I beg leave to move to the PB Supreme Court that those miscreants who post moving pictures of John Redwood (see down thread) should suffer cruel and unusual punishment, up to and including exile to ConHome for a period not shorter in months than the girth of Diane Abbott's waistline and IQ = 5 years - 59+1 .....
Please Your Grace! Have mercy...
Otherwise God knows what will happen to me for posting a photo of Hannan, Rees-Mogg and unless mine eyes deceive me, George Osborne.
The guy in the front row a few across from Hannan in your picture?
I did think that until I made the picture bigger, from a distance it looks like him. Unless your on about something else.
Also is it JRM with I assume ears that weren't pinned back yet at the back?
Yeah my thinking is though they may still have problems in regards to Brexit Labour probably can't do any worse at not making a decision. I do feel that the Labour MPs are probably more willing to compromise on the issue as well, less zealots and less zealous, although they still exist.
I think it is Osborne at the back, far right (amusingly). The hairstyle matches, and the nose. That's not conclusive of course.
I beg leave to move to the PB Supreme Court that those miscreants who post moving pictures of John Redwood (see down thread) should suffer cruel and unusual punishment, up to and including exile to ConHome for a period not shorter in months than the girth of Diane Abbott's waistline and IQ = 5 years - 59+1 .....
Please Your Grace! Have mercy...
Otherwise God knows what will happen to me for posting a photo of Hannan, Rees-Mogg and unless mine eyes deceive me, George Osborne.
Your egregious acts are noted and shall be considered without prejudice. However the failure to warn PBers of the incoming "Redwood Tapes" is without doubt one of the worst examples of hate crimes ever to offend the delicate sensibilities of our noble assemblage.
Mercy shall be relegated to the back of the queue.
Is it any defence to say it was a link, rather than a photo, and I noted Hannan was in it?
A minor note of mitigation on a level to Hitler favoured German shepherd dogs as a pet.
That's not a mitigation, Your Grace! He liked them because they were big, strong, vicious and German.
You could have mentioned his vegetarianism, but as I am an unabashed carnivore that probably wouldn't help!
I wonder how much has really changed in the last 23 years? I just came across this from 1995 - the Major/Redwood contest. A Tory party hopelessly split on Europe with an apparent gaping cultural divide - if exaggerated for TV by the BBC? Just compare the activists from Vale of Glamorgan to Faversham! Also a 'before they were famous' face on 36 minutes.
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
And then the EU completely ignored the result and the Greek Government capitulated and gave Brussels everything it wanted.
This is one reason why (a) our leave vote has turned into a shambles (voters were offered things in the power of the EU) and (b) a referendum to remain would be pointless.
Vote Leave may have suggested scenarios that could only be achieved with the co-operation of the EU, but the actual question was whether to stay or go. That was and is a matter entirely within the competence of the United Kingdom.
The reasons why our Leave vote has turned into a shambles are (1) that Parliament legislated for a vote with two options when it only ever wanted to honour one of them, and (2) the attempt of the Prime Minister to sort the situation out with a General Election was defeated by the people. We really are all in this together.
I support the Chequers Deal (I know I'm in a small minority) because I think it's an acceptable compromise, strikes the right strategic balance for the UK, and it also an extremely good deal for the EU and definitively doesn't "offer the same benefits as membership".
I'm at odds as to why Barnier has chucked out wholesale any form of customs cooperation, when he knows how nuclear it is. Nevertheless, the deal is about 80% there and there has been a lot of progress on security. 6 weeks ago, the EU were telling us to get lost over Galileo and security/defence cooperation.
But, if the EU push too far and hard, I favour a mitigated no deal. We shouldn't have to sell our souls.
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
And then the EU completely ignored the result and the Greek Government capitulated and gave Brussels everything it wanted.
This is one reason why (a) our leave vote has turned into a shambles (voters were offered things in the power of the EU) and (b) a referendum to remain would be pointless.
Vote Leave may have suggested scenarios that could only be achieved with the co-operation of the EU, but the actual question was whether to stay or go. That was and is a matter entirely within the competence of the United Kingdom.
The reasons why our Leave vote has turned into a shambles are (1) that Parliament legislated for a vote with two options when it only ever wanted to honour one of them, and (2) the attempt of the Prime Minister to sort the situation out with a General Election was defeated by the people. We really are all in this together.
I support the Chequers Deal (I know I'm in a small minority) because I think it's an acceptable compromise, strikes the right strategic balance for the UK, and it also an extremely good deal for the EU and definitively doesn't "offer the same benefits as membership".
I'm at odds as to why Barnier has chucked out wholesale any form of customs cooperation, when he knows how nuclear it is. Nevertheless, the deal is about 80% there and there has been a lot of progress on security. 6 weeks ago, the EU were telling us to get lost over Galileo and security/defence cooperation.
But, if the EU push too far and hard, I favour a mitigated no deal. We shouldn't have to sell our souls.
What good is being 80% there if
a) the last 20% cannot be agreed b) to get the last 20% agreed would require movement that neither side can or will accept c) Even if they could do b), there are not enough MPs who back it
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
A second referendum is a fantasy. It's never going to happen.
And any one that did that, which took place on any different basis to the original one in 2016, would be perceived by many as unfair, illegitimate and invalid. It would just make divisions even more toxic and bitter, and resolve nothing.
We're all on this ride together now until it ends.
I am far from persuaded that a new election would resolve anything. A referendum might not either, not has a better chance of doing so in my opinion.
Yes, it seems unlikely the exact same precarious balance of power will be returned, and there is always the possibility that in a new election a different dynamic emerges which tips things decisively one way or another. But it might not. Unless it was decisive for one side or the other, to the point as you note that internal rebels cannot hold the government hostage, it would be pointless - could some different coalition or confidence and supply agreement really be more reliable than the shaky one we already have, particularly if it involves more factions?
Yes the Tories should resolve their factional issues and either back or sack May, indeed they should have already done so, but even if they do, and even with a delay of a few months as suggested, it doesn't give much time for the Tories to get themselves in order, so in fact this seems to be more just a hope that Corbyn will be better placed for a fresh election, which they would be - while he has some Brexit troubles (and this election would still be framed around candidates' approaches on Brexit), it is the Tories who would struggle to reconcile their divisions around a new position.
I'd need some much more compelling arguments that a GE would actually help the country, compared to alternatives which admittedly have their own issues, beyond 'IDK, there's a chance it could be a clearer outcome'.
Indeed. The problem with an election is that both parties are split and have, for very different reasons, weak leaders. May can't go into an election offering an unequivocal proposition on Brexit (before we even get to the messy matter of putting it to the EU) because 60 or so of her MPs are lunatics who think no deal is a plausible and desirable endpoint and will tear down any realistic, serious and detailed plan because it will reveal their fibs and delusions were just that. Corbyn has the problem that most of his voters and MPs support remain or failing that the softest possible Brexit, a stance that he's intellectually incapable and unwilling to argue convincingly for because it concedes that capitalism, rather than his Underpants Gnome version of socialism (Vote Jez -> ???? -> socialist Utopia) will play the biggest role in curing our ills. Plus of course the Labour leavers to try and convince that they should vote for the ur-Islingtonian.
Add in the parties non-Brexit woes - Corbyn's shameful tolerance of of anti-Semitism, the Tories' problems with money and nastiness of another sort, and you've got one confused electorate and a stalemate.
That's the problem with an election - neither party is capable in its current form of providing leadership, either way, on the issue it would be designed to solve.
I beg leave to move to the PB Supreme Court that those miscreants who post moving pictures of John Redwood (see down thread) should suffer cruel and unusual punishment, up to and including exile to ConHome for a period not shorter in months than the girth of Diane Abbott's waistline and IQ = 5 years - 59+1 .....
Please Your Grace! Have mercy...
Otherwise God knows what will happen to me for posting a photo of Hannan, Rees-Mogg and unless mine eyes deceive me, George Osborne.
Your egregious acts are noted and shall be considered without prejudice. However the failure to warn PBers of the incoming "Redwood Tapes" is without doubt one of the worst examples of hate crimes ever to offend the delicate sensibilities of our noble assemblage.
Mercy shall be relegated to the back of the queue.
Is it any defence to say it was a link, rather than a photo, and I noted Hannan was in it?
A minor note of mitigation on a level to Hitler favoured German shepherd dogs as a pet.
That's not a mitigation, Your Grace! He liked them because they were big, strong, vicious and German.
You could have mentioned his vegetarianism, but as I am an unabashed carnivore that probably wouldn't help!
So was Boris Becker on the tennis court but I rather took to the fellow and the mere mention of vegetarianism gives me a fit of the vapours !!
I beg leave to move to the PB Supreme Court that those miscreants who post moving pictures of John Redwood (see down thread) should suffer cruel and unusual punishment, up to and including exile to ConHome for a period not shorter in months than the girth of Diane Abbott's waistline and IQ = 5 years - 59+1 .....
Snowflake!
What it all highlights though (including the young bespectacled gent at 36minutes) is how the Tory right/Eurosceptics/whatever have failed to produce a credible Prime ministerial candidate for 30 years. Redwood/Lilley/IDS/Howard/Davis/Fox have never had traction with the public. Maybe a mature Hague was closest but I think it'sbeen a while since they put their faith in him.
Maybe this is why the Portillo moment has such resonance? He was the last credible right wing option as Prime minister and many non-Tories could see it.
Actually think if Christine Hamilton had gone into politics instead of her husband Neil she could have been a popular right wing Tory leader assuming Neil was not caught doing anything inappropiate
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
A second referendum is a fantasy. It's never going to happen.
And any one that did that, which took place on any different basis to the original one in 2016, would be perceived by many as unfair, illegitimate and invalid. It would just make divisions even more toxic and bitter, and resolve nothing.
We're all on this ride together now until it ends.
What if a second referendum framed on No Deal v Remain produced a 75/25 result in favour of No Deal - wouldn't that provide a more united country for the challenges ahead?
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
A second referendum is a fantasy. It's never going to happen.
And any one that did that, which took place on any different basis to the original one in 2016, would be perceived by many as unfair, illegitimate and invalid. It would just make divisions even more toxic and bitter, and resolve nothing.
Maybe. If we can at least stick to calling it a referendum rather than some pathetic rebranding as a 'People's vote' that will be some progress!
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
Can Parliament agree to hold another referendum? If so, what is the question? Does it come before or after the end of the negotiations? Can we get it done before the Brexit date, and if not will the EU accept an extension AND is there a Parliamentary majority for delay? What are the answers? In/Out? Yes/No? Multi-option as suggested by Justine Greening? Is it advisory or binding? How are the official campaigns to be designated? How long will it take to choose the official campaigns, and for them to be organised, and to gather funds (or will they be funded by the state?) What are the rules of engagement? Will it be subject to legal objections, and how long will they take to resolve in the courts? How long are the campaigns going to be? What if it produces the same result again? What if it produces another result but, depending on the question and answers selected, it's also one that Parliament can't, or doesn't want to, implement?
etc, etc...
Yes Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union? After No, yes, yes In/Out Advisory, same as last time Same as last time At least 2 weeks, but better give it 6 Same as last time Yes, but the courts will tell anyone who asks them to stop it to fuck off At least 1 week, but better give it 3 Deal (or no deal if there was no deal) goes ahead Tough shit
I support the Chequers Deal (I know I'm in a small minority) because I think it's an acceptable compromise, strikes the right strategic balance for the UK, and it also an extremely good deal for the EU and definitively doesn't "offer the same benefits as membership".
I'm at odds as to why Barnier has chucked out wholesale any form of customs cooperation, when he knows how nuclear it is. Nevertheless, the deal is about 80% there and there has been a lot of progress on security. 6 weeks ago, the EU were telling us to get lost over Galileo and security/defence cooperation.
But, if the EU push too far and hard, I favour a mitigated no deal. We shouldn't have to sell our souls.
Barnier rejected the customs proposal because the negotiation is largely irrelevant, and always has been.
What the EU wants is EEA+CU, and if they can't get that then they won't agree to anything. My own suspicion is that they can't implement a bespoke model (because the model they favour is ready to go whereas the member states couldn't agree on what should be on an a la carte menu in a hundred years, and might very well lack the necessary legal instruments to implement it even if they could,) rather than it being a case of being wilfully difficult, but others might disagree.
Anyway, if the EU had swallowed Chequers more-or-less whole then I think May would've got it through Parliament, but since it can't/won't then we are back to what they want, or no deal. In which case, no deal it is.
Nick has assumed in his post that only the 2 main parties can gain loyal MPs.
In a "it's a mess" General Election there would be significantly more variability and unusual results.
It is even possible that the extra 20 MPs could go to UKIP or the LibDems.
Parliament could be even more hung.
His scenario seems to include the possibility of LD rises (albeit most likely from Con), but that this would definitely be helpful in that people might regard it as Corbyn 'constrained by LDs and SNP', which I presume means assuming an agreement between the three would be simple and straightforward?
I think we ought to move to elections every 3 years as they do in Australia.
I'm not sure that "even more elections" is an item very high on your average voter's wish list. Especially when the politicians seem to have lost the ability to offer us choices that aren't thoroughly repellent.
On paper a second referendum quickly put to the Country could result in a decisive remain.
However, those seeking it seem to think the remain cause would move on but I fear there would be a terrible backlash by Brexiteers that would divide the Country for years
I totally reject Steve Bannon and all he stands for and those in my party associating with him are playing with fire
Yesterday Diane Abbott was proclaiming she will shortly be home secretary, McDonnell is to follow his red book into no 11 and hand it to his acoylates, and Corbyn as PM would completely change our foreign policy against the US and the West. This really was openly proclaimed at a momentum rally. Where is Neil Kinnock when you really need him
However, just as I reject absolutely the hard right I do believe it is time for our labour friends to turn against Corbyn and his anti semitic, anti west, cabal.
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
A second referendum is a fantasy. It's never going to happen.
And any one that did that, which took place on any different basis to the original one in 2016, would be perceived by many as unfair, illegitimate and invalid. It would just make divisions even more toxic and bitter, and resolve nothing.
We're all on this ride together now until it ends.
What if everything, including the question, were the same as 2016.
May could say that Leave means accepting the withdrawal agreement she's negotiated, and Remain means revoking Article 50.
Edit: I see edmundintokyo is thinking along the same lines.
On paper a second referendum quickly put to the Country could result in a decisive remain.
However, those seeking it seem to think the remain cause would move on but I fear there would be a terrible backlash by Brexiteers that would divide the Country for years
I totally reject Steve Bannon and all he stands for and those in my party associating with him are playing with fire
Yesterday Diane Abbott was proclaiming she will shortly be home secretary, McDonnell is to follow his red book into no 11 and hand it to his acoylates, and Corbyn as PM would completely change our foreign policy against the US and the West. This really was openly proclaimed at a momentum rally. Where is Neil Kinnock when you really need him
However, just as I reject absolutely the hard right I do believe it is time for our labour friends to turn against Corbyn and his anti semitic, anti west, cabal.
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
A second referendum is a fantasy. It's never going to happen.
And any one that did that, which took place on any different basis to the original one in 2016, would be perceived by many as unfair, illegitimate and invalid. It would just make divisions even more toxic and bitter, and resolve nothing.
We're all on this ride together now until it ends.
There could be a "Take Chequers Mark II" or "Leave Without A Deal"?
Or there could be "Leave Without A Deal" or "Apply to Extend Negotiations"
There are any number of permutations.
However, I do not believe that - unless public opinion had moved to (say) 2:1 in favour of Remain - the referendum would have a "Stay In The EU" option.
Interesting that the general view is that Labour would win and that that's why I wrote it. I think it'd be a toss-up, frankly, and I agree with anothernick that it's in Labour's interest not to have one and let the Tories mess it up terminally. Problem is that I don't think a satisfactory deal is possible with this Parliament. Not either way.
I don't think a satisfactory deal is possible, period. A new parliament would be no more likely to find a satisfactory way forward than the current one. The various forces involved, which have been debated on here ad infinitum, are all narrowing the choice to no deal or BINO, which is effectively Remain. Neither of these are a satisfactory deal, but the UK will shortly have to choose between them.
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
A second referendum is a fantasy. It's never going to happen.
And any one that did that, which took place on any different basis to the original one in 2016, would be perceived by many as unfair, illegitimate and invalid. It would just make divisions even more toxic and bitter, and resolve nothing.
We're all on this ride together now until it ends.
There could be a "Take Chequers Mark II" or "Leave Without A Deal"?
Or there could be "Leave Without A Deal" or "Apply to Extend Negotiations"
There are any number of permutations.
However, I do not believe that - unless public opinion had moved to (say) 2:1 in favour of Remain - the referendum would have a "Stay In The EU" option.
Given the current make-up of Parliament, no new referendum is going to leave Parliament without a Remain option.
So basically the concerns of the mainstream Jewish papers/organisations are fake and entirely about defending Israel, and they had best be careful as if Corbyn loses narrowly Jews will be blamed?
Helpful stuff.
If Labour lose the next election, Momentum and the radical left will look for groups - within and without Labour - to blame. Their voices and victimhood will become shriller and more sinister.
I think we ought to move to elections every 3 years like they do in Australia.
I did not like the idea of 5 year fixed term Parliaments. If they are going to be fixed it should have been 4 years.
I've understood the concern with 5 years over 4, or why 4 is superior to 5. Lack of things to do in the 5th year would be a cultural problem soon grown out of as parties would need to find things to do, and while the reality was 4 years was more common, the previous maximum was 5 years, so when setting a fixed term that seems most appropriate as to move it to 4 would be reducing the maximum available term to future governments. An example of a politically motivated change which was still an improvement, in my opinion. It even still allows earlier elections, for better and ill, if there is cross party electoral acceptance or an emergency.
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
A second referendum is a fantasy. It's never going to happen.
And any one that did that, which took place on any different basis to the original one in 2016, would be perceived by many as unfair, illegitimate and invalid. It would just make divisions even more toxic and bitter, and resolve nothing.
We're all on this ride together now until it ends.
There could be a "Take Chequers Mark II" or "Leave Without A Deal"?
Or there could be "Leave Without A Deal" or "Apply to Extend Negotiations"
There are any number of permutations.
However, I do not believe that - unless public opinion had moved to (say) 2:1 in favour of Remain - the referendum would have a "Stay In The EU" option.
One thing that is certain is that no British government could put "Leave without a deal" stated explicitly in those terms on any referendum ballot paper.
On paper a second referendum quickly put to the Country could result in a decisive remain.
However, those seeking it seem to think the remain cause would move on but I fear there would be a terrible backlash by Brexiteers that would divide the Country for years
I totally reject Steve Bannon and all he stands for and those in my party associating with him are playing with fire
Yesterday Diane Abbott was proclaiming she will shortly be home secretary, McDonnell is to follow his red book into no 11 and hand it to his acoylates, and Corbyn as PM would completely change our foreign policy against the US and the West. This really was openly proclaimed at a momentum rally. Where is Neil Kinnock when you really need him
However, just as I reject absolutely the hard right I do believe it is time for our labour friends to turn against Corbyn and his anti semitic, anti west, cabal.
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
A second referendum is a fantasy. It's never going to happen.
And any one that did that, which took place on any different basis to the original one in 2016, would be perceived by many as unfair, illegitimate and invalid. It would just make divisions even more toxic and bitter, and resolve nothing.
We're all on this ride together now until it ends.
The truth is that most of us posting on here have sufficient wealth/income to be experiencing the ride in first class*. It's the poor sods in the economy seats who are going to suffer.
(* Not forgetting those PB posters who don't even live in the UK, so will be watching the crash from a distance.)
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
A second referendum is a fantasy. It's never going to happen.
And any one that did that, which took place on any different basis to the original one in 2016, would be perceived by many as unfair, illegitimate and invalid. It would just make divisions even more toxic and bitter, and resolve nothing.
We're all on this ride together now until it ends.
There could be a "Take Chequers Mark II" or "Leave Without A Deal"?
Or there could be "Leave Without A Deal" or "Apply to Extend Negotiations"
There are any number of permutations.
However, I do not believe that - unless public opinion had moved to (say) 2:1 in favour of Remain - the referendum would have a "Stay In The EU" option.
Not even that. It would need a very clear majority of Leavers in favour too. More like 3:1.
A 2nd referendum would only take place when the decision had already been made. Not to "clear the air" or similar such guff, which, if the Remainers who favour it were honest, is really about rolling the dice a 2nd time in the hope that they pip Leave to the post this time.
I think we ought to move to elections every 3 years like they do in Australia.
I did not like the idea of 5 year fixed term Parliaments. If they are going to be fixed it should have been 4 years.
That was the result of a compromise between Cameron and Clegg. Clegg wanted fixed terms every 4 years and Cameron said he would only accept it with 5 years.
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
A second referendum is a fantasy. It's never going to happen.
And any one that did that, which took place on any different basis to the original one in 2016, would be perceived by many as unfair, illegitimate and invalid. It would just make divisions even more toxic and bitter, and resolve nothing.
We're all on this ride together now until it ends.
There could be a "Take Chequers Mark II" or "Leave Without A Deal"?
Or there could be "Leave Without A Deal" or "Apply to Extend Negotiations"
There are any number of permutations.
However, I do not believe that - unless public opinion had moved to (say) 2:1 in favour of Remain - the referendum would have a "Stay In The EU" option.
Given the current make-up of Parliament, no new referendum is going to leave Parliament without a Remain option.
I absolutely agree but I do not see a path to it. Surely it would require TM to table it or is there some other way
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
And then the EU completely ignored the result and the Greek Government capitulated and gave Brussels everything it wanted.
This is one reason why (a) our leave vote has turned into a shambles (voters were offered things in the power of the EU) and (b) a referendum to remain would be pointless.
Vote Leave may have suggested scenarios that could only be achieved with the co-operation of the EU, but the actual question was whether to stay or go. That was and is a matter entirely within the competence of the United Kingdom.
The reasons why our Leave vote has turned into a shambles are (1) that Parliament legislated for a vote with two options when it only ever wanted to honour one of them, and (2) the attempt of the Prime Minister to sort the situation out with a General Election was defeated by the people. We really are all in this together.
I support the Chequers Deal (I know I'm in a small minority) because I think it's an acceptable compromise, strikes the right strategic balance for the UK, and it also an extremely good deal for the EU and definitively doesn't "offer the same benefits as membership".
I'm at odds as to why Barnier has chucked out wholesale any form of customs cooperation, when he knows how nuclear it is. Nevertheless, the deal is about 80% there and there has been a lot of progress on security. 6 weeks ago, the EU were telling us to get lost over Galileo and security/defence cooperation.
But, if the EU push too far and hard, I favour a mitigated no deal. We shouldn't have to sell our souls.
What good is being 80% there if
a) the last 20% cannot be agreed b) to get the last 20% agreed would require movement that neither side can or will accept c) Even if they could do b), there are not enough MPs who back it
Indeed. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
I regret to announce that none of us will be going on holiday to Anglesey or anywhere else, because we will all have died by the end of next April from the accumulated effects of Brexit-induced catastrophes. Slow, agonising deaths from starvation, super-strains of various venereal diseases, and other unimaginable horrors to be unveiled in the coming months.
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
A second referendum is a fantasy. It's never going to happen.
And any one that did that, which took place on any different basis to the original one in 2016, would be perceived by many as unfair, illegitimate and invalid. It would just make divisions even more toxic and bitter, and resolve nothing.
We're all on this ride together now until it ends.
What if everything, including the question, were the same as 2016.
May could say that Leave means accepting the withdrawal agreement she's negotiated, and Remain means revoking Article 50.
Edit: I see edmundintokyo is thinking along the same lines.
Firstly, voters don't like being asked exactly the same question a 2nd time. Secondly, I doubt it would pass Parliament as the ERG would rightly sniff out it was designed to bounce Leavers into supporting a deal they already think is crap.
Interesting that the general view is that Labour would win and that that's why I wrote it. I think it'd be a toss-up, frankly, and I agree with anothernick that it's in Labour's interest not to have one and let the Tories mess it up terminally. Problem is that I don't think a satisfactory deal is possible with this Parliament. Not either way.
I don't think a satisfactory deal is possible, period. A new parliament would be no more likely to find a satisfactory way forward than the current one. The various forces involved, which have been debated on here ad infinitum, are all narrowing the choice to no deal or BINO, which is effectively Remain. Neither of these are a satisfactory deal, but the UK will shortly have to choose between them.
I very much agree with those who say the party won't split over this anti-semitism row. Instead, some more of the decent and sane Labour MPs and supporters will drift off, disillusioned, like those who have already gone.
In electoral terms, it won't in itself have much of an impact, but there is a curious aspect to it which deserves more attention. This is the question of why Corbyn and his cabal haven't just shut down the issue, but instead seem intent on inflaming it. I really don't understand this, but it indicates at the very least an insouciance about turning friends and supporters into enemies. And if they're happy to throw away Jewish support (as well as the support of decent folk generally) for no advantage, who else are they going to alienate gratuitously?
The answer is that this is a quite deliberate attempt to get the right of the party to drift off, disillusioned so that they can increase their control of the party.
For the same reason, the hard left are currently boasting about being Communists (when they aren't). They're goading the right to leave.
Ian Austin is viewed by Corbynistas as a Blairite and they hate him.
Seeing as you live close have you eaten at the The Marram Grass? I am taking my father to North Wales for the Steam Trains and thinking about having a meal there.
I think we ought to move to elections every 3 years like they do in Australia.
I did not like the idea of 5 year fixed term Parliaments. If they are going to be fixed it should have been 4 years.
That was the result of a compromise between Cameron and Clegg. Clegg wanted fixed terms every 4 years and Cameron said he would only accept it with 5 years.
I didn't realise that. I'd always assumed Clegg would have pushed for 5 years. He goes up in my estimation if that was the case.
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
A second referendum is a fantasy. It's never going to happen.
And any one that did that, which took place on any different basis to the original one in 2016, would be perceived by many as unfair, illegitimate and invalid. It would just make divisions even more toxic and bitter, and resolve nothing.
We're all on this ride together now until it ends.
What if everything, including the question, were the same as 2016.
May could say that Leave means accepting the withdrawal agreement she's negotiated, and Remain means revoking Article 50.
Edit: I see edmundintokyo is thinking along the same lines.
Firstly, voters don't like being asked exactly the same question a 2nd time. Secondly, I doubt it would pass Parliament as the ERG would rightly sniff out it was designed to bounce Leavers into supporting a deal they already think is crap.
But Labour, SNP and the LDs might all support it. The ERG does not command a HoC majority.
I support the Chequers Deal (I know I'm in a small minority) because I think it's an acceptable compromise, strikes the right strategic balance for the UK, and it also an extremely good deal for the EU and definitively doesn't "offer the same benefits as membership".
I'm at odds as to why Barnier has chucked out wholesale any form of customs cooperation, when he knows how nuclear it is. Nevertheless, the deal is about 80% there and there has been a lot of progress on security. 6 weeks ago, the EU were telling us to get lost over Galileo and security/defence cooperation.
But, if the EU push too far and hard, I favour a mitigated no deal. We shouldn't have to sell our souls.
What the EU wants is EEA+CU, and if they can't get that then they won't agree to anything.
I don't think it's that simple. There's a lot of scope on the detail.
What's hard is working out what's for public consumption. 6 weeks ago both the UK and EU were launching ads at each other over security cooperation and defence. This week, we're told huge progress has been made on security, although we know not what.
But, I agree on the broader point. Unless there's a broader fudge on the customs union then no deal it is.
On paper a second referendum quickly put to the Country could result in a decisive remain.
However, those seeking it seem to think the remain cause would move on but I fear there would be a terrible backlash by Brexiteers that would divide the Country for years
I totally reject Steve Bannon and all he stands for and those in my party associating with him are playing with fire
Yesterday Diane Abbott was proclaiming she will shortly be home secretary, McDonnell is to follow his red book into no 11 and hand it to his acoylates, and Corbyn as PM would completely change our foreign policy against the US and the West. This really was openly proclaimed at a momentum rally. Where is Neil Kinnock when you really need him
However, just as I reject absolutely the hard right I do believe it is time for our labour friends to turn against Corbyn and his anti semitic, anti west, cabal.
I know the reasoning for it, and I'm sure there's places it works (there are certainly places where a party leader is not PM/President), but it feels like a big potential issue should disagreements arise between parliamentarians and the non MP leader. It's hard enough for Labour having a leader with frequent problems corralling his MPs but whose support from the membership is so strong he is invulnerable.
It is funny in that piece to see the idea of Moran getting the job rather than Swindon being described as skipping a generation. Swinson is 38 years old (I know they mean political generation, and Swinson has been an MP for a long time, but still, especially as Moran is only 35)
I'm at odds as to why Barnier has chucked out wholesale any form of customs cooperation, when he knows how nuclear it is.
The other EU member states are under the same kind of domestic pressure that the UK is on control of borders, with the added angle that there's a left-populist side that's worried about environmental / labour / health-and-safety standards being undermined by dastardly foreigners, undercutting countries with high standards, a strategy that a bunch of British ministers have openly endorsed.
So if you want an open border with the EU, which the British say they're committed to at least for NI, and maybe elsewhere for goods, you need to be able to make a convincing case to voters across the EU for how you're actually going to be prevented from doing this if you're not bound by the current EU rules, enforced by the existing EU court. Obviously something that satisfies these voters isn't going to be popular with the Tory strain of Brexitism, because for them setting lower standards (aka cutting red tape) is the whole point of the exercise.
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
A second referendum is a fantasy. It's never going to happen.
And any one that did that, which took place on any different basis to the original one in 2016, would be perceived by many as unfair, illegitimate and invalid. It would just make divisions even more toxic and bitter, and resolve nothing.
We're all on this ride together now until it ends.
What if everything, including the question, were the same as 2016.
May could say that Leave means accepting the withdrawal agreement she's negotiated, and Remain means revoking Article 50.
Edit: I see edmundintokyo is thinking along the same lines.
Firstly, voters don't like being asked exactly the same question a 2nd time. Secondly, I doubt it would pass Parliament as the ERG would rightly sniff out it was designed to bounce Leavers into supporting a deal they already think is crap.
It would give Leavers the scope to say they would putsch May if Leave won and try to renegotiate or go for No Deal, which would up the stakes for them.
In any case, as long as enough Labour MPs voted for it, the ERG couldn't stop it.
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
A second referendum is a fantasy. It's never going to happen.
And any one that did that, which took place on any different basis to the original one in 2016, would be perceived by many as unfair, illegitimate and invalid. It would just make divisions even more toxic and bitter, and resolve nothing.
We're all on this ride together now until it ends.
What if everything, including the question, were the same as 2016.
May could say that Leave means accepting the withdrawal agreement she's negotiated, and Remain means revoking Article 50.
Edit: I see edmundintokyo is thinking along the same lines.
Firstly, voters don't like being asked exactly the same question a 2nd time. Secondly, I doubt it would pass Parliament as the ERG would rightly sniff out it was designed to bounce Leavers into supporting a deal they already think is crap.
But Labour, SNP and the LDs might all support it. The ERG does not command a HoC majority.
Will enough Tories back a referendum question which Labour, SNP and LDs support? Though I think a way could be found, that is still one of the main problems with the second referendum idea - there are different views on what the options should be (and those options also depend on what goes on with the negotiations).
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
A second referendum is a fantasy. It's never going to happen.
And any one that did that, which took place on any different basis to the original one in 2016, would be perceived by many as unfair, illegitimate and invalid. It would just make divisions even more toxic and bitter, and resolve nothing.
We're all on this ride together now until it ends.
What if a second referendum framed on No Deal v Remain produced a 75/25 result in favour of No Deal - wouldn't that provide a more united country for the challenges ahead?
No, I don't think so. Similar arguments would emerge in time about what people thought no deal mean/didn't mean, and then there might be calls for a 3rd vote.
On paper a second referendum quickly put to the Country could result in a decisive remain.
However, those seeking it seem to think the remain cause would move on but I fear there would be a terrible backlash by Brexiteers that would divide the Country for years
I totally reject Steve Bannon and all he stands for and those in my party associating with him are playing with fire
Yesterday Diane Abbott was proclaiming she will shortly be home secretary, McDonnell is to follow his red book into no 11 and hand it to his acoylates, and Corbyn as PM would completely change our foreign policy against the US and the West. This really was openly proclaimed at a momentum rally. Where is Neil Kinnock when you really need him
However, just as I reject absolutely the hard right I do believe it is time for our labour friends to turn against Corbyn and his anti semitic, anti west, cabal.
I know the reasoning for it, and I'm sure there's places it works (there are certainly places where a party leader is not PM/President), but it feels like a big potential issue should disagreements arise between parliamentarians and the non MP leader. It's hard enough for Labour having a leader with frequent problems corralling his MPs but whose support from the membership is so strong he is invulnerable.
It is funny in that piece to see the idea of Moran getting the job rather than Swindon being described as skipping a generation. Swinson is 38 years old (I know they mean political generation, and Swinson has been an MP for a long time, but still, especially as Moran is only 35)
Perhaps he wants to anoint Matthew Oakeshott as his successor?
I very much agree with those who say the party won't split over this anti-semitism row. Instead, some more of the decent and sane Labour MPs and supporters will drift off, disillusioned, like those who have already gone.
In electoral terms, it won't in itself have much of an impact, but there is a curious aspect to it which deserves more attention. This is the question of why Corbyn and his cabal haven't just shut down the issue, but instead seem intent on inflaming it. I really don't understand this, but it indicates at the very least an insouciance about turning friends and supporters into enemies. And if they're happy to throw away Jewish support (as well as the support of decent folk generally) for no advantage, who else are they going to alienate gratuitously?
The answer is that this is a quite deliberate attempt to get the right of the party to drift off, disillusioned so that they can increase their control of the party.
For the same reason, the hard left are currently boasting about being Communists (when they aren't). They're goading the right to leave.
Ian Austin is viewed by Corbynistas as a Blairite and they hate him.
That does seem to make sense. They lack the support to challenge the leadership anymore, but no matter how hard it is for any MP to quit the party they have put so much of their lives in there can be a point it just cannot be borne any longer. If local parties are in revolt without even needing the leadership to step in, that makes the ratcheting up of pressure on the rebels even easier.
It is hard to marry the reasonably savvy approach on Brexit the party have taken with the political incompetence in continually keeping the antisemitism story going.
Seeing as you live close have you eaten at the The Marram Grass? I am taking my father to North Wales for the Steam Trains and thinking about having a meal there.
I am not a great eater out but I am into steam railways and North Wales is excellent and if you time it you may see Flying Scotsman hauling an away day down the North Wales Coast.
Last Saturday my wife and I had a fabulous day of steam at the Strathspey railway out of Aviemore
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
A second referendum is a fantasy. It's never going to happen.
And any one that did that, which took place on any different basis to the original one in 2016, would be perceived by many as unfair, illegitimate and invalid. It would just make divisions even more toxic and bitter, and resolve nothing.
We're all on this ride together now until it ends.
What if a second referendum framed on No Deal v Remain produced a 75/25 result in favour of No Deal - wouldn't that provide a more united country for the challenges ahead?
No, I don't think so. Similar arguments would emerge in time about what people thought no deal mean/didn't mean, and then there might be calls for a 3rd vote.
This has to play out in full.
All I can say is that if I were Theresa, and facing a No Deal Brexit, I'd want the voters to confirm they back it.
I'm at odds as to why Barnier has chucked out wholesale any form of customs cooperation, when he knows how nuclear it is.
The other EU member states are under the same kind of domestic pressure that the UK is on control of borders, with the added angle that there's a left-populist side that's worried about environmental / labour / health-and-safety standards being undermined by dastardly foreigners, undercutting countries with high standards, a strategy that a bunch of British ministers have openly endorsed.
So if you want an open border with the EU, which the British say they're committed to at least for NI, and maybe elsewhere for goods, you need to be able to make a convincing case to voters across the EU for how you're actually going to be prevented from doing this. Obviously something that satisfies these voters isn't going to be popular with the Tory strain of Brexitism, because for them setting lower standards (aka cutting red tape) is the whole point of the exercise.
But, the UK has already committed to a floor in environment, H&S and labour standards. The rest should be subject to a negotiation on details, including ROO, not flatly ruling it out on principle.
Incidentally, I'd have no problem with a special status for NI (it already has one on citizenship, power sharing, and the involvement of the Irish Government) which could - for instance - recognise a bit of a soft border with NI/Eire and a bit of a soft border with Great Britain.
It's how politics there is done. The problem is both sides being so black and white about it.
Seeing as you live close have you eaten at the The Marram Grass? I am taking my father to North Wales for the Steam Trains and thinking about having a meal there.
I am not a great eater out but I am into steam railways and North Wales is excellent and if you time it you may see Flying Scotsman hauling an away day down the North Wales Coast.
Last Saturday my wife and I had a fabulous day of steam at the Strathspey railway out of Aviemore
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
A second referendum is a fantasy. It's never going to happen.
And any one that did that, which took place on any different basis to the original one in 2016, would be perceived by many as unfair, illegitimate and invalid. It would just make divisions even more toxic and bitter, and resolve nothing.
We're all on this ride together now until it ends.
The truth is that most of us posting on here have sufficient wealth/income to be experiencing the ride in first class*
I regret to announce that none of us will be going on holiday to Anglesey or anywhere else, because we will all have died by the end of next April from the accumulated effects of Brexit-induced catastrophes. Slow, agonising deaths from starvation, super-strains of various venereal diseases, and other unimaginable horrors to be unveiled in the coming months.
We've all had it. Sorry.
Well, it's a relief to at least know what's coming.
In terms of a post apocalyptic scenario, I know which party will resort to cannibalism first - the Tories are already gnawing at each other I think.
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
A second referendum is a fantasy. It's never going to happen.
And any one that did that, which took place on any different basis to the original one in 2016, would be perceived by many as unfair, illegitimate and invalid. It would just make divisions even more toxic and bitter, and resolve nothing.
We're all on this ride together now until it ends.
What if everything, including the question, were the same as 2016.
May could say that Leave means accepting the withdrawal agreement she's negotiated, and Remain means revoking Article 50.
Edit: I see edmundintokyo is thinking along the same lines.
Firstly, voters don't like being asked exactly the same question a 2nd time. Secondly, I doubt it would pass Parliament as the ERG would rightly sniff out it was designed to bounce Leavers into supporting a deal they already think is crap.
It would give Leavers the scope to say they would putsch May if Leave won and try to renegotiate or go for No Deal, which would up the stakes for them.
In any case, as long as enough Labour MPs voted for it, the ERG couldn't stop it.
Why would Leavers vote to up the stakes on themselves? And why would May look for cross-party support for a Bill that would likely lead to her own defenestration?
It's a fantasy. You're starting from the conclusion you want, and working backwards. That's not how politics is done.
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
A second referendum is a fantasy. It's never going to happen.
And any one that did that, which took place on any different basis to the original one in 2016, would be perceived by many as unfair, illegitimate and invalid. It would just make divisions even more toxic and bitter, and resolve nothing.
We're all on this ride together now until it ends.
What if everything, including the question, were the same as 2016.
May could say that Leave means accepting the withdrawal agreement she's negotiated, and Remain means revoking Article 50.
Edit: I see edmundintokyo is thinking along the same lines.
Firstly, voters don't like being asked exactly the same question a 2nd time. Secondly, I doubt it would pass Parliament as the ERG would rightly sniff out it was designed to bounce Leavers into supporting a deal they already think is crap.
But Labour, SNP and the LDs might all support it. The ERG does not command a HoC majority.
They first have to get the government to agree to it
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
A second referendum is a fantasy. It's never going to happen.
And any one that did that, which took place on any different basis to the original one in 2016, would be perceived by many as unfair, illegitimate and invalid. It would just make divisions even more toxic and bitter, and resolve nothing.
We're all on this ride together now until it ends.
What if a second referendum framed on No Deal v Remain produced a 75/25 result in favour of No Deal - wouldn't that provide a more united country for the challenges ahead?
No, I don't think so. Similar arguments would emerge in time about what people thought no deal mean/didn't mean, and then there might be calls for a 3rd vote.
This has to play out in full.
All I can say is that if I were Theresa, and facing a No Deal Brexit, I'd want the voters to confirm they back it.
I think that is plausible - the difficulty is, though they'd think they would win (and might be right) I would think the no dealers would still be concerned if the options given were no deal and remain, rather than deal or no deal.
In which case perhaps it might be in their interests to give May enough rope to at least get a deal together, which they can seek to shoot down later, rather than hamstring her from even putting a deal together!
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
A second referendum is a fantasy. It's never going to happen.
And any one that did that, which took place on any different basis to the original one in 2016, would be perceived by many as unfair, illegitimate and invalid. It would just make divisions even more toxic and bitter, and resolve nothing.
We're all on this ride together now until it ends.
What if everything, including the question, were the same as 2016.
May could say that Leave means accepting the withdrawal agreement she's negotiated, and Remain means revoking Article 50.
Edit: I see edmundintokyo is thinking along the same lines.
Firstly, voters don't like being asked exactly the same question a 2nd time. Secondly, I doubt it would pass Parliament as the ERG would rightly sniff out it was designed to bounce Leavers into supporting a deal they already think is crap.
But Labour, SNP and the LDs might all support it. The ERG does not command a HoC majority.
They first have to get the government to agree to it
As I said, if I were Theresa, and facing a No Deal Brexit, I'd want the voters to confirm they back it.
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
A second referendum is a fantasy. It's never going to happen.
And any one that did that, which took place on any different basis to the original one in 2016, would be perceived by many as unfair, illegitimate and invalid. It would just make divisions even more toxic and bitter, and resolve nothing.
We're all on this ride together now until it ends.
There could be a "Take Chequers Mark II" or "Leave Without A Deal"?
Or there could be "Leave Without A Deal" or "Apply to Extend Negotiations"
There are any number of permutations.
However, I do not believe that - unless public opinion had moved to (say) 2:1 in favour of Remain - the referendum would have a "Stay In The EU" option.
Given the current make-up of Parliament, no new referendum is going to leave Parliament without a Remain option.
I absolutely agree but I do not see a path to it. Surely it would require TM to table it or is there some other way
Personally I think TM will offer Norway & CU or crash out as a free vote. Norway will win handily but with huge abstention. This will end nothing - there will be much talk of betrayal and of vassal states - but it will avert disaster and will discharge the 2016 mandate and the tiresome 'will of the people' meme. The EEA is perhaps a safe harbour while we take a rational and longer term view of what we want our trade policy to be.
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
A second referendum is a fantasy. It's never going to happen.
And any one that did that, which took place on any different basis to the original one in 2016, would be perceived by many as unfair, illegitimate and invalid. It would just make divisions even more toxic and bitter, and resolve nothing.
We're all on this ride together now until it ends.
There could be a "Take Chequers Mark II" or "Leave Without A Deal"?
Or there could be "Leave Without A Deal" or "Apply to Extend Negotiations"
There are any number of permutations.
However, I do not believe that - unless public opinion had moved to (say) 2:1 in favour of Remain - the referendum would have a "Stay In The EU" option.
Given the current make-up of Parliament, no new referendum is going to leave Parliament without a Remain option.
I absolutely agree but I do not see a path to it. Surely it would require TM to table it or is there some other way
Personally I think TM will offer Norway & CU or crash out as a free vote. Norway will win handily but with huge abstention. This will end nothing - there will be much talk of betrayal and of vassal states - but it will avert disaster and will discharge the 2016 mandate and the tiresome 'will of the people' meme. The EEA is perhaps a safe harbour while we take a rational and longer term view of what we want our trade policy to be.
I hope you're right. It would be the best outcome from where we currently are.
Why would Leavers vote to up the stakes on themselves? And why would May look for cross-party support for a Bill that would likely lead to her own defenestration?
Leaver MPs would have three choices about how to play the referendum:
- Follow Gove and defend what has been negotiated and highlight the long-term vision - Reject the current approach and say that if Leave won, it should be taken as a mandate to remove May - Switch sides to Remain
Why would May do it? Because she's a gambler and will calculate that the odds are in her favour.
Those comments are scary. What's worse is that they are all "highly rated"
Even scarier is that the tweeted summary is bad, but the comments are even worse.
What exactly is scary or surprising in these comments? Poll after poll shows us that hundreds of millions of voters in European countries want minimal or zero Muslim immigration. And many - in some countries a majority - really don't like Islam, and they think it is incompatible with liberal western democracy.
Some countries are actually acting on this: whether it is banning the burqa, minarets, halal meat, etc, they are taking actions that make Muslim life difficult to live in the west. Other countries are simply saying No to Muslim migration. Large minorities want Muslims DEPORTED.
We can decry these views, or say they are horrific, whatever, but to pretend you are shocked and clutch at your handbag liked a spinster flashed by a perv outside the local Nandos is just ludicrous.
I regret to announce that none of us will be going on holiday to Anglesey or anywhere else, because we will all have died by the end of next April from the accumulated effects of Brexit-induced catastrophes. Slow, agonising deaths from starvation, super-strains of various venereal diseases, and other unimaginable horrors to be unveiled in the coming months.
We've all had it. Sorry.
Well the good news is that house prices would then fall
Field work: 19/07/18 – 25/07/18 Sample size: 2,001"
I was looking at the German polls earlier this afternoon (I know, such an exciting life I lead, but I was fidgeting aimlessly like I am now) and this result appears not dissimilar to those reported for the whole of the last few months. Merkel's lot are battered but still well out in front; the SPD, on the other hand, are now part of a murderous five-way fistfight, with all of the other parties in the Bundestag within an 8-10 point range.
The centre-left has been badly mauled in many European countries already. My very limited understanding suggests that the SPD isn't likely to collapse into irrelevance, as it's still relatively strong in some of the Western states, but surely it's not inconceivable that three more years in coalition could see it slip to third or even fourth party status?
Those comments are scary. What's worse is that they are all "highly rated"
Even scarier is that the tweeted summary is bad, but the comments are even worse.
What exactly is scary or surprising in these comments? Poll after poll shows us that hundreds of millions of voters in European countries want minimal or zero Muslim immigration. And many - in some countries a majority - really don't like Islam, and they think it is incompatible with liberal western democracy.
Some countries are actually acting on this: whether it is banning the burqa, minarets, halal meat, etc, they are taking actions that make Muslim life difficult to live in the west. Other countries are simply saying No to Muslim migration. Large minorities want Muslims DEPORTED.
We can decry these views, or say they are horrific, whatever, but to pretend you are shocked and clutch at your handbag liked a spinster flashed by a perv outside the local Nandos is just ludicrous.
I haven't read the comments but I understand they are hostile to Javid and Khan on account of them being Muslims. Yet neither of those could be seen as embodying the concerns that people have about Islam, either ideological or cultural.
Those comments are scary. What's worse is that they are all "highly rated"
Even scarier is that the tweeted summary is bad, but the comments are even worse.
What exactly is scary or surprising in these comments? Poll after poll shows us that hundreds of millions of voters in European countries want minimal or zero Muslim immigration. And many - in some countries a majority - really don't like Islam, and they think it is incompatible with liberal western democracy.
Some countries are actually acting on this: whether it is banning the burqa, minarets, halal meat, etc, they are taking actions that make Muslim life difficult to live in the west. Other countries are simply saying No to Muslim migration. Large minorities want Muslims DEPORTED.
We can decry these views, or say they are horrific, whatever, but to pretend you are shocked and clutch at your handbag liked a spinster flashed by a perv outside the local Nandos is just ludicrous.
I never said I was surprised, so calm the heck down.
Secondly, they are scary not merely because they are so harsh (which is indeed, not a surprise) but because they are so stupid, suggesting for one there is no difference in the things Sadiq Khan and Sajid Javid want to do as if they are not in different parties with very different agendas, and the repeated reference to him being an immigrant, which he is not.
People in europe being concerned at the level of and implications of islamic immigration and, moreover, integration, is certainly not a surprise, and I'm certainly not about to pretend a lack of concern when there are recorded instances in this country of a failure to act regarding serious crimes for fear of being perceived as a racist.
But to suggest, therefore, that I cannot be scared at the hateful stupidity of people making no distinction on the personal politics of Khan and Javid, and referring to them as immigrants, because of their faith/race (I actually have no idea if both are practicing muslims)? That is just plain ludicrous.
You might want to save that rant for another occasion. For instance, when someone actually is making the point you seem to think they are making.
Seeing as you live close have you eaten at the The Marram Grass? I am taking my father to North Wales for the Steam Trains and thinking about having a meal there.
I am not a great eater out but I am into steam railways and North Wales is excellent and if you time it you may see Flying Scotsman hauling an away day down the North Wales Coast.
Last Saturday my wife and I had a fabulous day of steam at the Strathspey railway out of Aviemore
Thanks, my father would want to be on it.
Flying Scotsman hauls a special Ynys Mon Express to Holyhead on the 22nd September returning from Holyhead 3 hours later
Those comments are scary. What's worse is that they are all "highly rated"
Even scarier is that the tweeted summary is bad, but the comments are even worse.
What exactly is scary or surprising in these comments? Poll after poll shows us that hundreds of millions of voters in European countries want minimal or zero Muslim immigration. And many - in some countries a majority - really don't like Islam, and they think it is incompatible with liberal western democracy.
Some countries are actually acting on this: whether it is banning the burqa, minarets, halal meat, etc, they are taking actions that make Muslim life difficult to live in the west. Other countries are simply saying No to Muslim migration. Large minorities want Muslims DEPORTED.
We can decry these views, or say they are horrific, whatever, but to pretend you are shocked and clutch at your handbag liked a spinster flashed by a perv outside the local Nandos is just ludicrous.
Thus speaks a white supremacist.
You do realise that this sort of reductio ad absurdum labelling just fuels the fire of what Sean is describing above, don't you?
SeanT accurately describes the state of mind of a large number of European voters. That is worthy of understanding and debate.
Why would Leavers vote to up the stakes on themselves? And why would May look for cross-party support for a Bill that would likely lead to her own defenestration?
Leaver MPs would have three choices about how to play the referendum:
- Follow Gove and defend what has been negotiated and highlight the long-term vision - Reject the current approach and say that if Leave won, it should be taken as a mandate to remove May - Switch sides to Remain
Why would May do it? Because she's a gambler and will calculate that the odds are in her favour.
May isn't a gambler. Nor did she have some overarching grand strategic masterplan to lose the election last year to aid the Remain cause.
Why would Leavers vote to up the stakes on themselves? And why would May look for cross-party support for a Bill that would likely lead to her own defenestration?
Leaver MPs would have three choices about how to play the referendum:
- Follow Gove and defend what has been negotiated and highlight the long-term vision - Reject the current approach and say that if Leave won, it should be taken as a mandate to remove May - Switch sides to Remain
Why would May do it? Because she's a gambler and will calculate that the odds are in her favour.
May is a dull, stolid securocrat. The one time she managed to talk herself into gambling (over the 2017 GE, of course) it went catastrophically wrong.
If the hardline Eurosceptics were prepared to blink then she'd already have accepted EEA/CU and got this whole business over with. She knows they won't, and that taking that course would therefore end her career and destroy the Conservative Party to boot.
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
A second referendum is a fantasy. It's never going to happen.
And any one that did that, which took place on any different basis to the original one in 2016, would be perceived by many as unfair, illegitimate and invalid. It would just make divisions even more toxic and bitter, and resolve nothing.
We're all on this ride together now until it ends.
What if everything, including the question, were the same as 2016.
May could say that Leave means accepting the withdrawal agreement she's negotiated, and Remain means revoking Article 50.
Edit: I see edmundintokyo is thinking along the same lines.
Firstly, voters don't like being asked exactly the same question a 2nd time. Secondly, I doubt it would pass Parliament as the ERG would rightly sniff out it was designed to bounce Leavers into supporting a deal they already think is crap.
But Labour, SNP and the LDs might all support it. The ERG does not command a HoC majority.
They first have to get the government to agree to it
As I said, if I were Theresa, and facing a No Deal Brexit, I'd want the voters to confirm they back it.
I think she has boxed herself in on repeating time and again there will be no second referendum
Why would Leavers vote to up the stakes on themselves? And why would May look for cross-party support for a Bill that would likely lead to her own defenestration?
Leaver MPs would have three choices about how to play the referendum:
- Follow Gove and defend what has been negotiated and highlight the long-term vision - Reject the current approach and say that if Leave won, it should be taken as a mandate to remove May - Switch sides to Remain
Why would May do it? Because she's a gambler and will calculate that the odds are in her favour.
May isn't a gambler. Nor did she have some overarching grand strategic masterplan to lose the election last year to aid the Remain cause.
You're projecting.
The election was a cock up, but a person who gave the nasty party speech, or the police federation speech, or who set out a negotiating strategy based on leaving the single market and customs union, is not someone who is afraid of taking political risks.
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Agreed. An early election would solve very little, whatever the outcome. A second referendum would have a (perhaps slim) chance of resolving what kind of Brexit, or nor Brexit, that the country wants.
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
A second referendum is a fantasy. It's never going to happen.
And any one that did that, which took place on any different basis to the original one in 2016, would be perceived by many as unfair, illegitimate and invalid. It would just make divisions even more toxic and bitter, and resolve nothing.
We're all on this ride together now until it ends.
What if everything, including the question, were the same as 2016.
May could say that Leave means accepting the withdrawal agreement she's negotiated, and Remain means revoking Article 50.
Edit: I see edmundintokyo is thinking along the same lines.
Firstly, voters don't like being asked exactly the same question a 2nd time. Secondly, I doubt it would pass Parliament as the ERG would rightly sniff out it was designed to bounce Leavers into supporting a deal they already think is crap.
But Labour, SNP and the LDs might all support it. The ERG does not command a HoC majority.
They first have to get the government to agree to it
As I said, if I were Theresa, and facing a No Deal Brexit, I'd want the voters to confirm they back it.
I think she has boxed herself in on repeating time and again there will be no second referendum
Ha! How many times did she say there'd be no early GE last year?
Not even that. It would need a very clear majority of Leavers in favour too. More like 3:1.
A 2nd referendum would only take place when the decision had already been made. Not to "clear the air" or similar such guff, which, if the Remainers who favour it were honest, is really about rolling the dice a 2nd time in the hope that they pip Leave to the post this time.
The problem is that there are no good options. Imagine that - and I don't believe this will happen - that there are three by-elections between now and March. Each of them is won on huge swings by the pro-EU Libdems. Opinion polls show that - by two-to-one - voters want us to stay in the EU.
The Conservative Party is in an unenviable position. Does it choose to say "the referendum is the referendum is the referendum", and avoids a further vote. But No Deal Brexit results in a nasty recession, and the party getting shafted in the next election.
Or does it bow to pressure for another referendum, which results in a big win for Remain, and pisses off the large number of its own voters who backed exit.
There's no easy option. There's no "right for democracy". Each of the options is horrible for the government, and horrible for democracy.
Which is why a variant on the Chequers Deal is probably the best outcome. It won't be the final resting place, and I suspect that in future treaties we'll end up closer in some areas - such as medicines - and further away in others. Best of all, it removes the crazy time pressure the government is under, and ensures an orderly transition. (So that either we are party to EU treaties as regards corporate distributions, or that we have negotiated with each of the EU27.)
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
A second referendum is a fantasy. It's never going to happen.
And any one that did that, which took place on any different basis to the original one in 2016, would be perceived by many as unfair, illegitimate and invalid. It would just make divisions even more toxic and bitter, and resolve nothing.
We're all on this ride together now until it ends.
What if everything, including the question, were the same as 2016.
May could say that Leave means accepting the withdrawal agreement she's negotiated, and Remain means revoking Article 50.
Edit: I see edmundintokyo is thinking along the same lines.
Firstly, voters don't like being asked exactly the same question a 2nd time. Secondly, I doubt it would pass Parliament as the ERG would rightly sniff out it was designed to bounce Leavers into supporting a deal they already think is crap.
But Labour, SNP and the LDs might all support it. The ERG does not command a HoC majority.
They first have to get the government to agree to it
As I said, if I were Theresa, and facing a No Deal Brexit, I'd want the voters to confirm they back it.
I think she has boxed herself in on repeating time and again there will be no second referendum
The moment there is a final Withdrawal Agreement text she will be free of that constraint because she can say she had to say that to show the EU that we were serious in order to get the best possible deal.
I'm at odds as to why Barnier has chucked out wholesale any form of customs cooperation, when he knows how nuclear it is.
The other EU member states are under the same kind of domestic pressure that the UK is on control of borders, with the added angle that there's a left-populist side that's worried about environmental / labour / health-and-safety standards being undermined by dastardly foreigners, undercutting countries with high standards, a strategy that a bunch of British ministers have openly endorsed.
So if you want an open border with the EU, which the British say they're committed to at least for NI, and maybe elsewhere for goods, you need to be able to make a convincing case to voters across the EU for how you're actually going to be prevented from doing this. Obviously something that satisfies these voters isn't going to be popular with the Tory strain of Brexitism, because for them setting lower standards (aka cutting red tape) is the whole point of the exercise.
But, the UK has already committed to a floor in environment, H&S and labour standards. The rest should be subject to a negotiation on details, including ROO, not flatly ruling it out on principle.
Incidentally, I'd have no problem with a special status for NI (it already has one on citizenship, power sharing, and the involvement of the Irish Government) which could - for instance - recognise a bit of a soft border with NI/Eire and a bit of a soft border with Great Britain.
It's how politics there is done. The problem is both sides being so black and white about it.
They are negotiating, IIUC Barnier said that they can't entrust you with the right to let stuff through the EU borders unless you're subject to the enforcement methods the EU has to make sure you're doing it right, they're talking to each other and the British said they'd get back to him with new proposals to address his concerns.
But if you're wondering why they're reluctant to fudge this issue too much and insist on having something reasonably watertight, it's because rightly or wrongly their voters expect them to be in control of their borders.
Those comments are scary. What's worse is that they are all "highly rated"
Even scarier is that the tweeted summary is bad, but the comments are even worse.
Some countries are actually acting on this: whether it is banning the burqa, minarets, halal meat, etc, they are taking actions that make Muslim life difficult to live in the west. Other countries are simply saying No to Muslim migration. Large minorities want Muslims DEPORTED.
We can decry these views, or say they are horrific, whatever, but to pretend you are shocked and clutch at your handbag liked a spinster flashed by a perv outside the local Nandos is just ludicrous.
I don't think it's Islam, per say.
My wife is friends with a female Iraqi immigrant (very pretty, I might add - she's here because Saddam Hussein tried to execute her father; he escaped the night before on a tip-off a snatch squad was coming to get him) who's single, in her early 30s, wears Western clothes, drinks like a fish, and goes on Tinder most weekends. She also votes Conservative and supports Leave and has a crisp English accent. She has English friends a plenty, socialises with them and goes out with them.
She has a few Islamic icons in her house, but she's absolutely a full participant in British society in all its forms, good and bad. She's great fun.
When people talk about Islamophobia they're not really talking about a fundamental problem with that religion, but of a large minority of those who profess to believe in it who wish to firstly largely segregate themselves, and, secondly, use their political weight to ensure their personal religious beliefs and values start to influence change in the wider indigenous culture.
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
A second referendum is a fantasy. It's never going to happen.
And any one that did that, which took place on any different basis to the original one in 2016, would be perceived by many as unfair, illegitimate and invalid. It would just make divisions even more toxic and bitter, and resolve nothing.
We're all on this ride together now until it ends.
What if everything, including the question, were the same as 2016.
May could say that Leave means accepting the withdrawal agreement she's negotiated, and Remain means revoking Article 50.
Edit: I see edmundintokyo is thinking along the same lines.
Firstly, voters don't like being asked exactly the same question a 2nd time. Secondly, I doubt it would pass Parliament as the ERG would rightly sniff out it was designed to bounce Leavers into supporting a deal they already think is crap.
But Labour, SNP and the LDs might all support it. The ERG does not command a HoC majority.
They first have to get the government to agree to it
As I said, if I were Theresa, and facing a No Deal Brexit, I'd want the voters to confirm they back it.
I think she has boxed herself in on repeating time and again there will be no second referendum
Ha! How many times did she say there'd be no early GE last year?
I'm at odds as to why Barnier has chucked out wholesale any form of customs cooperation, when he knows how nuclear it is.
The other EU member states are under the same kind of domestic pressure that the UK is on control of borders, with the added angle that there's a left-populist side that's worried about environmental / labour / health-and-safety standards being undermined by dastardly foreigners, undercutting countries with high standards, a strategy that a bunch of British ministers have openly endorsed.
So if you want an open border with the EU, which the British say they're committed to at least for NI, and maybe elsewhere for goods, you need to be able to make a convincing case to voters across the EU for how you're actually going to be prevented from doing this. Obviously something that satisfies these voters isn't going to be popular with the Tory strain of Brexitism, because for them setting lower standards (aka cutting red tape) is the whole point of the exercise.
But, the UK has already committed to a floor in environment, H&S and labour standards. The rest should be subject to a negotiation on details, including ROO, not flatly ruling it out on principle.
Incidentally, I'd have no problem with a special status for NI (it already has one on citizenship, power sharing, and the involvement of the Irish Government) which could - for instance - recognise a bit of a soft border with NI/Eire and a bit of a soft border with Great Britain.
It's how politics there is done. The problem is both sides being so black and white about it.
They are negotiating, IIUC Barnier said that they can't entrust you with the right to let stuff through the EU borders unless you're subject to the enforcement methods the EU has to make sure you're doing it right, they're talking to each other and the British said they'd get back to him with new proposals to address his concerns.
But if you're wondering why they're reluctant to fudge this issue too much and insist on having something reasonably watertight, it's because rightly or wrongly their voters expect them to be in control of their borders.
I think European voters are far more concerned about immigration when it comes to control of their borders, not British goods, and, to only a slightly lesser extent, ability for their own labour to access the British labour market.
The British workforce and its manufactured goods poses precious little threat to European countries.
But, if you're right, in about 8 weeks time we'll see the outlines of a deal.
Not even that. It would need a very clear majority of Leavers in favour too. More like 3:1.
A 2nd referendum would only take place when the decision had already been made. Not to "clear the air" or similar such guff, which, if the Remainers who favour it were honest, is really about rolling the dice a 2nd time in the hope that they pip Leave to the post this time.
The problem is that there are no good options. Imagine that - and I don't believe this will happen - that there are three by-elections between now and March. Each of them is won on huge swings by the pro-EU Libdems. Opinion polls show that - by two-to-one - voters want us to stay in the EU.
The Conservative Party is in an unenviable position. Does it choose to say "the referendum is the referendum is the referendum", and avoids a further vote. But No Deal Brexit results in a nasty recession, and the party getting shafted in the next election.
Or does it bow to pressure for another referendum, which results in a big win for Remain, and pisses off the large number of its own voters who backed exit.
There's no easy option. There's no "right for democracy". Each of the options is horrible for the government, and horrible for democracy.
Which is why a variant on the Chequers Deal is probably the best outcome. It won't be the final resting place, and I suspect that in future treaties we'll end up closer in some areas - such as medicines - and further away in others. Best of all, it removes the crazy time pressure the government is under, and ensures an orderly transition. (So that either we are party to EU treaties as regards corporate distributions, or that we have negotiated with each of the EU27.)
The problem is that the price for accepting a watered down Chequers deal will be (a) we are unavoidably tied to the EU rulebook which makes the value of Brexit marginal, and (b) the backstop will impose an effective division of the UK. The only real choice is fully in or fully out. Which is where we started.
Ha! How many times did she say there'd be no early GE last year?
I genuinely thought she would not only after A50 was announced, as it seemed ludicrous that she would trigger A50 and then have a GE, rather than the other way around, but it was always silly that some at the time genuinely thought that her saying it would not happen meant, for definite, that it would not happen (who would be so stupid as to waste time for the negotiation by doing that, or triggering before having an option in mind?). Obviously going against a previous statement would be a factor it why she might not have one, but clearly if there was enough gain on offer any politician will consider changing their minds. Indeed, they should do so more often (if not on that occasion, as it turned out).
Nevertheless, I don't think May's statements are the main stumbling block to a second referendum. The key is getting enough people to agree on the question and to see that question as giving them the opportunity to get what they want. In some ways a threeway 2 stage question would make that easier, giving something to dealers, no dealers and remainers. But it would still take cross party support for any option, to some degree, which puts things on a knife edge even with some Tories already on board with a second ref (again, depends on the question).
Those comments are scary. What's worse is that they are all "highly rated"
Even scarier is that the tweeted summary is bad, but the comments are even worse.
What exactly is scary or surprising in these comments? Poll after poll shows us that hundreds of millions of voters in European countries want minimal or zero Muslim immigration. And many - in some countries a majority - really don't like Islam, and they think it is incompatible with liberal western democracy.
Some countries are actually acting on this: whether it is banning the burqa, minarets, halal meat, etc, they are taking actions that make Muslim life difficult to live in the west. Other countries are simply saying No to Muslim migration. Large minorities want Muslims DEPORTED.
We can decry these views, or say they are horrific, whatever, but to pretend you are shocked and clutch at your handbag liked a spinster flashed by a perv outside the local Nandos is just ludicrous.
Thus speaks a white supremacist.
You do realise that this sort of reductio ad absurdum labelling just fuels the fire of what Sean is describing above, don't you?
SeanT accurately describes the state of mind of a large number of European voters. That is worthy of understanding and debate.
Apologies. I obviously misinterpreted this from dear old Sean on Wednesday:
"I am white. I am proudly British, English, proudly WHITE, a proud inheritor of the Enlightenment and universal suffrage and the Industrial Revolution and liberal democracy and the internet and feminism and the rest, and everything else we white people did, which is basically everything of value for the last 600 years. WE DID THIS.
Those comments are scary. What's worse is that they are all "highly rated"
Even scarier is that the tweeted summary is bad, but the comments are even worse.
Some countries are actually acting on this: whether it is banning the burqa, minarets, halal meat, etc, they are taking actions that make Muslim life difficult to live in the west. Other countries are simply saying No to Muslim migration. Large minorities want Muslims DEPORTED.
We can decry these views, or say they are horrific, whatever, but to pretend you are shocked and clutch at your handbag liked a spinster flashed by a perv outside the local Nandos is just ludicrous.
I don't think it's Islam, per say.
My wife is friends with a female Iraqi immigrant (very pretty, I might add - she's here because Saddam Hussein tried to execute her father; he escaped the night before on a tip-off a snatch squad was coming to get him) who's single, in her early 30s, wears Western clothes, drinks like a fish, and goes on Tinder most weekends. She also votes Conservative and supports Leave and has a crisp English accent. She has English friends a plenty, socialises with them and goes out with them.
She has a few Islamic icons in her house, but she's absolutely a full participant in British society in all its forms, good and bad. She's great fun.
When people talk about Islamophobia they're not really talking about a fundamental problem with that religion, but of a large minority of those who profess to believe in it who wish to firstly largely segregate themselves, and, secondly, use their political weight to ensure their personal religious beliefs and values start to influence change in the wider indigenous culture.
You have 2 types of muslim immigration. 1) The liberal muslims who have been persecuted by the hardline muslims in the home countries i.e Iranians that left Iran after the Shah was deposed. 2) Hardline muslims that want to build a caliphate.
The Tory Party conference is going to be interesting.
There are now no confidence motions flying around constituency parties on both the Labour and Tory sides. I'm sure I read that Frank Field's CLP had passed a vote of no confidence in him a la Kate Hoey, but the Tories are in far worse trouble as their activists are starting to reject the leader. I'm sure at least one Conservative Association has passed a vote of no confidence in Theresa May, and the rumours of a leadership challenge after the recess haven't gone away, either.
A second referendum is more likely than an early GE imo. There aren't the numbers in the HoC for a VoNC but there might well be for a 2nd referendum if we are faced with No Deal.
Nah. Besides anything else, for reasons already raked over on here recently at some length, there's not enough time to legislate for and hold one.
The Greeks managed a referendum in less than two weeks.
If it was politically expedient - which I suspect it won't be - then it could happen.
A second referendum is a fantasy. It's never going to happen.
And any one that did that, which took place on any different basis to the original one in 2016, would be perceived by many as unfair, illegitimate and invalid. It would just make divisions even more toxic and bitter, and resolve nothing.
We're all on this ride together now until it ends.
What if everything, including the question, were the same as 2016.
May could say that Leave means accepting the withdrawal agreement she's negotiated, and Remain means revoking Article 50.
Edit: I see edmundintokyo is thinking along the same lines.
Firstly, voters don't like being asked exactly the same question a 2nd time. Secondly, I doubt it would pass Parliament as the ERG would rightly sniff out it was designed to bounce Leavers into supporting a deal they already think is crap.
But Labour, SNP and the LDs might all support it. The ERG does not command a HoC majority.
They first have to get the government to agree to it
As I said, if I were Theresa, and facing a No Deal Brexit, I'd want the voters to confirm they back it.
I think she has boxed herself in on repeating time and again there will be no second referendum
The moment there is a final Withdrawal Agreement text she will be free of that constraint because she can say she had to say that to show the EU that we were serious in order to get the best possible deal.
As much as you push for it I just do not see it happening, indeed it could make things worse if that is possible.
Also the likes of Adonis, Gina Miller, and others are like a red rag to a bull to many. It needs several prominient leavers to demand it
The Tory Party conference is going to be interesting.
There are now no confidence motions flying around constituency parties on both the Labour and Tory sides. I'm sure I read that Frank Field's CLP had passed a vote of no confidence in him a la Kate Hoey, but the Tories are in far worse trouble as their activists are starting to reject the leader. I'm sure at least one Conservative Association has passed a vote of no confidence in Theresa May, and the rumours of a leadership challenge after the recess haven't gone away, either.
At this rate the Tories will still be tearing themselves a part over the EU even after we Brexit.
The Tory Party conference is going to be interesting.
Indeed. Let's hope thay nail the slogans to the wall better this time eh?
If May is feeling really bold, she'll do a Kinnock speech in the tone of her harangue to the police federation and tell the No Dealers where to go.
Frankly, it feels like she might as well. She'll presumably have been still trying to thrash out a deal over the summer, and there's already been talk that she would be removed before or for Conference (why that is better than now, giving less time for a new leader to come in and actually do something, IDK), and it will undoubtedly still be hostile for her proposals, so it would be well beyond time to lay down the gauntlet even more firmly than when she did at least demand resignations from the Cabinet if people could not back her plan at least.
She probably needs the EU to seem closer to a deal to even consider that stance though - apart from all the other problems with her trying to act strong, if the EU is still clearly dismissing her plan then haranguing her own party for not liking it seems even more pointless.
Comments
And yes, that's clearly JRM at the back.
You could have mentioned his vegetarianism, but as I am an unabashed carnivore that probably wouldn't help!
I'm at odds as to why Barnier has chucked out wholesale any form of customs cooperation, when he knows how nuclear it is. Nevertheless, the deal is about 80% there and there has been a lot of progress on security. 6 weeks ago, the EU were telling us to get lost over Galileo and security/defence cooperation.
But, if the EU push too far and hard, I favour a mitigated no deal. We shouldn't have to sell our souls.
a) the last 20% cannot be agreed
b) to get the last 20% agreed would require movement that neither side can or will accept
c) Even if they could do b), there are not enough MPs who back it
And any one that did that, which took place on any different basis to the original one in 2016, would be perceived by many as unfair, illegitimate and invalid. It would just make divisions even more toxic and bitter, and resolve nothing.
We're all on this ride together now until it ends.
Add in the parties non-Brexit woes - Corbyn's shameful tolerance of of anti-Semitism, the Tories' problems with money and nastiness of another sort, and you've got one confused electorate and a stalemate.
That's the problem with an election - neither party is capable in its current form of providing leadership, either way, on the issue it would be designed to solve.
And accordingly I shall take to my bed .....
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/28/labour-antisemitism-code-ian-austin-mp-faces-suspension
In a "it's a mess" General Election there would be significantly more variability and unusual results.
It is even possible that the extra 20 MPs could go to UKIP or the LibDems.
Parliament could be even more hung.
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
After
No, yes, yes
In/Out
Advisory, same as last time
Same as last time
At least 2 weeks, but better give it 6
Same as last time
Yes, but the courts will tell anyone who asks them to stop it to fuck off
At least 1 week, but better give it 3
Deal (or no deal if there was no deal) goes ahead
Tough shit
What the EU wants is EEA+CU, and if they can't get that then they won't agree to anything. My own suspicion is that they can't implement a bespoke model (because the model they favour is ready to go whereas the member states couldn't agree on what should be on an a la carte menu in a hundred years, and might very well lack the necessary legal instruments to implement it even if they could,) rather than it being a case of being wilfully difficult, but others might disagree.
Anyway, if the EU had swallowed Chequers more-or-less whole then I think May would've got it through Parliament, but since it can't/won't then we are back to what they want, or no deal. In which case, no deal it is.
However, those seeking it seem to think the remain cause would move on but I fear there would be a terrible backlash by Brexiteers that would divide the Country for years
I totally reject Steve Bannon and all he stands for and those in my party associating with him are playing with fire
Yesterday Diane Abbott was proclaiming she will shortly be home secretary, McDonnell is to follow his red book into no 11 and hand it to his acoylates, and Corbyn as PM would completely change our foreign policy against the US and the West. This really was openly proclaimed at a momentum rally. Where is Neil Kinnock when you really need him
However, just as I reject absolutely the hard right I do believe it is time for our labour friends to turn against Corbyn and his anti semitic, anti west, cabal.
We all deserve so much better
May could say that Leave means accepting the withdrawal agreement she's negotiated, and Remain means revoking Article 50.
Edit: I see edmundintokyo is thinking along the same lines.
Or there could be "Leave Without A Deal" or "Apply to Extend Negotiations"
There are any number of permutations.
However, I do not believe that - unless public opinion had moved to (say) 2:1 in favour of Remain - the referendum would have a "Stay In The EU" option.
"Europe Elects
@EuropeElects
22m22 minutes ago
Germany, Emnid poll:
CDU/CSU-EPP: 29% (-1)
SPD-S&D: 18% (-1)
AfD-EFDD: 15%
GRÜNE-G/EFA: 14% (+2)
LINKE-LEFT: 10%
FDP-ALDE: 9%
Field work: 19/07/18 – 25/07/18
Sample size: 2,001"
(* Not forgetting those PB posters who don't even live in the UK, so will be watching the crash from a distance.)
A 2nd referendum would only take place when the decision had already been made. Not to "clear the air" or similar such guff, which, if the Remainers who favour it were honest, is really about rolling the dice a 2nd time in the hope that they pip Leave to the post this time.
We've all had it. Sorry.
I am taking my father to North Wales for the Steam Trains and thinking about having a meal there.
What's hard is working out what's for public consumption. 6 weeks ago both the UK and EU were launching ads at each other over security cooperation and defence. This week, we're told huge progress has been made on security, although we know not what.
But, I agree on the broader point. Unless there's a broader fudge on the customs union then no deal it is.
I don't remember this story though
Vince Cable has hatched a secret plot to pave the way for a non-MP lead the Lib Dems.
He wants to scrap or amend an obscure part of the party’s constitution which states only an MP can take the helm.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/vince-cable-plots-lib-dem-12984339
I know the reasoning for it, and I'm sure there's places it works (there are certainly places where a party leader is not PM/President), but it feels like a big potential issue should disagreements arise between parliamentarians and the non MP leader. It's hard enough for Labour having a leader with frequent problems corralling his MPs but whose support from the membership is so strong he is invulnerable.
It is funny in that piece to see the idea of Moran getting the job rather than Swindon being described as skipping a generation. Swinson is 38 years old (I know they mean political generation, and Swinson has been an MP for a long time, but still, especially as Moran is only 35)
So if you want an open border with the EU, which the British say they're committed to at least for NI, and maybe elsewhere for goods, you need to be able to make a convincing case to voters across the EU for how you're actually going to be prevented from doing this if you're not bound by the current EU rules, enforced by the existing EU court. Obviously something that satisfies these voters isn't going to be popular with the Tory strain of Brexitism, because for them setting lower standards (aka cutting red tape) is the whole point of the exercise.
In any case, as long as enough Labour MPs voted for it, the ERG couldn't stop it.
This has to play out in full.
It is hard to marry the reasonably savvy approach on Brexit the party have taken with the political incompetence in continually keeping the antisemitism story going.
Last Saturday my wife and I had a fabulous day of steam at the Strathspey railway out of Aviemore
Incidentally, I'd have no problem with a special status for NI (it already has one on citizenship, power sharing, and the involvement of the Irish Government) which could - for instance - recognise a bit of a soft border with NI/Eire and a bit of a soft border with Great Britain.
It's how politics there is done. The problem is both sides being so black and white about it.
In terms of a post apocalyptic scenario, I know which party will resort to cannibalism first - the Tories are already gnawing at each other I think.
It's a fantasy. You're starting from the conclusion you want, and working backwards. That's not how politics is done.
In which case perhaps it might be in their interests to give May enough rope to at least get a deal together, which they can seek to shoot down later, rather than hamstring her from even putting a deal together!
- Follow Gove and defend what has been negotiated and highlight the long-term vision
- Reject the current approach and say that if Leave won, it should be taken as a mandate to remove May
- Switch sides to Remain
Why would May do it? Because she's a gambler and will calculate that the odds are in her favour.
Thus speaks a white supremacist.
The centre-left has been badly mauled in many European countries already. My very limited understanding suggests that the SPD isn't likely to collapse into irrelevance, as it's still relatively strong in some of the Western states, but surely it's not inconceivable that three more years in coalition could see it slip to third or even fourth party status?
Secondly, they are scary not merely because they are so harsh (which is indeed, not a surprise) but because they are so stupid, suggesting for one there is no difference in the things Sadiq Khan and Sajid Javid want to do as if they are not in different parties with very different agendas, and the repeated reference to him being an immigrant, which he is not.
People in europe being concerned at the level of and implications of islamic immigration and, moreover, integration, is certainly not a surprise, and I'm certainly not about to pretend a lack of concern when there are recorded instances in this country of a failure to act regarding serious crimes for fear of being perceived as a racist.
But to suggest, therefore, that I cannot be scared at the hateful stupidity of people making no distinction on the personal politics of Khan and Javid, and referring to them as immigrants, because of their faith/race (I actually have no idea if both are practicing muslims)? That is just plain ludicrous.
You might want to save that rant for another occasion. For instance, when someone actually is making the point you seem to think they are making.
SeanT accurately describes the state of mind of a large number of European voters. That is worthy of understanding and debate.
You're projecting.
Shows what you can (or perhaps, could?) make off the back of a well-loved novel.
If the hardline Eurosceptics were prepared to blink then she'd already have accepted EEA/CU and got this whole business over with. She knows they won't, and that taking that course would therefore end her career and destroy the Conservative Party to boot.
A second referendum would have a (perhaps slim) chance of resolving what kind of Brexit, or nor Brexit, that the country wants.
The Conservative Party is in an unenviable position. Does it choose to say "the referendum is the referendum is the referendum", and avoids a further vote. But No Deal Brexit results in a nasty recession, and the party getting shafted in the next election.
Or does it bow to pressure for another referendum, which results in a big win for Remain, and pisses off the large number of its own voters who backed exit.
There's no easy option. There's no "right for democracy". Each of the options is horrible for the government, and horrible for democracy.
Which is why a variant on the Chequers Deal is probably the best outcome. It won't be the final resting place, and I suspect that in future treaties we'll end up closer in some areas - such as medicines - and further away in others. Best of all, it removes the crazy time pressure the government is under, and ensures an orderly transition. (So that either we are party to EU treaties as regards corporate distributions, or that we have negotiated with each of the EU27.)
But if you're wondering why they're reluctant to fudge this issue too much and insist on having something reasonably watertight, it's because rightly or wrongly their voters expect them to be in control of their borders.
My wife is friends with a female Iraqi immigrant (very pretty, I might add - she's here because Saddam Hussein tried to execute her father; he escaped the night before on a tip-off a snatch squad was coming to get him) who's single, in her early 30s, wears Western clothes, drinks like a fish, and goes on Tinder most weekends. She also votes Conservative and supports Leave and has a crisp English accent. She has English friends a plenty, socialises with them and goes out with them.
She has a few Islamic icons in her house, but she's absolutely a full participant in British society in all its forms, good and bad. She's great fun.
When people talk about Islamophobia they're not really talking about a fundamental problem with that religion, but of a large minority of those who profess to believe in it who wish to firstly largely segregate themselves, and, secondly, use their political weight to ensure their personal religious beliefs and values start to influence change in the wider indigenous culture.
The British workforce and its manufactured goods poses precious little threat to European countries.
But, if you're right, in about 8 weeks time we'll see the outlines of a deal.
Nevertheless, I don't think May's statements are the main stumbling block to a second referendum. The key is getting enough people to agree on the question and to see that question as giving them the opportunity to get what they want. In some ways a threeway 2 stage question would make that easier, giving something to dealers, no dealers and remainers. But it would still take cross party support for any option, to some degree, which puts things on a knife edge even with some Tories already on board with a second ref (again, depends on the question).
"I am white. I am proudly British, English, proudly WHITE, a proud inheritor of the Enlightenment and universal suffrage and the Industrial Revolution and liberal democracy and the internet and feminism and the rest, and everything else we white people did, which is basically everything of value for the last 600 years. WE DID THIS.
1) The liberal muslims who have been persecuted by the hardline muslims in the home countries i.e Iranians that left Iran after the Shah was deposed.
2) Hardline muslims that want to build a caliphate.
Also the likes of Adonis, Gina Miller, and others are like a red rag to a bull to many. It needs several prominient leavers to demand it
She probably needs the EU to seem closer to a deal to even consider that stance though - apart from all the other problems with her trying to act strong, if the EU is still clearly dismissing her plan then haranguing her own party for not liking it seems even more pointless.