The whole process has been bedevilled by wishful thinking.
1. Brexiters who think you can have both frictionless trade with the EU and total freedom to diverge from EU regulations
2. Remainers who thought that Jeremy Corbyn was one of them.
3. Conservatives who thought they could pretend to support Brexit in the belief it would never happen, but would assist their leadership prospects
4. Remainers who thought they could vote for A50, but still stop Brexit.
5. Cabinet ministers who persuaded themselves that Theresa May didn't mean it when she asked for a transition period and agreed to a backstop. Perhaps they were asleep when these issues were discussed in Cabinet.
6. Anyone who thinks the EU is desperate to give us a superb deal, but for the traitor in 10 Downing Street.
On 4) Ken Clarke emerges with credit - voted against Article 50, but recognising the Will of the House will now vote for the Deal as the least worst option available.
The worst of all worlds is to vote for something with your fingers crossed.
Just a point but when are the broadcasters on College Green going to do something about the EU zealots distracting their broadcasts. It looks like the BBC has a first floor stage to broadcast from but Sky have them prancing around their discussions
At the end of the day the broadcasters have no more right to that space than the public at large.
The whole process has been bedevilled by wishful thinking.
1. Brexiters who think you can have both frictionless trade with the EU and total freedom to diverge from EU regulations
2. Remainers who thought that Jeremy Corbyn was one of them.
3. Conservatives who thought they could pretend to support Brexit in the belief it would never happen, but would assist their leadership prospects
4. Remainers who thought they could vote for A50, but still stop Brexit.
5. Cabinet ministers who persuaded themselves that Theresa May didn't mean it when she asked for a transition period and agreed to a backstop. Perhaps they were asleep when these issues were discussed in Cabinet.
6. Anyone who thinks the EU is desperate to give us a superb deal, but for the traitor in 10 Downing Street.
On 4) Ken Clarke emerges with credit - voted against Article 50, but recognising the Will of the House will now vote for the Deal as the least worst option available.
The worst of all worlds is to vote for something with your fingers crossed.
Just a point but when are the broadcasters on College Green going to do something about the EU zealots distracting their broadcasts. It looks like the BBC has a first floor stage to broadcast from but Sky have them prancing around their discussions
The whole process has been bedevilled by wishful thinking.
1. Brexiters who think you can have both frictionless trade with the EU and total freedom to diverge from EU regulations
2. Remainers who thought that Jeremy Corbyn was one of them.
3. Conservatives who thought they could pretend to support Brexit in the belief it would never happen, but would assist their leadership prospects
4. Remainers who thought they could vote for A50, but still stop Brexit.
5. Cabinet ministers who persuaded themselves that Theresa May didn't mean it when she asked for a transition period and agreed to a backstop. Perhaps they were asleep when these issues were discussed in Cabinet.
6. Anyone who thinks the EU is desperate to give us a superb deal, but for the traitor in 10 Downing Street.
On 4) Ken Clarke emerges with credit - voted against Article 50, but recognising the Will of the House will now vote for the Deal as the least worst option available.
The worst of all worlds is to vote for something with your fingers crossed.
Generally the difficult option works out easier in the end.
The whole process has been bedevilled by wishful thinking.
1. Brexiters who think you can have both frictionless trade with the EU and total freedom to diverge from EU regulations
2. Remainers who thought that Jeremy Corbyn was one of them.
3. Conservatives who thought they could pretend to support Brexit in the belief it would never happen, but would assist their leadership prospects
4. Remainers who thought they could vote for A50, but still stop Brexit.
5. Cabinet ministers who persuaded themselves that Theresa May didn't mean it when she asked for a transition period and agreed to a backstop. Perhaps they were asleep when these issues were discussed in Cabinet.
6. Anyone who thinks the EU is desperate to give us a superb deal, but for the traitor in 10 Downing Street.
On 4) Ken Clarke emerges with credit - voted against Article 50, but recognising the Will of the House will now vote for the Deal as the least worst option available.
Yes, and he was one of the very few MPs who didn't vote for the referendum either. He has been consistent and principled throughout.
Best leader the Tories never had, by a country mile.
The whole process has been bedevilled by wishful thinking.
1. Brexiters who think you can have both frictionless trade with the EU and total freedom to diverge from EU regulations
2. Remainers who thought that Jeremy Corbyn was one of them.
3. Conservatives who thought they could pretend to support Brexit in the belief it would never happen, but would assist their leadership prospects
4. Remainers who thought they could vote for A50, but still stop Brexit.
5. Cabinet ministers who persuaded themselves that Theresa May didn't mean it when she asked for a transition period and agreed to a backstop. Perhaps they were asleep when these issues were discussed in Cabinet.
6. Anyone who thinks the EU is desperate to give us a superb deal, but for the traitor in 10 Downing Street.
On 4) Ken Clarke emerges with credit - voted against Article 50, but recognising the Will of the House will now vote for the Deal as the least worst option available.
The worst of all worlds is to vote for something with your fingers crossed.
Generally the difficult option works out easier in the end.
The first least-worst option is almost always better than the next one that comes along.
The whole process has been bedevilled by wishful thinking.
1. Brexiters who think you can have both frictionless trade with the EU and total freedom to diverge from EU regulations
2. Remainers who thought that Jeremy Corbyn was one of them.
3. Conservatives who thought they could pretend to support Brexit in the belief it would never happen, but would assist their leadership prospects
4. Remainers who thought they could vote for A50, but still stop Brexit.
5. Cabinet ministers who persuaded themselves that Theresa May didn't mean it when she asked for a transition period and agreed to a backstop. Perhaps they were asleep when these issues were discussed in Cabinet.
6. Anyone who thinks the EU is desperate to give us a superb deal, but for the traitor in 10 Downing Street.
On 4) Ken Clarke emerges with credit - voted against Article 50, but recognising the Will of the House will now vote for the Deal as the least worst option available.
The worst of all worlds is to vote for something with your fingers crossed.
The Withdrawal Agreement is essentially fixed, but the future arrangement that will take its place is wide open. The outcomes could include rejoining the EU or even not leaving in the first place. All of the options require EU consent so there's no reason to reflect a preferred path just because the EU hasn't agreed yet. Mrs May disengenuously pretends her outcome is the only one. Her many opponents should call her out on that if they think they have a better plan.
They don't have a better plan, that is exactly the point.
They don't have any worse plans either. Maybe that is also the point.
No it isn't - they lack an alternative plan. Ever since before the referendum I was one of many on here who asked Leave voters how they expected Brexit to happen and on what terms - the only answer ever given was that this was not thier task but the job of the government of the day. They never had a plan. That is the scandal. T. May has done the best job given the appalling mess she took on. Of course she bears some blame for this mess but there are plenty others sniping from the sidelines who are as responsible and have been from day one.
given they were never going to be handed the keys to government why was it a scandal? plenty of leavers have outlined plans. there is no impetus for them to form a unified plan though just as there was never an impetus for europhiles to lay out a very clear vision of our relationship with the eu in a generation or so (e.g. some would join the euro, others wouldn't). it is the government's job.
I see that the SDLP have said that they support Theresa May's deal. This is an example of how time could gradually bring more, albeit reluctant, support for the deal and reverse the current impression that it's failure is inevitable. It is, I think, why the ERG launched their failed coup, as a device to prevent momentum to build up in favour of the deal.
Unfortunately for the PM, the SDLP lost their three Westminster MPs in the 2017GE that she called and so this adds zero votes for the deal in the Commons.
Michelle O'Neill supports the agreement too, if every opposition party did as SF are doing and abstained the vote would pass.
May has been remarkably good at maintaining the mandate of the referendum. She will finally put an end to two decades of mass migration.
Most of which was from outside the EU...
As for free movement, when will it end? You can’t say because this deal doesn’t tell us what the future relationship will be.
Non-EU migration is now virtually entirely highly skilled. That is not the case with the cockle pickers and beggars from Romania and Bulgaria.
Free movement will end at the end of the implementation period.
I don't come on here to read racist bilge. Do one you bigoted twat.
Accurately describing some of the occupations of EU migrants that aren't possible under non-EU migration or the future setup we will have under May's deal is not "racist". That is doubly so when I am favourably comparing the non-white immigrants to the white immigrants. You don't understand basic words, so go away and take a dictionary with you before coming back.
The fact that you chose derogatory stereotyped 'occupations' is a matter of purely benign coincidence is it? Whatever you say, 'Theo'.
The whole process has been bedevilled by wishful thinking.
1. Brexiters who think you can have both frictionless trade with the EU and total freedom to diverge from EU regulations
2. Remainers who thought that Jeremy Corbyn was one of them.
3. Conservatives who thought they could pretend to support Brexit in the belief it would never happen, but would assist their leadership prospects
4. Remainers who thought they could vote for A50, but still stop Brexit.
5. Cabinet ministers who persuaded themselves that Theresa May didn't mean it when she asked for a transition period and agreed to a backstop. Perhaps they were asleep when these issues were discussed in Cabinet.
6. Anyone who thinks the EU is desperate to give us a superb deal, but for the traitor in 10 Downing Street.
7. Anyone who voted Leave in the referendum thinking it wouldn't be a total clusterfuck from start to finish
It's not a clusterfuck. We have the deal Remainers said we couldn't have. Controlling immigration while maintaining economic access was "having your cake and eating it". The only reason we will have a clusterfuck now is if the less honourable Remainers vote it down because they could never tolerate the people voting the "wrong" way.
Just a point but when are the broadcasters on College Green going to do something about the EU zealots distracting their broadcasts. It looks like the BBC has a first floor stage to broadcast from but Sky have them prancing around their discussions
At the end of the day the broadcasters have no more right to that space than the public at large.
Quite. That structure is an eyesore. What the hell do they think they are doing constructing it in a public place of heritage? If their news reels have a backdrop of protestors, so be it. They can always film from their studios if it worries them so much.
The Withdrawal Agreement is essentially fixed, but the future arrangement that will take its place is wide open. The outcomes could include rejoining the EU or even not leaving in the first place. All of the options require EU consent so there's no reason to reflect a preferred path just because the EU hasn't agreed yet. Mrs May disengenuously pretends her outcome is the only one. Her many opponents should call her out on that if they think they have a better plan.
They don't have a better plan, that is exactly the point.
They don't have any worse plans either. Maybe that is also the point.
No it isn't - they lack an alternative plan. Ever since before the referendum I was one of many on here who asked Leave voters how they expected Brexit to happen and on what terms - the only answer ever given was that this was not thier task but the job of the government of the day. They never had a plan. That is the scandal. T. May has done the best job given the appalling mess she took on. Of course she bears some blame for this mess but there are plenty others sniping from the sidelines who are as responsible and have been from day one.
given they were never going to be handed the keys to government why was it a scandal? plenty of leavers have outlined plans. there is no impetus for them to form a unified plan though just as there was never an impetus for europhiles to lay out a very clear vision of our relationship with the eu in a generation or so (e.g. some would join the euro, others wouldn't). it is the government's job.
If there’s no unified plan which commands the support of a large majority of Brexit supporters, it’s hard to see how any individual plan can be said to reflect the will of the people expressed in the referendum. It’s reaonable to say it’s the government’s responsibility to try and formulate such a plan, but not clear what they should do if that proves to be impossible.
it’s hard to see how any individual plan can be said to reflect the will of the people expressed in the referendum. It’s reaonable to say it’s the government’s responsibility to try and formulate such a plan, but not clear what they should do if that proves to be impossible.
Mr. B, no crenellations. And how would even a small trebuchet fit up there?
Mr. Polruan, said before but it remains remarkable Cameron didn't require either an independent body or the official Leave campaign to actually put forward a firm set of proposals. As you say, and others likewise, it meant the Remain campaign (which was also terrible, incidentally) was trying to wrestle a ghost. There was no single firm vision for them to grapple with, and Leavers of different stripes could be catered to by different campaigns.
Even with that, Cameron very nearly won. Perhaps would've, had he not been complacent (or, as others have suggested, kept in the dark until it was too late to change anything).
The whole process has been bedevilled by wishful thinking.
1. Brexiters who think you can have both frictionless trade with the EU and total freedom to diverge from EU regulations
2. Remainers who thought that Jeremy Corbyn was one of them.
3. Conservatives who thought they could pretend to support Brexit in the belief it would never happen, but would assist their leadership prospects
4. Remainers who thought they could vote for A50, but still stop Brexit.
5. Cabinet ministers who persuaded themselves that Theresa May didn't mean it when she asked for a transition period and agreed to a backstop. Perhaps they were asleep when these issues were discussed in Cabinet.
6. Anyone who thinks the EU is desperate to give us a superb deal, but for the traitor in 10 Downing Street.
7. Anyone who voted Leave in the referendum thinking it wouldn't be a total clusterfuck from start to finish
It's not a clusterfuck. We have the deal Remainers said we couldn't have. Controlling immigration while maintaining economic access was "having your cake and eating it". The only reason we will have a clusterfuck now is if the less honourable Remainers vote it down because they could never tolerate the people voting the "wrong" way.
We have an agreement to keep everything the same, including freedom of movement, then keep it the same for a bit longer, then finally to change it subject to future negotiations about how we balance economic access with immigration controls. We can have our cake now; in future we can change our mind and eat it instead, but we have no agreement that allows us to do both.
Ukraine isn't a NATO member. We're leaving the EU. Our relations with Russia are abysmal. Why would we be taking the lead?
That is Brexit. Britain withdrawing from the public stage. Today's events show exactly why it was so desired by Russia. Western European countries are incapable of a coherent united response as a result.
If there’s no unified plan which commands the support of a large majority of Brexit supporters, it’s hard to see how any individual plan can be said to reflect the will of the people expressed in the referendum. It’s reaonable to say it’s the government’s responsibility to try and formulate such a plan, but not clear what they should do if that proves to be impossible.
they only have one clear command resulting from the referendum. that is to leave.
an obvious approach is therefore to do a deal as they see fit as long as it results in our membership ceasing (and doesn't blatantly contradict the manifesto on which the government was elected) and put it to the people in a referendum: deal or no deal brexit.
from a political (rather than legal) perspective it seems odd that parliament has a veto over the deal when the first referendum resulted from parliament rather than the people assenting to various treaties in the past.
I think May's making a big mistake by tying herself so much to the deal and selling it on the basis of dodgy promises about the future relationship. She risks ending up going down with it.
I think May's making a big mistake by tying herself so much to the deal and selling it on the basis of dodgy promises about the future relationship. She risks ending up going down with it.
If you're putting forward something that's contentious, you have no choice but to do it wholeheartedly.
I think May's making a big mistake by tying herself so much to the deal and selling it on the basis of dodgy promises about the future relationship. She risks ending up going down with it.
You assume that she expects to be in office beyond the end of the year. If the deal is decisively defeated (and she is quite capable of counting), what motive does she have to stay?
I have to say the backstop sounds increasingly desirable: in the Single Market + Customs Union, not in the CFP or CAP, no FoM, not on the hook for megabucks in fees. Of course we'd be subject to many EU rules with no say in them, but the Brexiteers who are slamming the deal because of the backstop, and now saying that it's worse than remaining in the EU, used to say that we had next-to-no say in the rules when we were members.
The other hilarious thing is that the backstop is pretty much what Labour advocate as the end-point, but they too criticise the deal because of it.
The Withdrawal Agreement is essentially fixed, but the future arrangement that will take its place is wide open. The outcomes could include rejoining the EU or even not leaving in the first place. All of the options require EU consent so there's no reason to reflect a preferred path just because the EU hasn't agreed yet. Mrs May disengenuously pretends her outcome is the only one. Her many opponents should call her out on that if they think they have a better plan.
They don't have a better plan, that is exactly the point.
That statement is open to challenge and there's certainly no reason to take Theresa May's word for it. The point is there is a choice of bad plans, which are bad in different ways. So we could go to Norway plus customs union, which deals with Ireland and is a relatively low impact Leave but is maximum vassal state. There's remaining in the EU, which would be by far the best outcome, except people have formally rejected it in a vote. There's "no deal" which might allow freedom from EU strictures but is probably unviable. Then there's May's plan which, typical for the woman, resolves nothing at all but maintains the Brexit delusion a bit longer. We should debate what form of crapness we are going for. Mrs May's isn't necessarily the least bad.
If the deal is comprehensively rejected (Which I expect), May REALLY REALLY needs (And I say this as a supporter of the deal) to stand down. Jeremy Hunt or Michael Gove can then get the deal over the line. I think anything short of her resignation won't be enough to make the markets/MPs that this really really isn't some parlour house game being played here.
If there’s no unified plan which commands the support of a large majority of Brexit supporters, it’s hard to see how any individual plan can be said to reflect the will of the people expressed in the referendum. It’s reaonable to say it’s the government’s responsibility to try and formulate such a plan, but not clear what they should do if that proves to be impossible.
they only have one clear command resulting from the referendum. that is to leave.
an obvious approach is therefore to do a deal as they see fit as long as it results in our membership ceasing (and doesn't blatantly contradict the manifesto on which the government was elected) and put it to the people in a referendum: deal or no deal brexit.
from a political (rather than legal) perspective it seems odd that parliament has a veto over the deal when the first referendum resulted from parliament rather than the people assenting to various treaties in the past.
"one clear command" - not so clear 52:48 and not a command, just an advisory referendum.
I think May's making a big mistake by tying herself so much to the deal and selling it on the basis of dodgy promises about the future relationship. She risks ending up going down with it.
You assume that she expects to be in office beyond the end of the year. If the deal is decisively defeated (and she is quite capable of counting), what motive does she have to stay?
I think May's making a big mistake by tying herself so much to the deal and selling it on the basis of dodgy promises about the future relationship. She risks ending up going down with it.
Of course one of the main criticisms of Dave's deal was that it wouldn't be honoured and would be struck down by the ECJ. Wait until the loonies get their teeth into that angle.
The Withdrawal Agreement is essentially fixed, but the future arrangement that will take its place is wide open. The outcomes could include rejoining the EU or even not leaving in the first place. All of the options require EU consent so there's no reason to reflect a preferred path just because the EU hasn't agreed yet. Mrs May disengenuously pretends her outcome is the only one. Her many opponents should call her out on that if they think they have a better plan.
They don't have a better plan, that is exactly the point.
That statement is open to challenge and there's certainly no reason to take Theresa May's word for it. The point is there is a choice of bad plans, which are bad in different ways. So we could go to Norway plus customs union, which deals with Ireland and is a relatively low impact Leave but is maximum vassal state. There's remaining in the EU, which would be by far the best outcome except people have formally rejected in a vote. There's "no deal" which might allow freedom from EU structures but is probably unviable. Then there's May's plan which typical for the woman resolves nothing at all but maintains the Brexit delusion a bit longer. We should debate what form of crapness we are going for. Mrs May's isn't necessarily the least bad.
None of those obviate the need for the backstop, which is the principal objection to the deal.
I think May's making a big mistake by tying herself so much to the deal and selling it on the basis of dodgy promises about the future relationship. She risks ending up going down with it.
You assume that she expects to be in office beyond the end of the year. If the deal is decisively defeated (and she is quite capable of counting), what motive does she have to stay?
her sense of duty seems stronger than most.
I think it is precisely that sense of duty that might lead to her resigning.
If the deal is comprehensively rejected (Which I expect), May REALLY REALLY needs (And I say this as a supporter of the deal) to stand down. Jeremy Hunt or Michael Gove can then get the deal over the line. I think anything short of her resignation won't be enough to make the markets/MPs that this really really isn't some parlour house game being played here.
Regardless of anything else, do you think the bitterenders would roll-over and have one of those two acclaimed?
Ukraine isn't a NATO member. We're leaving the EU. Our relations with Russia are abysmal. Why would we be taking the lead?
That is Brexit. Britain withdrawing from the public stage. Today's events show exactly why it was so desired by Russia. Western European countries are incapable of a coherent united response as a result.
Only by your lights. Britain has been serially guilty of post-Imperial overstretch. Russian revanchism is a concern, but our obligations are to our NATO allies. Given that Russia has recently been murdering our citizens, we're not best placed to mediate, negotiate or any other -ate. Further, given the state of our military, letting Germany take the lead makes sense to me - they've skin in the game in the form of their energy security.
"one clear command" - not so clear 52:48 and not a command, just an advisory referendum.
in which the remain supporting government committed to enact leave if 50%+1 voted for it, so it was clear that the advice received would be interpreted as a command to leave. not rocket science.
I have to say the backstop sounds increasingly desirable: in the Single Market + Customs Union, not in the CFP or CAP, no FoM, not on the hook for megabucks in fees. Of course we'd be subject to many EU rules with no say in them, but the Brexiteers who are slamming the deal because of the backstop, and now saying that it's worse than remaining in the EU, used to say that we had next-to-no say in the rules when we were members.
The other hilarious thing is that the backstop is pretty much what Labour advocate as the end-point, but they too criticise the deal because of it.
If it's as good as you say, one has to wonder why it's being strangled at birth by so many on Theresa's own side. Is it through stupidity or malevolence?
May yet again doing a good job of answering all (reasonable) questions about the deal while Corbyn and the SNP remain stuck in party self-interest mode.
The SNP's position on fisheries is laughable. They wish to remain in the EU, which would mean the biggest continuing harm on our fishing fleet. At least with Theresa's deal, even if things are up for grabs, they are up for grabs on potentially something better.
I think May's making a big mistake by tying herself so much to the deal and selling it on the basis of dodgy promises about the future relationship. She risks ending up going down with it.
You assume that she expects to be in office beyond the end of the year. If the deal is decisively defeated (and she is quite capable of counting), what motive does she have to stay?
her sense of duty seems stronger than most.
I think it is precisely that sense of duty that might lead to her resigning.
Why would anyone want the job of leading the Conservative Party? All their leaders get chewed up and spat out.
If the deal is comprehensively rejected (Which I expect), May REALLY REALLY needs (And I say this as a supporter of the deal) to stand down. Jeremy Hunt or Michael Gove can then get the deal over the line. I think anything short of her resignation won't be enough to make the markets/MPs that this really really isn't some parlour house game being played here.
Regardless of anything else, do you think the bitterenders would roll-over and have one of those two acclaimed?
I have to say the backstop sounds increasingly desirable: in the Single Market + Customs Union, not in the CFP or CAP, no FoM, not on the hook for megabucks in fees. Of course we'd be subject to many EU rules with no say in them, but the Brexiteers who are slamming the deal because of the backstop, and now saying that it's worse than remaining in the EU, used to say that we had next-to-no say in the rules when we were members.
The other hilarious thing is that the backstop is pretty much what Labour advocate as the end-point, but they too criticise the deal because of it.
If it's as good as you say, one has to wonder why it's being strangled at birth by so many on Theresa's own side. Is it through stupidity or malevolence?
You need to ask them, not me. I just look as dispassionately as I can at the realities.
Mueller getting closer to Nige according to latest reports that Jerome Corsi has been offered a plea bargain deal for perjury re Wikileaks and Assange...
I have to say the backstop sounds increasingly desirable: in the Single Market + Customs Union, not in the CFP or CAP, no FoM, not on the hook for megabucks in fees. Of course we'd be subject to many EU rules with no say in them, but the Brexiteers who are slamming the deal because of the backstop, and now saying that it's worse than remaining in the EU, used to say that we had next-to-no say in the rules when we were members.
The other hilarious thing is that the backstop is pretty much what Labour advocate as the end-point, but they too criticise the deal because of it.
If it's as good as you say, one has to wonder why it's being strangled at birth by so many on Theresa's own side. Is it through stupidity or malevolence?
You need to ask them, not me. I just look as dispassionately as I can at the realities.
I only have to look at Facebook to realise that a lot of people automatically assume that our leaders are betraying us.
You assume that she expects to be in office beyond the end of the year. If the deal is decisively defeated (and she is quite capable of counting), what motive does she have to stay?
What motive did she have for taking office in the first place?
The whole process has been bedevilled by wishful thinking.
1. Brexiters who think you can have both frictionless trade with the EU and total freedom to diverge from EU regulations
2. Remainers who thought that Jeremy Corbyn was one of them.
3. Conservatives who thought they could pretend to support Brexit in the belief it would never happen, but would assist their leadership prospects
4. Remainers who thought they could vote for A50, but still stop Brexit.
5. Cabinet ministers who persuaded themselves that Theresa May didn't mean it when she asked for a transition period and agreed to a backstop. Perhaps they were asleep when these issues were discussed in Cabinet.
6. Anyone who thinks the EU is desperate to give us a superb deal, but for the traitor in 10 Downing Street.
On 4) Ken Clarke emerges with credit - voted against Article 50, but recognising the Will of the House will now vote for the Deal as the least worst option available.
Yes, and he was one of the very few MPs who didn't vote for the referendum either. He has been consistent and principled throughout.
Best leader the Tories never had, by a country mile.
May yet again doing a good job of answering all (reasonable) questions about the deal while Corbyn and the SNP remain stuck in party self-interest mode.
The SNP's position on fisheries is laughable. They wish to remain in the EU, which would mean the biggest continuing harm on our fishing fleet. At least with Theresa's deal, even if things are up for grabs, they are up for grabs on potentially something better.
Your post is laughable, as usual they will give away everything , they have form. At least the SNP would attempt to improve things. This shower just give Scotland's fish away at the first stroke.
You assume that she expects to be in office beyond the end of the year. If the deal is decisively defeated (and she is quite capable of counting), what motive does she have to stay?
What motive did she have for taking office in the first place?
Er well, a lot of MPs actually would like to be PM.
The Withdrawal Agreement is essentially fixed, but the future arrangement that will take its place is wide open. The outcomes could include rejoining the EU or even not leaving in the first place. All of the options require EU consent so there's no reason to reflect a preferred path just because the EU hasn't agreed yet. Mrs May disengenuously pretends her outcome is the only one. Her many opponents should call her out on that if they think they have a better plan.
They don't have a better plan, that is exactly the point.
That statement is open to challenge and there's certainly no reason to take Theresa May's word for it. The point is there is a choice of bad plans, which are bad in different ways. So we could go to Norway plus customs union, which deals with Ireland and is a relatively low impact Leave but is maximum vassal state. There's remaining in the EU, which would be by far the best outcome except people have formally rejected in a vote. There's "no deal" which might allow freedom from EU structures but is probably unviable. Then there's May's plan which typical for the woman resolves nothing at all but maintains the Brexit delusion a bit longer. We should debate what form of crapness we are going for. Mrs May's isn't necessarily the least bad.
None of those obviate the need for the backstop, which is the principal objection to the deal.
Returning to my original comment, the Withdrawal Agreement is a done deal in every scenario, except possibly No Deal. Even that's uncertain because it seems unlikely we would never have a deal with the EU on anything at all, ever. But the End State is up for grabs. Remain and Norway+ make the backstop disappear; May's Chequers 2 plan doesn't; Canada doesn't and No Deal probably doesn't for the reasons I have just given. We don't need to take or leave May's plan.
May's deal without the backstop would be fine, and would easily pass in the HoC. Even with the backstop it would be ok if we could trust the EU to commit to technological solutions at the border. The trouble is, we can't trust them, as Macron and Sánchez have already demonstrated. A mechanism for building trust, or at least compliance in good faith is needed. What about making the €42b payment, or at least a large part of it, contingent on EU agreement to a technological solution at the border?
May has been remarkably good at maintaining the mandate of the referendum. She will finally put an end to two decades of mass migration.
Most of which was from outside the EU...
As for free movement, when will it end? You can’t say because this deal doesn’t tell us what the future relationship will be.
Non-EU migration is now virtually entirely highly skilled. That is not the case with the cockle pickers and beggars from Romania and Bulgaria.
Free movement will end at the end of the implementation period.
The way you slip into unpleasantly blaming immigrants for all your own policy failures is straight out of May's very tarnished copybook.
There's no need for that kind of unpleasant racist abuse here.
I went into Pret this morning and the Romanian beggars were having their morning scam meeting, I think they were running late because I usually see them dotted on corners in the City by then. I think you're kidding yourself if you really believe that we haven't imported tens of thousands of professional pan handlers from Romania over the last few years. I used to see a similar group operating in Soho when I was consulting there for a few months.
Comments
Lol.
https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/66bde244-3636-4037-a9e1-bb9e029ff195
Mr. Polruan, said before but it remains remarkable Cameron didn't require either an independent body or the official Leave campaign to actually put forward a firm set of proposals. As you say, and others likewise, it meant the Remain campaign (which was also terrible, incidentally) was trying to wrestle a ghost. There was no single firm vision for them to grapple with, and Leavers of different stripes could be catered to by different campaigns.
Even with that, Cameron very nearly won. Perhaps would've, had he not been complacent (or, as others have suggested, kept in the dark until it was too late to change anything).
The debate will be interesting if it happens.
an obvious approach is therefore to do a deal as they see fit as long as it results in our membership ceasing (and doesn't blatantly contradict the manifesto on which the government was elected) and put it to the people in a referendum: deal or no deal brexit.
from a political (rather than legal) perspective it seems odd that parliament has a veto over the deal when the first referendum resulted from parliament rather than the people assenting to various treaties in the past.
The other hilarious thing is that the backstop is pretty much what Labour advocate as the end-point, but they too criticise the deal because of it.
Jeremy Hunt or Michael Gove can then get the deal over the line. I think anything short of her resignation won't be enough to make the markets/MPs that this really really isn't some parlour house game being played here.
The SNP's position on fisheries is laughable. They wish to remain in the EU, which would mean the biggest continuing harm on our fishing fleet. At least with Theresa's deal, even if things are up for grabs, they are up for grabs on potentially something better.
Not a surprise, she must be shattered after last few days.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/business/general-motors-cutbacks.html?action=click&module=Top+Stories&pgtype=Homepage#commentsContainer
https://twitter.com/sethabramson/status/1067082086559948801?s=21
https://twitter.com/sethabramson/status/1067083379328409602?s=21
Thought that might happen.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/margaret-thatcher-new-50-note-bank-england-scientist-shortlist-mark-carney-ada-lovelace-a8652816.html