Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Prodi’s assertion that the EU will negotiate further if MPs re

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited December 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Prodi’s assertion that the EU will negotiate further if MPs reject the deal makes TMay’s task even harder

EU WILL negotiate if TMay loses Tuesday's Commons Brexit vote, says former EU head Prodi https://t.co/6EHH57jHdv

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    1st
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    2nd
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    3rd
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    A clean sweep for me :D
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    I feel Mr Prodi would have been wiser to keep quiet until after the CJEU verdict and the HoC vote. There are enough complications as it is
  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,002
    Jeez Bev! :o
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,593
    Does he have a personal grudge against either May or the UK?

    His pot-stirring is at best ill-advised and at worst thicker than a yard of lard if not.

    But to be honest, most of it now hinges on the CJEU next Monday. If they rule we can revoke A50 unilaterally the odds are we will crash out with no deal. If not, that should tip the unicorn admirers in Labour to abstention.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,593
    RobD said:

    Jeez Bev! :o

    She had four, before a post that was against.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 40,584
    I hope Prodi is right as parliament is definitely rejecting the deal anyway, and if he is wrong our options are more limited.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 23,723
    "Common sense helps."

    Suggests it has been lacking to date. Prodi putting the boot into the current regime in Brussels?
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 1,646
    edited December 2018
    How about we keep freedom of movement but negotiate that no new arrivals are allowed to claim any welfare benefits for 3 years (e.g. tax credits and housing benefits) until they have paid in and require private medical insurance (beyond their EHIC 3 months) for a year before getting free access to the NHS? If employers want to top up their employee's wages and provide medical insurance to cover the difference - that should be their right!

    Tax credits and housing benefit as concepts don't exist in most central and eastern European nations - so it shouldn't be a major issue. So its just reciprocity after all.

    It would at least be a compromise if we must keep FOM Norway style?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 40,584
    ydoethur said:

    Does he have a personal grudge against either May or the UK?

    His pot-stirring is at best ill-advised and at worst thicker than a yard of lard if not.

    But to be honest, most of it now hinges on the CJEU next Monday. If they rule we can revoke A50 unilaterally the odds are we will crash out with no deal. If not, that should tip the unicorn admirers in Labour to abstention.

    You don't think if it rules that way we are quite likely, if not now then sometime before March, revoke? There are serious problems doing so without a referendum, but if parliamentarians mean what they say they will take that option to avoid no deal.

    Also, what about the unicorn admirers in the Tories? In a scenario where we cannot revoke then do they tip to abstain?
  • A clean sweep for me :D

    Some would say that is cheating
  • eekeek Posts: 3,081
    brendan16 said:

    How about we keep freedom of movement but negotiate that no new arrivals are allowed to claim any welfare benefits for 3 years (e.g. tax credits and housing benefits) until they have paid in and require private medical insurance (beyond their EHIC 3 months) for a year before getting free access to the NHS? If employers want to top up their employee's wages and provide medical insurance to cover the difference - that should be their right!

    Tax credits and housing benefit as concepts don't exist in most central and eastern European nations - so it shouldn't be a major issue. So its just reciprocity after all.

    It would at least be a compromise if we must keep FOM Norway style?

    We were told to do that in 2004 but some people (Blair and Brown) didn't listen
  • eekeek Posts: 3,081
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Does he have a personal grudge against either May or the UK?

    His pot-stirring is at best ill-advised and at worst thicker than a yard of lard if not.

    But to be honest, most of it now hinges on the CJEU next Monday. If they rule we can revoke A50 unilaterally the odds are we will crash out with no deal. If not, that should tip the unicorn admirers in Labour to abstention.

    You don't think if it rules that way we are quite likely, if not now then sometime before March, revoke? There are serious problems doing so without a referendum, but if parliamentarians mean what they say they will take that option to avoid no deal.

    Also, what about the unicorn admirers in the Tories? In a scenario where we cannot revoke then do they tip to abstain?
    +1 I expect we are going to end up revoking A50 as it will be the only sane option left on the table...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 24,604
    There remains a simple solution to the backstop: allow the people of Northern Ireland to choose to exit it. That will be acceptable to the EU, because it's not the people of rUK who make the choice, and it may be acceptable to enough Conservative MPs, because the people of Northern Ireland are sovereign to make their own decision.

    It's the get out clause for everyone keen to avoid No Deal Brexit.

    With this is mind, we now need to think at one level of remove. You see, this is probably (possibly) acceptable to the DUP. So, Corbyn loses his ability to bring down the government. And therefore the chance of his become PM.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 3,688
    brendan16 said:

    How about we keep freedom of movement but negotiate that no new arrivals are allowed to claim any welfare benefits for 3 years (e.g. tax credits and housing benefits) until they have paid in and require private medical insurance (beyond their EHIC 3 months) for a year before getting free access to the NHS? If employers want to top up their employee's wages and provide medical insurance to cover the difference - that should be their right!

    Tax credits and housing benefit as concepts don't exist in most central and eastern European nations - so it shouldn't be a major issue. So its just reciprocity after all.

    It would at least be a compromise if we must keep FOM Norway style?

    We always could have done that. We just have a strange aversion to compulsory ID cards.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,002
    brendan16 said:

    How about we keep freedom of movement but negotiate that no new arrivals are allowed to claim any welfare benefits for 3 years (e.g. tax credits and housing benefits) until they have paid in and require private medical insurance (beyond their EHIC 3 months) for a year before getting free access to the NHS? If employers want to top up their employee's wages and provide medical insurance to cover the difference - that should be their right!

    Tax credits and housing benefit as concepts don't exist in most central and eastern European nations - so it shouldn't be a major issue. So its just reciprocity after all.

    It would at least be a compromise if we must keep FOM Norway style?

    Didn't Cameron try that already?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,826

    A clean sweep for me :D

    One medal per person. Follow the rules!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,826
    RobD said:

    Jeez Bev! :o

    She makes you look restrained by comparison.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 25,894
    ydoethur said:

    If they rule we can revoke A50 unilaterally the odds are we will crash out with no deal.

    There's no political logic behind any of your arguments about this, just blind pessimism. First you thought Selmayr was plotting to force us out with no deal, now you think that giving us the unilateral choice not to leave will somehow encourage us to jump off the cliff.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,576
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Does he have a personal grudge against either May or the UK?

    His pot-stirring is at best ill-advised and at worst thicker than a yard of lard if not.

    But to be honest, most of it now hinges on the CJEU next Monday. If they rule we can revoke A50 unilaterally the odds are we will crash out with no deal. If not, that should tip the unicorn admirers in Labour to abstention.

    You don't think if it rules that way we are quite likely, if not now then sometime before March, revoke? There are serious problems doing so without a referendum, but if parliamentarians mean what they say they will take that option to avoid no deal.

    Also, what about the unicorn admirers in the Tories? In a scenario where we cannot revoke then do they tip to abstain?
    Revocation would require the Pro-EU MPs to win control of the Government, and would entail the destruction of the Conservative Party and probably a Labour split as well. Followed, in short order, by a General Election under completely fluid and unpredictable circumstances.

    It's possible, but it would imply the most sudden and radical re-ordering of the party political system in British history.
  • A clean sweep for me :D

    How do you make sure you're posting on the final instance of the thread? I always seem to see my posts disappear.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    eek said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Does he have a personal grudge against either May or the UK?

    His pot-stirring is at best ill-advised and at worst thicker than a yard of lard if not.

    But to be honest, most of it now hinges on the CJEU next Monday. If they rule we can revoke A50 unilaterally the odds are we will crash out with no deal. If not, that should tip the unicorn admirers in Labour to abstention.

    You don't think if it rules that way we are quite likely, if not now then sometime before March, revoke? There are serious problems doing so without a referendum, but if parliamentarians mean what they say they will take that option to avoid no deal.

    Also, what about the unicorn admirers in the Tories? In a scenario where we cannot revoke then do they tip to abstain?
    +1 I expect we are going to end up revoking A50 as it will be the only sane option left on the table...
    There will be a reckoning.... I am a 100% a believer in the democratic process. When you lose people like me, you are on a slippy slope. I won’t turn into a non voter. I just won’t be using the democratic process anymore.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    A clean sweep for me :D

    How do you make sure you're posting on the final instance of the thread? I always seem to see my posts disappear.
    If it disappears, it disappears. C'est le vie.... ;)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,002

    A clean sweep for me :D

    How do you make sure you're posting on the final instance of the thread? I always seem to see my posts disappear.
    Usually it's a vanilla bug that makes some disappear... or so i've been told.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 47,988
    edited December 2018
    Mrs C clearly had a false start, and should therefore be disqualified.

    Intrigued to see how many MPs actually back the deal.

    Edited extra bit: assuming there is a vote, of course.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,794

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Does he have a personal grudge against either May or the UK?

    His pot-stirring is at best ill-advised and at worst thicker than a yard of lard if not.

    But to be honest, most of it now hinges on the CJEU next Monday. If they rule we can revoke A50 unilaterally the odds are we will crash out with no deal. If not, that should tip the unicorn admirers in Labour to abstention.

    You don't think if it rules that way we are quite likely, if not now then sometime before March, revoke? There are serious problems doing so without a referendum, but if parliamentarians mean what they say they will take that option to avoid no deal.

    Also, what about the unicorn admirers in the Tories? In a scenario where we cannot revoke then do they tip to abstain?
    Revocation would require the Pro-EU MPs to win control of the Government, and would entail the destruction of the Conservative Party and probably a Labour split as well. Followed, in short order, by a General Election under completely fluid and unpredictable circumstances.

    It's possible, but it would imply the most sudden and radical re-ordering of the party political system in British history.
    I am sure we can do it if we need to. We are all British, aren`t we? Spirit if Second World War, and all that.....
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 1,646
    edited December 2018
    dixiedean said:

    brendan16 said:

    How about we keep freedom of movement but negotiate that no new arrivals are allowed to claim any welfare benefits for 3 years (e.g. tax credits and housing benefits) until they have paid in and require private medical insurance (beyond their EHIC 3 months) for a year before getting free access to the NHS? If employers want to top up their employee's wages and provide medical insurance to cover the difference - that should be their right!

    Tax credits and housing benefit as concepts don't exist in most central and eastern European nations - so it shouldn't be a major issue. So its just reciprocity after all.

    It would at least be a compromise if we must keep FOM Norway style?

    We always could have done that. We just have a strange aversion to compulsory ID cards.
    Just call it a public services card or a passport card - like the Irish have introduced to access services and travel across the EU. The public services card was only introduced in 2012 and now 75% of the population and rising have it - as you basically cannot access most services from pensions to welfare to driving licences to first passports without getting one. It also doubles up as a bus pass and travel card for the elderly and disabled entitled to free bus and train travel in Ireland.

    https://www.thesun.ie/news/1462486/what-is-the-new-public-services-card-what-do-we-need-it-for-and-how-do-we-get-it/

    The Irish passport card is also a handy photocard you can use for travel in the EEA area. It performs a similar function to a national ID card proving you are Irish if you travel or relocate in the EU .

    https://www.dfa.ie/passportcard/

    It can be done with some effort and creativity! Just don't call it a national ID card - call it an NHS and public services card.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    A clean sweep for me :D

    Some would say that is cheating
    Really? I am not TSE... ;)

    :D :D :D
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    IanB2 said:

    A clean sweep for me :D

    One medal per person. Follow the rules!
    No
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 14,096

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Does he have a personal grudge against either May or the UK?

    His pot-stirring is at best ill-advised and at worst thicker than a yard of lard if not.

    But to be honest, most of it now hinges on the CJEU next Monday. If they rule we can revoke A50 unilaterally the odds are we will crash out with no deal. If not, that should tip the unicorn admirers in Labour to abstention.

    You don't think if it rules that way we are quite likely, if not now then sometime before March, revoke? There are serious problems doing so without a referendum, but if parliamentarians mean what they say they will take that option to avoid no deal.

    Also, what about the unicorn admirers in the Tories? In a scenario where we cannot revoke then do they tip to abstain?
    Revocation would require the Pro-EU MPs to win control of the Government, and would entail the destruction of the Conservative Party and probably a Labour split as well. Followed, in short order, by a General Election under completely fluid and unpredictable circumstances.

    It's possible, but it would imply the most sudden and radical re-ordering of the party political system in British history.
    Vince Cable sweeps through to lead a pro-EU Govt with Kenneth Clarke as CoE?

    Must be in another universe, far away.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 3,688
    rcs1000 said:

    There remains a simple solution to the backstop: allow the people of Northern Ireland to choose to exit it. That will be acceptable to the EU, because it's not the people of rUK who make the choice, and it may be acceptable to enough Conservative MPs, because the people of Northern Ireland are sovereign to make their own decision.

    It's the get out clause for everyone keen to avoid No Deal Brexit.

    With this is mind, we now need to think at one level of remove. You see, this is probably (possibly) acceptable to the DUP. So, Corbyn loses his ability to bring down the government. And therefore the chance of his become PM.

    Doesn't this breach a fundamental red line re "precious Union", which "no British PM would ever agree to?"
  • 'Roman Abramovich is on the list because he is believed to be Mr Putin's most important financial supporter.'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6474041/Roman-Abramovich-list-six-Putin-linked-Russian-oligarchs-targeted-UK-intelligence.html
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Does he have a personal grudge against either May or the UK?

    His pot-stirring is at best ill-advised and at worst thicker than a yard of lard if not.

    But to be honest, most of it now hinges on the CJEU next Monday. If they rule we can revoke A50 unilaterally the odds are we will crash out with no deal. If not, that should tip the unicorn admirers in Labour to abstention.

    You don't think if it rules that way we are quite likely, if not now then sometime before March, revoke? There are serious problems doing so without a referendum, but if parliamentarians mean what they say they will take that option to avoid no deal.

    Also, what about the unicorn admirers in the Tories? In a scenario where we cannot revoke then do they tip to abstain?
    Revocation would require the Pro-EU MPs to win control of the Government, and would entail the destruction of the Conservative Party and probably a Labour split as well. Followed, in short order, by a General Election under completely fluid and unpredictable circumstances.

    It's possible, but it would imply the most sudden and radical re-ordering of the party political system in British history.
    Vince Cable sweeps through to lead a pro-EU Govt with Kenneth Clarke as CoE?

    Must be in another universe, far away.
    Episode IV - An old hope?
  • XenonXenon Posts: 471
    edited December 2018
    So the EU are open to further negotiations and their "take it or leave it" crappy deal was a bluff and they were lying as usual.

    Shows how poor May's negotiating tactics were.

    If only we had a Thatcher in charge with some sort of backbone. Or even a Mandelson.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    brendan16 said:

    dixiedean said:

    brendan16 said:

    How about we keep freedom of movement but negotiate that no new arrivals are allowed to claim any welfare benefits for 3 years (e.g. tax credits and housing benefits) until they have paid in and require private medical insurance (beyond their EHIC 3 months) for a year before getting free access to the NHS? If employers want to top up their employee's wages and provide medical insurance to cover the difference - that should be their right!

    Tax credits and housing benefit as concepts don't exist in most central and eastern European nations - so it shouldn't be a major issue. So its just reciprocity after all.

    It would at least be a compromise if we must keep FOM Norway style?

    We always could have done that. We just have a strange aversion to compulsory ID cards.
    Just call it a public services card or a passport card - like the Irish have introduced to access services and travel across the EU. The public services card was only introduced in 2012 and now 75% of the population and rising have it - as you basically cannot access most services from pensions to welfare to driving licences to first passports without getting one.

    https://www.thesun.ie/news/1462486/what-is-the-new-public-services-card-what-do-we-need-it-for-and-how-do-we-get-it/

    The Irish passport card is also a handy photocard you can use for travel in the EEA area. It performs a similar function to a national ID card proving you are Irish if you travel or relocate in the EU .

    https://www.dfa.ie/passportcard/

    It can be done with some effort and creativity! Just don't call it a national ID card - call it an NHS and public services card.
    Make it voluntary, not compulsory.
  • notme said:

    eek said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Does he have a personal grudge against either May or the UK?

    His pot-stirring is at best ill-advised and at worst thicker than a yard of lard if not.

    But to be honest, most of it now hinges on the CJEU next Monday. If they rule we can revoke A50 unilaterally the odds are we will crash out with no deal. If not, that should tip the unicorn admirers in Labour to abstention.

    You don't think if it rules that way we are quite likely, if not now then sometime before March, revoke? There are serious problems doing so without a referendum, but if parliamentarians mean what they say they will take that option to avoid no deal.

    Also, what about the unicorn admirers in the Tories? In a scenario where we cannot revoke then do they tip to abstain?
    +1 I expect we are going to end up revoking A50 as it will be the only sane option left on the table...
    There will be a reckoning.... I am a 100% a believer in the democratic process. When you lose people like me, you are on a slippy slope. I won’t turn into a non voter. I just won’t be using the democratic process anymore.
    Sounds ominous.

    Yellow weskits, or yer actual hurled cobblestone?
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 1,646
    edited December 2018

    brendan16 said:

    dixiedean said:

    brendan16 said:

    How about we keep freedom of movement but negotiate that no new arrivals are allowed to claim any welfare benefits for 3 years (e.g. tax credits and housing benefits) until they have paid in and require private medical insurance (beyond their EHIC 3 months) for a year before getting free access to the NHS? If employers want to top up their employee's wages and provide medical insurance to cover the difference - that should be their right!

    Tax credits and housing benefit as concepts don't exist in most central and eastern European nations - so it shouldn't be a major issue. So its just reciprocity after all.

    It would at least be a compromise if we must keep FOM Norway style?

    We always could have done that. We just have a strange aversion to compulsory ID cards.
    Just call it a public services card or a passport card - like the Irish have introduced to access services and travel across the EU. The public services card was only introduced in 2012 and now 75% of the population and rising have it - as you basically cannot access most services from pensions to welfare to driving licences to first passports without getting one.

    https://www.thesun.ie/news/1462486/what-is-the-new-public-services-card-what-do-we-need-it-for-and-how-do-we-get-it/

    The Irish passport card is also a handy photocard you can use for travel in the EEA area. It performs a similar function to a national ID card proving you are Irish if you travel or relocate in the EU .

    https://www.dfa.ie/passportcard/

    It can be done with some effort and creativity! Just don't call it a national ID card - call it an NHS and public services card.
    Make it voluntary, not compulsory.
    It is voluntary in Ireland - as long as you don't want to access public services, welfare including child benefit, claim a pension, apply for an education grant, get a driving licence or get a first passport no one forces you to have one!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,593
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Does he have a personal grudge against either May or the UK?

    His pot-stirring is at best ill-advised and at worst thicker than a yard of lard if not.

    But to be honest, most of it now hinges on the CJEU next Monday. If they rule we can revoke A50 unilaterally the odds are we will crash out with no deal. If not, that should tip the unicorn admirers in Labour to abstention.

    You don't think if it rules that way we are quite likely, if not now then sometime before March, revoke? There are serious problems doing so without a referendum, but if parliamentarians mean what they say they will take that option to avoid no deal.

    Also, what about the unicorn admirers in the Tories? In a scenario where we cannot revoke then do they tip to abstain?
    No. We don't have any mechanism to do so. Civil disobedience is a possibility but more likely is the government would collapse leading to political paralysis.

    But - the prospect of revocation will keep Labour hoping for a change of heart until it's too late to do anything.
  • Fair enough, I wouldn't want the useless feckers anywhere the levers of power either.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,593

    ydoethur said:

    If they rule we can revoke A50 unilaterally the odds are we will crash out with no deal.

    There's no political logic behind any of your arguments about this, just blind pessimism. First you thought Selmayr was plotting to force us out with no deal, now you think that giving us the unilateral choice not to leave will somehow encourage us to jump off the cliff.
    Oh? Who do you think is behind this truly bizarre commentary by the advocate general?
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,576

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Does he have a personal grudge against either May or the UK?

    His pot-stirring is at best ill-advised and at worst thicker than a yard of lard if not.

    But to be honest, most of it now hinges on the CJEU next Monday. If they rule we can revoke A50 unilaterally the odds are we will crash out with no deal. If not, that should tip the unicorn admirers in Labour to abstention.

    You don't think if it rules that way we are quite likely, if not now then sometime before March, revoke? There are serious problems doing so without a referendum, but if parliamentarians mean what they say they will take that option to avoid no deal.

    Also, what about the unicorn admirers in the Tories? In a scenario where we cannot revoke then do they tip to abstain?
    Revocation would require the Pro-EU MPs to win control of the Government, and would entail the destruction of the Conservative Party and probably a Labour split as well. Followed, in short order, by a General Election under completely fluid and unpredictable circumstances.

    It's possible, but it would imply the most sudden and radical re-ordering of the party political system in British history.
    Vince Cable sweeps through to lead a pro-EU Govt with Kenneth Clarke as CoE?

    Must be in another universe, far away.
    I imagine such an arrangement would entail a PM from the centrist faction of Labour and a DPM from the centrist faction of the Tories, but the office holders would hardly matter. A National Government would have no mandate, and no platform beyond stopping Brexit. Hence the fact that there would need to be a General Election afterwards, the outcome of which would be completely unpredictable: a mish-mash of warring parties, competing to form a Government and fight an effective re-run of the EU referendum simultaneously.

    Whatever the outcome it would almost certainly be a complete mess, and we'd be in the political equivalent of a state of civil war over Europe for years afterwards.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 1,355
    brendan16 said:

    dixiedean said:

    brendan16 said:

    How about we keep freedom of movement but negotiate that no new arrivals are allowed to claim any welfare benefits for 3 years (e.g. tax credits and housing benefits) until they have paid in and require private medical insurance (beyond their EHIC 3 months) for a year before getting free access to the NHS? If employers want to top up their employee's wages and provide medical insurance to cover the difference - that should be their right!

    Tax credits and housing benefit as concepts don't exist in most central and eastern European nations - so it shouldn't be a major issue. So its just reciprocity after all.

    It would at least be a compromise if we must keep FOM Norway style?

    We always could have done that. We just have a strange aversion to compulsory ID cards.
    Just call it a public services card or a passport card - like the Irish have introduced to access services and travel across the EU. The public services card was only introduced in 2012 and now 75% of the population and rising have it - as you basically cannot access most services from pensions to welfare to driving licences to first passports without getting one. It also doubles up as a bus pass and travel card for the elderly and disabled entitled to free bus and train travel in Ireland.

    https://www.thesun.ie/news/1462486/what-is-the-new-public-services-card-what-do-we-need-it-for-and-how-do-we-get-it/

    The Irish passport card is also a handy photocard you can use for travel in the EEA area. It performs a similar function to a national ID card proving you are Irish if you travel or relocate in the EU .

    https://www.dfa.ie/passportcard/

    It can be done with some effort and creativity! Just don't call it a national ID card - call it an NHS and public services card.
    We might get away with calling it Euroclub Express!
  • Mr. Divvie, just one more thing an English Parliament would neatly resolve ;)
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 25,894
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    If they rule we can revoke A50 unilaterally the odds are we will crash out with no deal.

    There's no political logic behind any of your arguments about this, just blind pessimism. First you thought Selmayr was plotting to force us out with no deal, now you think that giving us the unilateral choice not to leave will somehow encourage us to jump off the cliff.
    Oh? Who do you think is behind this truly bizarre commentary by the advocate general?
    So you disagree with the A-G's legal argument and think someone has put him up to it because making A50 unilaterally revocable increases the chances of a no deal exit?
  • ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Does he have a personal grudge against either May or the UK?

    His pot-stirring is at best ill-advised and at worst thicker than a yard of lard if not.

    But to be honest, most of it now hinges on the CJEU next Monday. If they rule we can revoke A50 unilaterally the odds are we will crash out with no deal. If not, that should tip the unicorn admirers in Labour to abstention.

    You don't think if it rules that way we are quite likely, if not now then sometime before March, revoke? There are serious problems doing so without a referendum, but if parliamentarians mean what they say they will take that option to avoid no deal.

    Also, what about the unicorn admirers in the Tories? In a scenario where we cannot revoke then do they tip to abstain?
    No. We don't have any mechanism to do so. Civil disobedience is a possibility but more likely is the government would collapse leading to political paralysis.

    But - the prospect of revocation will keep Labour hoping for a change of heart until it's too late to do anything.
    If Westminster just say "Feck it, we've ballsed it up and we're revoking A50, we're staying it" Even I'd be forced to march on parliament with an A4 sheet of paper with "Down with this sort of thing!" written on it.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 14,096

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Does he have a personal grudge against either May or the UK?

    His pot-stirring is at best ill-advised and at worst thicker than a yard of lard if not.

    But to be honest, most of it now hinges on the CJEU next Monday. If they rule we can revoke A50 unilaterally the odds are we will crash out with no deal. If not, that should tip the unicorn admirers in Labour to abstention.

    You don't think if it rules that way we are quite likely, if not now then sometime before March, revoke? There are serious problems doing so without a referendum, but if parliamentarians mean what they say they will take that option to avoid no deal.

    Also, what about the unicorn admirers in the Tories? In a scenario where we cannot revoke then do they tip to abstain?
    Revocation would require the Pro-EU MPs to win control of the Government, and would entail the destruction of the Conservative Party and probably a Labour split as well. Followed, in short order, by a General Election under completely fluid and unpredictable circumstances.

    It's possible, but it would imply the most sudden and radical re-ordering of the party political system in British history.
    Vince Cable sweeps through to lead a pro-EU Govt with Kenneth Clarke as CoE?

    Must be in another universe, far away.
    I imagine such an arrangement would entail a PM from the centrist faction of Labour and a DPM from the centrist faction of the Tories, but the office holders would hardly matter. A National Government would have no mandate, and no platform beyond stopping Brexit. Hence the fact that there would need to be a General Election afterwards, the outcome of which would be completely unpredictable: a mish-mash of warring parties, competing to form a Government and fight an effective re-run of the EU referendum simultaneously.

    Whatever the outcome it would almost certainly be a complete mess, and we'd be in the political equivalent of a state of civil war over Europe for years afterwards.
    Surely no-one in their right mind would be DPM again without a Department.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 1,646

    'Roman Abramovich is on the list because he is believed to be Mr Putin's most important financial supporter.'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6474041/Roman-Abramovich-list-six-Putin-linked-Russian-oligarchs-targeted-UK-intelligence.html

    Isn't it a chicken and egg situation - if you are an oligarch and want to stay so and out of jail you have little choice but to back Putin?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 3,688

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Does he have a personal grudge against either May or the UK?

    His pot-stirring is at best ill-advised and at worst thicker than a yard of lard if not.

    But to be honest, most of it now hinges on the CJEU next Monday. If they rule we can revoke A50 unilaterally the odds are we will crash out with no deal. If not, that should tip the unicorn admirers in Labour to abstention.

    You don't think if it rules that way we are quite likely, if not now then sometime before March, revoke? There are serious problems doing so without a referendum, but if parliamentarians mean what they say they will take that option to avoid no deal.

    Also, what about the unicorn admirers in the Tories? In a scenario where we cannot revoke then do they tip to abstain?
    Revocation would require the Pro-EU MPs to win control of the Government, and would entail the destruction of the Conservative Party and probably a Labour split as well. Followed, in short order, by a General Election under completely fluid and unpredictable circumstances.

    It's possible, but it would imply the most sudden and radical re-ordering of the party political system in British history.
    Vince Cable sweeps through to lead a pro-EU Govt with Kenneth Clarke as CoE?

    Must be in another universe, far away.
    I imagine such an arrangement would entail a PM from the centrist faction of Labour and a DPM from the centrist faction of the Tories, but the office holders would hardly matter. A National Government would have no mandate, and no platform beyond stopping Brexit. Hence the fact that there would need to be a General Election afterwards, the outcome of which would be completely unpredictable: a mish-mash of warring parties, competing to form a Government and fight an effective re-run of the EU referendum simultaneously.

    Whatever the outcome it would almost certainly be a complete mess, and we'd be in the political equivalent of a state of civil war over Europe for years afterwards.
    A coalition of Centrist MPs is a political re-alignment, not a national government. That is when sworn enemies come together for the sake of the Nation. Such a grouping would need 45% of the vote or thereabouts under our system to have a future.
    There is no evidence of Centrism attracting anything like that.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 40,584

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Does he have a personal grudge against either May or the UK?

    His pot-stirring is at best ill-advised and at worst thicker than a yard of lard if not.

    But to be honest, most of it now hinges on the CJEU next Monday. If they rule we can revoke A50 unilaterally the odds are we will crash out with no deal. If not, that should tip the unicorn admirers in Labour to abstention.

    You don't think if it rules that way we are quite likely, if not now then sometime before March, revoke? There are serious problems doing so without a referendum, but if parliamentarians mean what they say they will take that option to avoid no deal.

    Also, what about the unicorn admirers in the Tories? In a scenario where we cannot revoke then do they tip to abstain?
    Revocation would require the Pro-EU MPs to win control of the Government, and would entail the destruction of the Conservative Party and probably a Labour split as well. Followed, in short order, by a General Election under completely fluid and unpredictable circumstances.

    It's possible, but it would imply the most sudden and radical re-ordering of the party political system in British history.
    Which is one reason I suspect a referendum will be in the offing soon (or at least when a negotiation is rebuffed or fails) - but if we still have nothing come February, splits and destruction will probably occur.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 40,584

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Does he have a personal grudge against either May or the UK?

    His pot-stirring is at best ill-advised and at worst thicker than a yard of lard if not.

    But to be honest, most of it now hinges on the CJEU next Monday. If they rule we can revoke A50 unilaterally the odds are we will crash out with no deal. If not, that should tip the unicorn admirers in Labour to abstention.

    You don't think if it rules that way we are quite likely, if not now then sometime before March, revoke? There are serious problems doing so without a referendum, but if parliamentarians mean what they say they will take that option to avoid no deal.

    Also, what about the unicorn admirers in the Tories? In a scenario where we cannot revoke then do they tip to abstain?
    No. We don't have any mechanism to do so. Civil disobedience is a possibility but more likely is the government would collapse leading to political paralysis.

    But - the prospect of revocation will keep Labour hoping for a change of heart until it's too late to do anything.
    If Westminster just say "Feck it, we've ballsed it up and we're revoking A50, we're staying it" Even I'd be forced to march on parliament with an A4 sheet of paper with "Down with this sort of thing!" written on it.
    I'd suggest you get a larger piece of paper, A4 would be hard to grab attention in the news broadcasts.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,576
    dixiedean said:

    A coalition of Centrist MPs is a political re-alignment, not a national government. That is when sworn enemies come together for the sake of the Nation. Such a grouping would need 45% of the vote or thereabouts under our system to have a future.
    There is no evidence of Centrism attracting anything like that.

    They point is, enter marriage of convenience, stop Brexit, divorce, tear strips off each other as two factions in a bloody 4/5/6 way fist-fight. Also requires the larger element of both of the major parties in Parliament to abandon career-long loyalty, and their own colleagues, to work together. Hence fact that it seems unlikely.

    Depends how devoted they really are to the cause of saving the UK's membership of an organisation that most voters regard either with ambivalence or contempt. You'd think it would be a suicidal course, but if the Pro-EU MPs had any real understanding of their own constituents then they'd never in a million years have voted to put the EU Referendum Act on the statute book in the first place.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 7,079
    eek said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Does he have a personal grudge against either May or the UK?

    His pot-stirring is at best ill-advised and at worst thicker than a yard of lard if not.

    But to be honest, most of it now hinges on the CJEU next Monday. If they rule we can revoke A50 unilaterally the odds are we will crash out with no deal. If not, that should tip the unicorn admirers in Labour to abstention.

    You don't think if it rules that way we are quite likely, if not now then sometime before March, revoke? There are serious problems doing so without a referendum, but if parliamentarians mean what they say they will take that option to avoid no deal.

    Also, what about the unicorn admirers in the Tories? In a scenario where we cannot revoke then do they tip to abstain?
    +1 I expect we are going to end up revoking A50 as it will be the only sane option left on the table...
    That will stir up a hornets nest - rightly so in my opinion.
  • Mr. eek, do you see that preceding or following a referendum? (Or do you think we'll not end up with a second referendum at all?).
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 23,723

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Does he have a personal grudge against either May or the UK?

    His pot-stirring is at best ill-advised and at worst thicker than a yard of lard if not.

    But to be honest, most of it now hinges on the CJEU next Monday. If they rule we can revoke A50 unilaterally the odds are we will crash out with no deal. If not, that should tip the unicorn admirers in Labour to abstention.

    You don't think if it rules that way we are quite likely, if not now then sometime before March, revoke? There are serious problems doing so without a referendum, but if parliamentarians mean what they say they will take that option to avoid no deal.

    Also, what about the unicorn admirers in the Tories? In a scenario where we cannot revoke then do they tip to abstain?
    No. We don't have any mechanism to do so. Civil disobedience is a possibility but more likely is the government would collapse leading to political paralysis.

    But - the prospect of revocation will keep Labour hoping for a change of heart until it's too late to do anything.
    If Westminster just say "Feck it, we've ballsed it up and we're revoking A50, we're staying it" Even I'd be forced to march on parliament with an A4 sheet of paper with "Down with this sort of thing!" written on it.
    I'd be the guy standing next to you, with my "CAREFUL NOW!" placard.

    I suspect it might be the first march we'd have been on together....
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,576
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Does he have a personal grudge against either May or the UK?

    His pot-stirring is at best ill-advised and at worst thicker than a yard of lard if not.

    But to be honest, most of it now hinges on the CJEU next Monday. If they rule we can revoke A50 unilaterally the odds are we will crash out with no deal. If not, that should tip the unicorn admirers in Labour to abstention.

    You don't think if it rules that way we are quite likely, if not now then sometime before March, revoke? There are serious problems doing so without a referendum, but if parliamentarians mean what they say they will take that option to avoid no deal.

    Also, what about the unicorn admirers in the Tories? In a scenario where we cannot revoke then do they tip to abstain?
    Revocation would require the Pro-EU MPs to win control of the Government, and would entail the destruction of the Conservative Party and probably a Labour split as well. Followed, in short order, by a General Election under completely fluid and unpredictable circumstances.

    It's possible, but it would imply the most sudden and radical re-ordering of the party political system in British history.
    Which is one reason I suspect a referendum will be in the offing soon (or at least when a negotiation is rebuffed or fails) - but if we still have nothing come February, splits and destruction will probably occur.
    A second referendum could only take place under the same circumstances, because it would require a friendly Government to allow the referendum bill to pass through Parliament. I'd be amazed if the Tories could get such a thing through Parliament without falling apart, and I don't see the pro-EU faction propping up a minority Labour Government with Corbyn as Prime Minister.

    Given that, a second referendum would be a complete waste of time. I mean, you could argue that all future referendums are a waste of time, because Parliament clearly doesn't feel obligated to implement results it doesn't agree with, but in any event the General Election that would follow the second referendum would effectively be a third referendum as well.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 3,688

    dixiedean said:

    A coalition of Centrist MPs is a political re-alignment, not a national government. That is when sworn enemies come together for the sake of the Nation. Such a grouping would need 45% of the vote or thereabouts under our system to have a future.
    There is no evidence of Centrism attracting anything like that.

    They point is, enter marriage of convenience, stop Brexit, divorce, tear strips off each other as two factions in a bloody 4/5/6 way fist-fight. Also requires the larger element of both of the major parties in Parliament to abandon career-long loyalty, and their own colleagues, to work together. Hence fact that it seems unlikely.

    Depends how devoted they really are to the cause of saving the UK's membership of an organisation that most voters regard either with ambivalence or contempt. You'd think it would be a suicidal course, but if the Pro-EU MPs had any real understanding of their own constituents then they'd never in a million years have voted to put the EU Referendum Act on the statute book in the first place.
    Ah, I understand your point now. Agreed, seems very unlikely. The danger of a 4/5/6 way election alone should be enough to stop it. Under our system we could see a majority government on less than 30%. of the vote.
  • May is just scared of the EU - plain and simple. She can’t get out of those EU meetings fast enough. She doesn’t believe in Brexit, she sees it simply as an issue about immigration and has put no challenge on Hammond about the assumptions underpinning his Treasury forecasts which are as disreputable as Osborne’s.

    It really doesn’t matter whether the EU will renegotiate or not. It matters that MPs vote down May’s deal which is simply awful just to get rid of May. Hopefully she’ll be replaced by a Brexiteer other than Boris and then we’ll either have a hard Brexit, fears about which are hugely exaggerated, or we’ll have a Canada type trade deal which would be best all round.

    We can’t have a Brexit constructed simply to satisfy the Republic of Ireland and following Norway’s model is a total waste of time. It gives us nothing.

    Getting rid of May is the key to a sensible outcome on Brexit and a Tory fight back against Labour.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 4,867
    Afternoon all :)

    Yet Prodi makes a valuable point - it IS about identity and culture, about the kind of UK (if it is that) in which we want to live and the kind of society we want to have.

    The LEAVE vote (of which I was a tiny part) was indicative of a rejection of the status quo both in terms of the economic model but also the societal and governmental model. For all the statistics and measurements, there are too many people for whom life is, in relative terms, "nasty, brutish and short".

    I'm opposed to another vote on the EU because all that would do is re-hash the old arguments and I'm not sure a GE with all its tribalism would help either. Corbyn offers an alternative which has a superficial feel but I'm far from convinced his State-led solutions, well being though they may be, are any kind of answer.

    As we see from the debate about the provision of social care for vulnerable adults and children, there is no small amount of goodwill out there but ultimately a pervasive sense that "someone else" has to pick up the tab. It may well be in order to provide the dignity and social cohesion we speak our individual expectations of high living standards may have to be compromised.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,002

    May is just scared of the EU - plain and simple. She can’t get out of those EU meetings fast enough. She doesn’t believe in Brexit, she sees it simply as an issue about immigration and has put no challenge on Hammond about the assumptions underpinning his Treasury forecasts which are as disreputable as Osborne’s.

    It really doesn’t matter whether the EU will renegotiate or not. It matters that MPs vote down May’s deal which is simply awful just to get rid of May. Hopefully she’ll be replaced by a Brexiteer other than Boris and then we’ll either have a hard Brexit, fears about which are hugely exaggerated, or we’ll have a Canada type trade deal which would be best all round.

    We can’t have a Brexit constructed simply to satisfy the Republic of Ireland and following Norway’s model is a total waste of time. It gives us nothing.

    Getting rid of May is the key to a sensible outcome on Brexit and a Tory fight back against Labour.

    This deal doesn't relate to the future trading relationship, and the EU won't negotiate that until we are out (stupid, but they seem to be sticking by it).
  • stodgestodge Posts: 4,867


    A second referendum could only take place under the same circumstances, because it would require a friendly Government to allow the referendum bill to pass through Parliament. I'd be amazed if the Tories could get such a thing through Parliament without falling apart, and I don't see the pro-EU faction propping up a minority Labour Government with Corbyn as Prime Minister.

    Given that, a second referendum would be a complete waste of time. I mean, you could argue that all future referendums are a waste of time, because Parliament clearly doesn't feel obligated to implement results it doesn't agree with, but in any event the General Election that would follow the second referendum would effectively be a third referendum as well.

    Nice to see you back posting on here. I rarely agreed with you in the past but we seem to be on a similar wavelength now at least on matters Brexit.

  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 1,646
    edited December 2018
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Does he have a personal grudge against either May or the UK?

    His pot-stirring is at best ill-advised and at worst thicker than a yard of lard if not.

    But to be honest, most of it now hinges on the CJEU next Monday. If they rule we can revoke A50 unilaterally the odds are we will crash out with no deal. If not, that should tip the unicorn admirers in Labour to abstention.

    You don't think if it rules that way we are quite likely, if not now then sometime before March, revoke? There are serious problems doing so without a referendum, but if parliamentarians mean what they say they will take that option to avoid no deal.

    Also, what about the unicorn admirers in the Tories? In a scenario where we cannot revoke then do they tip to abstain?
    Revocation would require the Pro-EU MPs to win control of the Government, and would entail the destruction of the Conservative Party and probably a Labour split as well. Followed, in short order, by a General Election under completely fluid and unpredictable circumstances.

    It's possible, but it would imply the most sudden and radical re-ordering of the party political system in British history.
    Which is one reason I suspect a referendum will be in the offing soon (or at least when a negotiation is rebuffed or fails) - but if we still have nothing come February, splits and destruction will probably occur.
    Maybe its time that the rotten two party system backed up with an electoral system that ensures two thirds of voters end up with the same party winning their seat for life no matter how they vote came to a crashing halt anyway. 23 June 2016 was perhaps the first time many voting in Sunderland could actually vote to make a difference in a national election - rather than ratifying the certain reelection of their Labour MP - in their lifetime.

    Lets have the choice other nations do - a left wing Corbyn party, a right wing Farage/JRM/Boris party, the Chuka/Blair/Soubry/Clarke globalist centre party, a social democrat party for Labour moderates, the Christian Dems/centre right mainstream party (what is left of the Tories), Batten's UKIP and the Lib Dems etc

    Can it be worse? Surely no government - as per Sweden - can't be any worse than what we have!
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 1,085
    edited December 2018
    RobD said:

    May is just scared of the EU - plain and simple. She can’t get out of those EU meetings fast enough. She doesn’t believe in Brexit, she sees it simply as an issue about immigration and has put no challenge on Hammond about the assumptions underpinning his Treasury forecasts which are as disreputable as Osborne’s.

    It really doesn’t matter whether the EU will renegotiate or not. It matters that MPs vote down May’s deal which is simply awful just to get rid of May. Hopefully she’ll be replaced by a Brexiteer other than Boris and then we’ll either have a hard Brexit, fears about which are hugely exaggerated, or we’ll have a Canada type trade deal which would be best all round.

    We can’t have a Brexit constructed simply to satisfy the Republic of Ireland and following Norway’s model is a total waste of time. It gives us nothing.

    Getting rid of May is the key to a sensible outcome on Brexit and a Tory fight back against Labour.

    This deal doesn't relate to the future trading relationship, and the EU won't negotiate that until we are out (stupid, but they seem to be sticking by it).
    Indeed. The negotiation has been a capitulation to the EU agenda. Signing up to the Withdrawal agreement with nothing agreed on trade was crass stupidity on May’s part.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,002

    RobD said:

    May is just scared of the EU - plain and simple. She can’t get out of those EU meetings fast enough. She doesn’t believe in Brexit, she sees it simply as an issue about immigration and has put no challenge on Hammond about the assumptions underpinning his Treasury forecasts which are as disreputable as Osborne’s.

    It really doesn’t matter whether the EU will renegotiate or not. It matters that MPs vote down May’s deal which is simply awful just to get rid of May. Hopefully she’ll be replaced by a Brexiteer other than Boris and then we’ll either have a hard Brexit, fears about which are hugely exaggerated, or we’ll have a Canada type trade deal which would be best all round.

    We can’t have a Brexit constructed simply to satisfy the Republic of Ireland and following Norway’s model is a total waste of time. It gives us nothing.

    Getting rid of May is the key to a sensible outcome on Brexit and a Tory fight back against Labour.

    This deal doesn't relate to the future trading relationship, and the EU won't negotiate that until we are out (stupid, but they seem to be sticking by it).
    Indeed. The negotiation has been a capitulation tothe EU agenda. Signing up to the Withdrawal agreement with nothing agreed on trade was crass stupidity on May’s part.
    I thought it was a treaty stipulation that they couldn't sign a trade agreement with an existing member?
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,576
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    A coalition of Centrist MPs is a political re-alignment, not a national government. That is when sworn enemies come together for the sake of the Nation. Such a grouping would need 45% of the vote or thereabouts under our system to have a future.
    There is no evidence of Centrism attracting anything like that.

    They point is, enter marriage of convenience, stop Brexit, divorce, tear strips off each other as two factions in a bloody 4/5/6 way fist-fight. Also requires the larger element of both of the major parties in Parliament to abandon career-long loyalty, and their own colleagues, to work together. Hence fact that it seems unlikely.

    Depends how devoted they really are to the cause of saving the UK's membership of an organisation that most voters regard either with ambivalence or contempt. You'd think it would be a suicidal course, but if the Pro-EU MPs had any real understanding of their own constituents then they'd never in a million years have voted to put the EU Referendum Act on the statute book in the first place.
    Ah, I understand your point now. Agreed, seems very unlikely. The danger of a 4/5/6 way election alone should be enough to stop it. Under our system we could see a majority government on less than 30%. of the vote.
    Most likely it would end up with the Brexit Tories as the largest single party and a rickety coalition of loads of other odds and sods forming a coalition to keep them out of office. A more volatile and combustible situation could scarcely be imagined.

    But anyway, that's getting a long way ahead of ourselves. The first step is whether we're right about the deal getting voted down, the second is whether May jumps or is pushed, and then the third is whether a viable Brexiteer candidate, willing to commit to No Deal if they can't get what they want from the EU (which they won't,) can gather the magic 106 votes needed to make the Tory leadership run-off. Then we can start seriously discussing the end game.
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    May is just scared of the EU - plain and simple. She can’t get out of those EU meetings fast enough. She doesn’t believe in Brexit, she sees it simply as an issue about immigration and has put no challenge on Hammond about the assumptions underpinning his Treasury forecasts which are as disreputable as Osborne’s.

    It really doesn’t matter whether the EU will renegotiate or not. It matters that MPs vote down May’s deal which is simply awful just to get rid of May. Hopefully she’ll be replaced by a Brexiteer other than Boris and then we’ll either have a hard Brexit, fears about which are hugely exaggerated, or we’ll have a Canada type trade deal which would be best all round.

    We can’t have a Brexit constructed simply to satisfy the Republic of Ireland and following Norway’s model is a total waste of time. It gives us nothing.

    Getting rid of May is the key to a sensible outcome on Brexit and a Tory fight back against Labour.

    This deal doesn't relate to the future trading relationship, and the EU won't negotiate that until we are out (stupid, but they seem to be sticking by it).
    Indeed. The negotiation has been a capitulation tothe EU agenda. Signing up to the Withdrawal agreement with nothing agreed on trade was crass stupidity on May’s part.
    I thought it was a treaty stipulation that they couldn't sign a trade agreement with an existing member?
    Its a treaty stipulation that no member entices business away from another but that hasn’t stopped the EU during Brexit trying to lure away financial services or prevent British contractors from bidding for EU work.

    There is nothing to stop the EU negotiating trade; presenting both documents together and simply sign the trade deal immediately after the withdrawal agreement.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 1,646
    People's vote campaigner arguing we must have second referendum was just on the BBC News channel.

    BBC presenter asks what should be on the ballot paper.

    Response - I don't know and that is not for me to decide!

    And there of course is the question on one can answer clearly

    How about which would you prefer

    Leave under the following options (please picK only one))

    Norway +
    Norway ++
    May's horrible deal
    let's crash out, starve and see patient's die in the NHS due to a lack of drugs
    Canada +
    Canada ++

    or
    Remain

    with the top choice winning using first past the post?!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 14,096
    brendan16 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Does he have a personal grudge against either May or the UK?

    His pot-stirring is at best ill-advised and at worst thicker than a yard of lard if not.

    But to be honest, most of it now hinges on the CJEU next Monday. If they rule we can revoke A50 unilaterally the odds are we will crash out with no deal. If not, that should tip the unicorn admirers in Labour to abstention.

    You don't think if it rules that way we are quite likely, if not now then sometime before March, revoke? There are serious problems doing so without a referendum, but if parliamentarians mean what they say they will take that option to avoid no deal.

    Also, what about the unicorn admirers in the Tories? In a scenario where we cannot revoke then do they tip to abstain?
    Revocation would require the Pro-EU MPs to win control of the Government, and would entail the destruction of the Conservative Party and probably a Labour split as well. Followed, in short order, by a General Election under completely fluid and unpredictable circumstances.

    It's possible, but it would imply the most sudden and radical re-ordering of the party political system in British history.
    Which is one reason I suspect a referendum will be in the offing soon (or at least when a negotiation is rebuffed or fails) - but if we still have nothing come February, splits and destruction will probably occur.
    Maybe its time that the rotten two party system backed up with an electoral system that ensures two thirds of voters end up with the same party winning their seat for life no matter how they vote came to a crashing halt anyway. 23 June 2016 was perhaps the first time many voting in Sunderland could actually vote to make a difference in a national election - rather than ratifying the certain reelection of their Labour MP - in their lifetime.

    Lets have the choice other nations do - a left wing Corbyn party, a right wing Farage/JRM/Boris party, the Chuka/Blair/Soubry/Clarke globalist centre party, a social democrat party for Labour moderates, the Christian Dems/centre right mainstream party (what is left of the Tories), Batten's UKIP and the Lib Dems etc

    Can it be worse? Surely no government - as per Sweden - can't be any worse than what we have!
    The old Sunderland South constituency had a Tory MP in the 50's. By-election gain in 1953, but held until 1964. And it was marginal before and after.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,576
    brendan16 said:

    Maybe its time that the rotten two party system backed up with an electoral system that ensures two thirds of voters end up with the same party winning their seat for life no matter how they vote came to a crashing halt anyway. 23 June 2016 was perhaps the first time many voting in Sunderland could actually vote to make a difference in a national election - rather than ratifying the certain reelection of their Labour MP - in their lifetime.

    Lets have the choice other nations do - a left wing Corbyn party, a right wing Farage/JRM/Boris party, the Chuka/Blair/Soubry/Clarke globalist centre party, a social democrat party for Labour moderates, the Christian Dems/centre right mainstream party (what is left of the Tories), Batten's UKIP and the Lib Dems etc

    Can it be worse? Surely no government - as per Sweden - can't be any worse than what we have!

    Our politicians will never vote for PR. FPTP not only punishes smaller parties, it also offers the sweet prize of single party Government to whoever can form a broad enough coalition of support.

    They don't want to have to work with other people, they want the freedom to implement their own agenda unchecked.

    You can argue til the cows come home about the relative merits of proportional and majoritarian systems, but the important point is that our legislators won't change a system that offers their faction a shot at untrammelled power. Why would they?
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 1,646

    brendan16 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Does he have a personal grudge against either May or the UK?

    His pot-stirring is at best ill-advised and at worst thicker than a yard of lard if not.

    But to be honest, most of it now hinges on the CJEU next Monday. If they rule we can revoke A50 unilaterally the odds are we will crash out with no deal. If not, that should tip the unicorn admirers in Labour to abstention.

    You don't think if it rules that way we are quite likely, if not now then sometime before March, revoke? There are serious problems doing so without a referendum, but if parliamentarians mean what they say they will take that option to avoid no deal.

    Also, what about the unicorn admirers in the Tories? In a scenario where we cannot revoke then do they tip to abstain?
    Revocation would require the Pro-EU MPs to win control of the Government, and would entail the destruction of the Conservative Party and probably a Labour split as well. Followed, in short order, by a General Election under completely fluid and unpredictable circumstances.

    It's possible, but it would imply the most sudden and radical re-ordering of the party political system in British history.
    Which is one reason I suspect a referendum will be in the offing soon (or at least when a negotiation is rebuffed or fails) - but if we still have nothing come February, splits and destruction will probably occur.
    Maybe its time that the rotten two party system backed up with an electoral system that ensures two thirds of voters end up with the same party winning their seat for life no matter how they vote came to a crashing halt anyway. 23 June 2016 was perhaps the first time many voting in Sunderland could actually vote to make a difference in a national election - rather than ratifying the certain reelection of their Labour MP - in their lifetime.

    Lets have the choice other nations do - a left wing Corbyn party, a right wing Farage/JRM/Boris party, the Chuka/Blair/Soubry/Clarke globalist centre party, a social democrat party for Labour moderates, the Christian Dems/centre right mainstream party (what is left of the Tories), Batten's UKIP and the Lib Dems etc

    Can it be worse? Surely no government - as per Sweden - can't be any worse than what we have!
    The old Sunderland South constituency had a Tory MP in the 50's. By-election gain in 1953, but held until 1964. And it was marginal before and after.
    So as long as you are over 73 you can remember your vote making a difference in Sunderland in a national vote in your life time pre 2016?
  • My prediction (which I have little faith in but believe to be more likely than the dozen or so alternatives that I can identify): May is defeated or pulls vote, goes to EU for crises last ditch negotiations and gets a significant concession on the backstop. Gets it through with big labour abstentions, split iin ERG, lib Dems split / abstain, DUP abstain or vote for. The likely concession is either a time limit or international arbitration.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,576
    stodge said:

    Nice to see you back posting on here. I rarely agreed with you in the past but we seem to be on a similar wavelength now at least on matters Brexit.

    Thanks. I'm trying to steer clear of hot arguments about the rights and wrongs of Brexit (though FWIW I wanted us out,) since they always end up bad tempered and all the points have been repeated a thousand times before. I'm more interested in the Parliamentary goings on and, whilst only a fool would say they were certain about how all of this will play out, I consider it most likely that there'll be a Hard Brexit on time in March. There's no majority for anything in Parliament except Remain, but the obstacles to that actually happening are formidable.
    stodge said:

    As we see from the debate about the provision of social care for vulnerable adults and children, there is no small amount of goodwill out there but ultimately a pervasive sense that "someone else" has to pick up the tab. It may well be in order to provide the dignity and social cohesion we speak our individual expectations of high living standards may have to be compromised.

    Every voter wants a pony, and they all believe that someone else should pay for it.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,002

    My prediction (which I have little faith in but believe to be more likely than the dozen or so alternatives that I can identify): May is defeated or pulls vote, goes to EU for crises last ditch negotiations and gets a significant concession on the backstop. Gets it through with big labour abstentions, split iin ERG, lib Dems split / abstain, DUP abstain or vote for. The likely concession is either a time limit or international arbitration.

    I thought there was already arbitration in the current deal?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 14,096
    brendan16 said:

    brendan16 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Does he have a personal grudge against either May or the UK?

    His pot-stirring is at best ill-advised and at worst thicker than a yard of lard if not.

    But to be honest, most of it now hinges on the CJEU next Monday. If they rule we can revoke A50 unilaterally the odds are we will crash out with no deal. If not, that should tip the unicorn admirers in Labour to abstention.

    You don't think if it rules that way we are quite likely, if not now then sometime before March, revoke? There are serious problems doing so without a referendum, but if parliamentarians mean what they say they will take that option to avoid no deal.

    Also, what about the unicorn admirers in the Tories? In a scenario where we cannot revoke then do they tip to abstain?

    It's possible, but it would imply the most sudden and radical re-ordering of the party political system in British history.
    Which is one reason I suspect a referendum will be in the offing soon (or at least when a negotiation is rebuffed or fails) - but if we still have nothing come February, splits and destruction will probably occur.
    Maybe its time that the rotten two party system backed up with an electoral system that ensures two thirds of voters end up with the same party winning their seat for life no matter how they vote came to a crashing halt anyway. 23 June 2016 was perhaps the first time many voting in Sunderland could actually vote to make a difference in a national election - rather than ratifying the certain reelection of their Labour MP - in their lifetime.

    Lets have the choice other nations do - a left wing Corbyn party, a right wing Farage/JRM/Boris party, the Chuka/Blair/Soubry/Clarke globalist centre party, a social democrat party for Labour moderates, the Christian Dems/centre right mainstream party (what is left of the Tories), Batten's UKIP and the Lib Dems etc

    Can it be worse? Surely no government - as per Sweden - can't be any worse than what we have!
    The old Sunderland South constituency had a Tory MP in the 50's. By-election gain in 1953, but held until 1964. And it was marginal before and after.
    So as long as you are over 73 you can remember your vote making a difference in Sunderland in a national vote in your life time pre 2016?
    Just making the point that Sunderland wasn't always a Labour stronghold. To be fair, when I lived there around 1960, IIRC, the Council was at least 80% Labour.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 4,867


    Our politicians will never vote for PR. FPTP not only punishes smaller parties, it also offers the sweet prize of single party Government to whoever can form a broad enough coalition of support.

    They don't want to have to work with other people, they want the freedom to implement their own agenda unchecked.

    You can argue til the cows come home about the relative merits of proportional and majoritarian systems, but the important point is that our legislators won't change a system that offers their faction a shot at untrammelled power. Why would they?

    Interestingly, Labour's interest in PR after they were thrashed three times but when they got closer in 1992 they then adopted the "one more heave" argument and despite what Blair and Ashdown might have hoped, nobody was going to talk PR after a 1997 landslide.

    There have been Conservatives "interested" in "talking" about PR and especially so for local elections but never for Westminster.

    There are various PR systems out there at local level including in London, Northern Ireland and Scotland. PR for English local elections might be a realistic option in the next few years.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 14,096
    stodge said:


    Our politicians will never vote for PR. FPTP not only punishes smaller parties, it also offers the sweet prize of single party Government to whoever can form a broad enough coalition of support.

    They don't want to have to work with other people, they want the freedom to implement their own agenda unchecked.

    You can argue til the cows come home about the relative merits of proportional and majoritarian systems, but the important point is that our legislators won't change a system that offers their faction a shot at untrammelled power. Why would they?

    Interestingly, Labour's interest in PR after they were thrashed three times but when they got closer in 1992 they then adopted the "one more heave" argument and despite what Blair and Ashdown might have hoped, nobody was going to talk PR after a 1997 landslide.

    There have been Conservatives "interested" in "talking" about PR and especially so for local elections but never for Westminster.

    There are various PR systems out there at local level including in London, Northern Ireland and Scotland. PR for English local elections might be a realistic option in the next few years.
    Blair set up the Jenkins Commission, but when it reported Prescott wold have none of it. Quite vehemently, if my memory of the reports is correct.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,576
    RobD said:

    My prediction (which I have little faith in but believe to be more likely than the dozen or so alternatives that I can identify): May is defeated or pulls vote, goes to EU for crises last ditch negotiations and gets a significant concession on the backstop. Gets it through with big labour abstentions, split iin ERG, lib Dems split / abstain, DUP abstain or vote for. The likely concession is either a time limit or international arbitration.

    I thought there was already arbitration in the current deal?
    Yes, and the time limit defeats the point of having the backstop in the first place. And the DUP won't vote for any kind of backstop regardless. Oh, and the DUP have promised to bring down the Government if the backstop goes through.

    The deal is dead.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 22,253
    edited December 2018

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    May is just scared of the EU - plain and simple. She can’t get out of those EU meetings fast enough. She doesn’t believe in Brexit, she sees it simply as an issue about immigration and has put no challenge on Hammond about the assumptions underpinning his Treasury forecasts which are as disreputable as Osborne’s.


    Getting rid of May is the key to a sensible outcome on Brexit and a Tory fight back against Labour.

    This deal doesn't relate to the future trading relationship, and the EU won't negotiate that until we are out (stupid, but they seem to be sticking by it).
    Indeed. The negotiation has been a capitulation tothe EU agenda. Signing up to the Withdrawal agreement with nothing agreed on trade was crass stupidity on May’s part.
    I thought it was a treaty stipulation that they couldn't sign a trade agreement with an existing member?
    Its a treaty stipulation that no member entices business away from another but that hasn’t stopped the EU during Brexit trying to lure away financial services or prevent British contractors from bidding for EU work.

    There is nothing to stop the EU negotiating trade; presenting both documents together and simply sign the trade deal immediately after the withdrawal agreement.
    You do not seem to accept that the EU see the UK as a threat to them and trade and will not offer favourable terms. Indeed making sure the UK stays close to them is in their DNA

    The reason TM deal is hated by so many is the full on fight between the ultra brexiteers and ultra remainers, with those of us seeking compromise ignored. Indeed in a reply to our letter to our MP he tried to justify voting against the deal on the grounds that it is not the same as being in the EU. Well that is the point but rather than openly say to my wife and I he wants Brexit stopped he obsuscated and said he will vote against deal. He is a conservative mp

    As far as your campaign to get an ERG member leader of my party in place of TM that will not happen. If TM resigns or loses a vnoc the conservative mps will make certain unity candidates will be put to the members. If Johnson (I no longer refer to him as Boris) by some chance was elected upto 50 conservative mps would resign the whip

    Just heard that Priti Patel has threatened Ireland with food sanctions unless they change their mind and negotiate the backstop. What is is with the ERG that they seem so intellectually challenged. To raise the spectre of food shortages to Ireland who starved under the potato famine is just crass
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 11,866
    Posted the Prodi story on the last thread and agree it's important. But what I think he primarily means is that they'll negotiate reasonable arrangements so everything doesn't grind to a halt on March 31. In that sense I think the Project Fear Mk 2 arguments are exaggerated - literally nobody on the planet wants us to run out of medicine, planes to stop flying etc. By "no deal" what we should mean is "a reasonable trading arrangement working towards an WTO arrangement". I wouldn't like it, but it wouldn't be the end of the world.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 23,723

    RobD said:

    My prediction (which I have little faith in but believe to be more likely than the dozen or so alternatives that I can identify): May is defeated or pulls vote, goes to EU for crises last ditch negotiations and gets a significant concession on the backstop. Gets it through with big labour abstentions, split iin ERG, lib Dems split / abstain, DUP abstain or vote for. The likely concession is either a time limit or international arbitration.

    I thought there was already arbitration in the current deal?
    Yes, and the time limit defeats the point of having the backstop in the first place. And the DUP won't vote for any kind of backstop regardless. Oh, and the DUP have promised to bring down the Government if the backstop goes through.

    The deal is dead.
    May should send in the DUP for Round 2...... "If they are happy with the deal, I am happy."

  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,576




    May is done for. That deal will never pass. If she persists in trying to hammer it through after Parliament rejects it then she will still be toppled as Prime Minister, because she'll end up destroying her own party.

    (Note: given my past record in making predictions, the deal will probably now pass and May will win a snap election after Brexit with a 100 seat majority)
  • File under: No s**t Sherlock.

    I've been saying this as often as I can all along!
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 17,390
    edited December 2018
    brendan16 said:


    Maybe its time that the rotten two party system backed up with an electoral system that ensures two thirds of voters end up with the same party winning their seat for life no matter how they vote came to a crashing halt anyway. 23 June 2016 was perhaps the first time many voting in Sunderland could actually vote to make a difference in a national election - rather than ratifying the certain reelection of their Labour MP - in their lifetime.

    Lets have the choice other nations do - a left wing Corbyn party, a right wing Farage/JRM/Boris party, the Chuka/Blair/Soubry/Clarke globalist centre party, a social democrat party for Labour moderates, the Christian Dems/centre right mainstream party (what is left of the Tories), Batten's UKIP and the Lib Dems etc

    Can it be worse? Surely no government - as per Sweden - can't be any worse than what we have!

    I would suggest it can be far worse. One of the points about our current system is that extremist parties do not get the support to get any real foothold in our legislature. This is because the effective two party system means that people get the sense of being on one side or another, for better or worse, and the almost inevitable sense that 'our time will come'.

    As a rule, systems with large numbers of parties legitimize extremist parties but at the same time almost always ends up being a centrist stitch up for the actual Government. This tends to lead to more people toing for extremist parties whilst at the same time becoming more and more frustrated with the system that will not allow them any real power. I believe it is for this reason we see more extremist activity in Europe than we do in the UK. The broad church effect of our two parties generally accommodates almost the whole spectrum of political view from extreme left to extreme right without legitimising the extremist wings.

    It is a system that only really fails on issues where the centrist political view is at odds with the overwhelming view of the public - as in the issue of the EU. The political consensus was so wedded to the idea that membership of the EU was an unalloyed good thing that they failed to realise the public at large did not share this view (Even most Remainers seem to have been of the view that the EU was at best a necessary evil). Hence the rise of a movement outside the scope of mainstream politics.
  • RobD said:

    My prediction (which I have little faith in but believe to be more likely than the dozen or so alternatives that I can identify): May is defeated or pulls vote, goes to EU for crises last ditch negotiations and gets a significant concession on the backstop. Gets it through with big labour abstentions, split iin ERG, lib Dems split / abstain, DUP abstain or vote for. The likely concession is either a time limit or international arbitration.

    I thought there was already arbitration in the current deal?
    I do think TM or her successor should challenge the backstop in the ECJ.
  • RobD said:

    My prediction (which I have little faith in but believe to be more likely than the dozen or so alternatives that I can identify): May is defeated or pulls vote, goes to EU for crises last ditch negotiations and gets a significant concession on the backstop. Gets it through with big labour abstentions, split iin ERG, lib Dems split / abstain, DUP abstain or vote for. The likely concession is either a time limit or international arbitration.

    I thought there was already arbitration in the current deal?
    Yes, and the time limit defeats the point of having the backstop in the first place. And the DUP won't vote for any kind of backstop regardless. Oh, and the DUP have promised to bring down the Government if the backstop goes through.

    The deal is dead.
    May should send in the DUP for Round 2...... "If they are happy with the deal, I am happy."

    Bingo! She should have done that for Round 1. Moron.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 40,584





    May is done for. That deal will never pass. If she persists in trying to hammer it through after Parliament rejects it then she will still be toppled as Prime Minister, because she'll end up destroying her own party.

    If it were close she could reasonably try again, but it won't be so she cannot, and yes she is done for. Although that doesn't make that first quote any less idiotic. Treason, seriously? What a tosspot.
    Ah, another idiotic statement - the only thing that matters is if something is left or right wing, as if there are even easy ways to make a brexit left or right wing.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 10,847





    May is done for. That deal will never pass. If she persists in trying to hammer it through after Parliament rejects it then she will still be toppled as Prime Minister, because she'll end up destroying her own party.

    (Note: given my past record in making predictions, the deal will probably now pass and May will win a snap election after Brexit with a 100 seat majority)

    The Tory party needs a nice quiet lie down somewhere.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 4,867

    Posted the Prodi story on the last thread and agree it's important. But what I think he primarily means is that they'll negotiate reasonable arrangements so everything doesn't grind to a halt on March 31. In that sense I think the Project Fear Mk 2 arguments are exaggerated - literally nobody on the planet wants us to run out of medicine, planes to stop flying etc. By "no deal" what we should mean is "a reasonable trading arrangement working towards an WTO arrangement". I wouldn't like it, but it wouldn't be the end of the world.

    Indeed, Nick. In lieu of an actual WA, informal arrangements will be put in place across a range of activities to ensure there is no substantial dislocation after 29/3/19. As Prodi says, crashing out to a disorderly No deal is in no one's interest but an orderly recognition a Deal cannot be reached but that life has to go on will prevail.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 40,584
    If May does not resign or is toppled before Wednesday is over I will be massively surprised, but the only possible action she could take if she is still PM at that point would be to say that the house has spoken and therefore she will comply and go to the EU to press for more changes.

    That's pointless, she has already said we cannot get anything else so why not try someone else, but she can at least say that is what she intends to do. Anything else requires an assurance she has enough party support for that action, and she doesn't have that for either a GE or a referendum.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 40,584

    RobD said:

    My prediction (which I have little faith in but believe to be more likely than the dozen or so alternatives that I can identify): May is defeated or pulls vote, goes to EU for crises last ditch negotiations and gets a significant concession on the backstop. Gets it through with big labour abstentions, split iin ERG, lib Dems split / abstain, DUP abstain or vote for. The likely concession is either a time limit or international arbitration.

    I thought there was already arbitration in the current deal?
    Yes, and the time limit defeats the point of having the backstop in the first place. And the DUP won't vote for any kind of backstop regardless. Oh, and the DUP have promised to bring down the Government if the backstop goes through.

    The deal is dead.
    May should send in the DUP for Round 2...... "If they are happy with the deal, I am happy."

    Bingo! She should have done that for Round 1. Moron.
    Hardly. While it would have been fatal for her government, if she had a deal which commanded more unity among her own party and/or tempted sufficient numbers of labour realists to back it, that would be a reasonable stratagem to get it through than simply placating the DUP - because some number of her own MPs were always going to vote against as they support no deal (if nowhere near the number that are objecting to this) the DUP alone would not secure it.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 25,894
    Jonathan said:





    May is done for. That deal will never pass. If she persists in trying to hammer it through after Parliament rejects it then she will still be toppled as Prime Minister, because she'll end up destroying her own party.

    (Note: given my past record in making predictions, the deal will probably now pass and May will win a snap election after Brexit with a 100 seat majority)

    The Tory party needs a nice quiet lie down somewhere.
    It looks like some form of split is inevitable. The Tories won’t be the party of no deal, no matter how much some activists might want it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 40,584
    Can Tuesday just be here already? Waiting for the vote to stamp May's deal into the dirt and her to resign or be ousted has been exhausted - it'd be nice to get the point of knowing in what way we are going to be screwed before Christmas. Let's all hope for some unicorns from Father Christmas.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 23,723
    Jonathan said:





    May is done for. That deal will never pass. If she persists in trying to hammer it through after Parliament rejects it then she will still be toppled as Prime Minister, because she'll end up destroying her own party.

    (Note: given my past record in making predictions, the deal will probably now pass and May will win a snap election after Brexit with a 100 seat majority)

    The Tory party needs a nice quiet lie down somewhere.
    Or a great big fist-fight.

    Although, it would probably just end up forming a queue to have a go at Michael "Since Ed Balls left, the Most Punchable Face In Politics" Gove.....
  • Labour would abolish Thatcher-era laws preventing workers in the UK from taking industrial action in solidarity with their counterparts in other countries, the shadow chancellor has announced.

    At an event in Airdrie, John McDonnell pledged that a Labour government would restore trade union rights by repealing legislation that undermines the ability of workers to take “collective action and acts of solidarity”.
  • Posted the Prodi story on the last thread and agree it's important. But what I think he primarily means is that they'll negotiate reasonable arrangements so everything doesn't grind to a halt on March 31. In that sense I think the Project Fear Mk 2 arguments are exaggerated - literally nobody on the planet wants us to run out of medicine, planes to stop flying etc. By "no deal" what we should mean is "a reasonable trading arrangement working towards an WTO arrangement". I wouldn't like it, but it wouldn't be the end of the world.

    Once again Nick you show your class.

    It is interesting that you, as someone who is a life long genuine EUphile who treats his home as Europe rather than just the countries within it, are far more measured in your view of the effects of No Deal than those who seem to be bouncing back and forth between Leave and Remain. There seems to be a particular form of soft Remainer/soft Leaver who sees leaps on every story of catastrophe as if it were gospel whilst displaying a schizophrenic attitude to the basic question of stay or leave.


    Personally, whilst I have no idea what effect it will have on the vote on Tuesday, I find Prodi's comments very welcoming and repeat my assertion that, on the whole, the main negotiators on the EU side have played a opening batsman's innings - a fair and gentlemanly game but played with a straight bat. I genuinely admire Barnier for his performance.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 40,584

    Jonathan said:





    May is done for. That deal will never pass. If she persists in trying to hammer it through after Parliament rejects it then she will still be toppled as Prime Minister, because she'll end up destroying her own party.

    (Note: given my past record in making predictions, the deal will probably now pass and May will win a snap election after Brexit with a 100 seat majority)

    The Tory party needs a nice quiet lie down somewhere.
    It looks like some form of split is inevitable. The Tories won’t be the party of no deal, no matter how much some activists might want it.
    Ultimately a split is needed as a large chunk of the membership and MPs are in fundamental opposition to other sections (and anyone who would go along with those other sections)< to the point of labelling them as being treasonous. Tories who pretend that is a sign of healthy spread of opinion in the party and not a sign they need to split even though it will see them out of government would just be insulting the public.
  • TheoTheo Posts: 325

    Jonathan said:





    May is done for. That deal will never pass. If she persists in trying to hammer it through after Parliament rejects it then she will still be toppled as Prime Minister, because she'll end up destroying her own party.

    (Note: given my past record in making predictions, the deal will probably now pass and May will win a snap election after Brexit with a 100 seat majority)

    The Tory party needs a nice quiet lie down somewhere.
    It looks like some form of split is inevitable. The Tories won’t be the party of no deal, no matter how much some activists might want it.
    The Tory Party won't let itself be split b see cause Labour put naked partisan ambition ahead of the economy and democracy. Even pro-dealers like me wouldn't split over it. Maybe a handful of elitist social Democrat types like Grieve and Soubry might go, but it will be a tidy number. If Labour want to try to blackmail the country into Remaining we should call their bluff.
This discussion has been closed.