Since there have been noises off about the potential need for a government of national unity, what sort of candidates do we have floating around for who might make a good caretaker PM?
Mark Carney William Hague Ken Clarke Gary Lineker Joanne Rowling Mr Blobby James O'Brien Michel Barnier
May's deal would be fine w/o the backstop. There are 5 days set aside for debate in the Commons, with scope for amendments. If the Commons does its job it can send her away with the backing of Parliament to climb out of the hole she has dug by confronting the EU with a deal-minus-backstop / no-deal choice.
There is no deal minus the backstop. The backstop IS the deal.
If there's no movement from the EU then it is no deal.
?
** Bangs head on table **
Parliament has already voted for No Deal. That is what will inevitably happen on March 29th.
Unless the current deal - the only one on offer - is accepted. As it looks as if it won’t be, then No Deal it is.
If Parliament wants to remain in the EU then it will have to do something to bring that about.
Why is it so hard for the basic fact to be understood.
By 29th March we either agree a deal with EU or leave without a deal.
There is nothing that Parliament can do unilaterally to alter that (subject to legal challenges).
Well, that isn’t true. Parliament can instruct the executive to ask to extend or rescind Article 50.
Which rescinding or extension may or may not even be possible. Even with the best will of the 27 (and when has that ever been on display to the UK?)
The UK asking to Remain would be the very best example the EU could have. Especially if it were after another vote.
Now some countries might wish to humiliate the UK even further. But I suspect most won’t and I expect that view to prevail.
The rebate might well be given up since it is not in a treaty but a new budget round is due anyway soon and there could well be a boost to the UK economy if the present uncertainty were removed.
I know there will be the usual cries about the euro and the EU army etc. But with Trump on one side (and I don’t see America becoming much more focused on Europe under a successor), Putin on the other and the Chinese, maybe a joint EU defence is a good thing?
And if Britain were to join the euro imagine how powerful that would make its financial sector and how powerful that would make Britain within the EU?
I am not a natural EU integrationist.
But the world has changed a lot in the last two years and the trends we are seeing now are ones which mean that we need to stop thinking that we can go back to a world where the post WW2 order was still alive and kicking. We need new thinking.
Yep. But that's way too grown up for most of our idiot politicians.
Reading that it says two thirds of non-EU immigration is from Asia although it doesn't break down that by country any further. I imagine most of that is from the Indian sub-continent.
It seems to be easier for those from that part of the world to immigrate here than from other places. I know of several well-educated people from Australian, US, Japan and South America that can't get visas to live here. But we've had millions of immigrants from India and Pakistan.
Is there a government policy to favour those from that part of the world?
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
She is hopeless.
Thankfully she will be gone soon
I wouldn't bet on it
I think the one constant across the House is that NOBODY wants her in charge of the next stage of negotiating with the EU, whether that is the Trade deal or trying to rejig the current May/Robbins fiasco.
There's something in that. I suspect if she does somehow manage to get the WA through, she might resign at that point (or say on March 29th) to allow a fresh face to lead the next stage.
How about this: she agrees with Labour that she will call a GE* for April in return for which they will abstain on the MV, allowing the WA to go through. As the same time she tells her own party she will step down and allow an orderly leadership election in January so a fresh leader is in place for the proposed GE.
(*I know FTPA is an issue but ways could be found etc.)
There might be something in that. We would have Brexited, although the exact basis to be negotiated would be proposed in the manifestos for that election. All talk of the second referendum gets junked, replaced by focus on what that relationship will look like when we actually leave in 2022.
The problem for Labour is that it then has to come up with a manifesto position.....
The problem for the Tories is they have to unite around a new leader.....
James Forsythe thinks May could go for (and win) a 3-question 2nd referendum:
I know that the idea of May proposing a second referendum seems outlandish—and I’m not suggesting that Number 10 are currently keen on the idea. But given that she can’t pivot to Norway having defined the referendum as being about free movement and that she doesn’t want either no deal or Remain, then what other options does she have? As Sherlock Holmes said, once you have eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
If Mrs May's solution is voted down in parliament it would be a novel idea to go over the heads of MPs and put it to the country through a referendum
It'd be displacement activity. What would be the point of asking the people to back a deal that Parliament had rejected? It would look foolish and absurd, and raise lots of very awkward constitutional questions. And the electoral commission would have none of it.
Because Parliament would reject any and all of the solutions.
James Forsythe thinks May could go for (and win) a 3-question 2nd referendum:
I know that the idea of May proposing a second referendum seems outlandish—and I’m not suggesting that Number 10 are currently keen on the idea. But given that she can’t pivot to Norway having defined the referendum as being about free movement and that she doesn’t want either no deal or Remain, then what other options does she have? As Sherlock Holmes said, once you have eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
If Mrs May's solution is voted down in parliament it would be a novel idea to go over the heads of MPs and put it to the country through a referendum
James Forsyth seems to forget that a referendum bill will need a majority in the Commons. With his reference to Sherlock Holmes he sounds about 12 years old.
Who does he think it is who would be going "over the heads of MPs"? Father Christmas?
There will be a referendum, but it won't be on "May's deal".
As others are pointing out, the scary "headline" figures put forward by Carney are all smoke and mirrors. The endgame of Project Fear - to scare people into accepting May's sub-optimal Deal, is unravelling and as the truth comes out, two things will happen.
First, the preparations for No Deal will ramp up considerably and second, a lot of the scare stories about water shortages, medical supplies and the rest will be comprehensively debunked and ridiculed and people will start asking how we could have been as stupid as to believe this nonsense again.
Make people scared enough and they'll sign away their very souls for a modicum of safety and security.
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
She is hopeless.
Thankfully she will be gone soon
And then what Bigjohn?
And then we negotiate a better deal or we have an in out Referendum or a GE
We cannot carry on with this completely useless woman in charge.
She has spent 30 months to get to this load of crap.
Seriously
As you say it's taken 30 months to get this WA negotiated.
The idea that someone else (be they BoJo, Gove, Corbyn, McDonnell or Uncle Tom Cobley) could step in and magically negotiate a fresh deal with a pissed-off and intransigent EU, and that that new deal would magically command the support of the HoC is, frankly, beyond laughable.
You are ruling out a better deal OK I don't
If not we either have a No Deal/ Remain Referendum or a GE
TM has spent 30 months pleasing nobody.
Sooner she goes the better.
We need to get on.
She has wasted 85% of the time available to get a terrible deal.
Time for robotic pontification is over.
Look, I don't say a better deal couldn't have been negotiated but your view of what is a better deal will not match mine, which will not match grabcoque's, which will not match GIN's etc. etc.
What is it about this deal that is so terrible from your perspective?
Really, for Leavers or Remainers, there's no sane alternative to what May has come up with. And absolutely no MP who voted to trigger A50 has any right to complain about the outcome.
I'm not really doing anything to push for it but why as a remainer isn't it sane for me to hope for a 2nd referendum and a remain vote?
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
She is hopeless.
Thankfully she will be gone soon
And then what Bigjohn?
And then we negotiate a better deal or we have an in out Referendum or a GE
We cannot carry on with this completely useless woman in charge.
She has spent 30 months to get to this load of crap.
Seriously
As you say it's taken 30 months to get this WA negotiated.
The idea that someone else (be they BoJo, Gove, Corbyn, McDonnell or Uncle Tom Cobley) could step in and magically negotiate a fresh deal with a pissed-off and intransigent EU, and that that new deal would magically command the support of the HoC is, frankly, beyond laughable.
You are ruling out a better deal OK I don't
If not we either have a No Deal/ Remain Referendum or a GE
TM has spent 30 months pleasing nobody.
Sooner she goes the better.
We need to get on.
She has wasted 85% of the time available to get a terrible deal.
Time for robotic pontification is over.
You seem a bit robotic yourself on your answer, to be fair !!!
James Forsythe thinks May could go for (and win) a 3-question 2nd referendum:
I know that the idea of May proposing a second referendum seems outlandish—and I’m not suggesting that Number 10 are currently keen on the idea. But given that she can’t pivot to Norway having defined the referendum as being about free movement and that she doesn’t want either no deal or Remain, then what other options does she have? As Sherlock Holmes said, once you have eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
If Mrs May's solution is voted down in parliament it would be a novel idea to go over the heads of MPs and put it to the country through a referendum
It'd be displacement activity. What would be the point of asking the people to back a deal that Parliament had rejected? It would look foolish and absurd, and raise lots of very awkward constitutional questions. And the electoral commission would have none of it.
Because Parliament would reject any and all of the solutions.
If there is to be a referendum, it requires primary legislation. It requires MPs to back "going over the head of MPs".
The electoral commission needs to then decide on a question (or set of questions) and to frame them in neutral terms. It's unlikely to heed the proposed wording of a Prime Minister who is in her own words attempting to "go over the heads" of Parliament and nobble the result to a particular outcome.
James Forsythe thinks May could go for (and win) a 3-question 2nd referendum:
I know that the idea of May proposing a second referendum seems outlandish—and I’m not suggesting that Number 10 are currently keen on the idea. But given that she can’t pivot to Norway having defined the referendum as being about free movement and that she doesn’t want either no deal or Remain, then what other options does she have? As Sherlock Holmes said, once you have eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
James Forsythe thinks May could go for (and win) a 3-question 2nd referendum:
I know that the idea of May proposing a second referendum seems outlandish—and I’m not suggesting that Number 10 are currently keen on the idea. But given that she can’t pivot to Norway having defined the referendum as being about free movement and that she doesn’t want either no deal or Remain, then what other options does she have? As Sherlock Holmes said, once you have eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
If Mrs May's solution is voted down in parliament it would be a novel idea to go over the heads of MPs and put it to the country through a referendum
It'd be displacement activity. What would be the point of asking the people to back a deal that Parliament had rejected? It would look foolish and absurd, and raise lots of very awkward constitutional questions. And the electoral commission would have none of it.
The point would be the obvious one: it's an option which is actually available. There is zero point is having a referendum on options which are not available, and we can be very sure that parliament doesn't want No Deal. So, if you're going to have a referendum at all, then the reality of the parliamentary position is that is has to be Remain vs May's Deal.
Now, you could argue that this is silly in that parliament should make the decision. I agree. Unfortunately they look as though they won't back the deal which has been negotiated and which is the only one available, and that they won't vote for reversing the whole idea of Brexit. The latter is not unreasonable, given that it would be reversing the referendum result.
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
She is hopeless.
Thankfully she will be gone soon
And then what Bigjohn?
And then we negotiate a better deal or we have an in out Referendum or a GE
We cannot carry on with this completely useless woman in charge.
She has spent 30 months to get to this load of crap.
Seriously
As you say it's taken 30 months to get this WA negotiated.
The idea that someone else (be they BoJo, Gove, Corbyn, McDonnell or Uncle Tom Cobley) could step in and magically negotiate a fresh deal with a pissed-off and intransigent EU, and that that new deal would magically command the support of the HoC is, frankly, beyond laughable.
You are ruling out a better deal OK I don't
If not we either have a No Deal/ Remain Referendum or a GE
TM has spent 30 months pleasing nobody.
Sooner she goes the better.
We need to get on.
She has wasted 85% of the time available to get a terrible deal.
Time for robotic pontification is over.
Look, I don't say a better deal couldn't have been negotiated but your view of what is a better deal will not match mine, which will not match grabcoque's, which will not match GIN's etc. etc.
What is it about this deal that is so terrible from your perspective?
James Forsythe thinks May could go for (and win) a 3-question 2nd referendum:
I know that the idea of May proposing a second referendum seems outlandish—and I’m not suggesting that Number 10 are currently keen on the idea. But given that she can’t pivot to Norway having defined the referendum as being about free movement and that she doesn’t want either no deal or Remain, then what other options does she have? As Sherlock Holmes said, once you have eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
She is hopeless.
Thankfully she will be gone soon
And then what Bigjohn?
And then we negotiate a better deal or we have an in out Referendum or a GE
We cannot carry on with this completely useless woman in charge.
She has spent 30 months to get to this load of crap.
Seriously
As you say it's taken 30 months to get this WA negotiated.
The idea that someone else (be they BoJo, Gove, Corbyn, McDonnell or Uncle Tom Cobley) could step in and magically negotiate a fresh deal with a pissed-off and intransigent EU, and that that new deal would magically command the support of the HoC is, frankly, beyond laughable.
You are ruling out a better deal OK I don't
If not we either have a No Deal/ Remain Referendum or a GE
TM has spent 30 months pleasing nobody.
Sooner she goes the better.
We need to get on.
She has wasted 85% of the time available to get a terrible deal.
Time for robotic pontification is over.
You seem a bit robotic yourself on your answer, to be fair !!!
Very good!
Those Russian coders are still working on the personality algorithms for the bigjohnowls-bot
James Forsythe thinks May could go for (and win) a 3-question 2nd referendum:
I know that the idea of May proposing a second referendum seems outlandish—and I’m not suggesting that Number 10 are currently keen on the idea. But given that she can’t pivot to Norway having defined the referendum as being about free movement and that she doesn’t want either no deal or Remain, then what other options does she have? As Sherlock Holmes said, once you have eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
As others are pointing out, the scary "headline" figures put forward by Carney are all smoke and mirrors. The endgame of Project Fear - to scare people into accepting May's sub-optimal Deal, is unravelling and as the truth comes out, two things will happen.
First, the preparations for No Deal will ramp up considerably and second, a lot of the scare stories about water shortages, medical supplies and the rest will be comprehensively debunked and ridiculed and people will start asking how we could have been as stupid as to believe this nonsense again.
Make people scared enough and they'll sign away their very souls for a modicum of safety and security.
I think that the scare stories are overblown, but the reality of a No Deal Brexit would be disruptive. But, the problem is that the government cried wolf in 2016, and the wolf didn't appear.
James Forsythe thinks May could go for (and win) a 3-question 2nd referendum:
I know that the idea of May proposing a second referendum seems outlandish—and I’m not suggesting that Number 10 are currently keen on the idea. But given that she can’t pivot to Norway having defined the referendum as being about free movement and that she doesn’t want either no deal or Remain, then what other options does she have? As Sherlock Holmes said, once you have eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
If Mrs May's solution is voted down in parliament it would be a novel idea to go over the heads of MPs and put it to the country through a referendum
It'd be displacement activity. What would be the point of asking the people to back a deal that Parliament had rejected? It would look foolish and absurd, and raise lots of very awkward constitutional questions. And the electoral commission would have none of it.
The point would be the obvious one: it's an option which is actually available. There is zero point is having a referendum on options which are not available, and we can be very sure that parliament doesn't want No Deal. So, if you're going to have a referendum at all, then the reality of the parliamentary position is that is has to be Remain vs May's Deal.
Now, you could argue that this is silly in that parliament should make the decision. I agree. Unfortunately they look as though they won't back the deal which has been negotiated and which is the only one available, and that they won't vote for reversing the whole idea of Brexit. The latter is not unreasonable, given that it would be reversing the referendum result.
If the PM proposed a referendum with that choice, the only legitimate reason for MPs to object would be if they thought parliament should make the choice itself, which it won't.
Really, for Leavers or Remainers, there's no sane alternative to what May has come up with. And absolutely no MP who voted to trigger A50 has any right to complain about the outcome.
I'm not really doing anything to push for it but why as a remainer isn't it sane for me to hope for a 2nd referendum and a remain vote?
Yes - it is an honest position and you get top marks for calling it a second referendum, not the annoying peoples vote nonsense
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
She is hopeless.
Thankfully she will be gone soon
And then what Bigjohn?
And then we negotiate a better deal or we have an in out Referendum or a GE
We cannot carry on with this completely useless woman in charge.
She has spent 30 months to get to this load of crap.
Seriously
As you say it's taken 30 months to get this WA negotiated.
The idea that someone else (be they BoJo, Gove, Corbyn, McDonnell or Uncle Tom Cobley) could step in and magically negotiate a fresh deal with a pissed-off and intransigent EU, and that that new deal would magically command the support of the HoC is, frankly, beyond laughable.
You are ruling out a better deal OK I don't
If not we either have a No Deal/ Remain Referendum or a GE
TM has spent 30 months pleasing nobody.
Sooner she goes the better.
We need to get on.
She has wasted 85% of the time available to get a terrible deal.
Time for robotic pontification is over.
Look, I don't say a better deal couldn't have been negotiated but your view of what is a better deal will not match mine, which will not match grabcoque's, which will not match GIN's etc. etc.
What is it about this deal that is so terrible from your perspective?
The Backstop that we need EU permission to leave.
Pah - we could abrogate if we really felt is had become an issue the EU weren't playing ball on.
Anyway, doesn't the backstop give us free cake... Customs Union access with no contributions? Can't see the EU letting us stay there for very long tbh.
As others are pointing out, the scary "headline" figures put forward by Carney are all smoke and mirrors. The endgame of Project Fear - to scare people into accepting May's sub-optimal Deal, is unravelling and as the truth comes out, two things will happen.
First, the preparations for No Deal will ramp up considerably and second, a lot of the scare stories about water shortages, medical supplies and the rest will be comprehensively debunked and ridiculed and people will start asking how we could have been as stupid as to believe this nonsense again.
Make people scared enough and they'll sign away their very souls for a modicum of safety and security.
I think that the scare stories are overblown, but the reality of a No Deal Brexit would be disruptive. But, the problem is that the government cried wolf in 2016, and the wolf didn't appear.
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
She is hopeless.
Thankfully she will be gone soon
And then what Bigjohn?
And then we negotiate a better deal or we have an in out Referendum or a GE
We cannot carry on with this completely useless woman in charge.
She has spent 30 months to get to this load of crap.
Seriously
As you say it's taken 30 months to get this WA negotiated.
The idea that someone else (be they BoJo, Gove, Corbyn, McDonnell or Uncle Tom Cobley) could step in and magically negotiate a fresh deal with a pissed-off and intransigent EU, and that that new deal would magically command the support of the HoC is, frankly, beyond laughable.
You are ruling out a better deal OK I don't
If not we either have a No Deal/ Remain Referendum or a GE
TM has spent 30 months pleasing nobody.
Sooner she goes the better.
We need to get on.
She has wasted 85% of the time available to get a terrible deal.
Time for robotic pontification is over.
Look, I don't say a better deal couldn't have been negotiated but your view of what is a better deal will not match mine, which will not match grabcoque's, which will not match GIN's etc. etc.
What is it about this deal that is so terrible from your perspective?
The Backstop that we need EU permission to leave.
Pah - we could abrogate if we really felt is had become an issue the EU weren't playing ball on.
Anyway, doesn't the backstop give us free cake... Customs Union access with no contributions? Can't see the EU letting us stay there for very long tbh.
Northern Ireland gets seamless single market chucked in too, with non reciprocal FoM (Via Irish passports). It's astonishingly good when you strip away the chaff.
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
She is hopeless.
Thankfully she will be gone soon
And then what Bigjohn?
And then we negotiate a better deal or we have an in out Referendum or a GE
We cannot carry on with this completely useless woman in charge.
She has spent 30 months to get to this load of crap.
Seriously
As you say it's taken 30 months to get this WA negotiated.
The idea that someone else (be they BoJo, Gove, Corbyn, McDonnell or Uncle Tom Cobley) could step in and magically negotiate a fresh deal with a pissed-off and intransigent EU, and that that new deal would magically command the support of the HoC is, frankly, beyond laughable.
You are ruling out a better deal OK I don't
If not we either have a No Deal/ Remain Referendum or a GE
TM has spent 30 months pleasing nobody.
Sooner she goes the better.
We need to get on.
She has wasted 85% of the time available to get a terrible deal.
Time for robotic pontification is over.
You seem a bit robotic yourself on your answer, to be fair !!!
Very good!
Those Russian coders are still working on the personality algorithms for the bigjohnowls-bot
I havent just sat in front of select Committee for 2 hours giving the same answer to 70 different questions.
If the PM proposed a referendum with that choice, the only legitimate reason for MPs to object would be if they thought parliament should make the choice itself, which it won't.
It would be legitimate to argue that the choice should include No Deal, or to make the argument that Richard Tyndall and others make that, since the country decided in the first referendum to leave the EU, any second one should just be about how we leave (in practice, May's Deal vs No Deal). However, I would expect that the number of MPs who would take that view would be less than 100, and certainly far short or a majority.
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
She is hopeless.
Thankfully she will be gone soon
And then what Bigjohn?
And then we negotiate a better deal or we have an in out Referendum or a GE
We cannot carry on with this completely useless woman in charge.
She has spent 30 months to get to this load of crap.
Seriously
As you say it's taken 30 months to get this WA negotiated.
The idea that someone else (be they BoJo, Gove, Corbyn, McDonnell or Uncle Tom Cobley) could step in and magically negotiate a fresh deal with a pissed-off and intransigent EU, and that that new deal would magically command the support of the HoC is, frankly, beyond laughable.
You are ruling out a better deal OK I don't
If not we either have a No Deal/ Remain Referendum or a GE
TM has spent 30 months pleasing nobody.
Sooner she goes the better.
We need to get on.
She has wasted 85% of the time available to get a terrible deal.
Time for robotic pontification is over.
Look, I don't say a better deal couldn't have been negotiated but your view of what is a better deal will not match mine, which will not match grabcoque's, which will not match GIN's etc. etc.
What is it about this deal that is so terrible from your perspective?
The Backstop that we need EU permission to leave.
Pah - we could abrogate if we really felt is had become an issue the EU weren't playing ball on.
Anyway, doesn't the backstop give us free cake... Customs Union access with no contributions? Can't see the EU letting us stay there for very long tbh.
If the PM proposed a referendum with that choice, the only legitimate reason for MPs to object would be if they thought parliament should make the choice itself, which it won't.
It would be legitimate to argue that the choice should include No Deal, or to make the argument that Richard Tyndall and others make that, since the country decided in the first referendum to leave the EU, any second one should just be about how we leave (in practice, May's Dweal vs No Deal). However, I would expect that the number of MPs who would take that view would be less than 100, and certainly far short or a majority.
Right. As soon as the taboo is broken at the top, the majority in the HoC will quickly follow.
James Forsythe thinks May could go for (and win) a 3-question 2nd referendum:
I know that the idea of May proposing a second referendum seems outlandish—and I’m not suggesting that Number 10 are currently keen on the idea. But given that she can’t pivot to Norway having defined the referendum as being about free movement and that she doesn’t want either no deal or Remain, then what other options does she have? As Sherlock Holmes said, once you have eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
If Mrs May's solution is voted down in parliament it would be a novel idea to go over the heads of MPs and put it to the country through a referendum
It'd be displacement activity. What would be the point of asking the people to back a deal that Parliament had rejected? It would look foolish and absurd, and raise lots of very awkward constitutional questions. And the electoral commission would have none of it.
The point would be the obvious one: it's an option which is actually available. There is zero point is having a referendum on options which are not available, and we can be very sure that parliament doesn't want No Deal. So, if you're going to have a referendum at all, then the reality of the parliamentary position is that is has to be Remain vs May's Deal.
Snip
Not at all. The whole point of having a referendum (which of course I oppose) would be to take the decision away from Parliament because they have failed to proceed with any option. As such saying that Parliament doesn't want No Deal is immaterial. They would have abrogated that decision to the referendum and if that is what the voters come back with so be it.
The only option that should not be included is Remain as that vote was already held and lost in 2016. It is the one option that has been rejected by the public. All the others are still up for debate and decision.
As others are pointing out, the scary "headline" figures put forward by Carney are all smoke and mirrors. The endgame of Project Fear - to scare people into accepting May's sub-optimal Deal, is unravelling and as the truth comes out, two things will happen.
First, the preparations for No Deal will ramp up considerably and second, a lot of the scare stories about water shortages, medical supplies and the rest will be comprehensively debunked and ridiculed and people will start asking how we could have been as stupid as to believe this nonsense again.
Make people scared enough and they'll sign away their very souls for a modicum of safety and security.
Agreed it is all principally psychological. But most Leave voters did so out of fear too. The coming referendum - possibly masked as a general election - will pit Project Fear A against Project Fear B.
It's hard to predict the shape of the first shortage stories. That few in Britain have experience of shortages will give the stories extra shock value, but most people will "believe" those with posh accents, or who speak in expert voice tones even without posh accents, who tell them it's all going to be OK. I mean they will superficially believe them. When people in their 30s are at the mercy of private landlords with no end in sight whereas their parents were already on the housing ladder by that age, few will FEEL that things will REALLY be OK. Then the Sun will print a story about how Romanians are getting free bread. And another of how a Muslim child got badly bullied. And Leave will win again.
Anyway, doesn't the backstop give us free cake... Customs Union access with no contributions? Can't see the EU letting us stay there for very long tbh.
Yep. Mutually uncomfortable isn't just some weaselly negotiating wording, they have genuinely made it just that.
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
She is hopeless.
Thankfully she will be gone soon
And then what Bigjohn?
And then we negotiate a better deal or we have an in out Referendum or a GE
We cannot carry on with this completely useless woman in charge.
She has spent 30 months to get to this load of crap.
Seriously
As you say it's taken 30 months to get this WA negotiated.
The idea that someone else (be they BoJo, Gove, Corbyn, McDonnell or Uncle Tom Cobley) could step in and magically negotiate a fresh deal with a pissed-off and intransigent EU, and that that new deal would magically command the support of the HoC is, frankly, beyond laughable.
You are ruling out a better deal OK I don't
If not we either have a No Deal/ Remain Referendum or a GE
TM has spent 30 months pleasing nobody.
Sooner she goes the better.
We need to get on.
She has wasted 85% of the time available to get a terrible deal.
Time for robotic pontification is over.
You seem a bit robotic yourself on your answer, to be fair !!!
Very good!
Those Russian coders are still working on the personality algorithms for the bigjohnowls-bot
I havent just sat in front of select Committee for 2 hours giving the same answer to 70 different questions.
Your leader is useless Big G.
The 2 of you carry on cheerleading the Deal.
You will lose on 11th December.
Then what will the MayBot do?
I dont expect you to answer like TM
If you read this thread I have explained TM next actions on losing the vote. Indeed I did so yesterday a couple of times.
TM is the most popular and trusted politician in the Country on Brexit but do not let that get in your way BJO
Non-EU net migration was at its highest since 2004, with 248,000 more non-EU citizens arriving than departing, the Office for National Statistics said.
Would we rather have EU migrants or non EU ones. And is this 'Taking back Control' of our borders.
James Forsythe thinks May could go for (and win) a 3-question 2nd referendum:
I know that the idea of May proposing a second referendum seems outlandish—and I’m not suggesting that Number 10 are currently keen on the idea. But given that she can’t pivot to Norway having defined the referendum as being about free movement and that she doesn’t want either no deal or Remain, then what other options does she have? As Sherlock Holmes said, once you have eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
If Mrs May's solution is voted down in parliament it would be a novel idea to go over the heads of MPs and put it to the country through a referendum
It'd be displacement activity. What would be the point of asking the people to back a deal that Parliament had rejected? It would look foolish and absurd, and raise lots of very awkward constitutional questions. And the electoral commission would have none of it.
The point would be the obvious one: it's an option which is actually available. There is zero point is having a referendum on options which are not available, and we can be very sure that parliament doesn't want No Deal. So, if you're going to have a referendum at all, then the reality of the parliamentary position is that is has to be Remain vs May's Deal.
Now, you could argue that this is silly in that parliament should make the decision. I agree. Unfortunately they look as though they won't back the deal which has been negotiated and which is the only one available, and that they won't vote for reversing the whole idea of Brexit. The latter is not unreasonable, given that it would be reversing the referendum result.
I'm very opposed to the people's vote, on matters of several principles.
But, if there's to be a PV, and if May's deal has already been comprehensively rejected by Parliament, I don't see how or why Parliament would then go through the absurd spectacle of letting something that has been decisively rejected be suddenly resurrected by a referendum.
The first referendum showed the real dangers of a holding a referendum where Parliament doesn't believe one of the two outcomes is reasonable. Making the same mistake AGAIN would be unforgivable.
*IF* we have a PV, and I really hope we don't, it's imperative for the government and Parliament to be able to broadly accept any answer. And if it can't, then don't ask it.
The fuss over EU Freedom of Movement is ironic given that neither the government nor the Establishment generally has the remotest interest in actually limiting immigration.
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
She is hopeless.
Thankfully she will be gone soon
And then what Bigjohn?
And then we negotiate a better deal or we have an in out Referendum or a GE
We cannot carry on with this completely useless woman in charge.
She has spent 30 months to get to this load of crap.
Seriously
As you say it's taken 30 months to get this WA negotiated.
The idea that someone else (be they BoJo, Gove, Corbyn, McDonnell or Uncle Tom Cobley) could step in and magically negotiate a fresh deal with a pissed-off and intransigent EU, and that that new deal would magically command the support of the HoC is, frankly, beyond laughable.
You are ruling out a better deal OK I don't
If not we either have a No Deal/ Remain Referendum or a GE
TM has spent 30 months pleasing nobody.
Sooner she goes the better.
We need to get on.
She has wasted 85% of the time available to get a terrible deal.
Time for robotic pontification is over.
You seem a bit robotic yourself on your answer, to be fair !!!
Very good!
Those Russian coders are still working on the personality algorithms for the bigjohnowls-bot
I havent just sat in front of select Committee for 2 hours giving the same answer to 70 different questions.
Your leader is useless Big G.
The 2 of you carry on cheerleading the Deal.
You will lose on 11th December.
Then what will the MayBot do?
I dont expect you to answer like TM
If you read this thread I have explained TM next actions on losing the vote. Indeed I did so yesterday a couple of times.
TM is the most popular and trusted politician in the Country on Brexit but do not let that get in your way BJO
Non-EU net migration was at its highest since 2004, with 248,000 more non-EU citizens arriving than departing, the Office for National Statistics said.
Would we rather have EU migrants or non EU ones. And is this 'Taking back Control' of our borders.
We haven't left yet so of course it isn't.
On the salient point, it depends entirely on who those EU and Non EU migrants are. I suspect in both cases the vast majority are the sort of people we would want in the country anyway as it will benefit us and them equally.
This is why arguments about immigration have always been rather dumb.
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
She is hopeless.
Thankfully she will be gone soon
And then what Bigjohn?
And then we negotiate a better deal or we have an in out Referendum or a GE
We cannot carry on with this completely useless woman in charge.
She has spent 30 months to get to this load of crap.
Seriously
As you say it's taken 30 months to get this WA negotiated.
The idea that someone else (be they BoJo, Gove, Corbyn, McDonnell or Uncle Tom Cobley) could step in and magically negotiate a fresh deal with a pissed-off and intransigent EU, and that that new deal would magically command the support of the HoC is, frankly, beyond laughable.
You are ruling out a better deal OK I don't
If not we either have a No Deal/ Remain Referendum or a GE
TM has spent 30 months pleasing nobody.
Sooner she goes the better.
We need to get on.
She has wasted 85% of the time available to get a terrible deal.
Time for robotic pontification is over.
You seem a bit robotic yourself on your answer, to be fair !!!
Very good!
Those Russian coders are still working on the personality algorithms for the bigjohnowls-bot
I havent just sat in front of select Committee for 2 hours giving the same answer to 70 different questions.
Your leader is useless Big G.
The 2 of you carry on cheerleading the Deal.
You will lose on 11th December.
Then what will the MayBot do?
I dont expect you to answer like TM
I don't think I am cheerleading the deal; I just don't want to see the economy trashed in a No Deal situation and I think May's deal is a reasonable compromise for the 52/48 split the referendum delivered.
What will May do if/when she loses? Resign probably but what then?:
BoJo, Gove, or some other Leaver as PM? They'll just come back with the same deal.
A General Election? No - Jezza doesn't have the numbers to force a VoNC
No happy paths there.
Jezza should be negotiating with Tezza for an early GE in return for tacit support for her Deal.
James Forsythe thinks May could go for (and win) a 3-question 2nd referendum:
I know that the idea of May proposing a second referendum seems outlandish—and I’m not suggesting that Number 10 are currently keen on the idea. But given that she can’t pivot to Norway having defined the referendum as being about free movement and that she doesn’t want either no deal or Remain, then what other options does she have? As Sherlock Holmes said, once you have eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
If Mrs May's solution is voted down in parliament it would be a novel idea to go over the heads of MPs and put it to the country through a referendum
It'd be displacement activity. What would be the point of asking the people to back a deal that Parliament had rejected? It would look foolish and absurd, and raise lots of very awkward constitutional questions. And the electoral commission would have none of it.
The point would be the obvious one: it's an option which is actually available. There is zero point is having a referendum on options which are not available, and we can be very sure that parliament doesn't want No Deal. So, if you're going to have a referendum at all, then the reality of the parliamentary position is that is has to be Remain vs May's Deal.
Snip
Not at all. The whole point of having a referendum (which of course I oppose) would be to take the decision away from Parliament because they have failed to proceed with any option. As such saying that Parliament doesn't want No Deal is immaterial. They would have abrogated that decision to the referendum and if that is what the voters come back with so be it.
The only option that should not be included is Remain as that vote was already held and lost in 2016. It is the one option that has been rejected by the public. All the others are still up for debate and decision.
No matter how many times you post the same point, it isn't true.
Really, for Leavers or Remainers, there's no sane alternative to what May has come up with. And absolutely no MP who voted to trigger A50 has any right to complain about the outcome.
I'm not really doing anything to push for it but why as a remainer isn't it sane for me to hope for a 2nd referendum and a remain vote?
I think that @Alistair Meeks and @grabcocque have eloquently summed up the problems.
James Forsythe thinks May could go for (and win) a 3-question 2nd referendum:
I know that the idea of May proposing a second referendum seems outlandish—and I’m not suggesting that Number 10 are currently keen on the idea. But given that she can’t pivot to Norway having defined the referendum as being about free movement and that she doesn’t want either no deal or Remain, then what other options does she have? As Sherlock Holmes said, once you have eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
If Mrs May's solution is voted down in parliament it would be a novel idea to go over the heads of MPs and put it to the country through a referendum
It'd be displacement activity. What would be the point of asking the people to back a deal that Parliament had rejected? It would look foolish and absurd, and raise lots of very awkward constitutional questions. And the electoral commission would have none of it.
The point would be the obvious one: it's an option which is actually available. There is zero point is having a referendum on options which are not available, and we can be very sure that parliament doesn't want No Deal. So, if you're going to have a referendum at all, then the reality of the parliamentary position is that is has to be Remain vs May's Deal.
Snip
Not at all. The whole point of having a referendum (which of course I oppose) would be to take the decision away from Parliament because they have failed to proceed with any option. As such saying that Parliament doesn't want No Deal is immaterial. They would have abrogated that decision to the referendum and if that is what the voters come back with so be it.
The only option that should not be included is Remain as that vote was already held and lost in 2016. It is the one option that has been rejected by the public. All the others are still up for debate and decision.
No matter how many times you post the same point, it isn't true.
I'm very opposed to the people's vote, on matters of several principles.
But, if there's to be a PV, and if May's deal has already been comprehensively rejected by Parliament, I don't see how or why Parliament would then go through the absurd spectacle of letting something that has been decisively rejected be suddenly resurrected by a referendum.
The first referendum showed the real dangers of a holding a referendum where Parliament doesn't believe one of the two outcomes is reasonable. Making the same mistake AGAIN would be unforgivable.
*IF* we have a PV, and I really hope we don't, it's imperative for the government and Parliament to be able to broadly accept any answer. And if it can't, then don't ask it.
It seems to me the only answer they would really want to broadly accept would be Remain. Which means under your criteria ( and I believe you are correct) the 2nd referendum is indeed a complete waste of time.
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
She is hopeless.
Thankfully she will be gone soon
And then what Bigjohn?
And then we negotiate a better deal or we have an in out Referendum or a GE
We cannot carry on with this completely useless woman in charge.
She has spent 30 months to get to this load of crap.
Seriously
As you say it's taken 30 months to get this WA negotiated.
The idea that someone else (be they BoJo, Gove, Corbyn, McDonnell or Uncle Tom Cobley) could step in and magically negotiate a fresh deal with a pissed-off and intransigent EU, and that that new deal would magically command the support of the HoC is, frankly, beyond laughable.
You are ruling out a better deal OK I don't
If not we either have a No Deal/ Remain Referendum or a GE
TM has spent 30 months pleasing nobody.
Sooner she goes the better.
We need to get on.
She has wasted 85% of the time available to get a terrible deal.
Time for robotic pontification is over.
Look, I don't say a better deal couldn't have been negotiated but your view of what is a better deal will not match mine, which will not match grabcoque's, which will not match GIN's etc. etc.
What is it about this deal that is so terrible from your perspective?
The Backstop that we need EU permission to leave.
Pah - we could abrogate if we really felt is had become an issue the EU weren't playing ball on.
Anyway, doesn't the backstop give us free cake... Customs Union access with no contributions? Can't see the EU letting us stay there for very long tbh.
Northern Ireland gets seamless single market chucked in too, with non reciprocal FoM (Via Irish passports). It's astonishingly good when you strip away the chaff.
That is why so many across the spectrum support. Only the DUP oppose
James Forsythe thinks May could go for (and win) a 3-question 2nd referendum:
I know that the idea of May proposing a second referendum seems outlandish—and I’m not suggesting that Number 10 are currently keen on the idea. But given that she can’t pivot to Norway having defined the referendum as being about free movement and that she doesn’t want either no deal or Remain, then what other options does she have? As Sherlock Holmes said, once you have eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
She is hopeless.
Thankfully she will be gone soon
And then what Bigjohn?
And then we negotiate a better deal or we have an in out Referendum or a GE
We cannot carry on with this completely useless woman in charge.
She has spent 30 months to get to this load of crap.
Seriously
As you say it's taken 30 months to get this WA negotiated.
The idea that someone else (be they BoJo, Gove, Corbyn, McDonnell or Uncle Tom Cobley) could step in and magically negotiate a fresh deal with a pissed-off and intransigent EU, and that that new deal would magically command the support of the HoC is, frankly, beyond laughable.
You are ruling out a better deal OK I don't
If not we either have a No Deal/ Remain Referendum or a GE
TM has spent 30 months pleasing nobody.
Sooner she goes the better.
We need to get on.
She has wasted 85% of the time available to get a terrible deal.
Time for robotic pontification is over.
You seem a bit robotic yourself on your answer, to be fair !!!
Very good!
Those Russian coders are still working on the personality algorithms for the bigjohnowls-bot
I havent just sat in front of select Committee for 2 hours giving the same answer to 70 different questions.
Your leader is useless Big G.
The 2 of you carry on cheerleading the Deal.
You will lose on 11th December.
Then what will the MayBot do?
I dont expect you to answer like TM
If you read this thread I have explained TM next actions on losing the vote.
It is the kind of fine print to which lawyers devote many billable hours crafting and reviewing. Rick Gates’s plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller includes this line: “The defendant agrees not to reveal his cooperation, or any information derived therefrom, to any third party without prior consent of the Office.” The language of Paul Manafort’s cooperation deal is almost identical—with the exception of that sentence about disclosing information to third parties. “The absence of that gag order is not an oversight,” says Katya Jestin, a former federal prosecutor. “This could be part of a larger strategic play by Mueller. Which gives this a John le Carré aspect.”
On Monday, Mueller went to court to take the rare step of invalidating a plea deal, accusing Manafort of lying after agreeing to cooperate with the government; Manafort maintains that he told the special counsel the truth. The stunning collapse of Manafort’s deal raises a bigger and more intriguing question: who created that loophole about talking to third parties, and is it part of a sophisticated game Mueller is playing? Or did President Donald Trump just blunder into incriminating himself?
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
She is hopeless.
Thankfully she will be gone soon
And then what Bigjohn?
And then we negotiate a better deal or we have an in out Referendum or a GE
We cannot carry on with this completely useless woman in charge.
She has spent 30 months to get to this load of crap.
Seriously
As you say it's taken 30 months to get this WA negotiated.
The idea that someone else (be they BoJo, Gove, Corbyn, McDonnell or Uncle Tom Cobley) could step in and magically negotiate a fresh deal with a pissed-off and intransigent EU, and that that new deal would magically command the support of the HoC is, frankly, beyond laughable.
You are ruling out a better deal OK I don't
If not we either have a No Deal/ Remain Referendum or a GE
TM has spent 30 months pleasing nobody.
Sooner she goes the better.
We need to get on.
She has wasted 85% of the time available to get a terrible deal.
Time for robotic pontification is over.
Look, I don't say a better deal couldn't have been negotiated but your view of what is a better deal will not match mine, which will not match grabcoque's, which will not match GIN's etc. etc.
What is it about this deal that is so terrible from your perspective?
The Backstop that we need EU permission to leave.
Pah - we could abrogate if we really felt is had become an issue the EU weren't playing ball on.
Anyway, doesn't the backstop give us free cake... Customs Union access with no contributions? Can't see the EU letting us stay there for very long tbh.
It is the kind of fine print to which lawyers devote many billable hours crafting and reviewing. Rick Gates’s plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller includes this line: “The defendant agrees not to reveal his cooperation, or any information derived therefrom, to any third party without prior consent of the Office.” The language of Paul Manafort’s cooperation deal is almost identical—with the exception of that sentence about disclosing information to third parties. “The absence of that gag order is not an oversight,” says Katya Jestin, a former federal prosecutor. “This could be part of a larger strategic play by Mueller. Which gives this a John le Carré aspect.”
On Monday, Mueller went to court to take the rare step of invalidating a plea deal, accusing Manafort of lying after agreeing to cooperate with the government; Manafort maintains that he told the special counsel the truth. The stunning collapse of Manafort’s deal raises a bigger and more intriguing question: who created that loophole about talking to third parties, and is it part of a sophisticated game Mueller is playing? Or did President Donald Trump just blunder into incriminating himself?
Non-EU net migration was at its highest since 2004, with 248,000 more non-EU citizens arriving than departing, the Office for National Statistics said.
Would we rather have EU migrants or non EU ones. And is this 'Taking back Control' of our borders.
Non-EU immigration is decided by the government. If it is high then it is government policy.
Non-EU net migration was at its highest since 2004, with 248,000 more non-EU citizens arriving than departing, the Office for National Statistics said.
Would we rather have EU migrants or non EU ones. And is this 'Taking back Control' of our borders.
There’s no quality control on Eu migration. Non Eu migration is there is.
As others are pointing out, the scary "headline" figures put forward by Carney are all smoke and mirrors. The endgame of Project Fear - to scare people into accepting May's sub-optimal Deal, is unravelling and as the truth comes out, two things will happen.
First, the preparations for No Deal will ramp up considerably and second, a lot of the scare stories about water shortages, medical supplies and the rest will be comprehensively debunked and ridiculed and people will start asking how we could have been as stupid as to believe this nonsense again.
Make people scared enough and they'll sign away their very souls for a modicum of safety and security.
I think that the scare stories are overblown, but the reality of a No Deal Brexit would be disruptive. But, the problem is that the government cried wolf in 2016, and the wolf didn't appear.
But it did eventually.
Nope. Still the same people crying "Wolf!!" two years on. Still no wolf.
As others are pointing out, the scary "headline" figures put forward by Carney are all smoke and mirrors. The endgame of Project Fear - to scare people into accepting May's sub-optimal Deal, is unravelling and as the truth comes out, two things will happen.
First, the preparations for No Deal will ramp up considerably and second, a lot of the scare stories about water shortages, medical supplies and the rest will be comprehensively debunked and ridiculed and people will start asking how we could have been as stupid as to believe this nonsense again.
Make people scared enough and they'll sign away their very souls for a modicum of safety and security.
I think that the scare stories are overblown, but the reality of a No Deal Brexit would be disruptive. But, the problem is that the government cried wolf in 2016, and the wolf didn't appear.
But it did eventually.
Nope. Still the same people crying "Wolf!!" two years on. Still no wolf.
You assume certain actions but the next move if the deal falls is for TM to decide. She could resign, face a vnoc from labour and/or the conservative mps, or may receive cabinet endorsement for her next move.
Interesting in the select committee today Yvette Cooper said to TM that they had known each other for 20 years and there is no way she would allow a no deal. Obviously TM continued to defend her deal but I expect a meeting to be called by TM after the vote with all party leaders to seek a way through the impasse. We know the SNP want Norway as would a large number of labour mps, indeed Stephen Kinnoch was promoting it on the Welsh news.
It is safer than a referendum that could be a disaster of epic portions making the last one look like a walk in the park
You assume certain actions but the next move if the deal falls is for TM to decide. She could resign, face a vnoc from labour and/or the conservative mps, or may receive cabinet endorsement for her next move.
Interesting in the select committee today Yvette Cooper said to TM that they had known each other for 20 years and there is no way she would allow a no deal. Obviously TM continued to defend her deal but I expect a meeting to be called by TM after the vote with all party leaders to seek a way through the impasse. We know the SNP want Norway as would a large number of labour mps, indeed Stephen Kinnoch was promoting it on the Welsh news.
It is safer than a referendum that could be a disaster of epic portions making the last one look like a walk in the park
As others are pointing out, the scary "headline" figures put forward by Carney are all smoke and mirrors. The endgame of Project Fear - to scare people into accepting May's sub-optimal Deal, is unravelling and as the truth comes out, two things will happen.
First, the preparations for No Deal will ramp up considerably and second, a lot of the scare stories about water shortages, medical supplies and the rest will be comprehensively debunked and ridiculed and people will start asking how we could have been as stupid as to believe this nonsense again.
Make people scared enough and they'll sign away their very souls for a modicum of safety and security.
I think that the scare stories are overblown, but the reality of a No Deal Brexit would be disruptive. But, the problem is that the government cried wolf in 2016, and the wolf didn't appear.
But it did eventually.
Nope. Still the same people crying "Wolf!!" two years on. Still no wolf.
You need to take a look at the original.
Eventually the wolf comes, and everyone dies, because nobody listened to his warning the one time when it mattered.
James Forsythe thinks May could go for (and win) a 3-question 2nd referendum:
I know that the idea of May proposing a second referendum seems outlandish—and I’m not suggesting that Number 10 are currently keen on the idea. But given that she can’t pivot to Norway having defined the referendum as being about free movement and that she doesn’t want either no deal or Remain, then what other options does she have? As Sherlock Holmes said, once you have eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
If Mrs May's solution is voted down in parliament it would be a novel idea to go over the heads of MPs and put it to the country through a referendum
There will be a referendum, but it won't be on "May's deal".
Why not?
You think Parliament will pass either "No Deal" or "Remain" resolutions?
And if they do, what's the point of a referendum?
Those resolutions won't get tabled. Only the "Deal" resolution will, and it will be defeated.
Why not? The government could to determine 'the will of the House' - 'No Deal' would lose more heavily than the Deal, and 'Remain' would do best - and if Remain won Parliament would be in a right old pickle.
But I expect all 3 to lose, so if Parliament can't decide (which they should) all three should go forward - and the Deal will win - after more wasted months of uncertainty, lost business and lost jobs.
You assume certain actions but the next move if the deal falls is for TM to decide. She could resign, face a vnoc from labour and/or the conservative mps, or may receive cabinet endorsement for her next move.
Interesting in the select committee today Yvette Cooper said to TM that they had known each other for 20 years and there is no way she would allow a no deal. Obviously TM continued to defend her deal but I expect a meeting to be called by TM after the vote with all party leaders to seek a way through the impasse. We know the SNP want Norway as would a large number of labour mps, indeed Stephen Kinnoch was promoting it on the Welsh news.
It is safer than a referendum that could be a disaster of epic portions making the last one look like a walk in the park
As others are pointing out, the scary "headline" figures put forward by Carney are all smoke and mirrors. The endgame of Project Fear - to scare people into accepting May's sub-optimal Deal, is unravelling and as the truth comes out, two things will happen.
First, the preparations for No Deal will ramp up considerably and second, a lot of the scare stories about water shortages, medical supplies and the rest will be comprehensively debunked and ridiculed and people will start asking how we could have been as stupid as to believe this nonsense again.
Make people scared enough and they'll sign away their very souls for a modicum of safety and security.
I think that the scare stories are overblown, but the reality of a No Deal Brexit would be disruptive. But, the problem is that the government cried wolf in 2016, and the wolf didn't appear.
But it did eventually.
Nope. Still the same people crying "Wolf!!" two years on. Still no wolf.
That's what happened in the fable......... until!!!!!!!
You assume certain actions but the next move if the deal falls is for TM to decide. She could resign, face a vnoc from labour and/or the conservative mps, or may receive cabinet endorsement for her next move.
Interesting in the select committee today Yvette Cooper said to TM that they had known each other for 20 years and there is no way she would allow a no deal. Obviously TM continued to defend her deal but I expect a meeting to be called by TM after the vote with all party leaders to seek a way through the impasse. We know the SNP want Norway as would a large number of labour mps, indeed Stephen Kinnoch was promoting it on the Welsh news.
It is safer than a referendum that could be a disaster of epic portions making the last one look like a walk in the park
What happens in the minutes after the meaningful vote will settle her fate. She needs to get on the news, and take control of the Plan B narrative, before the calls for her to resign get too loud.
If (as I suspect) she tries to pull a "nothing has changed", I think her Cabinet will force her out.
As others are pointing out, the scary "headline" figures put forward by Carney are all smoke and mirrors. The endgame of Project Fear - to scare people into accepting May's sub-optimal Deal, is unravelling and as the truth comes out, two things will happen.
First, the preparations for No Deal will ramp up considerably and second, a lot of the scare stories about water shortages, medical supplies and the rest will be comprehensively debunked and ridiculed and people will start asking how we could have been as stupid as to believe this nonsense again.
Make people scared enough and they'll sign away their very souls for a modicum of safety and security.
I think that the scare stories are overblown, but the reality of a No Deal Brexit would be disruptive. But, the problem is that the government cried wolf in 2016, and the wolf didn't appear.
But it did eventually.
Nope. Still the same people crying "Wolf!!" two years on. Still no wolf.
We'll file that alongside Boris's "titanic success"
You assume certain actions but the next move if the deal falls is for TM to decide. She could resign, face a vnoc from labour and/or the conservative mps, or may receive cabinet endorsement for her next move.
Interesting in the select committee today Yvette Cooper said to TM that they had known each other for 20 years and there is no way she would allow a no deal. Obviously TM continued to defend her deal but I expect a meeting to be called by TM after the vote with all party leaders to seek a way through the impasse. We know the SNP want Norway as would a large number of labour mps, indeed Stephen Kinnoch was promoting it on the Welsh news.
It is safer than a referendum that could be a disaster of epic portions making the last one look like a walk in the park
What happens in the minutes after the meaningful vote will settle her fate. She needs to get on the news, and take control of the Plan B narrative, before the calls for her to resign get too loud.
If (as I suspect) she tries to pull a "nothing has changed", I think her Cabinet will force her out.
She cannot say nothing has changed. Because it is fairly certain it will fall TM will already be gaming her position and I doubt calls for her to go before she feveals her hand would gain traction. It is both the point of most danger for her but also opportunity
What happens in the minutes after the meaningful vote will settle her fate. She needs to get on the news, and take control of the Plan B narrative, before the calls for her to resign get too loud.
If (as I suspect) she tries to pull a "nothing has changed", I think her Cabinet will force her out.
We'll see - but she has to be 'the one with the plan' while the headless chickens run around squawking... (how does a headless chicken squawk? - ed.)
Cos there's never been any moneylaundering in London, of course.
Germany has one of the weakest banks around - Deutsche Bank. It is in deep trouble and has been for years, "unregulatable" as one regulator put it to me. Germany's regulators are the weakest in Europe and the German government - unlike others - has done nothing to put matters right.
All financial centres have problems. I could go on and on and on and on and on about the problems in London.
But having a weak regulatory system, an unwillingness to clean up, a failure to challenge and ongoing weaknesses amongst your major banks (and DB is not the only one I'd be concerned about) is no basis for having a strong financial centre.
London is by no means perfect. But it is streets ahead of Germany in this respect. Listen to what Carney said this morning about the financial system - about finance no longer being the centre of attention (in a bad way) that it had been for so long. The EU needs to realise that being a strong financial centre requires quite a lot more than simply having some jobs move there. A fractured financial sector in Europe is not good news for anyone.
James Forsythe thinks May could go for (and win) a 3-question 2nd referendum:
I know that the idea of May proposing a second referendum seems outlandish—and I’m not suggesting that Number 10 are currently keen on the idea. But given that she can’t pivot to Norway having defined the referendum as being about free movement and that she doesn’t want either no deal or Remain, then what other options does she have? As Sherlock Holmes said, once you have eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
If Mrs May's solution is voted down in parliament it would be a novel idea to go over the heads of MPs and put it to the country through a referendum
It'd be displacement activity. What would be the point of asking the people to back a deal that Parliament had rejected? It would look foolish and absurd, and raise lots of very awkward constitutional questions. And the electoral commission would have none of it.
The point would be the obvious one: it's an option which is actually available. There is zero point is having a referendum on options which are not available, and we can be very sure that parliament doesn't want No Deal. So, if you're going to have a referendum at all, then the reality of the parliamentary position is that is has to be Remain vs May's Deal.
Snip
Not at all. The whole point of having a referendum (which of course I oppose) would be to take the decision away from Parliament because they have failed to proceed with any option. As such saying that Parliament doesn't want No Deal is immaterial. They would have abrogated that decision to the referendum and if that is what the voters come back with so be it.
The only option that should not be included is Remain as that vote was already held and lost in 2016. It is the one option that has been rejected by the public. All the others are still up for debate and decision.
No matter how many times you post the same point, it isn't true.
You assume certain actions but the next move if the deal falls is for TM to decide. She could resign, face a vnoc from labour and/or the conservative mps, or may receive cabinet endorsement for her next move.
Interesting in the select committee today Yvette Cooper said to TM that they had known each other for 20 years and there is no way she would allow a no deal. Obviously TM continued to defend her deal but I expect a meeting to be called by TM after the vote with all party leaders to seek a way through the impasse. We know the SNP want Norway as would a large number of labour mps, indeed Stephen Kinnoch was promoting it on the Welsh news.
It is safer than a referendum that could be a disaster of epic portions making the last one look like a walk in the park
You assume certain actions but the next move if the deal falls is for TM to decide. She could resign, face a vnoc from labour and/or the conservative mps, or may receive cabinet endorsement for her next move.
Interesting in the select committee today Yvette Cooper said to TM that they had known each other for 20 years and there is no way she would allow a no deal. Obviously TM continued to defend her deal but I expect a meeting to be called by TM after the vote with all party leaders to seek a way through the impasse. We know the SNP want Norway as would a large number of labour mps, indeed Stephen Kinnoch was promoting it on the Welsh news.
It is safer than a referendum that could be a disaster of epic portions making the last one look like a walk in the park
It would also get me my £100 from Richard N
Indeed!
To be fair I still think it is odds on for you to win this one unfortunately (as in unfortunate because Norway is not just a bet for me but also my preferred result for Brexit.)
Repost as requested BJO Interesting in the select committee today Yvette Cooper said to TM that they had known each other for 20 years and there is no way she would allow a no deal.
Yes and unfortunately so did the EU, which is why her negotiation attempts were such a spectacular failure.
You assume certain actions but the next move if the deal falls is for TM to decide. She could resign, face a vnoc from labour and/or the conservative mps, or may receive cabinet endorsement for her next move.
Interesting in the select committee today Yvette Cooper said to TM that they had known each other for 20 years and there is no way she would allow a no deal. Obviously TM continued to defend her deal but I expect a meeting to be called by TM after the vote with all party leaders to seek a way through the impasse. We know the SNP want Norway as would a large number of labour mps, indeed Stephen Kinnoch was promoting it on the Welsh news.
It is safer than a referendum that could be a disaster of epic portions making the last one look like a walk in the park
What happens in the minutes after the meaningful vote will settle her fate. She needs to get on the news, and take control of the Plan B narrative, before the calls for her to resign get too loud.
If (as I suspect) she tries to pull a "nothing has changed", I think her Cabinet will force her out.
She cannot say nothing has changed. Because it is fairly certain it will fall TM will already be gaming her position and I doubt calls for her to go before she feveals her hand would gain traction. It is both the point of most danger for her but also opportunity
We will see
Interesting, I think this may be an area where I give May more credit than you. I'd be very surprised if she tries "nothing has changed". A little more likely if the vote ends up coming down to the wire, perhaps
Just to pick up on @NickPalmer’s point, I’m not being defeatist and I do expect a resolution, though not a happy one. It’s tolerably clear that things are going to get quite a lot worse as a result of whatever resolution is achieved. Large numbers on all sides are going to feel unhappy and cheated. That is only going to make British politics yet more sulphurous.
Non-EU net migration was at its highest since 2004, with 248,000 more non-EU citizens arriving than departing, the Office for National Statistics said.
Would we rather have EU migrants or non EU ones. And is this 'Taking back Control' of our borders.
Non-EU immigration is decided by the government. If it is high then it is government policy.
Maybe, but that subtlety might be lost on the majority of Leave voters.
Repost as requested BJO Interesting in the select committee today Yvette Cooper said to TM that they had known each other for 20 years and there is no way she would allow a no deal.
Yes and unfortunately so did the EU, which is why her negotiation attempts were such a spectacular failure.
Very easy for the EU to reach that conclusion when we did no obvious, public planning for No Deal.
Cameron made it clear in his "renegotiation" that he would vote Remain come what may; the PM has made it clear in her "negotaiation" that she would never No Deal Brexit. Both have proven a calamitous miscalculation in dealing with the EU.
You assume certain actions but the next move if the deal falls is for TM to decide. She could resign, face a vnoc from labour and/or the conservative mps, or may receive cabinet endorsement for her next move.
Interesting in the select committee today Yvette Cooper said to TM that they had known each other for 20 years and there is no way she would allow a no deal. Obviously TM continued to defend her deal but I expect a meeting to be called by TM after the vote with all party leaders to seek a way through the impasse. We know the SNP want Norway as would a large number of labour mps, indeed Stephen Kinnoch was promoting it on the Welsh news.
It is safer than a referendum that could be a disaster of epic portions making the last one look like a walk in the park
It would also get me my £100 from Richard N
Indeed!
Despite that, it is a consummation devoutly to be wished.
Comments
1. Leigh-on-Sea
2. Farnham
3. Monmouth
4. Christchurch
5. Leamington Spa
6. Newbury
7. Macclesfield
8. Hitchin
9. Tunbridge Wells
10.Kendal
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-6437727/Do-live-one-happiest-places-Britain-asks-Rightmove.html
It seems to be easier for those from that part of the world to immigrate here than from other places. I know of several well-educated people from Australian, US, Japan and South America that can't get visas to live here. But we've had millions of immigrants from India and Pakistan.
Is there a government policy to favour those from that part of the world?
The problem for Labour is that it then has to come up with a manifesto position.....
The problem for the Tories is they have to unite around a new leader.....
(Classic Forest match last night btw!)
Who does he think it is who would be going "over the heads of MPs"? Father Christmas?
There will be a referendum, but it won't be on "May's deal".
First, the preparations for No Deal will ramp up considerably and second, a lot of the scare stories about water shortages, medical supplies and the rest will be comprehensively debunked and ridiculed and people will start asking how we could have been as stupid as to believe this nonsense again.
Make people scared enough and they'll sign away their very souls for a modicum of safety and security.
What is it about this deal that is so terrible from your perspective?
Would be much more entertaining....
The electoral commission needs to then decide on a question (or set of questions) and to frame them in neutral terms. It's unlikely to heed the proposed wording of a Prime Minister who is in her own words attempting to "go over the heads" of Parliament and nobble the result to a particular outcome.
No, what Forsythe wrote is bumguff.
Now, you could argue that this is silly in that parliament should make the decision. I agree. Unfortunately they look as though they won't back the deal which has been negotiated and which is the only one available, and that they won't vote for reversing the whole idea of Brexit. The latter is not unreasonable, given that it would be reversing the referendum result.
You think Parliament will pass either "No Deal" or "Remain" resolutions?
And if they do, what's the point of a referendum?
Those Russian coders are still working on the personality algorithms for the bigjohnowls-bot
Anyway, doesn't the backstop give us free cake... Customs Union access with no contributions? Can't see the EU letting us stay there for very long tbh.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46382722
Your leader is useless Big G.
The 2 of you carry on cheerleading the Deal.
You will lose on 11th December.
Then what will the MayBot do?
I dont expect you to answer like TM
We can have our cake but not eat it.
Very frustrating.
The only option that should not be included is Remain as that vote was already held and lost in 2016. It is the one option that has been rejected by the public. All the others are still up for debate and decision.
It's hard to predict the shape of the first shortage stories. That few in Britain have experience of shortages will give the stories extra shock value, but most people will "believe" those with posh accents, or who speak in expert voice tones even without posh accents, who tell them it's all going to be OK. I mean they will superficially believe them. When people in their 30s are at the mercy of private landlords with no end in sight whereas their parents were already on the housing ladder by that age, few will FEEL that things will REALLY be OK. Then the Sun will print a story about how Romanians are getting free bread. And another of how a Muslim child got badly bullied. And Leave will win again.
TM is the most popular and trusted politician in the Country on Brexit but do not let that get in your way BJO
Would we rather have EU migrants or non EU ones. And is this 'Taking back Control' of our borders.
But, if there's to be a PV, and if May's deal has already been comprehensively rejected by Parliament, I don't see how or why Parliament would then go through the absurd spectacle of letting something that has been decisively rejected be suddenly resurrected by a referendum.
The first referendum showed the real dangers of a holding a referendum where Parliament doesn't believe one of the two outcomes is reasonable. Making the same mistake AGAIN would be unforgivable.
*IF* we have a PV, and I really hope we don't, it's imperative for the government and Parliament to be able to broadly accept any answer. And if it can't, then don't ask it.
- and he should know.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-46380090/jacob-rees-mogg-calls-mark-carney-a-failed-second-tier-politician
On the salient point, it depends entirely on who those EU and Non EU migrants are. I suspect in both cases the vast majority are the sort of people we would want in the country anyway as it will benefit us and them equally.
This is why arguments about immigration have always been rather dumb.
What will May do if/when she loses? Resign probably but what then?:
BoJo, Gove, or some other Leaver as PM? They'll just come back with the same deal.
A General Election? No - Jezza doesn't have the numbers to force a VoNC
No happy paths there.
Jezza should be negotiating with Tezza for an early GE in return for tacit support for her Deal.
There must, surely, be a German word for it. Surely?
Cant see your next actions advice
Can you repost please
On Monday, Mueller went to court to take the rare step of invalidating a plea deal, accusing Manafort of lying after agreeing to cooperate with the government; Manafort maintains that he told the special counsel the truth. The stunning collapse of Manafort’s deal raises a bigger and more intriguing question: who created that loophole about talking to third parties, and is it part of a sophisticated game Mueller is playing? Or did President Donald Trump just blunder into incriminating himself?
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/11/robert-mueller-paul-manafort-special-counsel-chess-game
You assume certain actions but the next move if the deal falls is for TM to decide. She could resign, face a vnoc from labour and/or the conservative mps, or may receive cabinet endorsement for her next move.
Interesting in the select committee today Yvette Cooper said to TM that they had known each other for 20 years and there is no way she would allow a no deal. Obviously TM continued to defend her deal but I expect a meeting to be called by TM after the vote with all party leaders to seek a way through the impasse. We know the SNP want Norway as would a large number of labour mps, indeed Stephen Kinnoch was promoting it on the Welsh news.
It is safer than a referendum that could be a disaster of epic portions making the last one look like a walk in the park
It would also get me my £100 from Richard N
But I expect all 3 to lose, so if Parliament can't decide (which they should) all three should go forward - and the Deal will win - after more wasted months of uncertainty, lost business and lost jobs.
What happens in the minutes after the meaningful vote will settle her fate. She needs to get on the news, and take control of the Plan B narrative, before the calls for her to resign get too loud.
If (as I suspect) she tries to pull a "nothing has changed", I think her Cabinet will force her out.
If (as I suspect) she tries to pull a "nothing has changed", I think her Cabinet will force her out.
She cannot say nothing has changed. Because it is fairly certain it will fall TM will already be gaming her position and I doubt calls for her to go before she feveals her hand would gain traction. It is both the point of most danger for her but also opportunity
We will see
All financial centres have problems. I could go on and on and on and on and on about the problems in London.
But having a weak regulatory system, an unwillingness to clean up, a failure to challenge and ongoing weaknesses amongst your major banks (and DB is not the only one I'd be concerned about) is no basis for having a strong financial centre.
London is by no means perfect. But it is streets ahead of Germany in this respect. Listen to what Carney said this morning about the financial system - about finance no longer being the centre of attention (in a bad way) that it had been for so long. The EU needs to realise that being a strong financial centre requires quite a lot more than simply having some jobs move there. A fractured financial sector in Europe is not good news for anyone.
OK Ta
She cannot say nothing has changed. Because it is fairly certain it will fall TM will already be gaming her position and I doubt calls for her to go before she feveals her hand would gain traction. It is both the point of most danger for her but also opportunity
We will see
Interesting, I think this may be an area where I give May more credit than you. I'd be very surprised if she tries "nothing has changed". A little more likely if the vote ends up coming down to the wire, perhaps
Apparently it is because he is looking out for the little people, so they don’t miss out on i’m a non-celeb.
Cameron made it clear in his "renegotiation" that he would vote Remain come what may; the PM has made it clear in her "negotaiation" that she would never No Deal Brexit. Both have proven a calamitous miscalculation in dealing with the EU.