There is no question of No Brexit. We will leave on March 29th. PM May. Clear as could be for once.
So it's Deal or No Deal on 29th March?
Increasingly likely actually Deal or Remain.
Both preferred to No Deal in Ashcroft's poll today and if May went expect new caretaker PM Lidington to force EUref2 through Parliament on a cross party basis.
I expect if May cannot get her Deal through and has to go she will recommend Deputy PM Lidington as PM to the Queen until a new Tory leader elected, he can then push through EUref2 which Remain likely wins and she gets her revenge on the ERG
Problem with that is could a PM Lidington win a vote of confidence in Parliament? The DUP wouldn't be onside. Headbangers on the ERG side may not too if EURef2 is even suspected.
Ok, so Lidington loses 10 DUP maybe, but 12 LibDems would support him in arranging a new referendum.
I am quite surprised Rory the Tory hasn’t jacked in the MP lark. He has played the game for 10 years and despite being competent he gets overlooked time and time again. I am sure lots of other governments and NGOs would be more than happy to employ his services.
1. I actually think he enjoys it - regular communication through social media about him wandering around the borders and meeting people.
May appears to have intimated that if her deal is rejected by Parliament then we leave with no deal.
It took the presenter about 8 goes to get an answer from her.
If that is what she is saying, she has been grossly negligent in failing to prepare for no deal. If she wants Corbyn to be her successor, she is going the right way about it.
Agreed. Even Corbyn wouldn't be that stupid, a sentence I never thought I'd be saying.
How can you prepare for no deal in two years witthout massive expense?
Why would it cost so much to prepare for something? It's got to be better than crashing out with no preparations whatsoever.
And then when there is a deal people would go mental for all the money wasted on no deal preparations.
They really wouldn't.
It's called insurance. A concept not exactly alien to voters....
Especially as it would probably allow us to get a much better deal, saving us money every year from then onward.
Yep. It's almost as if they realised that making the case to prepare for No Deal Brexit might have shown with some pre-planning, it needn't be the Project Fear Scary Thing that it has been painted as....
Have to admire May going all out to sell her deal. It's almost George Foreman 'so good I put my name on it' territory.
But going over the heads of MPs to appeal to the public, while absolutely adamant that the public can have no say and have to bound by 2016 - not sure she has really thought those optics through here.
If it leads to a consensus that May did her best but Brexit is rubbish, I don’t see the downside for her. She can ultimately relent on a people’s vote, or wait for the Brexiteers to throw in the towel.
"If it leads to a consensus that May did her best but Brexit is rubbish"
It will never lead to that. At most, it will lead to the consensus that May's best was rubbish.
Brexit isn't rubbish; just it's implementation by Remainers. I think we can all reach a consensus on that....
Brexit is complete rubbish - on top of which it is being implemented by Conservatives.
You see - I can be just as assertive and dogmatic as you are!
I think Saudi Arabia may be trying to placate Trump over the Khashoggi killing by pumping out the oil, which has just caused the price to go below $60.
Perhaps the Conservative Party could stop navel gazing and start thinking about consequences.
Which John McD is the real one?
Last week he was in the Newstatesman posing as a mild mannered provincial bank manager, reassuring everyone that hardly anyone would pay more tax and that everything had to be done in a sensible, restrained manner, because they need to reach out to ordinary middle income voters.
This week, he seems to be rebuilding Britain as modern version of the Soviets.
I'm not sure you understand his political philosophy at all. The entire point is that the system concentrates wealth into a tiny elite which is certainly much, much smaller than the top 5%- and that's not even starting on the difference between income and wealth (which is far less equally distributed). Focusing on a small percentage rather than taxing the 20% to benefit the 80% isn't a compromise to electability, it's a central feature of his politics.
Whether any of this is realistic or achievable is, of course, an entirely different question.
I don't think wealth is that highly concentrated. Yes, the top 1% are very rich, but the median household has net wealth of £278,000.
If he just wants to redistribute the wealth of the 1 or 2 top %, why does he go on about overthrowing capitalism?
Which is it?
Some redistribution of wealth or destroying our entire economic system?
To be honest we've needed a reset in this country for years. For example house prices and rents are far too high for the young to ever have a decent life. The time for house prices to fall was in 2008 during the banking crisis, but consecutive governments have propped them up at taxpayers expense.
Maybe a no deal Brexit or Corbyn disaster will be the reset the country needs.
Iceland had a bigger reset in 2008 when they didn't bail out the banks and everyone told them they were crazy. They've recovered to be doing better than us now.
McDonell wouldn't be a reset though, he would be a constant source of economic damage whilst he remained in power.
May appears to have intimated that if her deal is rejected by Parliament then we leave with no deal.
It took the presenter about 8 goes to get an answer from her.
If that is what she is saying, she has been grossly negligent in failing to prepare for no deal. If she wants Corbyn to be her successor, she is going the right way about it.
Agreed. Even Corbyn wouldn't be that stupid, a sentence I never thought I'd be saying.
How can you prepare for no deal in two years witthout massive expense?
Why would it cost so much to prepare for something? It's got to be better than crashing out with no preparations whatsoever.
And then when there is a deal people would go mental for all the money wasted on no deal preparations.
They really wouldn't.
It's called insurance. A concept not exactly alien to voters....
Especially as it would probably allow us to get a much better deal, saving us money every year from then onward.
You need to stop dreaming that any better deal would be on offer from the EU. What May has got is all they will ever offer. She has done well to get as much as she did. You just need to look at their treatment of Greece to see how stubborn they are. Even if the messiah Corbyn was PM we will never get a better deal than the one on the table now.
@Topping, I really wouldn’t try and get sensible, pragmatic answers out of the madder Brexit enthusasists. I see them as some sort of Dadaist thought experiment to see what is the limit of other peoples’ exasperated tolerance and politeness.
Have to admire May going all out to sell her deal. It's almost George Foreman 'so good I put my name on it' territory.
But going over the heads of MPs to appeal to the public, while absolutely adamant that the public can have no say and have to bound by 2016 - not sure she has really thought those optics through here.
If it leads to a consensus that May did her best but Brexit is rubbish, I don’t see the downside for her. She can ultimately relent on a people’s vote, or wait for the Brexiteers to throw in the towel.
"If it leads to a consensus that May did her best but Brexit is rubbish"
It will never lead to that. At most, it will lead to the consensus that May's best was rubbish.
Brexit isn't rubbish; just it's implementation by Remainers. I think we can all reach a consensus on that....
Brexit is complete rubbish - on top of which it is being implemented by Conservatives.
You see - I can be just as assertive and dogmatic as you are!
I think Saudi Arabia may be trying to placate Trump over the Khashoggi killing by pumping out the oil, which has just caused the price to go below $60.
That was my impression from Trump's recent comments.
BTW, I'm far from a fan of Erdogan, but his handling of this issue has been sublime. It's also rather ironic than some are hailing Erdogan as a defender of the press, when he's got lots of journalists locked up ...
I think Saudi Arabia may be trying to placate Trump over the Khashoggi killing by pumping out the oil, which has just caused the price to go below $60.
That was my impression from Trump's recent comments.
BTW, I'm far from a fan of Erdogan, but his handling of this issue has been sublime. It's also rather ironic than some are hailing Erdogan as a defender of the press, when he's got lots of journalists locked up ...
Perhaps the Conservative Party could stop navel gazing and start thinking about consequences.
Which John McD is the real one?
Last week he was in the Newstatesman posing as a mild mannered provincial bank manager, reassuring everyone that hardly anyone would pay more tax and that everything had to be done in a sensible, restrained manner, because they need to reach out to ordinary middle income voters.
This week, he seems to be rebuilding Britain as modern version of the Soviets.
I'm not sure you understand his political philosophy at all. The entire point is that the system concentrates wealth into a tiny elite which is certainly much, much smaller than the top 5%- and that's not even starting on the difference between income and wealth (which is far less equally distributed). Focusing on a small percentage rather than taxing the 20% to benefit the 80% isn't a compromise to electability, it's a central feature of his politics.
Whether any of this is realistic or achievable is, of course, an entirely different question.
I don't think wealth is that highly concentrated. Yes, the top 1% are very rich, but the median household has net wealth of £278,000.
If he just wants to redistribute the wealth of the 1 or 2 top %, why does he go on about overthrowing capitalism?
Which is it?
Some redistribution of wealth or destroying our entire economic system?
To be honest we've needed a reset in this country for years. For example house prices and rents are far too high for the young to ever have a decent life. The time for house prices to fall was in 2008 during the banking crisis, but consecutive governments have propped them up at taxpayers expense.
Maybe a no deal Brexit or Corbyn disaster will be the reset the country needs.
Iceland had a bigger reset in 2008 when they didn't bail out the banks and everyone told them they were crazy. They've recovered to be doing better than us now.
The reason house prices are so high is that the population has been increasing at a high rate in this country compared to other European countries like Germany for example.
Perhaps the Conservative Party could stop navel gazing and start thinking about consequences.
Which John McD is the real one?
Last week he was in the Newstatesman posing as a mild mannered provincial bank manager, reassuring everyone that hardly anyone would pay more tax and that everything had to be done in a sensible, restrained manner, because they need to reach out to ordinary middle income voters.
This week, he seems to be rebuilding Britain as modern version of the Soviets.
I'm not sure you understand his political philosophy at all. The entire point is that the system concentrates wealth into a tiny elite which is certainly much, much smaller than the top 5%- and that's not even starting on the difference between income and wealth (which is far less equally distributed). Focusing on a small percentage rather than taxing the 20% to benefit the 80% isn't a compromise to electability, it's a central feature of his politics.
Whether any of this is realistic or achievable is, of course, an entirely different question.
I don't think wealth is that highly concentrated. Yes, the top 1% are very rich, but the median household has net wealth of £278,000.
If he just wants to redistribute the wealth of the 1 or 2 top %, why does he go on about overthrowing capitalism?
Which is it?
Some redistribution of wealth or destroying our entire economic system?
To be honest we've needed a reset in this country for years. For example house prices and rents are far too high for the young to ever have a decent life. The time for house prices to fall was in 2008 during the banking crisis, but consecutive governments have propped them up at taxpayers expense.
Maybe a no deal Brexit or Corbyn disaster will be the reset the country needs.
Iceland had a bigger reset in 2008 when they didn't bail out the banks and everyone told them they were crazy. They've recovered to be doing better than us now.
McDonell wouldn't be a reset though, he would be a constant source of economic damage whilst he remained in power.
Well I agree, but he won't be there forever. A lot of the best opportunities were in the 80s after the chaos of the 70s.
There is no question of No Brexit. We will leave on March 29th. PM May. Clear as could be for once.
So it's Deal or No Deal on 29th March?
Increasingly likely actually Deal or Remain.
Both preferred to No Deal in Ashcroft's poll today and if May went expect new caretaker PM Lidington to force EUref2 through Parliament on a cross party basis.
I expect if May cannot get her Deal through and has to go she will recommend Deputy PM Lidington as PM to the Queen until a new Tory leader elected, he can then push through EUref2 which Remain likely wins and she gets her revenge on the ERG
Problem with that is could a PM Lidington win a vote of confidence in Parliament? The DUP wouldn't be onside. Headbangers on the ERG side may not too if EURef2 is even suspected.
Ok, so Lidington loses 10 DUP maybe, but 12 LibDems would support him in arranging a new referendum.
Possibly. But under that scenario, he might gain Labour support, but would lose the whole ERG. Lidington would be the Tory Ramsay MacDonald. Remarkable speculation. Not entirely impossible, although unlikely. Anything is possible these days.
Have to admire May going all out to sell her deal. It's almost George Foreman 'so good I put my name on it' territory.
But going over the heads of MPs to appeal to the public, while absolutely adamant that the public can have no say and have to bound by 2016 - not sure she has really thought those optics through here.
If it leads to a consensus that May did her best but Brexit is rubbish, I don’t see the downside for her. She can ultimately relent on a people’s vote, or wait for the Brexiteers to throw in the towel.
"If it leads to a consensus that May did her best but Brexit is rubbish"
It will never lead to that. At most, it will lead to the consensus that May's best was rubbish.
Brexit isn't rubbish; just it's implementation by Remainers. I think we can all reach a consensus on that....
Good one! Almost up there with the finest from Rees Moggs comedy troupe this week. The biggest lie of all - that Brexit would be easy. The most painful truth - that this is EXACTLY what Brexit means.
May appears to have intimated that if her deal is rejected by Parliament then we leave with no deal.
It took the presenter about 8 goes to get an answer from her.
If that is what she is saying, she has been grossly negligent in failing to prepare for no deal. If she wants Corbyn to be her successor, she is going the right way about it.
Agreed. Even Corbyn wouldn't be that stupid, a sentence I never thought I'd be saying.
How can you prepare for no deal in two years witthout massive expense?
Why would it cost so much to prepare for something? It's got to be better than crashing out with no preparations whatsoever.
And then when there is a deal people would go mental for all the money wasted on no deal preparations.
They really wouldn't.
It's called insurance. A concept not exactly alien to voters....
Especially as it would probably allow us to get a much better deal, saving us money every year from then onward.
Sorry to be the boring one but what no deal preparations would you have instituted in Crossmaglen?
Hordes of fanatical Brexit supporters volunteering to patrol the border? It would be the natural thing for uber patriots.
May appears to have intimated that if her deal is rejected by Parliament then we leave with no deal.
It took the presenter about 8 goes to get an answer from her.
If that is what she is saying, she has been grossly negligent in failing to prepare for no deal. If she wants Corbyn to be her successor, she is going the right way about it.
Agreed. Even Corbyn wouldn't be that stupid, a sentence I never thought I'd be saying.
How can you prepare for no deal in two years witthout massive expense?
Why would it cost so much to prepare for something? It's got to be better than crashing out with no preparations whatsoever.
And then when there is a deal people would go mental for all the money wasted on no deal preparations.
They really wouldn't.
It's called insurance. A concept not exactly alien to voters....
Especially as it would probably allow us to get a much better deal, saving us money every year from then onward.
Sorry to be the boring one but what no deal preparations would you have instituted in Crossmaglen?
Well when the EU said there's no chance of a trade deal without freedom of movement which was one of May's red lines we should have said, ok let's prepare for WTO exit and sort stuff out to keep planes in the air etc. so we don't crash out with absolute chaos.
"No deal" doesn't mean we don't talk to the EU at all about anything.
I'm not sure what is so difficult with this concept and why people are pretending that it wasn't possible.
It's almost exclusively peddled by remainers who really didn't want us to leave at all.
May appears to have intimated that if her deal is rejected by Parliament then we leave with no deal.
It took the presenter about 8 goes to get an answer from her.
If that is what she is saying, she has been grossly negligent in failing to prepare for no deal. If she wants Corbyn to be her successor, she is going the right way about it.
Agreed. Even Corbyn wouldn't be that stupid, a sentence I never thought I'd be saying.
How can you prepare for no deal in two years witthout massive expense?
Why would it cost so much to prepare for something? It's got to be better than crashing out with no preparations whatsoever.
And then when there is a deal people would go mental for all the money wasted on no deal preparations.
They really wouldn't.
It's called insurance. A concept not exactly alien to voters....
Especially as it would probably allow us to get a much better deal, saving us money every year from then onward.
Sorry to be the boring one but what no deal preparations would you have instituted in Crossmaglen?
Hordes of fanatical Brexit supporters volunteering to patrol the border? It would be the natural thing for uber patriots.
Under the bold, inspirational leadership of Captain Moggainwaring
Well when the EU said there's no chance of a trade deal without freedom of movement which was one of May's red lines we should have said, ok let's prepare for WTO exit and sort stuff out to keep planes in the air etc. so we don't crash out with absolute chaos.
"No deal" doesn't mean we don't talk to the EU at all about anything.
I'm not sure what is so difficult with this concept and why people are pretending that it wasn't possible.
It's almost exclusively peddled by remainers who really didn't want us to leave at all.
With the one exception of what happens about the Irish border, you are right: we could do a deal with the EU for an orderly transition to WTO terms. In fact (again apart from the Irish border issue) we can still do that. Nothing in the political declaration precludes that, although as a matter of courtesy it might be a good idea to tell the EU not to waste further time on trying to get the free trade deal that the Leavers were going on about before the referendum
To make this happen, we would of course still have to sign the withdrawal agreement, which is easy enough. Lord only knows what you do about the Irish border issue in that scenario, though.
May appears to have intimated that if her deal is rejected by Parliament then we leave with no deal.
It took the presenter about 8 goes to get an answer from her.
If that is what she is saying, she has been grossly negligent in failing to prepare for no deal. If she wants Corbyn to be her successor, she is going the right way about it.
Agreed. Even Corbyn wouldn't be that stupid, a sentence I never thought I'd be saying.
How can you prepare for no deal in two years witthout massive expense?
Why would it cost so much to prepare for something? It's got to be better than crashing out with no preparations whatsoever.
And then when there is a deal people would go mental for all the money wasted on no deal preparations.
They really wouldn't.
It's called insurance. A concept not exactly alien to voters....
Especially as it would probably allow us to get a much better deal, saving us money every year from then onward.
Sorry to be the boring one but what no deal preparations would you have instituted in Crossmaglen?
Hordes of fanatical Brexit supporters volunteering to patrol the border? It would be the natural thing for uber patriots.
I have often wondered about the legacy use of Farage and Hoey's boat. Clearly it could be gainfully employed patrolling the River Foyle.
May appears to have intimated that if her deal is rejected by Parliament then we leave with no deal.
It took the presenter about 8 goes to get an answer from her.
If that is what she is saying, she has been grossly negligent in failing to prepare for no deal. If she wants Corbyn to be her successor, she is going the right way about it.
Agreed. Even Corbyn wouldn't be that stupid, a sentence I never thought I'd be saying.
How can you prepare for no deal in two years witthout massive expense?
Why would it cost so much to prepare for something? It's got to be better than crashing out with no preparations whatsoever.
And then when there is a deal people would go mental for all the money wasted on no deal preparations.
They really wouldn't.
It's called insurance. A concept not exactly alien to voters....
Especially as it would probably allow us to get a much better deal, saving us money every year from then onward.
Sorry to be the boring one but what no deal preparations would you have instituted in Crossmaglen?
Well when the EU said there's no chance of a trade deal without freedom of movement which was one of May's red lines we should have said, ok let's prepare for WTO exit and sort stuff out to keep planes in the air etc. so we don't crash out with absolute chaos.
"No deal" doesn't mean we don't talk to the EU at all about anything.
I'm not sure what is so difficult with this concept and why people are pretending that it wasn't possible.
It's almost exclusively peddled by remainers who really didn't want us to leave at all.
Yes yes but what actually would you have done? What measures would you have put in place?
Yep. It's almost as if they realised that making the case to prepare for No Deal Brexit might have shown with some pre-planning, it needn't be the Project Fear Scary Thing that it has been painted as....
Yes yes but what actually would you have done? What measures would you have put in place?
I've been asking for weeks about what these no-deal preparation measures are supposed to consist of, beyond what the government is doing. No answer as yet.
I think that actually far from being thick they were more likely the sort of highly intelligent, zero common sense people you precisely don't want on a jury.
Yes yes but what actually would you have done? What measures would you have put in place?
I've been asking for weeks about what these no-deal preparation measures are supposed to consist of, beyond what the government is doing. No answer as yet.
I think that actually far from being thick they were more likely the sort of highly intelligent, zero common sense people you precisely don't want on a jury.
I think we need more openness as far as juries are concerned, like they have in the United States. It's far too secret at the moment. Once the trial is over, jurors ought to be able to talk about how and why they reached their decisions, if they choose to do so.
As it is Black Friday, public service announcement. For those that don’t know camelcamelcamel is a great website for tracking historical prices on amazon so you can check if it really is a good deal or not.
Yes yes but what actually would you have done? What measures would you have put in place?
I've been asking for weeks about what these no-deal preparation measures are supposed to consist of, beyond what the government is doing. No answer as yet.
It is almost as if there is no answer at all!
In many cases there isn't. If a major export client is going to have to stop taking your stuff because the regulatory framework dissolves, no amount of unilateral government preparation is going to somehow magically create substitute markets or allow you to smuggle the stuff in anyhow. Similarly for customs delays on their side; there's nothing we can do to force the French to wave through lorries if they don't want to.
Well when the EU said there's no chance of a trade deal without freedom of movement which was one of May's red lines we should have said, ok let's prepare for WTO exit and sort stuff out to keep planes in the air etc. so we don't crash out with absolute chaos.
"No deal" doesn't mean we don't talk to the EU at all about anything.
I'm not sure what is so difficult with this concept and why people are pretending that it wasn't possible.
It's almost exclusively peddled by remainers who really didn't want us to leave at all.
With the one exception of what happens about the Irish border, you are right: we could do a deal with the EU for an orderly transition to WTO terms. In fact (again apart from the Irish border issue) we can still do that. Nothing in the political declaration precludes that, although as a matter of courtesy it might be a good idea to tell the EU not to waste further time on trying to get the free trade deal that the Leavers were going on about before the referendum
To make this happen, we would of course still have to sign the withdrawal agreement, which is easy enough. Lord only knows what you do about the Irish border issue in that scenario, though.
Yes two years were wasted by May on a trade deal that they didn't want to give us. After a few weeks this was obvious whatever anyone said before, so she should have planned for it.
Now there's not enough time to sort this out before March, which means we have to pay the EU another £39bn and agree to loads of stuff no one wants which will be a complete waste if we just end up at WTO anyway.
The Irish border...just don't build one. Neither Britain, Northern Ireland or Ireland want it.
The Irish border...just don't build one. Neither Britain, Northern Ireland or Ireland want it.
I agree, but it's not me you need to persuade. If you want a smooth transition - which, unless you are a complete loon, you do - you've got to persuade the EU.
I think that actually far from being thick they were more likely the sort of highly intelligent, zero common sense people you precisely don't want on a jury.
I think we need more openness as far as juries are concerned, like they have in the United States. It's far too secret at the moment. Once the trial is over, jurors ought to be able to talk about how and why they reached their decisions, if they choose to do so.
ISTR the Jeremy Thorpe case is the reason why English juries are put under an omertà.
Well when the EU said there's no chance of a trade deal without freedom of movement which was one of May's red lines we should have said, ok let's prepare for WTO exit and sort stuff out to keep planes in the air etc. so we don't crash out with absolute chaos.
"No deal" doesn't mean we don't talk to the EU at all about anything.
I'm not sure what is so difficult with this concept and why people are pretending that it wasn't possible.
It's almost exclusively peddled by remainers who really didn't want us to leave at all.
With the one exception of what happens about the Irish border, you are right: we could do a deal with the EU for an orderly transition to WTO terms. In fact (again apart from the Irish border issue) we can still do that. Nothing in the political declaration precludes that, although as a matter of courtesy it might be a good idea to tell the EU not to waste further time on trying to get the free trade deal that the Leavers were going on about before the referendum
To make this happen, we would of course still have to sign the withdrawal agreement, which is easy enough. Lord only knows what you do about the Irish border issue in that scenario, though.
Yes two years were wasted by May on a trade deal that they didn't want to give us. After a few weeks this was obvious whatever anyone said before, so she should have planned for it.
Now there's not enough time to sort this out before March, which means we have to pay the EU another £39bn and agree to loads of stuff no one wants which will be a complete waste if we just end up at WTO anyway.
The Irish border...just don't build one. Neither Britain, Northern Ireland or Ireland want it.
God we've been through this before (clue: it's out of their hands; it would be a WTO issue) but more interestingly, the old take back control of borders, money, laws thing. I didn't realise there was an appendix consisting of "apart from the following" on these.
The Irish border...just don't build one. Neither Britain, Northern Ireland or Ireland want it.
I agree, but it's not me you need to persuade. If you want a smooth transition - which, unless you a complete loon, you do - you've got to persuade the EU.
If after we've left the EU they decide to do something utterly ridiculous and impractical motivated purely out of spite then it's up to them. There's literally nothing we can do about it.
When they have their EU army I'm sure Macron and his mates will be invading all over the place, but we can't stop that either. It's another great reason for leaving the rotten organisation.
But anyway my feeling is the EU wouldn't build a border across Ireland, even they aren't quite that stupid. It's a bluff and they need to be called on it.
The Irish border...just don't build one. Neither Britain, Northern Ireland or Ireland want it.
I agree, but it's not me you need to persuade. If you want a smooth transition - which, unless you are a complete loon, you do - you've got to persuade the EU.
It's not the EU Richard. The EU, RoI, NI, GB don't want a hard border. But it would be out of their hands in a no-deal, WTO scenario. That is what none of those actors can risk.
So why not a deal which includes an RoI component and voila, out of the clutches of the WTO? Well that is precisely the point of the WA and the backstop.
There really is no other option and it is disingenuous of you to lay the blame at the EU's door.
I think that actually far from being thick they were more likely the sort of highly intelligent, zero common sense people you precisely don't want on a jury.
I did jury service five years ago, and found it very interesting.
Will May ever give a straight answer to a simple question?
I expect that if her deal fails she will change tack again. What to is anybody's guess. She seems to say something one day and then seemingly contradict it the day after. She rows one way and then the other, she is a tactical genius or hasn't really got a a clue what she's doing. I haven't quite decided which yet
She is basically someone who routinely makes false claims and insincere promises that she is perfectly prepared to break, saying anything in order to survive on a day to day basis regardless of the consequences while leading the country into the abyss. Her problem after 2+ years as PM is that almost everyone has seen through her now and realises that her words mean nothing. 18 resignations to date from the Government payroll over Brexit to date says it all.
The Irish border...just don't build one. Neither Britain, Northern Ireland or Ireland want it.
I agree, but it's not me you need to persuade. If you want a smooth transition - which, unless you are a complete loon, you do - you've got to persuade the EU.
It's not the EU Richard. The EU, RoI, NI, GB don't want a hard border. But it would be out of their hands in a no-deal, WTO scenario. That is what none of those actors can risk.
So why not a deal which includes an RoI component and voila, out of the clutches of the WTO? Well that is precisely the point of the WA and the backstop.
There really is no other option and it is disingenuous of you to lay the blame at the EU's door.
I was being helpful to Xenon - even if the Irish border isn't an issue in reality, it's still an obstacle in the negotiations if the EU think it's an issue. I was challenging the ridiculous idea that we can unilaterally go for some mythical 'no deal' which somehow includes doing a deal with the EU (apparently without bothering to get their consent) on lots and lots of issues - 500+ pages worth, as we know.
The Irish border...just don't build one. Neither Britain, Northern Ireland or Ireland want it.
I agree, but it's not me you need to persuade. If you want a smooth transition - which, unless you a complete loon, you do - you've got to persuade the EU.
If after we've left the EU they decide to do something utterly ridiculous and impractical motivated purely out of spite then it's up to them. There's literally nothing we can do about it.
When they have their EU army I'm sure Macron and his mates will be invading all over the place, but we can't stop that either. It's another great reason for leaving the rotten organisation.
But anyway my feeling is the EU wouldn't build a border across Ireland, even they aren't quite that stupid. It's a bluff and they need to be called on it.
You completely misunderstand the EU, the Irish Border, the WTO and probably just about everything else. That you manage somehow to work the posting mechanism on this forum is becoming an increasing source of wonder.
There is no question of No Brexit. We will leave on March 29th. PM May. Clear as could be for once.
So it's Deal or No Deal on 29th March?
Increasingly likely actually Deal or Remain.
Both preferred to No Deal in Ashcroft's poll today and if May went expect new caretaker PM Lidington to force EUref2 through Parliament on a cross party basis.
I expect if May cannot get her Deal through and has to go she will recommend Deputy PM Lidington as PM to the Queen until a new Tory leader elected, he can then push through EUref2 which Remain likely wins and she gets her revenge on the ERG
Problem with that is could a PM Lidington win a vote of confidence in Parliament? The DUP wouldn't be onside. Headbangers on the ERG side may not too if EURef2 is even suspected.
Ok, so Lidington loses 10 DUP maybe, but 12 LibDems would support him in arranging a new referendum.
Possibly. But under that scenario, he might gain Labour support, but would lose the whole ERG. Lidington would be the Tory Ramsay MacDonald. Remarkable speculation. Not entirely impossible, although unlikely. Anything is possible these days.
I think that actually far from being thick they were more likely the sort of highly intelligent, zero common sense people you precisely don't want on a jury.
I did jury service five years ago, and found it very interesting.
I have been selected for Jury service 3 times (not just in the pool but cited and given a a date to attend) and each time been dismissed without serving.
I think that actually far from being thick they were more likely the sort of highly intelligent, zero common sense people you precisely don't want on a jury.
I did jury service five years ago, and found it very interesting.
As a solicitor, how did you find the performance of the judicial system taken as a whole? I find the Secret Barrister an interesting and at times very depressing view of a world I know next to nothing about.
I'm mildly amused that Theresa May stating a position is taken as something that won't change in the future. That said, if she does stay that probably increases the chances of a second referendum.
I think that actually far from being thick they were more likely the sort of highly intelligent, zero common sense people you precisely don't want on a jury.
I think we need more openness as far as juries are concerned, like they have in the United States. It's far too secret at the moment. Once the trial is over, jurors ought to be able to talk about how and why they reached their decisions, if they choose to do so.
ISTR the Jeremy Thorpe case is the reason why English juries are put under an omertà.
We want to avoid going down the American route.
I find the whole concept of DAs attacking the accused the moment they charged.
I find that hard to reconcile with good jurisprudence.
I think that actually far from being thick they were more likely the sort of highly intelligent, zero common sense people you precisely don't want on a jury.
I did jury service five years ago, and found it very interesting.
I have been selected for Jury service 3 times (not just in the pool but cited and given a a date to attend) and each time been dismissed without serving.
Around 95% of court cases are resolved before the jury ever gets called into action.
The Irish border...just don't build one. Neither Britain, Northern Ireland or Ireland want it.
I agree, but it's not me you need to persuade. If you want a smooth transition - which, unless you are a complete loon, you do - you've got to persuade the EU.
It's not the EU Richard. The EU, RoI, NI, GB don't want a hard border. But it would be out of their hands in a no-deal, WTO scenario. That is what none of those actors can risk.
So why not a deal which includes an RoI component and voila, out of the clutches of the WTO? Well that is precisely the point of the WA and the backstop.
There really is no other option and it is disingenuous of you to lay the blame at the EU's door.
I was being helpful to Xenon - even if the Irish border isn't an issue in reality, it's still an obstacle in the negotiations if the EU think it's an issue. I was challenging the ridiculous idea that we can unilaterally go for some mythical 'no deal' which somehow includes doing a deal with the EU (apparently without bothering to get their consent) on lots and lots of issues - 500+ pages worth, as we know.
Yes, well, I think he needs all the help he can get.
I think that actually far from being thick they were more likely the sort of highly intelligent, zero common sense people you precisely don't want on a jury.
I did jury service five years ago, and found it very interesting.
I have been selected for Jury service 3 times (not just in the pool but cited and given a a date to attend) and each time been dismissed without serving.
Was it that rolled up copy of the Daily Telegraph that did it?
I think that actually far from being thick they were more likely the sort of highly intelligent, zero common sense people you precisely don't want on a jury.
I think we need more openness as far as juries are concerned, like they have in the United States. It's far too secret at the moment. Once the trial is over, jurors ought to be able to talk about how and why they reached their decisions, if they choose to do so.
I agree but one can easily imagine a Yes Minister conversation in which all decide that it opens the floodgates to more freedom of speech so it mustn't happen under any circumstances.
At the moment we're still prohibited from taking photographs in a courtroom. Maybe best to repeal that daft rule. Then allow broadcasting of some trials in the public interest, i.e. as with parliament. Then finally allow jurors to talk.
I think that actually far from being thick they were more likely the sort of highly intelligent, zero common sense people you precisely don't want on a jury.
I did jury service five years ago, and found it very interesting.
As a solicitor, how did you find the performance of the judicial system taken as a whole? I find the Secret Barrister an interesting and at times very depressing view of a world I know next to nothing about.
The prosecution and defence were both very junior barristers. In the heyday of legal aid, they'd have had solicitors in Court with then.
But, I think they both did their jobs competently, and the jury were conscientious. So, I was quite impressed.
I think that actually far from being thick they were more likely the sort of highly intelligent, zero common sense people you precisely don't want on a jury.
I think we need more openness as far as juries are concerned, like they have in the United States. It's far too secret at the moment. Once the trial is over, jurors ought to be able to talk about how and why they reached their decisions, if they choose to do so.
ISTR the Jeremy Thorpe case is the reason why English juries are put under an omertà.
The Irish border...just don't build one. Neither Britain, Northern Ireland or Ireland want it.
I agree, but it's not me you need to persuade. If you want a smooth transition - which, unless you are a complete loon, you do - you've got to persuade the EU.
It's not the EU Richard. The EU, RoI, NI, GB don't want a hard border. But it would be out of their hands in a no-deal, WTO scenario. That is what none of those actors can risk.
So why not a deal which includes an RoI component and voila, out of the clutches of the WTO? Well that is precisely the point of the WA and the backstop.
There really is no other option and it is disingenuous of you to lay the blame at the EU's door.
I was being helpful to Xenon - even if the Irish border isn't an issue in reality, it's still an obstacle in the negotiations if the EU think it's an issue. I was challenging the ridiculous idea that we can unilaterally go for some mythical 'no deal' which somehow includes doing a deal with the EU (apparently without bothering to get their consent) on lots and lots of issues - 500+ pages worth, as we know.
It wouldn't be unilateral, that's the whole point. We should have stopped asking for the trade deal which was the main problem in the negotiations (because they wouldn't give it to us without a load of unacceptable stuff) in order to get a cleaner break. It's not rocket science.
The reason the EU is playing hardball over the Irish border is because we want a trade deal so they have lots of leverage. They could make a deal with us about that without all the other crap if we're just looking for a clean exit with no "cherry picking".
The Irish border...just don't build one. Neither Britain, Northern Ireland or Ireland want it.
I agree, but it's not me you need to persuade. If you want a smooth transition - which, unless you are a complete loon, you do - you've got to persuade the EU.
They're going to need that EU Army - to protect that border from the Ra.....
Theresa May has belatedly realised that she needs to adapt or die, and now she has to make her decision.
It does seem like May will almost certainly choose to have her benighted deal be the pyre upon which her career is roasted.
I'm intrigued at her new strategy of hinting she'll resign if she loses the meaningful vote. ( She refused to answer this point 3 times in a row thus afternoon. ) Thee vast majority of MPs planning to vote against her deal will consider that a BOGOF offer.
The Irish border...just don't build one. Neither Britain, Northern Ireland or Ireland want it.
I agree, but it's not me you need to persuade. If you want a smooth transition - which, unless you a complete loon, you do - you've got to persuade the EU.
If after we've left the EU they decide to do something utterly ridiculous and impractical motivated purely out of spite then it's up to them. There's literally nothing we can do about it.
When they have their EU army I'm sure Macron and his mates will be invading all over the place, but we can't stop that either. It's another great reason for leaving the rotten organisation.
But anyway my feeling is the EU wouldn't build a border across Ireland, even they aren't quite that stupid. It's a bluff and they need to be called on it.
You completely misunderstand the EU, the Irish Border, the WTO and probably just about everything else. That you manage somehow to work the posting mechanism on this forum is becoming an increasing source of wonder.
Patronising drivel whilst adding nothing to the conversation. Your speciality in fact.
The Irish border...just don't build one. Neither Britain, Northern Ireland or Ireland want it.
I agree, but it's not me you need to persuade. If you want a smooth transition - which, unless you are a complete loon, you do - you've got to persuade the EU.
It's not the EU Richard. The EU, RoI, NI, GB don't want a hard border. But it would be out of their hands in a no-deal, WTO scenario. That is what none of those actors can risk.
So why not a deal which includes an RoI component and voila, out of the clutches of the WTO? Well that is precisely the point of the WA and the backstop.
There really is no other option and it is disingenuous of you to lay the blame at the EU's door.
I was being helpful to Xenon - even if the Irish border isn't an issue in reality, it's still an obstacle in the negotiations if the EU think it's an issue. I was challenging the ridiculous idea that we can unilaterally go for some mythical 'no deal' which somehow includes doing a deal with the EU (apparently without bothering to get their consent) on lots and lots of issues - 500+ pages worth, as we know.
It wouldn't be unilateral, that's the whole point. We should have stopped asking for the trade deal which was the main problem in the negotiations (because they wouldn't give it to us without a load of unacceptable stuff) in order to get a cleaner break. It's not rocket science.
The reason the EU is playing hardball over the Irish border is because we want a trade deal so they have lots of leverage. They could make a deal with us about that without all the other crap if we're just looking for a clean exit with no "cherry picking".
So we're leaving the EU because we want to be able to agree trade deals around the world but we don't want a trade deal with the EU?
I'm getting a bit lost now. I thought that the most hardline Brexiters were now in favour of remaining in the EU.
That's right. The EU appeasers want to ratify May's vassalage deal, and the British patriots want to revoke Article 50 and tell them to stuff their backstop.
The Irish border...just don't build one. Neither Britain, Northern Ireland or Ireland want it.
I agree, but it's not me you need to persuade. If you want a smooth transition - which, unless you a complete loon, you do - you've got to persuade the EU.
If after we've left the EU they decide to do something utterly ridiculous and impractical motivated purely out of spite then it's up to them. There's literally nothing we can do about it.
When they have their EU army I'm sure Macron and his mates will be invading all over the place, but we can't stop that either. It's another great reason for leaving the rotten organisation.
But anyway my feeling is the EU wouldn't build a border across Ireland, even they aren't quite that stupid. It's a bluff and they need to be called on it.
You completely misunderstand the EU, the Irish Border, the WTO and probably just about everything else. That you manage somehow to work the posting mechanism on this forum is becoming an increasing source of wonder.
Patronising drivel whilst adding nothing to the conversation. Your speciality in fact.
The Irish border...just don't build one. Neither Britain, Northern Ireland or Ireland want it.
I agree, but it's not me you need to persuade. If you want a smooth transition - which, unless you are a complete loon, you do - you've got to persuade the EU.
It's not the EU Richard. The EU, RoI, NI, GB don't want a hard border. But it would be out of their hands in a no-deal, WTO scenario. That is what none of those actors can risk.
So why not a deal which includes an RoI component and voila, out of the clutches of the WTO? Well that is precisely the point of the WA and the backstop.
There really is no other option and it is disingenuous of you to lay the blame at the EU's door.
I was being helpful to Xenon - even if the Irish border isn't an issue in reality, it's still an obstacle in the negotiations if the EU think it's an issue. I was challenging the ridiculous idea that we can unilaterally go for some mythical 'no deal' which somehow includes doing a deal with the EU (apparently without bothering to get their consent) on lots and lots of issues - 500+ pages worth, as we know.
It wouldn't be unilateral, that's the whole point. We should have stopped asking for the trade deal which was the main problem in the negotiations (because they wouldn't give it to us without a load of unacceptable stuff) in order to get a cleaner break. It's not rocket science.
The reason the EU is playing hardball over the Irish border is because we want a trade deal so they have lots of leverage. They could make a deal with us about that without all the other crap if we're just looking for a clean exit with no "cherry picking".
So we're leaving the EU because we want to be able to agree trade deals around the world but we don't want a trade deal with the EU?
You really are totally stupid but here goes.
We want a trade deal with the EU, but they won't give it to us without unreasonable conditions attached, so regrettably we would have to forgo this for the moment in order to get a clean break.
The Irish border...just don't build one. Neither Britain, Northern Ireland or Ireland want it.
I agree, but it's not me you need to persuade. If you want a smooth transition - which, unless you are a complete loon, you do - you've got to persuade the EU.
It's not the EU Richard. The EU, RoI, NI, GB don't want a hard border. But it would be out of their hands in a no-deal, WTO scenario. That is what none of those actors can risk.
So why not a deal which includes an RoI component and voila, out of the clutches of the WTO? Well that is precisely the point of the WA and the backstop.
There really is no other option and it is disingenuous of you to lay the blame at the EU's door.
I was being helpful to Xenon - even if the Irish border isn't an issue in reality, it's still an obstacle in the negotiations if the EU think it's an issue. I was challenging the ridiculous idea that we can unilaterally go for some mythical 'no deal' which somehow includes doing a deal with the EU (apparently without bothering to get their consent) on lots and lots of issues - 500+ pages worth, as we know.
It wouldn't be unilateral, that's the whole point. We should have stopped asking for the trade deal which was the main problem in the negotiations (because they wouldn't give it to us without a load of unacceptable stuff) in order to get a cleaner break. It's not rocket science.
The reason the EU is playing hardball over the Irish border is because we want a trade deal so they have lots of leverage. They could make a deal with us about that without all the other crap if we're just looking for a clean exit with no "cherry picking".
So we're leaving the EU because we want to be able to agree trade deals around the world but we don't want a trade deal with the EU?
You really are totally stupid but here goes.
We want a trade deal with the EU, but they won't give it to us without unreasonable conditions attached, so regrettably we would have to forgo this for the moment in order to get a clean break.
Is this simple enough for you to understand yet?
OK sounds good. No trade deal with the EU. So under what terms would we trade with them?
I'm getting a bit lost now. I thought that the most hardline Brexiters were now in favour of remaining in the EU.
That's right. The EU appeasers want to ratify May's vassalage deal, and the British patriots want to revoke Article 50 and tell them to stuff their backstop.
I'm getting a bit lost now. I thought that the most hardline Brexiters were now in favour of remaining in the EU.
That's their logical position but not all have gotten there.
While I always accepted that Boris Johnson was an "amoral sociopathic snake" (as Grabcoque calls him) I did believe that the others were serious about wishing to leave the EU. It seems I was wrong.
The Irish border...just don't build one. Neither Britain, Northern Ireland or Ireland want it.
I agree, but it's not me you need to persuade. If you want a smooth transition - which, unless you are a complete loon, you do - you've got to persuade the EU.
There really is no other option and it is disingenuous of you to lay the blame at the EU's door.
I was being helpful to Xenon - even if the Irish border isn't an issue in reality, it's still an obstacle in the negotiations if the EU think it's an issue. I was challenging the ridiculous idea that we can unilaterally go for some mythical 'no deal' which somehow includes doing a deal with the EU (apparently without bothering to get their consent) on lots and lots of issues - 500+ pages worth, as we know.
It wouldn't be unilateral, that's the whole point. We should have stopped asking for the trade deal which was the main problem in the negotiations (because they wouldn't give it to us without a load of unacceptable stuff) in order to get a cleaner break. It's not rocket science.
The reason the EU is playing hardball over the Irish border is because we want a trade deal so they have lots of leverage. They could make a deal with us about that without all the other crap if we're just looking for a clean exit with no "cherry picking".
So we're leaving the EU because we want to be able to agree trade deals around the world but we don't want a trade deal with the EU?
You really are totally stupid but here goes.
We want a trade deal with the EU, but they won't give it to us without unreasonable conditions attached, so regrettably we would have to forgo this for the moment in order to get a clean break.
Is this simple enough for you to understand yet?
OK sounds good. No trade deal with the EU. So under what terms would we trade with them?
Right I can predict the next few messages between us.
I'll say WTO and then you'll say "aha idiot WTO involves a hard border in Northern Ireland".
And I'll say yes but we could agree a RoI component. Then you'll say that's not no deal then is it?
And I'll say no of course not, no deal was never about not agreeing to anything with the EU, but an agreement would have been quite straight forward without us demanding favourable trade deals which they were determined not to give us without unacceptable conditions.
The Irish border...just don't build one. Neither Britain, Northern Ireland or Ireland want it.
I agree, but it's not me you need to persuade. If you want a smooth transition - which, unless you are a complete loon, you do - you've got to persuade the EU.
It's not the EU Richard. The EU, RoI, NI, GB don't want a hard border. But it would be out of their hands in a no-deal, WTO scenario. That is what none of those actors can risk.
So why not a deal which includes an RoI component and voila, out of the clutches of the WTO? Well that is precisely the point of the WA and the backstop.
There really is no other option and it is disingenuous of you to lay the blame at the EU's door.
I was being helpful to Xenon - even if the Irish border isn't an issue in reality, it's still an obstacle in the negotiations if the EU think it's an issue. I was challenging the ridiculous idea that we can unilaterally go for some mythical 'no deal' which somehow includes doing a deal with the EU (apparently without bothering to get their consent) on lots and lots of issues - 500+ pages worth, as we know.
It wouldn't be unilateral, that's the whole point. We should have stopped asking for the trade deal which was the main problem in the negotiations (because they wouldn't give it to us without a load of unacceptable stuff) in order to get a cleaner break. It's not rocket science.
The reason the EU is playing hardball over the Irish border is because we want a trade deal so they have lots of leverage. They could make a deal with us about that without all the other crap if we're just looking for a clean exit with no "cherry picking".
So we're leaving the EU because we want to be able to agree trade deals around the world but we don't want a trade deal with the EU?
You really are totally stupid but here goes.
We want a trade deal with the EU, but they won't give it to us without unreasonable conditions attached, so regrettably we would have to forgo this for the moment in order to get a clean break.
Comments
2. he rebelled on a house of lords vote (this one, I think: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jul/11/91-tory-rebels-lords-reform) and was told, in fairly uncertain terms, he was at the back of the queue for advancement.
You see - I can be just as assertive and dogmatic as you are!
https://www.bloomberg.com/energy
Odd.
He's an absolute embarrassment to serious journalists.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/nov/10/superman-batman-iron-man-bad-role-models-tanya-gold
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1065948520623063040?s=21
And a LibDem, so with added pointlessness.....
BTW, I'm far from a fan of Erdogan, but his handling of this issue has been sublime. It's also rather ironic than some are hailing Erdogan as a defender of the press, when he's got lots of journalists locked up ...
Population, 1997:
Germany: 82.1 million
UK: 58.3 million
Population, 2017:
Germany: 82.7 million
UK: 66.0 million
% increase between 1997 and 2017:
Germany: 0.7%
UK: 13.2%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom
If he does then a lot of people would agree with him.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/23/ukip-tommy-robinson-tories-racism-establishment
The biggest lie of all - that Brexit would be easy.
The most painful truth - that this is EXACTLY what Brexit means.
They are clearly being fed too much nice food and drink.
"No deal" doesn't mean we don't talk to the EU at all about anything.
I'm not sure what is so difficult with this concept and why people are pretending that it wasn't possible.
It's almost exclusively peddled by remainers who really didn't want us to leave at all.
oggainwaringhttps://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/1065942786254561280
To make this happen, we would of course still have to sign the withdrawal agreement, which is easy enough. Lord only knows what you do about the Irish border issue in that scenario, though.
What you like to think he means is immaterial.
https://twitter.com/edlnews/status/1065893403156774922
https://twitter.com/MikeStuchbery_/status/1065717001023303681
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2334363
I think that actually far from being thick they were more likely the sort of highly intelligent, zero common sense people you precisely don't want on a jury.
Now there's not enough time to sort this out before March, which means we have to pay the EU another £39bn and agree to loads of stuff no one wants which will be a complete waste if we just end up at WTO anyway.
The Irish border...just don't build one. Neither Britain, Northern Ireland or Ireland want it.
Or do you think only non whites commit sexual crimes?
When they have their EU army I'm sure Macron and his mates will be invading all over the place, but we can't stop that either. It's another great reason for leaving the rotten organisation.
But anyway my feeling is the EU wouldn't build a border across Ireland, even they aren't quite that stupid. It's a bluff and they need to be called on it.
So why not a deal which includes an RoI component and voila, out of the clutches of the WTO? Well that is precisely the point of the WA and the backstop.
There really is no other option and it is disingenuous of you to lay the blame at the EU's door.
It does seem like May will almost certainly choose to have her benighted deal be the pyre upon which her career is roasted.
I'm mildly amused that Theresa May stating a position is taken as something that won't change in the future. That said, if she does stay that probably increases the chances of a second referendum.
I find the whole concept of DAs attacking the accused the moment they charged.
I find that hard to reconcile with good jurisprudence.
https://twitter.com/oflynnmep/status/1065960141726593024
At the moment we're still prohibited from taking photographs in a courtroom. Maybe best to repeal that daft rule. Then allow broadcasting of some trials in the public interest, i.e. as with parliament. Then finally allow jurors to talk.
But, I think they both did their jobs competently, and the jury were conscientious. So, I was quite impressed.
https://twitter.com/SuzanneEvans1/status/1065922676433272832
The reason the EU is playing hardball over the Irish border is because we want a trade deal so they have lots of leverage. They could make a deal with us about that without all the other crap if we're just looking for a clean exit with no "cherry picking".
We want a trade deal with the EU, but they won't give it to us without unreasonable conditions attached, so regrettably we would have to forgo this for the moment in order to get a clean break.
Is this simple enough for you to understand yet?
Funny old world.
I'll say WTO and then you'll say "aha idiot WTO involves a hard border in Northern Ireland".
And I'll say yes but we could agree a RoI component. Then you'll say that's not no deal then is it?
And I'll say no of course not, no deal was never about not agreeing to anything with the EU, but an agreement would have been quite straight forward without us demanding favourable trade deals which they were determined not to give us without unacceptable conditions.
Then you'll call be an idiot again probably.