This next week will define her Premiership and should point the way forward that is possible taking into account the Parliamentary arithmetic. Personally I do not think she can continue as she is now. Today’s PMQ’s was an embarrassment and unless she really makes some decisions a challenge must be in the pipeline.
Truly, 'tis the End Times when Big_G can't muster a defence of Theresa.
Agree Sajid is probably the best option, but I fear that a headbanger will end up in charge.
There is no need for economic dislocation. Growth in some areas will balance out falls in others.
Spoken like a true Corbynite/John McDonnell.
Rubbish.
The Tory party and history have proven that free trade always wins out over protectionism.
I’m a Brexiteer, but that’s rather glib. Free trade which requires compliance with rules of origin and conformity assessment is not nearly as free as free trade without those things. If we are genuinely outside the CU and SM trade with our largest market will become less free.
You can argue that it is better for us to have more shallow trade agreements with those parts of the world with better growth prospects than a deep agreement with our nearest neighbours and largest market. However, I don’t think you’re on solid ground.
The best arguments for Brexit are about democracy and immigration, not the economy.
This next week will define her Premiership and should point the way forward that is possible taking into account the Parliamentary arithmetic. Personally I do not think she can continue as she is now. Today’s PMQ’s was an embarrassment and unless she really makes some decisions a challenge must be in the pipeline.
Truly, 'tis the End Times when Big_G can't muster a defence of Theresa.
Agree Sajid is probably the best option, but I fear that a headbanger will end up in charge.
There is no need for economic dislocation. Growth in some areas will balance out falls in others.
Spoken like a true Corbynite/John McDonnell.
Rubbish.
The Tory party and history have proven that free trade always wins out over protectionism.
Except what you're proposing will damage free trade as Iain Martin has pointed out and you cannot call him a remoaner.
How will a time limit on us staying in the customs union, before transiting onto MaxFac (which the EU basically wants to implement by 2020 for all trade anyway) damage free trade?
Or alternatively, the fools who sought to blame the EU for everything that was wrong in modern Britain led us to a dawning realisation that most of those problems were of our own making.
I don't agree with that but I do think it is obvious that if we had had any of the earlier promised referendums the government of the day would have had to make a positive case not only for the treaty of the day but the EU as a concept. All leading UK politicians avoided doing that for decades because they thought it would be unpopular. Blair tried very briefly with his "at the heart of Europe" schtick but very rapidly gave up. When some eventually had to make the argument the credibility gap was just too great to bridge. Our political class reaped what they sewed.
A referendum on the Lisbon treaty would probably - and I say only probably - have been won. By the time Cameron had the power to give one, it was too late as it had already been signed.
However don't underestimate the power of the Eurosceptics. No referendum is 'won' until the votes are counted, and a campaign might have seen an unexpected result, especially if run in a similar manner to the 2016 one.
We have reaped what we have sewn. I hope and pray the optimists are right; but I am under no illusion that this might be the biggest f'up in modern British history. And everyone involved - both in the UK and abroad - seem destined to make it so.
I hope I am wrong.
And I stand by what I wrote above, and am slightly surprised you do not see any truth in it.
This next week will define her Premiership and should point the way forward that is possible taking into account the Parliamentary arithmetic. Personally I do not think she can continue as she is now. Today’s PMQ’s was an embarrassment and unless she really makes some decisions a challenge must be in the pipeline.
Truly, 'tis the End Times when Big_G can't muster a defence of Theresa.
Agree Sajid is probably the best option, but I fear that a headbanger will end up in charge.
If the Govt does submit is "new" backstop plan tomorrow does anybody know of any betting markets for the amount of time it will take the EU to reject it. I would go for 1 hour 23 mins.
There is no need for economic dislocation. Growth in some areas will balance out falls in others.
Spoken like a true Corbynite/John McDonnell.
Rubbish.
The Tory party and history have proven that free trade always wins out over protectionism.
I’m a Brexiteer, but that’s rather glib. Free trade which requires compliance with rules of origin and conformity assessment is not nearly as free as free trade without those things. If we are genuinely outside the CU and SM trade with our largest market will become less free.
You can argue that it is better for us to have more shallow trade agreements with those parts of the world with better growth prospects than a deep agreement with our nearest neighbours and largest market. However, I don’t think you’re on solid ground.
The best arguments for Brexit are about democracy and immigration, not the economy.
Of course they are. But neutralising the overplayed economic argument is important.
And so reminding dreamy Europhiles that the EU isn’t the be all and end all of our economy is important.
This next week will define her Premiership and should point the way forward that is possible taking into account the Parliamentary arithmetic. Personally I do not think she can continue as she is now. Today’s PMQ’s was an embarrassment and unless she really makes some decisions a challenge must be in the pipeline.
Truly, 'tis the End Times when Big_G can't muster a defence of Theresa.
Agree Sajid is probably the best option, but I fear that a headbanger will end up in charge.
Let's all hope for a Javid/Gove ticket.
As leader/deputy, or as the choice put to the members? If the latter then Javid surely a shoo-in.
What are these "excellent terms negotiated", Mr Navabi? I think we should be told.
We were.
The people responsible for this shambles are the europhile elite who saw public opinion as trivial and ignorant, a plaything to be indulged and then ignored, as they saw fit.
Suddenly they HAD to call a vote, and it all blew up. Wankers.
+1.
The arrogance and anti-democratic tendencies of the Europhiles created a backlash of anger and frustration as well as a realisation that if not now, then never as we sank ever deeper into a quagmire we did not want to be in but which politicians kept telling us was in our best interests.
Or alternatively, the fools who sought to blame the EU for everything that was wrong in modern Britain led us to a dawning realisation that most of those problems were of our own making.
I don't agree with that but I do think it is obvious that if we had had any of the earlier promised referendums the government of the day would have had to make a positive case not only for the treaty of the day but the EU as a concept. All leading UK politicians avoided doing that for decades because they thought it would be unpopular. Blair tried very briefly with his "at the heart of Europe" schtick but very rapidly gave up. When some eventually had to make the argument the credibility gap was just too great to bridge. Our political class reaped what they sewed.
Surely it was John Major who did the "Heart of Europe" position in 1991 during the Maastricht negotiations. I do think reading many threads that people have a bad habit of confusing the Trade and Political aspects of the EU with the Euro area and the ERM. The two are entirely separate and a country can be a member of the EU and not a member of the Eurozone. The UK had the best form of engagement in being a member of one but not the other given its economic needs and political history.
This next week will define her Premiership and should point the way forward that is possible taking into account the Parliamentary arithmetic. Personally I do not think she can continue as she is now. Today’s PMQ’s was an embarrassment and unless she really makes some decisions a challenge must be in the pipeline.
Truly, 'tis the End Times when Big_G can't muster a defence of Theresa.
Agree Sajid is probably the best option, but I fear that a headbanger will end up in charge.
Let's all hope for a Javid/Gove ticket.
As leader/deputy, or as the choice put to the members? If the latter then Javid surely a shoo-in.
Leader/chancellor, put to the members vs whoever the remainers can muster. We must have a members vote this time.
It's ironic that many of those who most vociferously say that Theresa May should stand up to über-Brexiteer bullies in her party are precisely those who voted to deny her the parliamentary numbers to do so.
So the people are at fault ?
Yes, of course, they gave her a near-impossible task and then they made it even more impossible. Votes have consequences, you know.
If given the opportunity, the people could change their collective mind - now that they know what the original "wish" actually means.
Unfortunately the option of going back to Cameron and Osborne, and remaining in the EU under the excellent terms negotiated, is no longer available. Hell, even the option of going back to Ed Miliband has vanished. We are where we are.
What are these "excellent terms negotiated", Mr Navabi? I think we should be told.
We were.
If Britain hadn't been run for so long by such cynical incompetents from the major parties, some kind of effort to paint the EU as a "we" would have been made in this country over the preceding 40 years and UKIP would have been kept in the margins. Instead we had to put up with the usual story of "British PM goes to Europe (careering between telling those foreign EU johnnies what's what and importuning to individual countries such as Lithuania) and look what happened - the chickens came home to roost.
If we'd been given just one - JUST ONE - of the several million promised referendums on previous EU Treaties, instead of being lied to, and deceived, for decades, then we'd have voted down further integration and the tragedy of Brexit would have been avoided.
The people responsible for this shambles are the europhile elite who saw public opinion as trivial and ignorant, a plaything to be indulged and then ignored, as they saw fit.
Suddenly they HAD to call a vote, and it all blew up. Wankers.
That is why I believe it is misleading to look at what the Leave/Remain campaigns said/promised/whatever.
People weren't voting about the campaign, they were voting to Remain or Leave, in the knowledge that this was the only chance they'd get to have their say.
This next week will define her Premiership and should point the way forward that is possible taking into account the Parliamentary arithmetic. Personally I do not think she can continue as she is now. Today’s PMQ’s was an embarrassment and unless she really makes some decisions a challenge must be in the pipeline.
Truly, 'tis the End Times when Big_G can't muster a defence of Theresa.
Agree Sajid is probably the best option, but I fear that a headbanger will end up in charge.
Let's all hope for a Javid/Gove ticket.
Do you want a Corbyn government?
No, why? That pairing in Downing Street would win against Corbyn, quite easily too.
This next week will define her Premiership and should point the way forward that is possible taking into account the Parliamentary arithmetic. Personally I do not think she can continue as she is now. Today’s PMQ’s was an embarrassment and unless she really makes some decisions a challenge must be in the pipeline.
Truly, 'tis the End Times when Big_G can't muster a defence of Theresa.
Agree Sajid is probably the best option, but I fear that a headbanger will end up in charge.
Let's all hope for a Javid/Gove ticket.
As leader/deputy, or as the choice put to the members? If the latter then Javid surely a shoo-in.
Leader/chancellor, put to the members vs whoever the remainers can muster. We must have a members vote this time.
Depends when it is.
If before Brexit, a Howardesque coronation will do nicely. Afterwards, then we have the time for an indulgent members vote.
Javid seems the obvious guy now. He would assist the Tories with BAME voters, confuse lefties into incontinence, he's a just-about-Remainer with serious sceptical credentials, he's also not an autistic flailing idiot like TMay. He's not charismatic, but he's obviously very clever, with great ambition. He would do well against Corbyn (his backstory is way more working class than Corbyn's)
Javid it is. Let him take us into the EEA.
I agree, Javid could be Major to Boris' Heseltine and Mogg's Tebbit and Corbyn's Kinnock if Tory MPs again topple a female PM.
Though we will not be in the full EEA as that requires free movement which is unacceptable to most Tory voters
I think continued but temporary acceptance of FoM might be a bitter pill the Tories - and voters - have to swallow, with the promise that it will be addressed in the future.
Not going to happen, have forgotten what Leave's campaign was about?
Me? Are you kidding? Hey, I was with you all the time! That was beautiful! Did you see the way the Leavers fell into our trap?!
This next week will define her Premiership and should point the way forward that is possible taking into account the Parliamentary arithmetic. Personally I do not think she can continue as she is now. Today’s PMQ’s was an embarrassment and unless she really makes some decisions a challenge must be in the pipeline.
Truly, 'tis the End Times when Big_G can't muster a defence of Theresa.
Agree Sajid is probably the best option, but I fear that a headbanger will end up in charge.
Let's all hope for a Javid/Gove ticket.
As leader/deputy, or as the choice put to the members? If the latter then Javid surely a shoo-in.
Leader/chancellor, put to the members vs whoever the remainers can muster. We must have a members vote this time.
Depends when it is.
If before Brexit, a Howardesque coronation will do nicely. Afterwards, then we have the time for an indulgent members vote.
No way, we can't have another leader without a mandate from anyone but Tory MPs.
This next week will define her Premiership and should point the way forward that is possible taking into account the Parliamentary arithmetic. Personally I do not think she can continue as she is now. Today’s PMQ’s was an embarrassment and unless she really makes some decisions a challenge must be in the pipeline.
Truly, 'tis the End Times when Big_G can't muster a defence of Theresa.
Agree Sajid is probably the best option, but I fear that a headbanger will end up in charge.
Let's all hope for a Javid/Gove ticket.
Do you want a Corbyn government?
No, why? That pairing in Downing Street would win against Corbyn, quite easily too.
That is the same sort of complacency that nearly led the Conservative party - and the country - to a Corbyn-led disaster last year. I quite like Gove, but he's absolute marmite.
This next week will define her Premiership and should point the way forward that is possible taking into account the Parliamentary arithmetic. Personally I do not think she can continue as she is now. Today’s PMQ’s was an embarrassment and unless she really makes some decisions a challenge must be in the pipeline.
Truly, 'tis the End Times when Big_G can't muster a defence of Theresa.
Agree Sajid is probably the best option, but I fear that a headbanger will end up in charge.
Let's all hope for a Javid/Gove ticket.
As leader/deputy, or as the choice put to the members? If the latter then Javid surely a shoo-in.
Leader/chancellor, put to the members vs whoever the remainers can muster. We must have a members vote this time.
Depends when it is.
If before Brexit, a Howardesque coronation will do nicely. Afterwards, then we have the time for an indulgent members vote.
No way, we can't have another leader without a mandate from anyone but Tory MPs.
Tory MPS who represent tens of millions of voters.
Tbh I’m not sure that party members electing the leader is such a good idea. Especially in government.
I am still surprised at Corbyn and Labours position.
.
If Brexit was reversed by Labour votes almost all the Leave voters would vote Tory which would kill Labour in working class Leave seats and Corbyn knows it
Not necessarily. You have to be careful not to get sucked into this polarisation of Brexit into thinking it affects everyone's vote. I voted Remain in 2016 but voted Tory in 2017, I know many others who did the same. The Tories going 100% leave to Labour going 100% Remain would mean either I wouldn't vote or Vote Labour. The working class areas are not going to vote Tory in large enough numbers, they would have done last year would they not? I think WWC Labour voters tend to be very partisan and hate Tories. Besides will the Tories find ground troops in numbers to make safe Labour seats competitive, I think not.
Of the 100 most marginal Labour seats now targeted by the Tories the vast majority voted strongly Leave
I know people who voted Leave and are Labour voters. I cannot see them voting anything but Labour whether Labour are Remain or Leave. It is a generalisation and an urban myth that Leave voters will decamp to the Tories. In a handful of seats this may have been the case in 2017 but time moves on and the electoral landscape changes shape and colour. I could start a debate on political philosophy and why some voters are attracted into supporting certain political parties. But I will not bore the readers of this blog with my perceptions of political participation. I will finish with my view that Tories tend ironically to be the most likely to change their vote if the right inducement is made where as Labour voters in short tend to be very firm in their support of that party.
People said the same about Mansfield or Stoke South before GE17. It only takes a handful of Labour voters to move to the Tories for the Tories to gain Leave seats like Barrow and Peterborough and Halifax
Peterborough had a Tory MP up until 2017 who was very hard line Leaver!
Barrow is likely to be affected by Labour's policies on Trident renewal rather than the EU.
In terms of Mansfield and Stoke South, they have been trending toward the Tories for quite a few elections anyway but could easily flip back whatever the policy Labour has on Brexit IMO.
I am still surprised at Corbyn and Labours position.
I think Corbyn should view the stopping of Brexit and screwing the Tories as his number one priority. Just imagine how split the Tories would be if Brexit was reversed and a Corbyn Government took power. The Tories would be in disarray whilst Labour could introduce a more progressive program than they have implemented for over 40 years.
I think Labour saying they would remain in the EU would be enough to counter any objections on economic policies as what could be worse than a hard Brexit? The UK achieves a much higher standard of living through trade, Brexit jeopardises this and many Leavers do not seem to understand this. A smaller economy means less power whether it is militarily, economic or soft power i.e. Overseas Development.
If Brexit was reversed by Labour votes almost all the Leave voters would vote Tory which would kill Labour in working class Leave seats and Corbyn knows it
You - and many other commentators - have read this completely wrong. Brexit is simply not a salient issue for many Labour voters whether they voted Leave or Remain. Other issues are far more important to them.
If we'd been given just one - JUST ONE - of the several million promised referendums on previous EU Treaties, instead of being lied to, and deceived, for decades, then we'd have voted down further integration and the tragedy of Brexit would have been avoided.
The people responsible for this shambles are the europhile elite who saw public opinion as trivial and ignorant, a plaything to be indulged and then ignored, as they saw fit.
Suddenly they HAD to call a vote, and it all blew up. Wankers.
That's because you cannot trust the voters to make the right call, plebiscites often become a way of kicking the government, that's why Thatcher didn't like them.
40% of voters think Corbyn should be PM and 53% of voters like pineapple on pizza.
Farage would also return to lead UKIP in a flash if it is BINO with FOM, who knows what the voters might do if the choice is Javid, Corbyn and BINO or Farage
I am still surprised at Corbyn and Labours position.
I think Corbyn should view the stopping of Brexit and screwing the Tories as his number one priority. Just imagine how split the Tories would be if Brexit was reversed and a Corbyn Government took power. The Tories would be in disarray whilst Labour could introduce a more progressive program than they have implemented for over 40 years.
I think Labour saying they would remain in the EU would be enough to counter any objections on economic policies as what could be worse than a hard Brexit? The UK achieves a much higher standard of living through trade, Brexit jeopardises this and many Leavers do not seem to understand this. A smaller economy means less power whether it is militarily, economic or soft power i.e. Overseas Development.
If Brexit was reversed by Labour votes almost all the Leave voters would vote Tory which would kill Labour in working class Leave seats and Corbyn knows it
You - and many other commentators - have read this completely wrong. Brexit is simply not a salient issue for many Labour voters whether they voted Leave or Remain. Other issues are far more important to them.
Like whether parents are married before having children, presumably?
I am still surprised at Corbyn and Labours position.
I think Corbyn should view the stopping of Brexit and screwing the Tories as his number one priority. Just imagine how split the Tories would be if Brexit was reversed and a Corbyn Government took power. The Tories would be in disarray whilst Labour could introduce a more progressive program than they have implemented for over 40 years.
I think Labour saying they would remain in the EU would be enough to counter any objections on economic policies as what could be worse than a hard Brexit? The UK achieves a much higher standard of living through trade, Brexit jeopardises this and many Leavers do not seem to understand this. A smaller economy means less power whether it is militarily, economic or soft power i.e. Overseas Development.
If Brexit was reversed by Labour votes almost all the Leave voters would vote Tory which would kill Labour in working class Leave seats and Corbyn knows it
Not necessarily. You have to be careful not to get sucked into this polarisation of Brexit into thinking it affects everyone's vote. I voted Remain in 2016 but voted Tory in 2017, I know many others who did the same. The Tories going 100% leave to Labour going 100% Remain would mean either I wouldn't vote or Vote Labour. The working class areas are not going to vote Tory in large enough numbers, they would have done last year would they not? I think WWC Labour voters tend to be very partisan and hate Tories. Besides will the Tories find ground troops in numbers to make safe Labour seats competitive, I think not.
Of the 100 most marginal Labour seats now targeted by the Tories the vast majority voted strongly Leave
I know people who voted Leave and are Labour voters. I cannot see them voting anything but Labour whether Labour are Remain or Leave. It is a generalisation and an urban myth that Leave voters will decamp to the Tories. In a handful of seats this may have been the case in 2017 but time moves on and the electoral landscape changes shape and colour. I could start a debate on political philosophy and why some voters are attracted into supporting certain political parties. But I will not bore the readers of this blog with my perceptions of political participation. I will finish with my view that Tories tend ironically to be the most likely to change their vote if the right inducement is made where as Labour voters in short tend to be very firm in their support of that party.
The Labour voters who switched to the Tories in 2017 did so because of Corbyn - not because of Brexit.
One of the interesting things about JRM is the number of Conservative-leaning or -sympathetic posters on here who said they could never vote for him.
JRM is the unacceptable face of Brexit.
Rees-Mogg runs a hedge fund SCM or SCUM as I like to call it!
SCM is an acronym for Somerset Capital Management. It invests in Russia for goodness sake but not in Brexit Britain. A hard Brexit will mean a fall in sterling and SCM overseas assets will rise in value not because of performance but because of the political chaos Brexit has created. JRM profits from a Hard Brexit and this is why Somerset Capital Management likely invests abroad but not in the UK at this time.
I am still surprised at Corbyn and Labours position.
I think Corbyn should view the stopping of Brexit and screwing the Tories as his number one priority. Just imagine how split the Tories would be if Brexit was reversed and a Corbyn Government took power. The Tories would be in disarray whilst Labour could introduce a more progressive program than they have implemented for over 40 years.
I think Labour saying they would remain in the EU would be enough to counter any objections on economic policies as what could be worse than a hard Brexit? The UK achieves a much higher standard of living through trade, Brexit jeopardises this and many Leavers do not seem to understand this. A smaller economy means less power whether it is militarily, economic or soft power i.e. Overseas Development.
If Brexit was reversed by Labour votes almost all the Leave voters would vote Tory which would kill Labour in working class Leave seats and Corbyn knows it
You - and many other commentators - have read this completely wrong. Brexit is simply not a salient issue for many Labour voters whether they voted Leave or Remain. Other issues are far more important to them.
Like whether parents are married before having children, presumably?
Or alternatively, the fools who sought to blame the EU for everything that was wrong in modern Britain led us to a dawning realisation that most of those problems were of our own making.
I don't agree with that but I do think it is obvious that if we had had any of the earlier promised referendums the government of the day would have had to make a positive case not only for the treaty of the day but the EU as a concept. All leading UK politicians avoided doing that for decades because they thought it would be unpopular. Blair tried very briefly with his "at the heart of Europe" schtick but very rapidly gave up. When some eventually had to make the argument the credibility gap was just too great to bridge. Our political class reaped what they sewed.
A referendum on the Lisbon treaty would probably - and I say only probably - have been won. By the time Cameron had the power to give one, it was too late as it had already been signed.
However don't underestimate the power of the Eurosceptics. No referendum is 'won' until the votes are counted, and a campaign might have seen an unexpected result, especially if run in a similar manner to the 2016 one.
We have reaped what we have sewn. I hope and pray the optimists are right; but I am under no illusion that this might be the biggest f'up in modern British history. And everyone involved - both in the UK and abroad - seem destined to make it so.
I hope I am wrong.
And I stand by what I wrote above, and am slightly surprised you do not see any truth in it.
I think the Lisbon Treaty would almost certainly have been voted down in a referendum.
On the Brexit/economy argument - I definitely fall on the side of Brexit not being economically beneficial, certainly not in the short term given the way the government has proceeded over the last two years.
I think there is some benefit to be had with Brexit, but the main gains will be democratic and social. Brexit wasn't won on the back of an economic argument, it was won in spite of a strong economic argument against it.
If the Govt does submit is "new" backstop plan tomorrow does anybody know of any betting markets for the amount of time it will take the EU to reject it. I would go for 1 hour 23 mins.
As long as that? Like most government EU proposals it's like them arguing over which colour unicorn they want.
This next week will define her Premiership and should point the way forward that is possible taking into account the Parliamentary arithmetic. Personally I do not think she can continue as she is now. Today’s PMQ’s was an embarrassment and unless she really makes some decisions a challenge must be in the pipeline.
Truly, 'tis the End Times when Big_G can't muster a defence of Theresa.
Agree Sajid is probably the best option, but I fear that a headbanger will end up in charge.
Big_G renouncing Theresa is like Beethoven renouncing Napoleon in the Eroica dedication.
The arrogance and anti-democratic tendencies of the Europhiles created a backlash of anger and frustration as well as a realisation that if not now, then never as we sank ever deeper into a quagmire we did not want to be in but which politicians kept telling us was in our best interests.
Or alternatively, the fools who sought to blame the EU for everything that was wrong in modern Britain led us to a dawning realisation that most of those problems were of our own making.
I don't agree with that but I do think it is obvious that if we had had any of the earlier promised referendums the government of the day would have had to make a positive case not only for the treaty of the day but the EU as a concept. All leading UK politicians avoided doing that for decades because they thought it would be unpopular. Blair tried very briefly with his "at the heart of Europe" schtick but very rapidly gave up. When some eventually had to make the argument the credibility gap was just too great to bridge. Our political class reaped what they sewed.
Surely it was John Major who did the "Heart of Europe" position in 1991 during the Maastricht negotiations. I do think reading many threads that people have a bad habit of confusing the Trade and Political aspects of the EU with the Euro area and the ERM. The two are entirely separate and a country can be a member of the EU and not a member of the Eurozone. The UK had the best form of engagement in being a member of one but not the other given its economic needs and political history.
I really don't recall that. Major and Maastricht was all about the 4 pillars and differential geometry. It was when it was accepted that the UK would not sign up to the full panoply of EU competences but would seek to have our cake and eat it, to coin a phrase. I don't recall anyone suggesting that such an ambivalent approach was going to put us at the heart of Europe. It would have been even more irrational than EU politics usually is.
I am still surprised at Corbyn and Labours position.
I think Corbyn should view the stopping of Brexit and screwing the Tories as his number one priority. Just imagine how split the Tories would be if Brexit was reversed and a Corbyn Government took power. The Tories would be in disarray whilst Labour could introduce a more progressive program than they have implemented for over 40 years.
I think Labour saying they would remain in the EU would be enough to counter any objections on economic policies as what could be worse than a hard Brexit? The UK achieves a much higher standard of living through trade, Brexit jeopardises this and many Leavers do not seem to understand this. A smaller economy means less power whether it is militarily, economic or soft power i.e. Overseas Development.
If Brexit was reversed by Labour votes almost all the Leave voters would vote Tory which would kill Labour in working class Leave seats and Corbyn knows it
You - and many other commentators - have read this completely wrong. Brexit is simply not a salient issue for many Labour voters whether they voted Leave or Remain. Other issues are far more important to them.
Like whether parents are married before having children, presumably?
Morty - thanks for your reply this morning. Has been a ludicrously crazy day at work (from home). Now recovering with the remarkably consistent Langedoc from Sainsburys. Yes, I think it’s getting away from a screen makes one a better listener, hence, walking while calling works.
Or alternatively, the fools who sought to blame the EU for everything that was wrong in modern Britain led us to a dawning realisation that most of those problems were of our own making.
I don't agree with that but I do think it is obvious that if we had had any of the earlier promised referendums the government of the day would have had to make a positive case not only for the treaty of the day but the EU as a concept. All leading UK politicians avoided doing that for decades because they thought it would be unpopular. Blair tried very briefly with his "at the heart of Europe" schtick but very rapidly gave up. When some eventually had to make the argument the credibility gap was just too great to bridge. Our political class reaped what they sewed.
A referendum on the Lisbon treaty would probably - and I say only probably - have been won. By the time Cameron had the power to give one, it was too late as it had already been signed.
However don't underestimate the power of the Eurosceptics. No referendum is 'won' until the votes are counted, and a campaign might have seen an unexpected result, especially if run in a similar manner to the 2016 one.
We have reaped what we have sewn. I hope and pray the optimists are right; but I am under no illusion that this might be the biggest f'up in modern British history. And everyone involved - both in the UK and abroad - seem destined to make it so.
I hope I am wrong.
And I stand by what I wrote above, and am slightly surprised you do not see any truth in it.
I think the Lisbon Treaty would almost certainly have been voted down in a referendum.
I agree. But it is just possible that the EU would then have presented something a little more palatable.
Or alternatively, the fools who sought to blame the EU for everything that was wrong in modern Britain led us to a dawning realisation that most of those problems were of our own making.
I don't agree with that but I do think it is obvious that if we had had any of the earlier promised referendums the government of the day would have had to make a positive case not only for the treaty of the day but the EU as a concept. All leading UK politicians avoided doing that for decades because they thought it would be unpopular. Blair tried very briefly with his "at the heart of Europe" schtick but very rapidly gave up. When some eventually had to make the argument the credibility gap was just too great to bridge. Our political class reaped what they sewed.
A referendum on the Lisbon treaty would probably - and I say only probably - have been won. By the time Cameron had the power to give one, it was too late as it had already been signed.
However don't underestimate the power of the Eurosceptics. No referendum is 'won' until the votes are counted, and a campaign might have seen an unexpected result, especially if run in a similar manner to the 2016 one.
We have reaped what we have sewn. I hope and pray the optimists are right; but I am under no illusion that this might be the biggest f'up in modern British history. And everyone involved - both in the UK and abroad - seem destined to make it so.
I hope I am wrong.
And I stand by what I wrote above, and am slightly surprised you do not see any truth in it.
I think the Lisbon Treaty would almost certainly have been voted down in a referendum.
I agree. But it is just possible that the EU would then have presented something a little more palatable.
Indeed, I think we would have held on to some key vetoes and got action on free movement/welfare.
I am still surprised at Corbyn and Labours position.
I think Corbyn should view the stopping of Brexit and screwing the Tories as his number one priority. Just imagine how split the Tories would be if Brexit was reversed and a Corbyn Government took power. The Tories would be in disarray whilst Labour could introduce a more progressive program than they have implemented for over 40 years.
I think Labour saying they would remain in the EU would be enough to counter any objections on economic policies as what could be worse than a hard Brexit? The UK achieves a much higher standard of living through trade, Brexit jeopardises this and many Leavers do not seem to understand this. A smaller economy means less power whether it is militarily, economic or soft power i.e. Overseas Development.
If Brexit was reversed by Labour votes almost all the Leave voters would vote Tory which would kill Labour in working class Leave seats and Corbyn knows it
You - and many other commentators - have read this completely wrong. Brexit is simply not a salient issue for many Labour voters whether they voted Leave or Remain. Other issues are far more important to them.
I think Labour voters who were going to switch to the Tories because of Brexit have mostly done so, as well as Brexit it felt like the Tories approach was about winning these people (as well as the kippers)
The Tories can try and pitch to these people to an even greater extent but the returns must be diminishing on what it could cost the Tories elsewhere.
The arrogance and anti-democratic tendencies of the Europhiles created a backlash of anger and frustration as well as a realisation that if not now, then never as we sank ever deeper into a quagmire we did not want to be in but which politicians kept telling us was in our best interests.
Or alternatively, the fools who sought to blame the EU for everything that was wrong in modern Britain led us to a dawning realisation that most of those problems were of our own making.
I don't agree with that but I do think it is obvious that if we had had any of the earlier promised referendums the government of the day would have had to make a positive case not only for the treaty of the day but the EU as a concept. All leading UK politicians avoided doing that for decades because they thought it would be unpopular. Blair tried very briefly with his "at the heart of Europe" schtick but very rapidly gave up. When some eventually had to make the argument the credibility gap was just too great to bridge. Our political class reaped what they sewed.
Surely it was John Major who did the "Heart of Europe" position in 1991 during the Maastricht negotiations. I do think reading many threads that people have a bad habit of confusing the Trade and Political aspects of the EU with the Euro area and the ERM. The two are entirely separate and a country can be a member of the EU and not a member of the Eurozone. The UK had the best form of engagement in being a member of one but not the other given its economic needs and political history.
I really don't recall that. Major and Maastricht was all about the 4 pillars and differential geometry. It was when it was accepted that the UK would not sign up to the full panoply of EU competences but would seek to have our cake and eat it, to coin a phrase. I don't recall anyone suggesting that such an ambivalent approach was going to put us at the heart of Europe. It would have been even more irrational than EU politics usually is.
"It is because we care for lasting principles that I want to place Britain at the heart of Europe." SAID JOHN MAJOR 1991, 3RD PARAGRAPH UNDER "Building for the Long-term":
I am still surprised at Corbyn and Labours position.
I think Corbyn should view the stopping of Brexit and screwing the Tories as his number one priority. Just imagine how split the Tories would be if Brexit was reversed and a Corbyn Government took power. The Tories would be in disarray whilst Labour could introduce a more progressive program than they have implemented for over 40 years.
I think Labour saying they would remain in the EU would be enough to counter any objections on economic policies as what could be worse than a hard Brexit? The UK achieves a much higher standard of living through trade, Brexit jeopardises this and many Leavers do not seem to understand this. A smaller economy means less power whether it is militarily, economic or soft power i.e. Overseas Development.
If Brexit was reversed by Labour votes almost all the Leave voters would vote Tory which would kill Labour in working class Leave seats and Corbyn knows it
You - and many other commentators - have read this completely wrong. Brexit is simply not a salient issue for many Labour voters whether they voted Leave or Remain. Other issues are far more important to them.
Not true, Corbyn simply neutralised Brexit by promising to match May's commitment to leave the SM and EU and end FM, if he reversed course on that Leave Labour voters would start to reconsider
Simple, offer a free method of proving citizenship/right of abode, and have that have the same status as passports in the check.
Checking right to work in the UK has been a legal requirement for employers for well over a decade now. I fail to see any difference between that and this.
Confirming right to work is completely different from confirming right of abode. It’s much more complicated.
I am still surprised at Corbyn and Labours position.
I think Corbyn should view the stopping of Brexit and screwing the Tories as his number one priority. Just imagine how split the Tories would be if Brexit was reversed and a Corbyn Government took power. The Tories would be in disarray whilst Labour could introduce a more progressive program than they have implemented for over 40 years.
I think Labour saying they would remain in the EU would be enough to counter any objections on economic policies as what could be worse than a hard Brexit? The UK achieves a much higher standard of living through trade, Brexit jeopardises this and many Leavers do not seem to understand this. A smaller economy means less power whether it is militarily, economic or soft power i.e. Overseas Development.
If Brexit was reversed by Labour votes almost all the Leave voters would vote Tory which would kill Labour in working class Leave seats and Corbyn knows it
You - and many other commentators - have read this completely wrong. Brexit is simply not a salient issue for many Labour voters whether they voted Leave or Remain. Other issues are far more important to them.
Not true, Corbyn simply neutralised Brexit by promising to match May's commitment to leave the SM and EU and end FM, if he reversed course on that Leave Labour voters would start to reconsider
I think things have moved on. Things change otherwise elections would always give the same result.
Comments
Agree Sajid is probably the best option, but I fear that a headbanger will end up in charge.
You can argue that it is better for us to have more shallow trade agreements with those parts of the world with better growth prospects than a deep agreement with our nearest neighbours and largest market. However, I don’t think you’re on solid ground.
The best arguments for Brexit are about democracy and immigration, not the economy.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/even-hardline-brexiteers-should-be-worried-now-khw3cwtqw
Edit - RoyalBlue's post at 7.03 nails it.
However don't underestimate the power of the Eurosceptics. No referendum is 'won' until the votes are counted, and a campaign might have seen an unexpected result, especially if run in a similar manner to the 2016 one.
We have reaped what we have sewn. I hope and pray the optimists are right; but I am under no illusion that this might be the biggest f'up in modern British history. And everyone involved - both in the UK and abroad - seem destined to make it so.
I hope I am wrong.
And I stand by what I wrote above, and am slightly surprised you do not see any truth in it.
I would go for 1 hour 23 mins.
And so reminding dreamy Europhiles that the EU isn’t the be all and end all of our economy is important.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.125575094
People weren't voting about the campaign, they were voting to Remain or Leave, in the knowledge that this was the only chance they'd get to have their say.
Good evening, everybody.
If before Brexit, a Howardesque coronation will do nicely. Afterwards, then we have the time for an indulgent members vote.
(Despite selling three times what the “Number 1” single did, and with zero airplay)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44385710
Tbh I’m not sure that party members electing the leader is such a good idea. Especially in government.
Holly Lynch the MP for Halifax Voted Remain in 2016, yet was re-elected with an increased majority and got over 52% of the vote:
http://www.hollylynch.org.uk/why_i_m_voting_for_britain_to_remain_in_the_eu
Barrow is likely to be affected by Labour's policies on Trident renewal rather than the EU.
In terms of Mansfield and Stoke South, they have been trending toward the Tories for quite a few elections anyway but could easily flip back whatever the policy Labour has on Brexit IMO.
Rees-Mogg runs a hedge fund SCM or SCUM as I like to call it!
SCM is an acronym for Somerset Capital Management. It invests in Russia for goodness sake but not in Brexit Britain. A hard Brexit will mean a fall in sterling and SCM overseas assets will rise in value not because of performance but because of the political chaos Brexit has created. JRM profits from a Hard Brexit and this is why Somerset Capital Management likely invests abroad but not in the UK at this time.
George Osborne to be Paul Dacre’s replacement
https://twitter.com/jessbrammar/status/1004431206572797952?s=21
I think there is some benefit to be had with Brexit, but the main gains will be democratic and social. Brexit wasn't won on the back of an economic argument, it was won in spite of a strong economic argument against it.
I’m surprised at how little discussion the OpenEurope proposal on a future UK-EU trade deal has been getting on here.
In my view, it covers all the bases on the right negotiating objectives that the UK should have, and is a very well written and researched document.
I hear it’s getting a lot of attention in Westminster.
Surprised Mr "Crush The Saboteurs" Dacre is quitting before Brexit...
MOZZA BACKS TOMMY Morrissey attacks ‘shocking treatment’ of Tommy Robinson and loss of free speech in UK in latest bizarre interview
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6465097/morrissey-tommy-robinson-treatment-freedom-of-speech/
NEW THREAD
I've started thinking most of the people are living on their whits... Would be interesting to know how many PB'ers are popping Valium by the handful.
Pause.
God, I'm pretentious...
Sainsburys. Yes, I think it’s getting away from a screen makes one a better listener, hence, walking while calling works.
The Tories can try and pitch to these people to an even greater extent but the returns must be diminishing on what it could cost the Tories elsewhere.