 'generalists' with little knowledge of the EU or trade, and an average age of 30.
“A third of the department were born since the passing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1991.” Is it surprising that the gallant youth of England, sent to charge the heavy guns of Brussels with their flashing sabres, got mown down?”
Because one thing everyone, whatever side of the Brexit debate they're on, can agree with is his assessment of the complete disaster that is Theresa May?
She successfully kicked the can this far. No mean feat.
'Was May merely the fall guy for an inevitable failure or was she utterly incompetent? The answer is of course both – May was doomed to fail but she and her government sure managed, to adapt Samuel Beckett, to fail better.'
Absolutely this. I don't particularly blame May for Brexit turning out to be the disaster I confidently expected it to be. We might criticise May for not selling damage limitation. But no-one voted Leave to limit the damage we unnecessarily imposed on ourselves. It's unrealistic.
My father was posted at the DC embassy in the early-mid 80s and he always maintained that anything else after is a step down and a big one (he got sent to Zaire after DC - haha). The ambassador's residence on Massachusetts Ave. alone makes it a glittering prize.
Paris is the only posting that comes close - even that is a clear #2 slot (and a New College fiefdom anyway)
Roll out the tumbrils and rid us of these effete greedy old school tie troughers
If in opposition, push for Ref2 on any Tory deal or on No Deal.
If in government, offer Ref2 on any Labour deal.
Ref2 in all cases to have Remain as an option.
It's crystal clear.
I think so too. But some people had convinced themselves that Corbyn wants No Deal, and they are now having to reconcile. I wonder if at some point we will see the Lib Dems shift to 'there's no time for another referendum, we should just revoke a50 and forget about the whole thing.'
So basically the Lib Dem position is two fingers to the 2016 referendum . Yet at the time vince cable said the referendum should be honoured . Hypocrites the lot of them
Jo Swinson’s footsoldiers are going to have a tricky time persuading SCons to give her their tactical votes.
Because one thing everyone, whatever side of the Brexit debate they're on, can agree with is his assessment of the complete disaster that is Theresa May?
She successfully kicked the can this far. No mean feat.
'Was May merely the fall guy for an inevitable failure or was she utterly incompetent? The answer is of course both – May was doomed to fail but she and her government sure managed, to adapt Samuel Beckett, to fail better.'
On the ideas floating around in Whitehall for the Border, one official asks Cook: “Has someone told you about facial recognition for pigs?”
Fucking hell. However bad you think this is in the repining hours before dawn; it's actually worse.
May’s joint chief of staff Fiona Hill instructs Britain’s most senior civil servant, the cabinet secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood, to commission experts to come up with technological solutions [for the Irish border]. Her actual instruction is: “spaff some money on some geeks”.
'Spaff' appears to have become the new term of art to describe the direction of government spending.
The first sentence you quote is calling on the new PM to call a referendum. How much more support do you want?
Well, if he means that Labour would now vote in parliament for a referendum on Revoke vs No Deal, or Revoke vs Tory Deal, then why doesn't he say so? The words I quoted seem to imply that it's entirely a matter for the new Conservative leader to decide on whether to hold a referendum. Perhaps Labour will be present but not involved again?
I think you're reading far too much into this, due to the assumption that Seumas Milne has gotten involved and is trying to pull a fast one. I think the only fair reading of the wording used is that he now supports a referendum in all circumstances and would vote (and whip) in favour of one.
Because one thing everyone, whatever side of the Brexit debate they're on, can agree with is his assessment of the complete disaster that is Theresa May?
She successfully kicked the can this far. No mean feat.
'Was May merely the fall guy for an inevitable failure or was she utterly incompetent? The answer is of course both – May was doomed to fail but she and her government sure managed, to adapt Samuel Beckett, to fail better.'
On the ideas floating around in Whitehall for the Border, one official asks Cook: “Has someone told you about facial recognition for pigs?”
Fucking hell. However bad you think this is in the repining hours before dawn; it's actually worse.
Is there any precedent for a nation going through a years long fubar with its politicians aware of how disastrous it is and will be, yet seemingly unable to do anything to sort it? Vietnam?
My father was posted at the DC embassy in the early-mid 80s and he always maintained that anything else after is a step down and a big one (he got sent to Zaire after DC - haha). The ambassador's residence on Massachusetts Ave. alone makes it a glittering prize.
Paris is the only posting that comes close - even that is a clear #2 slot (and a New College fiefdom anyway)
Roll out the tumbrils and rid us of these effete greedy old school tie troughers
I do like a good tie trougher, especially one who's old school.
Because one thing everyone, whatever side of the Brexit debate they're on, can agree with is his assessment of the complete disaster that is Theresa May?
She successfully kicked the can this far. No mean feat.
'Was May merely the fall guy for an inevitable failure or was she utterly incompetent? The answer is of course both – May was doomed to fail but she and her government sure managed, to adapt Samuel Beckett, to fail better.'
On the ideas floating around in Whitehall for the Border, one official asks Cook: “Has someone told you about facial recognition for pigs?”
Fucking hell. However bad you think this is in the repining hours before dawn; it's actually worse.
May’s joint chief of staff Fiona Hill instructs Britain’s most senior civil servant, the cabinet secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood, to commission experts to come up with technological solutions [for the Irish border]. Her actual instruction is: “spaff some money on some geeks”.
I am so buying that book. I'm plowing thru Goodwin's "National Populism"' at the moment, then it's "The Labyrinth Index", then I've set aside Max Hastings's Vietnam for Xmas, then "Chastise" comes out in paperback in May next year, so it'll probably be Spring 2019. Fuck, I need a holiday...
What would count as promotion for the Ambassador to the USA?
Given that one of the main jobs of that ambassador is to gain influence for the UK with the world's most powerful nation's government, fairly or unfairly the incumbent is now damaged goods (unfairly, obviously). That would be the case even if the present president wasn't a thin-skinned egotist. He will need to be replaced. The president doesn't get to choose the replacement but he is within his rights (even if he is being an arse about it) if he doesn't want to deal with someone who doesn't respect him.
A proper leak inquiry should be conducted and the culprit should be strung up by their nether regions. Leaking such confidential briefings for partisan advantage is treacherous.
The highly spun article in the Sun yesterday suggests Jeremy Hunt has a good idea who was responsible for the leak and is VERY keen that attention is diverted to the Russians
I am glad that Grieve has failed again in his attempts to twist parliamentary procedures in ways they were never designed to be used.
I am sure he feels very clever coming up with these new twists and turns - but it is not how Parliament should be used by anyone - government or backbencher
For what he seeks to be legitimate, it has to be done within the framework that has been the norm for how we do business in that chamber.
The NI bill is far too important to be mired in the mess he was seeking to create.
Because one thing everyone, whatever side of the Brexit debate they're on, can agree with is his assessment of the complete disaster that is Theresa May?
She successfully kicked the can this far. No mean feat.
'Was May merely the fall guy for an inevitable failure or was she utterly incompetent? The answer is of course both – May was doomed to fail but she and her government sure managed, to adapt Samuel Beckett, to fail better.'
On the ideas floating around in Whitehall for the Border, one official asks Cook: “Has someone told you about facial recognition for pigs?”
Fucking hell. However bad you think this is in the repining hours before dawn; it's actually worse.
May’s joint chief of staff Fiona Hill instructs Britain’s most senior civil servant, the cabinet secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood, to commission experts to come up with technological solutions [for the Irish border]. Her actual instruction is: “spaff some money on some geeks”.
'Spaff' appears to have become the new term of art to describe the direction of government spending.
That a public school term for ejaculation has become the word of the moment seems entirely appropriate. We are quite literally a country led by posh wankers.
Because one thing everyone, whatever side of the Brexit debate they're on, can agree with is his assessment of the complete disaster that is Theresa May?
She successfully kicked the can this far. No mean feat.
'Was May merely the fall guy for an inevitable failure or was she utterly incompetent? The answer is of course both – May was doomed to fail but she and her government sure managed, to adapt Samuel Beckett, to fail better.'
“The cohort of senior officials working on Brexit were nearly all 'generalists' with little knowledge of the EU or trade, and an average age of 30.
“A third of the department were born since the passing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1991.” Is it surprising that the gallant youth of England, sent to charge the heavy guns of Brussels with their flashing sabres, got mown down?”
We must find out what university these people attended and then shut down PPE at Oxford.
Scenario 1: Imagine that a General Election is held later this year before Brexit has been delivered. Boris Johnson is the leader of the Conservatives, Jeremy Corbyn remains leader of the Labour Party, Jo Swinson is leader of the Liberal Democrats and Nigel Farage is leader of the Brexit Party. How do you think you would then vote?
Scenario 2: Imagine that a General Election is held later this year after Brexit has been delivered. Boris Johnson is the leader of the Conservatives, Jeremy Corbyn remains leader of the Labour Party, Jo Swinson is leader of the Liberal Democrats and Nigel Farage is leader of the Brexit Party. How do you think you would then vote?
Lots of people bitching about Labour's new position but I think it's what they need.
All but the most remainiacest remainiacs can tolerate the it since they get their referendum, but it's also something an MP in a leave-voting seat can reasonably defend: They're trying for a better deal, Brexit can still happen, Labour may even support it if it protects jobs.
Leaving those little bits of air on either side means they won't get much credit from very EU-focused people of a Leave or a Remain persuasion, but the job isn't to impress them, it's to avoid hamstringing incumbent Labour MPs running for reelection.
Comments
It appears to be to negotiate a Labour deal to leave (to satisfy the Leavers) but put it to the people in a referendum where Labour would campaign for Remain (to satisfy the Remainers) and against the Leave deal they have just negotiated. Have I got that right?
The ineptitude and complete lack of understanding of the one person given all the power to actually get a deal with the EU. Bear in mind I want a 'soft' Brexit and would have supported the WA although I think it is very flawed. But May completely failed to build a consensus on this and instead decided to play politics with it. She should, at every turn, have tried to consult and include all the sides in these decisions. She failed to build a consensus in Parliament, in the country and even in her own party because she initially went for a hard Brexit and made a huge number of basic mistakes which turned people on all sides against her and against a reasonable deal.
There were also far more people who refused to accept the result than you claim.
https://twitter.com/fotoole/status/1148487472806072321
If you want to overthrow it and instal a revolutionary council, then ok, but we will have to get the guillotines and revolutionary calendar, and it's difficult to get good tumbrils during the summer holidays. Would you care for a more cut-rate Rwandan revolution? We seem to have no shortage of zombie knives to serve as machetes...
Interesting telegraph article about RoI saying a border would be necessary with no deal. Everyone seems to be at the top of the hill and I have no idea how anyone marches back down.
But it is the unfairness to Darroch which really grates with me. A civil servant doing his job, being completely undermined and potentially having his career ruined as a result. It is unforgivable. The damage to him should be mitigated as far as possible. If it is not, then he would have a pretty good employment claim I’d have thought.
Politicians depend on civil servants. If they do not stand behind them at a time like this, why should civil servants trust them? This is so corrosive of the trust essential to the proper functioning of our institutions.
As for Trump, if he does not want the British Ambassador anymore, let him formally declare him persona non grata, not via this bitchy tweeting. And then let us respond formally in the strongest possible terms - up to and including doing the same to the US Ambassador here. We should point out that to behave in this way, given the recent State visit, the British blood expended fighting the US’s wars, etc etc is not something we do lightly but the way the US President is behaving towards an ally and its representative is simply unworthy of the US and its best traditions.
Bullies should never be appeased, including US ones. There was a time when one could have assumed that Britain understood that point instinctively. Not any more, it seems. Our cravenness towards the US shames us.
I see no problem with that.
Boris knowing that he is unloved in Scotland, even by SCons, will hurt his sense of entitlement. That could have some interesting effects.
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1148541688635437056
Further moaning is purely about being against Corbyn rather than against Brexit.
Whoever becomes the new Prime Minister should have the confidence to put their deal, or No Deal, back to the people in a public vote.
In those circumstances, I want to make it clear that Labour would campaign for Remain against either No Deal or a Tory deal that does not protect the economy and jobs.
In other words, IF there is a referendum on Revoke vs No Deal (or a wicked Tory-branded deal indistinguishable from the warm cuddly Labour-branded deal which Corbyn could magic up if he were PM), then Labour would campaign for Revoke. But they've always said they would oppose No Deal or a wicked Tory-branded deal, so there doesn't seem much new here.
What is very conspicuously missing is a commitment to support such a referendum in the first place.
Is it me that has missed something, or is it every journalist reporting on this who has failed to spot this?
If Boris follows Jezza's Scotch example it'll be day trips with carefully angled photo ops to make a few loyalists (probably Ross Thomson and whoever he can pick up in a pub) look like a crowd.
On the ideas floating around in Whitehall for the Border, one official asks Cook: “Has someone told you about facial recognition for pigs?”
Fucking hell. However bad you think this is in the repining hours before dawn; it's actually worse.
But the data on the ethnicity pay gap, showed all other ethnic groups have lower wages than white British workers.
The Office for National Statistics said employees in the Bangladeshi ethnic group have the largest pay gap, earning 20% less than white British employees.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48919813
Shock, horror, best educated demographic highest earners, lowest educated demographics lowest earners...
If in opposition, push for Ref2 on any Tory deal or on No Deal.
If in government, offer Ref2 on any Labour deal.
Ref2 in all cases to have Remain as an option.
It's crystal clear.
https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1148549156149059584
It will be different story next time for sure.
Crystal clear it may be, but it's rotten positioning.
We the voters should have control. Not Grieve and his cohort of MPs.
I am rather surprised that you have not realised the Lib Dems whole objective is to stop Brexit as indicated on their T shirts at the EU parliament
At least they are honest unlike the nonense coming out of labour
“The cohort of senior officials working on Brexit were nearly all 'generalists' with little knowledge of the EU or trade, and an average age of 30.
“A third of the department were born since the passing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1991.” Is it surprising that the gallant youth of England, sent to charge the heavy guns of Brussels with their flashing sabres, got mown down?”
Clearly though any election manifesto will have to ditch the Labour negotiating a new deal.
But some people had convinced themselves that Corbyn wants No Deal, and they are now having to reconcile.
I wonder if at some point we will see the Lib Dems shift to 'there's no time for another referendum, we should just revoke a50 and forget about the whole thing.'
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1148339719262089216
I am sure he feels very clever coming up with these new twists and turns - but it is not how Parliament should be used by anyone - government or backbencher
For what he seeks to be legitimate, it has to be done within the framework that has been the norm for how we do business in that chamber.
The NI bill is far too important to be mired in the mess he was seeking to create.
Enough with this sort of ruse.
If Grieve wants to put forward something or other to stop prorogation, Bercow has basically told him the NI bill is not the place.
Con: 17%
LDem: 17%
Brex: 16%
Lab: 13%
SNP: 3%
Green: 6%
Plaid: 1%
Oth: 2%
Don’t know: 14%
Would not vote: 9%
Refused: 2%
Figures with undecideds and refused excluded:
Con: 23%
LDem: 23%
Brex: 21%
Lab: 17%
Grn: 8%
Con: 20%
Lib: 15%
Brex: 10%
Lab: 13%
SNP: 3%
Grn: 7%
Plaid: 1%
Oth: 1%
Don’t know: 16%
Would not vote: 9%
Refused: 4%
Figures with undecideds and refused excluded:
Con: 28%
LDem: 20%
Brex: 14%
Lab: 17%
Grn: 9%
Boris Johnson: 6%
Jeremy Hunt: 44%
Neither: 21%
Don’t know: 29%
Q5: Who do you believe is most likely to Promise anything to be Prime Minister?
Boris Johnson: 50%
Jeremy Hunt: 16%
Neither: 10%
Don’t know: 24%
Q6: Who do you believe is most likely to unite the country after Brexit?
Boris Johnson: 18%
Jeremy Hunt: 9%
Neither: 50%
Don’t know: 23%
Notes:
YouGov poll commissioned by Britain Elects
Sample Size: 1,680 GB Adults
Fieldwork: 07 - 08 July, 2019
That doesn't sound like a solution if you're a remainer.
All but the most remainiacest remainiacs can tolerate the it since they get their referendum, but it's also something an MP in a leave-voting seat can reasonably defend: They're trying for a better deal, Brexit can still happen, Labour may even support it if it protects jobs.
Leaving those little bits of air on either side means they won't get much credit from very EU-focused people of a Leave or a Remain persuasion, but the job isn't to impress them, it's to avoid hamstringing incumbent Labour MPs running for reelection.