The lack of technological advances in Space Flight in the last 57 years is really quite remarkable. We are no more advanced now than before I was born in1968. To think that 1972 was the last time a human left earth orbit. I cant think of any field of technology where we have gone completely backwards in the way we have with space travel. We could go to the moon in 1969, we can't now.
Yes, but that is all about money and political will, rather than innovation.
Anyway, surely the shuttle was a technological advance? A craft able to lift off and return.
And Musk's autonomous, returning first stages are new. It's not really any different to the evolution of the motor car over the same period. Same basic principles; more computers.
Whilst returning first stages are new, they build on the work done in the 1990s on the superb DC-X Clipper. I believe SpaceX employed some of the engineers involved with the DC-X.
I'd forgotten about that. It just sort of fizzled out with budget cuts, I think.
NASA's Human Space Flight (HSF) ideas are a bit of a shambles right now.
i) Flying on Russian tech that clearly has issues, a hole and then a RUD on two consecutive launches. Even as someone who thinks we should take more risks I think flying up on Dec 3rd apparently is very soon, NASA is playing with fire letting NASA astronauts on that. ii) The frankly ridiculous SLS. I know it should be capable, but the cash for that thing is simply extraordinary next to even a quadrupling of the rocket formerly known as BFR's estimate (Which will be too low) iii) This cultural review taking place at BOTH Boeing (And I don't often defend Boeing) and SpaceX (Ok This is more defensible but still ridiculous) for Elon puffing a joint on the Joe Rogan podcast (Compare and contrast to the attitude toward Roscosmos in i) ). More delays on commercial crew, more US astronauts being sent up on a Russian system with increasing risk.
No wonder SpaceX wants as little as possible to do with NASA when it somes to Starship/SuperHeavy.
I do feel some sympathy for JRM. He was promised support, went over the top, then found he'd been lied to by colleagues. At least he had the decency to have the courage of his convictions.
One of the few honourable MPs throughout this pathetic capitulation.
Its a view
And that, ladies and gentleman, is as close as I've ever seen the ever-polite Big_G come to calling someone an idiot.
I wonder if public opinion has shifted in favour of May's proposed deal in the same way as it has shifted in favour of her. If so, it would cook the goose of those demanding a second referendum.
My view on a second referendum has always been that it needs a defined Brexit option. May's deal is that option, and as every alternative, including 'no deal', disappears, it makes the referendum a viable way forwards.
Mr. NorthWales, being risk averse can be good or bad. It is true women are generally more wary of risks than men. The gender divide polling doesn't tell us much beyond the situation that was around at the time of the referendum persisting now.
I wonder if public opinion has shifted in favour of May's proposed deal in the same way as it has shifted in favour of her. If so, it would cook the goose of those demanding a second referendum.
If it hasn't yet I am sure it will at the media blitz that will follow the EU Council meeting on Sunday
The stupidity of so many who dished the deal without reading it or waiting for the final sign off is a lesson to not only politicians, but the media and others, that wisdom comes from commenting on the final written word, not draft pieces of paper. They are 'draft' for a reason
I wonder if public opinion has shifted in favour of May's proposed deal in the same way as it has shifted in favour of her. If so, it would cook the goose of those demanding a second referendum.
My view on a second referendum has always been that it needs a defined Brexit option. May's deal is that option, and as every alternative, including 'no deal' disappears, it makes the referendum a viable way forwards.
Logically since in the first referendum we voted to Leave, the second referendum should only be about which way - no deal or May's deal..
I wonder if public opinion has shifted in favour of May's proposed deal in the same way as it has shifted in favour of her. If so, it would cook the goose of those demanding a second referendum.
My view on a second referendum has always been that it needs a defined Brexit option. May's deal is that option, and as every alternative, including 'no deal' disappears, it makes the referendum a viable way forwards.
Logically since in the first referendum we voted to Leave, the second referendum should only be about which way - no deal or May's deal..
Quite frankly people have had enough and want it over with. There will be no second referendum.
What hasn't been discussed, and why even small drops in support would have a disproportionate impact at the GE, is that there is an unusually large number of seats with very small majorities. 51 seats have majorities less than 1,000, another 29 have majorities 1-2,000 and another 40 have majorities of 2,000-3,000. So 120 seats don't really take that much move movement to see change.
It is easy to see how Corbyn could get quite a large minority even with small changes in the votes. All he needs is a few hard line Brexit Conservative voters to stay at home or even switch out of spite and he could romp home.
For all the criticism leveled at the man, Corbyn gets it when it comes to the Parliamentary majority in a way that May is clueless. He knows that, with his views on Brexit, it is not how many Labour voters are Remain or Leave which is important but where they are and whether they would switch. 100,000 inner London pro-Remain Labour voters are far less important than 100,000 pro-Brexit Labour supporters in the North East, Yorkshire and the Midlands.
May on the other hand is one of those people who can't see the wood for the trees. Far too obsessed with detail and far too unsure of herself.
Seriously, my dog could do a better job of things than TM.
Much of that is sadly true. The fortunate thing is that people are starting to see through Corbyn - there was a fascinating header on here a few weeks ago that showed Corbyn's "Best PM" rating amongst 2017 _Labour_ voters falling from 80% to 50%. Just as May's irrational honeymoon came to an end, so too is Jeremy's starting to wind down...
I wonder if public opinion has shifted in favour of May's proposed deal in the same way as it has shifted in favour of her. If so, it would cook the goose of those demanding a second referendum.
My view on a second referendum has always been that it needs a defined Brexit option. May's deal is that option, and as every alternative, including 'no deal' disappears, it makes the referendum a viable way forwards.
Logically since in the first referendum we voted to Leave, the second referendum should only be about which way - no deal or May's deal..
The lack of technological advances in Space Flight in the last 57 years is really quite remarkable. We are no more advanced now than before I was born in1968. To think that 1972 was the last time a human left earth orbit. I cant think of any field of technology where we have gone completely backwards in the way we have with space travel. We could go to the moon in 1969, we can't now.
Yes, but that is all about money and political will, rather than innovation.
Anyway, surely the shuttle was a technological advance? A craft able to lift off and return.
We don't have the shuttle anymore, we have a basic rocket that can launch a man or a satellite into orbit, thats the same as we had in 1967. Look at the technology now and compare it to 1967. Only in space travel is it the same. Imagine predicting in 1967 that space travel ability would be exactly the same in 2018 as it was in 1967. You would have been laughed at. But that is the case. There must be anothe reason for it other than lack of political will. If a country now could fly a man to the moon it would have an even bigger impact on the world than it did in 1969 due to the internet etc. Im sure China would love to do it, they have the money, political will, people, but they can't do it.
I wonder if public opinion has shifted in favour of May's proposed deal in the same way as it has shifted in favour of her. If so, it would cook the goose of those demanding a second referendum.
My view on a second referendum has always been that it needs a defined Brexit option. May's deal is that option, and as every alternative, including 'no deal' disappears, it makes the referendum a viable way forwards.
Logically since in the first referendum we voted to Leave, the second referendum should only be about which way - no deal or May's deal..
Logic and remainers don't mix very well together.
They will come up with endless mental gymnastics as to why the leave vote doesn't actually mean leaving properly. They'd be exactly the same if they lost again in another referendum.
Given some farms cross the border and transporting livestock from Down to Monaghan is no different to transporting from Yorkshire to Wiltshire, my takeaway is that some people wish to have a fight in an empty room. Does one really think there’ll be a thriving trade on sheep from Stranraer to Belfast, down to Dublin and then on a live animal transport to Saudi Arabia?
Look, you're attributing quarrelsome motives to me that (on this occasion!) aren't there. There is already a trade which is pretty precisely as you say, except that it's pre-weaned calves. They are sent from Scotland to Ireland, from Ireland to France, from France to Spain, and then (after fattening) probably from Spain to North Africa and the Middle East. The journey time from Scotland to Spain is typically 100 hours, with pauses as per European legislation but inadequate nutrition (because a pre-weaned calf normally suckles several times a day, and on this long trip they're not getting the nutrition they'd get from that). 5500 calves were sent in the most recent annual statistics. Because P&O (who were doing the Scottish-Irish link) decided that the trade was too horrible to continue, it has now shifted to going over Ramsgate via a small Danish operator. It is simply a fact that DEFRA has been consulting on whether to ban live exports for slaughter, because so many people are upset by it.
But I don't want to take up inordinate PB space with this single issue. My point is simply that there are going to be unintended consequences from this agreement, or indeed any agreement, and it is common sense to build in a review in a year's time. There is nothing political or anti-Government in my saying that - it's simply a practical suggestion which I'm also making through official channels.
I wonder if public opinion has shifted in favour of May's proposed deal in the same way as it has shifted in favour of her. If so, it would cook the goose of those demanding a second referendum.
My view on a second referendum has always been that it needs a defined Brexit option. May's deal is that option, and as every alternative, including 'no deal' disappears, it makes the referendum a viable way forwards.
Logically since in the first referendum we voted to Leave, the second referendum should only be about which way - no deal or May's deal..
Agreed.
If you're an MP who wants to prevent Brexit, just vote to revoke A50, and then justify that decision to your own voters.
Looks like No. 10 are moving to a 'Vote this deal' or there will be no Brexit line. Truss now saying same as Rudd by sounds of things.
Unfortunately, the Spanish seem about to torpedo the whole thing.
Ye gods the Tory leadership seriously threatening to overturn the biggest democratic mandate in history and the basis on which they were all elected in 2017.
All elected in 2017, to implement Brexit. On a Manifeso pledge that we would be outside the Customs Union and Single Market.
Not a good look for democracy.
Let's see what was in the manifesto on which Tory MPs including the ERG were elected:
Theresa May’s Conservatives will deliver the best possible deal for Britain as we leave the European Union delivered by a smooth,orderly Brexit. ... We want to agree a deep and special partnership with the European Union. This partnership will benefit both the European Union and the United Kingdom: while we are leaving the European Union, we are not leaving Europe, and we want to remain committed partners and allies to our friends across the continent. ... We will make sure we have certainty and clarity over our future, control of our own laws, and a more unified, strengthened United Kingdom. We will control immigration and secure the entitlements of EU nationals in Britain and British nationals in the EU. We will maintain the Common Travel Area and maintain as frictionless a border as possible for people, goods and services between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Workers’ rights conferred on British citizens from our membership of the EU will remain. We will pursue free trade with European markets, and secure new trade agreements with other countries. We want to work together in the fight against crime and terrorism, collaborate in science and innovation – and secure a smooth, orderly Brexit. ... As we leave the European Union, we will no longer be members of the single market or customs union but we will seek a deep and special partnership including a comprehensive free trade and customs agreement. ... We want fair, orderly negotiations, minimising disruption and giving as much certainty as possible – so both sides benefit. We believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside our withdrawal, reaching agreement on both within the two years allowed by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.
Are you seriously suggesting that is compatible with crashing out without a deal? What was promised is exactly what Theresa May has come back with.
It is premature to think that the failure of Rees-Mogg to take 47 others with him at this premature moment offers May any succour either in terms of her passing the Withdrawal Bill or in avoiding a confidence vote on her own leadership should she not change course. Clearly the differences amongst the ERG are tactical and about timing, as evidenced here:
As one immaculately placed source put it: “The likes of DD, IDS and Owen (Paterson) have been playing this game for decades while Rees-Mogg and Baker are playing in the PGA tour for the first time ever. Why did the coup fail? Not because Mrs May is any more popular now than she was last week but because there’s been a difference of opinion over strategy. The oldies know that they will be in a far more powerful position when it comes to the meaningful vote, when they have got Labour, the Scots nats, and the DUP with them. They don’t need her to lose by miles, they just need her to lose. That’s the main event here. The Brexiteers may not be united on the timing of bringing down Mrs May, but they are united in stopping her version of Brexit and the meaningful vote is the only way they can do that. If she loses the vote, Brexit is reborn.”
She has been threatening "it's my deal or no Brexit". How can she do that?
If May's deal goes gets voted down I don't see her having the courage to lead a campaign in parliament to remain in the EU. or for a second referendum, or (worst) a general election.
She would need to stay neutral
As that cunning old Yorkshireman, Harold Wilson did. And came out of the whole thing smelling of roses!
I wonder if public opinion has shifted in favour of May's proposed deal in the same way as it has shifted in favour of her. If so, it would cook the goose of those demanding a second referendum.
My view on a second referendum has always been that it needs a defined Brexit option. May's deal is that option, and as every alternative, including 'no deal', disappears, it makes the referendum a viable way forwards.
I think a second referendum with remain as an option only comes into play if Parliament votes down May's deal. At that point, however, if Brexiteers are sabotaging how to leave, all bets are off (including this point).
Given we're such a useless, backward, waste of space as a country that that's so pathetic we even have to rely on the EU even to make a sandwich for us, I'm surprised there's any businesses at all here...
I wonder if public opinion has shifted in favour of May's proposed deal in the same way as it has shifted in favour of her. If so, it would cook the goose of those demanding a second referendum.
If it hasn't yet I am sure it will at the media blitz that will follow the EU Council meeting on Sunday
The stupidity of so many who dished the deal without reading it or waiting for the final sign off is a lesson to not only politicians, but the media and others, that wisdom comes from commenting on the final written word, not draft pieces of paper. They are 'draft' for a reason
What the F does Spain's little tantrum do to the calculations too?
I wonder if public opinion has shifted in favour of May's proposed deal in the same way as it has shifted in favour of her. If so, it would cook the goose of those demanding a second referendum.
My view on a second referendum has always been that it needs a defined Brexit option. May's deal is that option, and as every alternative, including 'no deal' disappears, it makes the referendum a viable way forwards.
Logically since in the first referendum we voted to Leave, the second referendum should only be about which way - no deal or May's deal..
There you go, bringing logic into it.....
If May were smart, it would give her a ma-hooosive majority for her deal. "We voted to leave, then we voted how to leave..." It would put the Remainers in the delicious dilemma of having to either abstain or vote for May's Deal. And her successor has the cover of "it is the Will of the People..." when people try to re-open it.
What the F does Spain's little tantrum do to the calculations too?
Depends how others vote. To pass a double majority you need 55% of countries, and 65% of population. Spain is 9% of EU population, so it'd need quite a few others to block it.
I wonder if public opinion has shifted in favour of May's proposed deal in the same way as it has shifted in favour of her. If so, it would cook the goose of those demanding a second referendum.
If it hasn't yet I am sure it will at the media blitz that will follow the EU Council meeting on Sunday
The stupidity of so many who dished the deal without reading it or waiting for the final sign off is a lesson to not only politicians, but the media and others, that wisdom comes from commenting on the final written word, not draft pieces of paper. They are 'draft' for a reason
What the F does Spain's little tantrum do to the calculations too?
Business insider reported that back in March The EU gave Spain a veto over the whole deal if they object to the document on the future relationship. Or that is my reading of it.
What the F does Spain's little tantrum do to the calculations too?
Depends how others vote. To pass a double majority you need 55% of countries, and 65% of population. Spain is 9% of EU population, so it'd need quite a few others to block it.
The lack of technological advances in Space Flight in the last 57 years is really quite remarkable. We are no more advanced now than before I was born in1968. To think that 1972 was the last time a human left earth orbit. I cant think of any field of technology where we have gone completely backwards in the way we have with space travel. We could go to the moon in 1969, we can't now.
Yes, but that is all about money and political will, rather than innovation.
Anyway, surely the shuttle was a technological advance? A craft able to lift off and return.
We don't have the shuttle anymore, we have a basic rocket that can launch a man or a satellite into orbit, thats the same as we had in 1967. Look at the technology now and compare it to 1967. Only in space travel is it the same. Imagine predicting in 1967 that space travel ability would be exactly the same in 2018 as it was in 1967. You would have been laughed at. But that is the case. There must be anothe reason for it other than lack of political will. If a country now could fly a man to the moon it would have an even bigger impact on the world than it did in 1969 due to the internet etc. Im sure China would love to do it, they have the money, political will, people, but they can't do it.
Did they even do it then? Hmmm?
[Didn't Luckyguy return here the other day?]
Who knows, but I would have thought the plans still exist for the Saturn V rocket and various lunar landers and command modules are in museums around the world. So the technolgy that was apparently used still exists, but for whatever reason humans can't use it anymore
What the F does Spain's little tantrum do to the calculations too?
Depends how others vote. To pass a double majority you need 55% of countries, and 65% of population. Spain is 9% of EU population, so it'd need quite a few others to block it.
Unimportant as has been discussed. The vote is QMV and they do not have the numbers
No it is not unimportant. While technically the withdrawal agreement is QMV the EU has said up front that Spain has a veto over Gibraltar. In the same way that Ireland could have been ignored due to QMV but wasn't.
Even more importantly the future relationship agreement will require unanimity
NASA's Human Space Flight (HSF) ideas are a bit of a shambles right now.
i) Flying on Russian tech that clearly has issues, a hole and then a RUD on two consecutive launches. Even as someone who thinks we should take more risks I think flying up on Dec 3rd apparently is very soon, NASA is playing with fire letting NASA astronauts on that. ii) The frankly ridiculous SLS. I know it should be capable, but the cash for that thing is simply extraordinary next to even a quadrupling of the rocket formerly known as BFR's estimate (Which will be too low) iii) This cultural review taking place at BOTH Boeing (And I don't often defend Boeing) and SpaceX (Ok This is more defensible but still ridiculous) for Elon puffing a joint on the Joe Rogan podcast (Compare and contrast to the attitude toward Roscosmos in i) ). More delays on commercial crew, more US astronauts being sent up on a Russian system with increasing risk.
No wonder SpaceX wants as little as possible to do with NASA when it somes to Starship/SuperHeavy.
1) That is a political issue. The politicians decided that NASA will use Russian rockets, and NASA had to make it work. They weren't particularly happy about it. (BTW, what was the second failure?)
2) America has decided it needs a heavy-lift rocket. The SLS meets that need. The BFR or New Glenn may also meet that need, but they are both uncertain (Musk has admitted theer is a good chance the BFR might not work). Cancel the SLS now, and if those other two projects fail, the US will be without a heavy-lift launcher at the time China are developing one (albeit with their own issues). What is more, the US military do not want to rely on just one launch system, and so the SLS can be seen as very expensive insurance policy. If the BFR and New Glenn meet their objectives, it will be time for the SLS to die.
3) The cultural review is not ridiculous IMO: it should be remembered that NASA are uncertain that one of SpaceX's RUDs might not have been caused by bad practice during assembly. A review might pick up some very useful gotchas, both there and at Boeing. If Roscosmos had had such reviews, they might not have had their failures.
SpaceX say they don't want anything to do with NASA, except when they need technological help, and then they go running to them.
What the F does Spain's little tantrum do to the calculations too?
Depends how others vote. To pass a double majority you need 55% of countries, and 65% of population. Spain is 9% of EU population, so it'd need quite a few others to block it.
Unimportant as has been discussed. The vote is QMV and they do not have the numbers
No it is not unimportant. While technically the withdrawal agreement is QMV the EU has said up front that Spain has a veto over Gibraltar. In the same way that Ireland could have been ignored due to QMV but wasn't.
Even more importantly the future relationship agreement will require unanimity
As far as the WDA is concerned it only matters if they get a number of countries joining them. The political declaration and future trade deals comes along after the trade discussions over the next few years.
NASA's Human Space Flight (HSF) ideas are a bit of a shambles right now.
i) Flying on Russian tech that clearly has issues, a hole and then a RUD on two consecutive launches. Even as someone who thinks we should take more risks I think flying up on Dec 3rd apparently is very soon, NASA is playing with fire letting NASA astronauts on that. ii) The frankly ridiculous SLS. I know it should be capable, but the cash for that thing is simply extraordinary next to even a quadrupling of the rocket formerly known as BFR's estimate (Which will be too low) iii) This cultural review taking place at BOTH Boeing (And I don't often defend Boeing) and SpaceX (Ok This is more defensible but still ridiculous) for Elon puffing a joint on the Joe Rogan podcast (Compare and contrast to the attitude toward Roscosmos in i) ). More delays on commercial crew, more US astronauts being sent up on a Russian system with increasing risk.
No wonder SpaceX wants as little as possible to do with NASA when it somes to Starship/SuperHeavy.
1) That is a political issue. The politicians decided that NASA will use Russian rockets, and NASA had to make it work. They weren't particularly happy about it. (BTW, what was the second failure?)
2) America has decided it needs a heavy-lift rocket. The SLS meets that need. The BFR or New Glenn may also meet that need, but they are both uncertain (Musk has admitted theer is a good chance the BFR might not work). Cancel the SLS now, and if those other two projects fail, the US will be without a heavy-lift launcher at the time China are developing one (albeit with their own issues). What is more, the US military do not want to rely on just one launch system, and so the SLS can be seen as very expensive insurance policy. If the BFR and New Glenn meet their objectives, it will be time for the SLS to die.
3) The cultural review is not ridiculous IMO: it should be remembered that NASA are uncertain that one of SpaceX's RUDs might not have been caused by bad practice during assembly. A review might pick up some very useful gotchas, both there and at Boeing. If Roscosmos had had such reviews, they might not have had their failures.
SpaceX say they don't want anything to do with NASA, except when they need technological help, and then they go running to them.
Let it never be said that Josias Jessop didn't die in a ditch for Bridenstine
I wonder if public opinion has shifted in favour of May's proposed deal in the same way as it has shifted in favour of her. If so, it would cook the goose of those demanding a second referendum.
My view on a second referendum has always been that it needs a defined Brexit option. May's deal is that option, and as every alternative, including 'no deal' disappears, it makes the referendum a viable way forwards.
Logically since in the first referendum we voted to Leave, the second referendum should only be about which way - no deal or May's deal..
Agreed.
Once it ends up in the Commons it would be amended to include the option to remain... A reason why its a non starter.
I do feel some sympathy for JRM. He was promised support, went over the top, then found he'd been lied to by colleagues. At least he had the decency to have the courage of his convictions.
Presumably JRM is no longer even on the 'potential Tory leader' board now, after his demonstration of leadership?
NASA's Human Space Flight (HSF) ideas are a bit of a shambles right now.
i) Flying on Russian tech that clearly has issues, a hole and then a RUD on two consecutive launches. Even as someone who thinks we should take more risks I think flying up on Dec 3rd apparently is very soon, NASA is playing with fire letting NASA astronauts on that. ii) The frankly ridiculous SLS. I know it should be capable, but the cash for that thing is simply extraordinary next to even a quadrupling of the rocket formerly known as BFR's estimate (Which will be too low) iii) This cultural review taking place at BOTH Boeing (And I don't often defend Boeing) and SpaceX (Ok This is more defensible but still ridiculous) for Elon puffing a joint on the Joe Rogan podcast (Compare and contrast to the attitude toward Roscosmos in i) ). More delays on commercial crew, more US astronauts being sent up on a Russian system with increasing risk.
No wonder SpaceX wants as little as possible to do with NASA when it somes to Starship/SuperHeavy.
1) That is a political issue. The politicians decided that NASA will use Russian rockets, and NASA had to make it work. They weren't particularly happy about it. (BTW, what was the second failure?)
2) America has decided it needs a heavy-lift rocket. The SLS meets that need. The BFR or New Glenn may also meet that need, but they are both uncertain (Musk has admitted theer is a good chance the BFR might not work). Cancel the SLS now, and if those other two projects fail, the US will be without a heavy-lift launcher at the time China are developing one (albeit with their own issues). What is more, the US military do not want to rely on just one launch system, and so the SLS can be seen as very expensive insurance policy. If the BFR and New Glenn meet their objectives, it will be time for the SLS to die.
3) The cultural review is not ridiculous IMO: it should be remembered that NASA are uncertain that one of SpaceX's RUDs might not have been caused by bad practice during assembly. A review might pick up some very useful gotchas, both there and at Boeing. If Roscosmos had had such reviews, they might not have had their failures.
SpaceX say they don't want anything to do with NASA, except when they need technological help, and then they go running to them.
Let it never be said that Josias Jessop didn't die in a ditch for Bridenstine
Or you for Musk.
I know where you're coming from, but there is a logic - of sorts - behind these actions.
Brexiteers thinking that a second referendum should be between the deal and no deal are kidding themselves.
How many MPs think No Deal is tolerable or good? 50-100. How many think Remain is tolerable or good? 280-350. How many think the deal is tolerable or good? At the moment, 250-300.
Justice or fairness is irrelevant. It’s all about the numbers in the Commons.
It is premature to think that the failure of Rees-Mogg to take 47 others with him at this premature moment offers May any succour either in terms of her passing the Withdrawal Bill or in avoiding a confidence vote on her own leadership should she not change course. Clearly the differences amongst the ERG are tactical and about timing, as evidenced here:
As one immaculately placed source put it: “The likes of DD, IDS and Owen (Paterson) have been playing this game for decades while Rees-Mogg and Baker are playing in the PGA tour for the first time ever. Why did the coup fail? Not because Mrs May is any more popular now than she was last week but because there’s been a difference of opinion over strategy. The oldies know that they will be in a far more powerful position when it comes to the meaningful vote, when they have got Labour, the Scots nats, and the DUP with them. They don’t need her to lose by miles, they just need her to lose. That’s the main event here. The Brexiteers may not be united on the timing of bringing down Mrs May, but they are united in stopping her version of Brexit and the meaningful vote is the only way they can do that. If she loses the vote, Brexit is reborn.”
She has been threatening "it's my deal or no Brexit". How can she do that?
If May's deal goes gets voted down I don't see her having the courage to lead a campaign in parliament to remain in the EU. or for a second referendum, or (worst) a general election.
She would need to stay neutral
As that cunning old Yorkshireman, Harold Wilson did. And came out of the whole thing smelling of roses!
That was Cameron's mistake - as PM he could legitimately 'rise above it' and promise to implement what ever the British people decided - he might then also usefully have engaged some Whitehall expertise in 'No Deal' planning. As it was, he flunked his ultimate 'essay crisis" and we're all paying the price.
I do feel some sympathy for JRM. He was promised support, went over the top, then found he'd been lied to by colleagues. At least he had the decency to have the courage of his convictions.
Presumably JRM is no longer even on the 'potential Tory leader' board now, after his demonstration of leadership?
Was he ever really? Never in cabinet, and nowhere near where the mainstream of politics is, let along the country.
Unimportant as has been discussed. The vote is QMV and they do not have the numbers
Sanchez has barely a quarter of the seats and his government is already splintering and in trouble with the EU over the budget. Additionally his party is fighting regional elections in a couple of weeks in Andalucia where Gibraltar is. Pretty clear what game he's playing here.
What on earth is going on in the UAE? Quote from BBC: 'A British PhD student has been sentenced to life in prison after being found guilty of spying in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Matthew Hedges, a 31-year-old academic at Durham University, said he was conducting a research trip when he was arrested on 5 May at Dubai airport. A court in Abu Dhabi has declared him guilty of "spying for or on behalf of" the UK government.'
So I see Spain doesn't want a deal. I do enjoy how they pretend their demands on Gibraltar are reasonable when they have a weaker claim than Argentina do with the Falklands.
I don't agree with JRM, but think much of the criticism has been unfair. He has been open about his position. He has supported his party where he can. He disagrees with the deal and PM and (as he says) has used the constitution mechanism to try an effect change. He has failed, but - unlike others - he it has been pretty straight.
Unimportant as has been discussed. The vote is QMV and they do not have the numbers
The EU won't want it to come to a vote, but their negotiators and leading politicians must know that May cannot back down on this.
However, if the EU member States were to repudiate the draft agreement, then both sides would have no option but to go for a managed No Deal.
Yes, I think that objections will be sorted out in advance so that it can be unanimous, though perhaps via a promise to Spain that the FTA will cover their concerns. As Spain (and others) have vetoes on this, they can enfore their requirements at that point.
It is premature to think that the failure of Rees-Mogg to take 47 others with him at this premature moment offers May any succour either in terms of her passing the Withdrawal Bill or in avoiding a confidence vote on her own leadership should she not change course. Clearly the differences amongst the ERG are tactical and about timing, as evidenced here:
As one immaculately placed source put it: “The likes of DD, IDS and Owen (Paterson) have been playing this game for decades while Rees-Mogg and Baker are playing in the PGA tour for the first time ever. Why did the coup fail? Not because Mrs May is any more popular now than she was last week but because there’s been a difference of opinion over strategy. The oldies know that they will be in a far more powerful position when it comes to the meaningful vote, when they have got Labour, the Scots nats, and the DUP with them. They don’t need her to lose by miles, they just need her to lose. That’s the main event here. The Brexiteers may not be united on the timing of bringing down Mrs May, but they are united in stopping her version of Brexit and the meaningful vote is the only way they can do that. If she loses the vote, Brexit is reborn.”
She has been threatening "it's my deal or no Brexit". How can she do that?
If May's deal goes gets voted down I don't see her having the courage to lead a campaign in parliament to remain in the EU. or for a second referendum, or (worst) a general election.
She would need to stay neutral
As that cunning old Yorkshireman, Harold Wilson did. And came out of the whole thing smelling of roses!
That was Cameron's mistake - as PM he could legitimately 'rise above it' and promise to implement what ever the British people decided - he might then also usefully have engaged some Whitehall expertise in 'No Deal' planning. As it was, he flunked his ultimate 'essay crisis" and we're all paying the price.
I disagree with that. If one negotiates a deal and one thinks it is a good deal, one should argue for it.
I know where you're coming from, but there is a logic - of sorts - behind these actions.
Heh, not on everything - his words and actions toward Vernon Unsworth were a complete disgrace; hopefully Unsworth will win a very comfortable life for himself if/when that is finally sorted in court.
It is premature to think that the failure of Rees-Mogg to take 47 others with him at this premature moment offers May any succour either in terms of her passing the Withdrawal Bill or in avoiding a confidence vote on her own leadership should she not change course. Clearly the differences amongst the ERG are tactical and about timing, as evidenced here:
As one immaculately placed source put it: “The likes of DD, IDS and Owen (Paterson) have been playing this game for decades while Rees-Mogg and Baker are playing in the PGA tour for the first time ever. Why did the coup fail? Not because Mrs May is any more popular now than she was last week but because there’s been a difference of opinion over strategy. The oldies know that they will be in a far more powerful position when it comes to the meaningful vote, when they have got Labour, the Scots nats, and the DUP with them. They don’t need her to lose by miles, they just need her to lose. That’s the main event here. The Brexiteers may not be united on the timing of bringing down Mrs May, but they are united in stopping her version of Brexit and the meaningful vote is the only way they can do that. If she loses the vote, Brexit is reborn.”
She has been threatening "it's my deal or no Brexit". How can she do that?
If May's deal goes gets voted down I don't see her having the courage to lead a campaign in parliament to remain in the EU. or for a second referendum, or (worst) a general election.
She would need to stay neutral
As that cunning old Yorkshireman, Harold Wilson did. And came out of the whole thing smelling of roses!
That was Cameron's mistake - as PM he could legitimately 'rise above it' and promise to implement what ever the British people decided - he might then also usefully have engaged some Whitehall expertise in 'No Deal' planning. As it was, he flunked his ultimate 'essay crisis" and we're all paying the price.
I disagree with that. If one negotiates a deal and one thinks it is a good deal, one should argue for it.
Harold didn't. The vote was after his similarly nugatory renegotiation.
It is premature to think that the failure of Rees-Mogg to take 47 others with him at this premature moment offers May any succour either in terms of her passing the Withdrawal Bill or in avoiding a confidence vote on her own leadership should she not change course. Clearly the differences amongst the ERG are tactical and about timing, as evidenced here:
As one immaculately placed source put it: “The likes of DD, IDS and Owen (Paterson) have been playing this game for decades while Rees-Mogg and Baker are playing in the PGA tour for the first time ever. Why did the coup fail? Not because Mrs May is any more popular now than she was last week but because there’s been a difference of opinion over strategy. The oldies know that they will be in a far more powerful position when it comes to the meaningful vote, when they have got Labour, the Scots nats, and the DUP with them. They don’t need her to lose by miles, they just need her to lose. That’s the main event here. The Brexiteers may not be united on the timing of bringing down Mrs May, but they are united in stopping her version of Brexit and the meaningful vote is the only way they can do that. If she loses the vote, Brexit is reborn.”
She has been threatening "it's my deal or no Brexit". How can she do that?
If May's deal goes gets voted down I don't see her having the courage to lead a campaign in parliament to remain in the EU. or for a second referendum, or (worst) a general election.
She would need to stay neutral
As that cunning old Yorkshireman, Harold Wilson did. And came out of the whole thing smelling of roses!
That was Cameron's mistake - as PM he could legitimately 'rise above it' and promise to implement what ever the British people decided - he might then also usefully have engaged some Whitehall expertise in 'No Deal' planning. As it was, he flunked his ultimate 'essay crisis" and we're all paying the price.
I disagree with that. If one negotiates a deal and one thinks it is a good deal, one should argue for it.
Wilson did not, of course negotiate the deal. Heath did.
It is premature to think that the failure of Rees-Mogg to take 47 others with him at this premature moment offers May any succour either in terms of her passing the Withdrawal Bill or in avoiding a confidence vote on her own leadership should she not change course. Clearly the differences amongst the ERG are tactical and about timing, as evidenced here:
As one immaculately placed source put it: “The likes of DD, IDS and Owen (Paterson) have been playing this game for decades while Rees-Mogg and Baker are playing in the PGA tour for the first time ever. Why did the coup fail? Not because Mrs May is any more popular now than she was last week but because there’s been a difference of opinion over strategy. The oldies know that they will be in a far more powerful position when it comes to the meaningful vote, when they have got Labour, the Scots nats, and the DUP with them. They don’t need her to lose by miles, they just need her to lose. That’s the main event here. The Brexiteers may not be united on the timing of bringing down Mrs May, but they are united in stopping her version of Brexit and the meaningful vote is the only way they can do that. If she loses the vote, Brexit is reborn.”
She has been threatening "it's my deal or no Brexit". How can she do that?
If May's deal goes gets voted down I don't see her having the courage to lead a campaign in parliament to remain in the EU. or for a second referendum, or (worst) a general election.
She would need to stay neutral
As that cunning old Yorkshireman, Harold Wilson did. And came out of the whole thing smelling of roses!
That was Cameron's mistake - as PM he could legitimately 'rise above it' and promise to implement what ever the British people decided - he might then also usefully have engaged some Whitehall expertise in 'No Deal' planning. As it was, he flunked his ultimate 'essay crisis" and we're all paying the price.
I disagree with that. If one negotiates a deal and one thinks it is a good deal, one should argue for it.
Harold didn't. The vote was after his similarly nugatory renegotiation.
From the botched coup to the breadth of Jacob Rees-Mogg’s lapels a la Brezhnev there is something unmistakably late-era Soviet about the extreme Eurosceptics. As Vytenis Andriukaitis, a Lithuanian member of the European Commission noted on Twitter, the panel of grey men at yesterday’s press conference calling for a no-deal departure from the EU had the air of ageing Bolsheviks who have reached the end of the line. The Tory European Research Group’s efforts to unseat Theresa May might be the worst hardline coup since the 1991 politburo putsch that tried to depose Mikhail Gorbachev.
Ken Clarke's declaration he will vote for the deal is significant.
Yeah it's "significant" that the biggest pro-EU fanatic in politics is satisfied Theresa May's deal is Remain in all but name and the referendum result is being overturned...
You are on the extreme view of brexit and you do not seem to realise that extremes are a massive minority
It shows how insular and ridiculous the views on here are that proper Brexit that 17 million people voted for is now being branded "extreme".
You have no evidence that the 17 million voted to trash our manufacturing and the union.
However, if you are confident of your cause support a second referendum
The majority already voted to leave, don't you people understand?
Yes, we do.
Unfortunately too many leavers don't seem to understand that no-one has a clue what 'leave' actually meant. This is due to the central lie at the heart of the leave campaigns, and the inconsistent messages they gave.
Now, if leave had been honest we wouldn't be in this terrible situation. Then again, leave wouldn't have won.
So the leave voters were actually voting for what the remainers wanted all along.
What a load of drivel.
Leave voters were voting for a number of mutually inconsistent positions. Some leave voters preferred all of those positions to remain. Others preferred remain to some of those positions that could be categorised as 'leave' (if you have any doubt about that, think about how many Brexiters don't like the deal which is one form of leave).
Remain voters didn't want to leave in any form, which is probably the key difference.
Remain meant different things to different people, some wanted the status quo, some wanted ever closer union, some wanted to join the Euro, some didn't want to stay in but were too worried about leaving.
The idea that all remain votes were the same is total bollocks frankly.
There was complete clarity of what Remain meant. It was Cameron's deal with various opt-outs. The Remain clarity was in stark contrast to what Leave meant.
It is premature to think that the failure of Rees-Mogg to take 47 others with him at this premature moment offers May any succour either in terms of her passing the Withdrawal Bill or in avoiding a confidence vote on her own leadership should she not change course. Clearly the differences amongst the ERG are tactical and about timing, as evidenced here:
ote is the only way they can do that. If she loses the vote, Brexit is reborn.”
She has been threatening "it's my deal or no Brexit". How can she do that?
If May's deal goes gets voted down I don't see her having the courage to lead a campaign in parliament to remain in the EU. or for a second referendum, or (worst) a general election.
She would need to stay neutral
As that cunning old Yorkshireman, Harold Wilson did. And came out of the whole thing smelling of roses!
That was Cameron's mistake - as PM he could legitimately 'rise above it' and promise to implement what ever the British people decided - he might then also usefully have engaged some Whitehall expertise in 'No Deal' planning. As it was, he flunked his ultimate 'essay crisis" and we're all paying the price.
I disagree with that. If one negotiates a deal and one thinks it is a good deal, one should argue for it.
Harold didn't. The vote was after his similarly nugatory renegotiation.
And, it did not turn out well for his party.
But arguably better for the country.
In the event of a "Major Change Vote" vote do you want to add to uncertainty?
Ken Clarke's declaration he will vote for the deal is significant.
Yeah it's "significant" that the biggest pro-EU fanatic in politics is satisfied Theresa May's deal is Remain in all but name and the referendum result is being overturned...
You are on the extreme view of brexit and you do not seem to realise that extremes are a massive minority
It shows how insular and ridiculous the views on here are that proper Brexit that 17 million people voted for is now being branded "extreme".
You have no evidence that the 17 million voted to trash our manufacturing and the union.
However, if you are confident of your cause support a second referendum
The majority already voted to leave, don't you people understand?
Yes, we do.
Unfortunately too many leavers don't seem to understand that no-one has a clue what 'leave' actually meant. This is due to the central lie at the heart of the leave campaigns, and the inconsistent messages they gave.
Now, if leave had been honest we wouldn't be in this terrible situation. Then again, leave wouldn't have won.
So the leave voters were actually voting for what the remainers wanted all along.
What a load of drivel.
Leave voters were voting for a number of mutually inconsistent positions. Some leave voters preferred all of those positions to remain. Others preferred remain to some of those positions that could be categorised as 'leave' (if you have any doubt about that, think about how many Brexiters don't like the deal which is one form of leave).
Remain voters didn't want to leave in any form, which is probably the key difference.
Remain meant different things to different people, some wanted the status quo, some wanted ever closer union, some wanted to join the Euro, some didn't want to stay in but were too worried about leaving.
The idea that all remain votes were the same is total bollocks frankly.
There was complete clarity of what Remain meant. It was Cameron's deal with various opt-outs. The Remain clarity was in stark contrast to what Leave meant.
Rubbish. That assumes that the EU is a static entity that was not going to continue convergence. Cameron's supposed deal was a pipe dream and not worth the fag packet it was written on.
I know where you're coming from, but there is a logic - of sorts - behind these actions.
Heh, not on everything - his words and actions toward Vernon Unsworth were a complete disgrace; hopefully Unsworth will win a very comfortable life for himself if/when that is finally sorted in court.
You are a decent chap, and never assumed otherwise.
There's a bigger issue with Musk's pot smoking: employees at (some? all?) of his companies undergo testing, and are summarily dismissed if they fail. This makes sense for workers with heavy machines or on production lines.
Having the boss so publicly flout the rules is absolutely crass. This is compounded by his stupidity on production line safety.
I love Musk's ambition. I don't like some of the stuff he does in response, and really dislike some of it.
Ken Clarke's declaration he will vote for the deal is significant.
Yeah it's "significant" that the biggest pro-EU fanatic in politics is satisfied Theresa May's deal is Remain in all but name and the referendum result is being overturned...
You are on the extreme view of brexit and you do not seem to realise that extremes are a massive minority
It shows how insular and ridiculous the views on here are that proper Brexit that 17 million people voted for is now being branded "extreme".
You have no evidence that the 17 million voted to trash our manufacturing and the union.
However, if you are confident of your cause support a second referendum
The majority already voted to leave, don't you people understand?
Yes, we do.
Unfortunately too many leavers don't seem to understand that no-one has a clue what 'leave' actually meant. This is due to the central lie at the heart of the leave campaigns, and the inconsistent messages they gave.
Now, if leave had been honest we wouldn't be in this terrible situation. Then again, leave wouldn't have won.
So the leave voters were actually voting for what the remainers wanted all along.
What a load of drivel.
Leave voters were voting for a number of mutually inconsistent positions. Some leave voters preferred all of those positions to remain. Others preferred remain to some of those positions that could be categorised as 'leave' (if you have any doubt about that, think about how many Brexiters don't like the deal which is one form of leave).
Remain voters didn't want to leave in any form, which is probably the key difference.
Remain meant different things to different people, some wanted the status quo, some wanted ever closer union, some wanted to join the Euro, some didn't want to stay in but were too worried about leaving.
The idea that all remain votes were the same is total bollocks frankly.
There was complete clarity of what Remain meant. It was Cameron's deal with various opt-outs. The Remain clarity was in stark contrast to what Leave meant.
Yep. Remain voters may have wanted different things but it was clear which was on the ballot. If for some reason somebody's preference order was join Euro > Leave > Cameron's deal, they'd have known to vote Leave.
It is premature to think that the failure of Rees-Mogg to take 47 others with him at this premature moment offers May any succour either in terms of her passing the Withdrawal Bill or in avoiding a confidence vote on her own leadership should she not change course. Clearly the differences amongst the ERG are tactical and about timing, as evidenced here:
If May's deal goes gets voted down I don't see her having the courage to lead a campaign in parliament to remain in the EU. or for a second referendum, or (worst) a general election.
She would need to stay neutral
As that cunning old Yorkshireman, Harold Wilson did. And came out of the whole thing smelling of roses!
That was Cameron's mistake - as PM he could legitimately 'rise above it' and promise to implement what ever the British people decided - he might then also usefully have engaged some Whitehall expertise in 'No Deal' planning. As it was, he flunked his ultimate 'essay crisis" and we're all paying the price.
I disagree with that. If one negotiates a deal and one thinks it is a good deal, one should argue for it.
Harold didn't. The vote was after his similarly nugatory renegotiation.
And, it did not turn out well for his party.
Block quote system goes awry again!!!! OKC said...... How so; Labour was afterwards, generally pro EU. I know Corbyn’s still sticking to the Bennite line of Socialism in one country, but until immigration started to be an issue Labour, from top to bottom was generally pro-EU. It was the heirs to the League of Empire Loyalists in the Conservatives that have been opposed.
From the botched coup to the breadth of Jacob Rees-Mogg’s lapels a la Brezhnev there is something unmistakably late-era Soviet about the extreme Eurosceptics. As Vytenis Andriukaitis, a Lithuanian member of the European Commission noted on Twitter, the panel of grey men at yesterday’s press conference calling for a no-deal departure from the EU had the air of ageing Bolsheviks who have reached the end of the line. The Tory European Research Group’s efforts to unseat Theresa May might be the worst hardline coup since the 1991 politburo putsch that tried to depose Mikhail Gorbachev.
I am coming to the conclusion that hardline brexiteers dont actually want to leave the EU. Their whole life is based around moaning about the EU and their desire to leave it. If and when we actually leave the EU, what will their purpose be and how will they get on TV. Without moaning about the EU they have nothing to live for.
I do feel some sympathy for JRM. He was promised support, went over the top, then found he'd been lied to by colleagues. At least he had the decency to have the courage of his convictions.
Presumably JRM is no longer even on the 'potential Tory leader' board now, after his demonstration of leadership?
But Boris has done himself no harm by distancing himself from the plotters. Although, to be fair, he seems to have distanced himself from everything in recent days.
Unimportant as has been discussed. The vote is QMV and they do not have the numbers
No it is not unimportant. While technically the withdrawal agreement is QMV the EU has said up front that Spain has a veto over Gibraltar. In the same way that Ireland could have been ignored due to QMV but wasn't.
Even more importantly the future relationship agreement will require unanimity
No it has not. It has said it has a veto over the FTA - which of course is factually correct. For them to say it has a veto over the WA would be against the Lisbon Treaty.
Either No Deal or No Brexit are possibilities if the draft WA gets voted down in the Commons.
Or a general election if May persists with her Deal and the DUP pull the plug and permanent Customs Union and Single Market under PM Corbyn and the SNP
It is premature to think that the failure of Rees-Mogg to take 47 others with him at this premature moment offers May any succour either in terms of her passing the Withdrawal Bill or in avoiding a confidence vote on her own leadership should she not change course. Clearly the differences amongst the ERG are tactical and about timing, as evidenced here:
If May's deal goes gets voted down I don't see her having the courage to lead a campaign in parliament to remain in the EU. or for a second referendum, or (worst) a general election.
She would need to stay neutral
As that cunning old Yorkshireman, Harold Wilson did. And came out of the whole thing smelling of roses!
That was Cameron's mistake - as PM he could legitimately 'rise above it' and promise to implement what ever the British people decided - he might then also usefully have engaged some Whitehall expertise in 'No Deal' planning. As it was, he flunked his ultimate 'essay crisis" and we're all paying the price.
I disagree with that. If one negotiates a deal and one thinks it is a good deal, one should argue for it.
Harold didn't. The vote was after his similarly nugatory renegotiation.
And, it did not turn out well for his party.
Block quote system goes awry again!!!! OKC said...... How so; Labour was afterwards, generally pro EU. I know Corbyn’s still sticking to the Bennite line of Socialism in one country, but until immigration started to be an issue Labour, from top to bottom was generally pro-EU. It was the heirs to the League of Empire Loyalists in the Conservatives that have been opposed.
Labour were very anti-EU up till the late eighties.
In an escalation of the row between Brussels and Rome, the EC has ruled that Rome has “seriously violated” debt rules, and will begin disciplinary procedures.
Italy’s populist government has refused to succumb to pressure to change its deficit target of 2.4% of GDP as it seeks to move forward with election campaign promises, such as introducing a universal basic income, cutting taxes and lowering the retirement age.
In response to the news of disciplinary action, Matteo Salvini, Italy’s deputy prime minister and leader of the far-right League, said: “A letter from the EU? I’m also waiting for one from Father Christmas.”
As I said the other day if you think it being overturned now would be the end of it you are very seriously deluded.
Indeed, the UK is probably done no matter what happens. You might even get to see a sovereign England again, but have to tolerate its new found appreciation of being part of the EU.
The only polling with Yes over 50% in Scotland is with No Deal
Imagine those 17.4 million voters (minus a million say to have reversed the decision) being told week in week out that their vote does not count.
Their vote does count, assuming thy can be arsed going to the polls.
Nope because the politicians will have decided to ignore it once so we will know they can and will do it again unless they get the 'right' answer. That will be the message everyone will get from a second referendum.
From the botched coup to the breadth of Jacob Rees-Mogg’s lapels a la Brezhnev there is something unmistakably late-era Soviet about the extreme Eurosceptics. As Vytenis Andriukaitis, a Lithuanian member of the European Commission noted on Twitter, the panel of grey men at yesterday’s press conference calling for a no-deal departure from the EU had the air of ageing Bolsheviks who have reached the end of the line. The Tory European Research Group’s efforts to unseat Theresa May might be the worst hardline coup since the 1991 politburo putsch that tried to depose Mikhail Gorbachev.
I am coming to the conclusion that hardline brexiteers dont actually want to leave the EU. Their whole life is based around moaning about the EU and their desire to leave it. If and when we actually leave the EU, what will their purpose be and how will they get on TV. Without moaning about the EU they have nothing to live for.
When we leave, they will moan that we haven't left enough. And they will moan that the EU is still our powerful neighbour and (inevitably) retains influence over our country.
In an escalation of the row between Brussels and Rome, the EC has ruled that Rome has “seriously violated” debt rules, and will begin disciplinary procedures.
Italy’s populist government has refused to succumb to pressure to change its deficit target of 2.4% of GDP as it seeks to move forward with election campaign promises, such as introducing a universal basic income, cutting taxes and lowering the retirement age.
In response to the news of disciplinary action, Matteo Salvini, Italy’s deputy prime minister and leader of the far-right League, said: “A letter from the EU? I’m also waiting for one from Father Christmas.”
I'd have thought this would mean France voting for the QMV - the EU don't want an acrimonious Brexit on their hands with Italy going on whilst they can help it.
Seriously though, that was the elephant in the room, (far outweighing anything written on the side of single decker public transport). It was not a vote for the status quo, it was a vote for the Verhofstadts, Selmayrs, and Junckers of this world to claim a Remain vote as an endorsement for years and years of ever closer union and to press on regardless.
Just like Macron and Merkel now endorsing EU armed forces that were not supposedly on the agenda.
Either No Deal or No Brexit are possibilities if the draft WA gets voted down in the Commons.
Or a general election if May persists with her Deal and the DUP pull the plug and permanent Customs Union and Single Market under PM Corbyn and the SNP
It's a possibility, but I'm not sure the numbers are there to vote out the government.
The government has 316 MPs in a vote of confidence, the combined opposition has 323. But 5 MPs have lost the Labour whip, Lady Hermon can't be relied on to vote against the government, and none of the SNP, Lib Dems, Plaid, or DUP can be sure that an early election would benefit them.
As against that, I would not be hugely surprised if a couple of Conservatives simply refused to support the government in a VONC.
I do feel some sympathy for JRM. He was promised support, went over the top, then found he'd been lied to by colleagues. At least he had the decency to have the courage of his convictions.
Presumably JRM is no longer even on the 'potential Tory leader' board now, after his demonstration of leadership?
Was he ever really? Never in cabinet, and nowhere near where the mainstream of politics is, let along the country.
A fair few punters will have lost money backing him, however.
Either No Deal or No Brexit are possibilities if the draft WA gets voted down in the Commons.
Or a general election if May persists with her Deal and the DUP pull the plug and permanent Customs Union and Single Market under PM Corbyn and the SNP
Though Yougov today would see the Tories gain a seat to 319 and could stay in power with the LDs or DUP even with UKIP up to 6%
Ken Clarke's declaration he will vote for the deal is significant.
It shows how insular and ridiculous the views on here are that proper Brexit that 17 million people voted for is now being branded "extreme".
You have no evidence that the 17 million voted to trash our manufacturing and the union.
However, if you are confident of your cause support a second referendum
The majority already voted to leave, don't you people understand?
Yes, we do.
Unfortunately too many leavers don't seem to understand that no-one has a clue what 'leave' actually meant. This is due to the central lie at the heart of the leave campaigns, and the inconsistent messages they gave.
Now, if leave had been honest we wouldn't be in this terrible situation. Then again, leave wouldn't have won.
So the leave voters were actually voting for what the remainers wanted all along.
What a load of drivel.
Leave voters were voting for a number of mutually inconsistent positions. Some leave voters preferred all of those positions to remain. Others preferred remain to some of those positions that could be categorised as 'leave' (if you have any doubt about that, think about how many Brexiters don't like the deal which is one form of leave).
Remain voters didn't want to leave in any form, which is probably the key difference.
Remain meant different things to different people, some wanted the status quo, some wanted ever closer union, some wanted to join the Euro, some didn't want to stay in but were too worried about leaving.
The idea that all remain votes were the same is total bollocks frankly.
There was complete clarity of what Remain meant. It was Cameron's deal with various opt-outs. The Remain clarity was in stark contrast to what Leave meant.
Rubbish. That assumes that the EU is a static entity that was not going to continue convergence. Cameron's supposed deal was a pipe dream and not worth the fag packet it was written on.
Not so. People who voted for Remain were voting for Cameron's deal. That's what would have happened if Remain won. People who voted for Leave were not voting for a particular deal and we have seem the consequence of that. Surely you can see the difference? If not, I can't help you any further.
Either No Deal or No Brexit are possibilities if the draft WA gets voted down in the Commons.
Or a general election if May persists with her Deal and the DUP pull the plug and permanent Customs Union and Single Market under PM Corbyn and the SNP
It's a possibility, but I'm not sure the numbers are there to vote out the government.
The government has 316 MPs in a vote of confidence, the combined opposition has 323. But 5 MPs have lost the Labour whip, Lady Hermon can't be relied on to vote against the government, and none of the SNP, Lib Dems, Plaid, or DUP can be sure that an early election would benefit them.
As against that, I would not be hugely surprised if a couple of Conservatives simply refused to support the government in a VONC.
Indeed and actually Yougov today suggests May could stay PM after a general election.
Her comments on No Deal effectively ruled it out just now and suggested she could go for EUref2 if she cannot get her Deal through
I think we might find out that JRM was actually maintaining a dignified silence, and it was an unannounced trailer for the long awaited revival of Spitting Image which destroyed his political career.
I'm trying to read the tea leaves on Number 10's apparent pivot from "It's my deal or no deal" to "It's my deal or no Brexit". As far as I can tell, it's a bad sign for the prospect of the deal getting through parliament, because it means they've given up on trying to persuade Remain/soft Brexit leaning no-voters, and are instead trying to persuade no deal/hard Brexit leaning no-voters, who are both less numerous and probably more hardened in their opposition. Or is there another interpretation?
Can you imagine how much fun future family gatherings are going to be?
She told the court yesterday that he must have filled out the form she was sent with false information and that she had never asked him why he had done this.
David Jeremy, QC, for the prosecution, said: “If that was true then Festus was letting you walk into a police interview under caution knowing he had put false details on your form and forged your signature. He was essentially setting you up.” Ms Onasanya said: “Yes.”
Asked why her brother would do that, she said: “No one is above mistakes. He is my brother. It’s only me, my brother and mum. I just don’t know why he would do something like this.”
Comments
i) Flying on Russian tech that clearly has issues, a hole and then a RUD on two consecutive launches. Even as someone who thinks we should take more risks I think flying up on Dec 3rd apparently is very soon, NASA is playing with fire letting NASA astronauts on that.
ii) The frankly ridiculous SLS. I know it should be capable, but the cash for that thing is simply extraordinary next to even a quadrupling of the rocket formerly known as BFR's estimate (Which will be too low)
iii) This cultural review taking place at BOTH Boeing (And I don't often defend Boeing) and SpaceX (Ok This is more defensible but still ridiculous) for Elon puffing a joint on the Joe Rogan podcast (Compare and contrast to the attitude toward Roscosmos in i) ). More delays on commercial crew, more US astronauts being sent up on a Russian system with increasing risk.
No wonder SpaceX wants as little as possible to do with NASA when it somes to Starship/SuperHeavy.
The stupidity of so many who dished the deal without reading it or waiting for the final sign off is a lesson to not only politicians, but the media and others, that wisdom comes from commenting on the final written word, not draft pieces of paper. They are 'draft' for a reason
[Didn't Luckyguy return here the other day?]
They will come up with endless mental gymnastics as to why the leave vote doesn't actually mean leaving properly. They'd be exactly the same if they lost again in another referendum.
But I don't want to take up inordinate PB space with this single issue. My point is simply that there are going to be unintended consequences from this agreement, or indeed any agreement, and it is common sense to build in a review in a year's time. There is nothing political or anti-Government in my saying that - it's simply a practical suggestion which I'm also making through official channels.
https://order-order.com/2018/11/21/spain-will-vote-withdrawal-agreement-no-changes-gibraltar/
If May were smart, it would give her a ma-hooosive majority for her deal. "We voted to leave, then we voted how to leave..." It would put the Remainers in the delicious dilemma of having to either abstain or vote for May's Deal. And her successor has the cover of "it is the Will of the People..." when people try to re-open it.
If May were smart. Big caveat.
Solid Tory polling.
Calculator here:
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/voting-calculator/
Business insider reported that back in March The EU gave Spain a veto over the whole deal if they object to the document on the future relationship. Or that is my reading of it.
France (Because Macron thinks he is the new Napoleon)
Italy (Because they may want to raise merry hell)
voting against = 65.88%.
No.
Even more importantly the future relationship agreement will require unanimity
That photo of them looking like the Soviet Politburo in the late 70s might have been the killing blow.
2) America has decided it needs a heavy-lift rocket. The SLS meets that need. The BFR or New Glenn may also meet that need, but they are both uncertain (Musk has admitted theer is a good chance the BFR might not work). Cancel the SLS now, and if those other two projects fail, the US will be without a heavy-lift launcher at the time China are developing one (albeit with their own issues). What is more, the US military do not want to rely on just one launch system, and so the SLS can be seen as very expensive insurance policy. If the BFR and New Glenn meet their objectives, it will be time for the SLS to die.
3) The cultural review is not ridiculous IMO: it should be remembered that NASA are uncertain that one of SpaceX's RUDs might not have been caused by bad practice during assembly. A review might pick up some very useful gotchas, both there and at Boeing. If Roscosmos had had such reviews, they might not have had their failures.
SpaceX say they don't want anything to do with NASA, except when they need technological help, and then they go running to them.
However, if the EU member States were to repudiate the draft agreement, then both sides would have no option but to go for a managed No Deal.
All that Sunday is about is getting the WDA
I know where you're coming from, but there is a logic - of sorts - behind these actions.
How many MPs think No Deal is tolerable or good? 50-100. How many think Remain is tolerable or good? 280-350. How many think the deal is tolerable or good? At the moment, 250-300.
Justice or fairness is irrelevant. It’s all about the numbers in the Commons.
Quote from BBC: 'A British PhD student has been sentenced to life in prison after being found guilty of spying in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
Matthew Hedges, a 31-year-old academic at Durham University, said he was conducting a research trip when he was arrested on 5 May at Dubai airport.
A court in Abu Dhabi has declared him guilty of "spying for or on behalf of" the UK government.'
See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-46288510
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-46288510
From the botched coup to the breadth of Jacob Rees-Mogg’s lapels a la Brezhnev there is something unmistakably late-era Soviet about the extreme Eurosceptics. As Vytenis Andriukaitis, a Lithuanian member of the European Commission noted on Twitter, the panel of grey men at yesterday’s press conference calling for a no-deal departure from the EU had the air of ageing Bolsheviks who have reached the end of the line. The Tory European Research Group’s efforts to unseat Theresa May might be the worst hardline coup since the 1991 politburo putsch that tried to depose Mikhail Gorbachev.
In the event of a "Major Change Vote" vote do you want to add to uncertainty?
There's a bigger issue with Musk's pot smoking: employees at (some? all?) of his companies undergo testing, and are summarily dismissed if they fail. This makes sense for workers with heavy machines or on production lines.
Having the boss so publicly flout the rules is absolutely crass. This is compounded by his stupidity on production line safety.
I love Musk's ambition. I don't like some of the stuff he does in response, and really dislike some of it.
Italy’s populist government has refused to succumb to pressure to change its deficit target of 2.4% of GDP as it seeks to move forward with election campaign promises, such as introducing a universal basic income, cutting taxes and lowering the retirement age.
In response to the news of disciplinary action, Matteo Salvini, Italy’s deputy prime minister and leader of the far-right League, said: “A letter from the EU? I’m also waiting for one from Father Christmas.”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2018/nov/21/markets-rattled-us-china-trade-brexit-pound-dow-ftse-business-live
12:00
Seems her Deal is better than No Deal now as is No Brexit at all
Did it mean no EU army? Oh wait.....
Seriously though, that was the elephant in the room, (far outweighing anything written on the side of single decker public transport). It was not a vote for the status quo, it was a vote for the Verhofstadts, Selmayrs, and Junckers of this world to claim a Remain vote as an endorsement for years and years of ever closer union and to press on regardless.
Just like Macron and Merkel now endorsing EU armed forces that were not supposedly on the agenda.
Every time Mr Corbyn refers to the PM as "she" it sets my teeth on edge.....
The government has 316 MPs in a vote of confidence, the combined opposition has 323. But 5 MPs have lost the Labour whip, Lady Hermon can't be relied on to vote against the government, and none of the SNP, Lib Dems, Plaid, or DUP can be sure that an early election would benefit them.
As against that, I would not be hugely surprised if a couple of Conservatives simply refused to support the government in a VONC.
Her comments on No Deal effectively ruled it out just now and suggested she could go for EUref2 if she cannot get her Deal through
She told the court yesterday that he must have filled out the form she was sent with false information and that she had never asked him why he had done this.
David Jeremy, QC, for the prosecution, said: “If that was true then Festus was letting you walk into a police interview under caution knowing he had put false details on your form and forged your signature. He was essentially setting you up.” Ms Onasanya said: “Yes.”
Asked why her brother would do that, she said: “No one is above mistakes. He is my brother. It’s only me, my brother and mum. I just don’t know why he would do something like this.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mp-fiona-onasanya-accused-of-lying-to-police-blames-brother-9s8jb3662