What negotiations? The deal is done. Surely everyone now realises that? There is no more negotiation to be had. THE DEAL IS DONE.
The deal is not done because it will be rejected.
My guess is the EU will, quite rightly, point out that's our problem not theirs.
Not really: it makes it the EU’s problem
If the deal is not acceptable to the U.K. there are 3 possible options:
(1) the EU amends it to make it acceptable (2) after a period of reflection the U.K. accepts the current proposal (3) there is no deal that is acceptable to both sides
Of course the public comments from the EU are trying to take (1) off the table. As someone who spends a lot of time negotiating I simply don’t believe them. But I know why they are saying what they are saying
I'm not sure how many different ways and in how many different languages the EU can say "this is the deal" before we realise that this *is the deal*.
That was true initially of the first movers of the idea, but I don't think it's true now. What has changn get through parliament, unless Labour decides to play ball (which looks highly unlikely).
Indeed. As we approach the Endtimes, sorry, Day of Brexit, options have narrowed, and we are presented with a simple series of choices, all bad, some (to my mind) appalling. We shouldn't be here (thanks Tony Blair for giving us Article 50), but here is where we are.
We just have to get a grip, gird our loins, and choose from:
Revoke No Deal TMay's Deal A new referendum
Clearly this choice has to be made by parliament in a Free Vote. The House of Commons cannot shirk responsibility forever, and knock down every option without offering a preferred alternative. They must man up. And if Sir Gaylord Ponceyboots, Tory MP for Leave-on-the-Wold, will kill his career by choosing a referendum, or Revoke, or No Deal, or whatever, then he will just have to swallow his medicine, and do what is best for the country, not what is best for him or his party.
My guess is they will choose either a new referendum, which means they will then have to choose the question or questions. Or they will plump, reluctantly, for TMay's Deal.
That's it. Them's the choices. It's horrible and depressing but it's not quantum mechanics, not any more. It is political painful, but logically simple. The Commons must decide.
It's going to be May's Deal - it's the least painful option for most MPs
I tend to agree. Though a referendum will also be very possible.
Simply Revoking would cause riots. No Deal would cause food riots.
So there's only two remotely sensible options (both painful, but not suicidally painful).
If we only did sensible Remain would have won a landslide.
The irony of May resigning while the PB Thread Header entitled "The magnificent resilience of TMay ploughing on relentlessly against all the odds" would be truly delicious!
She will resign when parliament opts for Ref2, reflecting the red line she is painting in a circle around herself as we speak.
If remain win a referendum TM will resign at that point
Cross-party letter makes clear there is no majority for crashing out of the bloc.
Theresa May faces fresh mutiny from her backbenchers after 19 Tory MPs signed a cross-party demand for the prime minister to rule out a no-deal Brexit.
The letter to Downing Street, co-signed by Labour heavyweight Jack Dromey and May ally Caroline Spelman, underlines how there is no majority in parliament for the UK crashing out of the EU without an agreement.
While it is Labour and SNP policy to block a no-deal exit, the significant number of Conservatives willing to rebel makes it clear that, even with the backing of the 11 DUP MPs, May could not win parliament’s backing.
There are a lot more than 19 Conservative MPs who will vote to try to block No Deal if and when push comes to shove.
Anecdote time: I was chatting to a business contact of mine a couple days ago. He's not as far as I know a party member, but he knows his (Conservative) MP quite well because he's a prominent business figure in the constituency and has worked with the MP on various initiatives. Last week he got a phone call from the MP, soliciting his views on Brexit and the deal. He's not someone to mince his words, and so he made it quite clear that exiting with no deal would be an unmitigated disaster and that his business contacts were tearing their hair out at the lack of understanding amongst MPs of the problems.
The MP's answer was revealing, something like (as verbatim as I can remember it from what I was told): "I'm glad you said that. You see, I'm coming under pressure from my constituency chairman and others in the local party who are all gung-ho for me to support the full no-deal Brexit, but they are all retired and they haven't a clue about the practicalities."
Amazing how No Deal, which seemed so bizarrely improbable during the campaign that even Remainers barely raised it as a concern, has now become an orthodoxy in itself. I can only assume it's become some kind of virility symbol, with its advocates revelling in its sheer naughtiness.
Richard has hit the nail on the head - the pressure within the Tory Party is coming predominantly from retired people who don't understand, don't care as they think their fixed incomes are safe, and are viewing the situation through a frame of reference they shaped during or shortly after the last war.
Yes, that reasonably accurately describes the Tory membership.
To which we should flag up Big_G as a noble exception, even though he fits the demographic.
Yes, as Ben says that's the deadline date. I am sure I saw a date of Jan 14 in today's Times. But I no longer have the paper and don't subscribe, so can't check.
What negotiations? The deal is done. Surely everyone now realises that? There is no more negotiation to be had. THE DEAL IS DONE.
The deal is not done because it will be rejected.
My guess is the EU will, quite rightly, point out that's our problem not theirs.
Not really: it makes it the EU’s problem
If the deal is not acceptable to the U.K. there are 3 possible options:
(1) the EU amends it to make it acceptable (2) after a period of reflection the U.K. accepts the current proposal (3) there is no deal that is acceptable to both sides
Of course the public comments from the EU are trying to take (1) off the table. As someone who spends a lot of time negotiating I simply don’t believe them. But I know why they are saying what they are saying
Which changes do you think will be forthcoming to make the deal acceptable?
The irony of May resigning while the PB Thread Header entitled "The magnificent resilience of TMay ploughing on relentlessly against all the odds" would be truly delicious!
She will resign when parliament opts for Ref2, reflecting the red line she is painting in a circle around herself as we speak.
If remain win a referendum TM will resign at that point
May will resign before she lets a referendum happen.
What negotiations? The deal is done. Surely everyone now realises that? There is no more negotiation to be had. THE DEAL IS DONE.
The deal is not done because it will be rejected.
My guess is the EU will, quite rightly, point out that's our problem not theirs.
Not really: it makes it the EU’s problem
If the deal is not acceptable to the U.K. there are 3 possible options:
(1) the EU amends it to make it acceptable (2) after a period of reflection the U.K. accepts the current proposal (3) there is no deal that is acceptable to both sides
Of course the public comments from the EU are trying to take (1) off the table. As someone who spends a lot of time negotiating I simply don’t believe them. But I know why they are saying what they are saying
Which changes do you think will be forthcoming to make the deal acceptable?
The irony of May resigning while the PB Thread Header entitled "The magnificent resilience of TMay ploughing on relentlessly against all the odds" would be truly delicious!
She will resign when parliament opts for Ref2, reflecting the red line she is painting in a circle around herself as we speak.
If remain win a referendum TM will resign at that point
May will resign before she lets a referendum happen.
That's it. Them's the choices. It's horrible and depressing but it's not quantum mechanics, not any more. It is political painful, but logically simple. The Commons must decide.
It's going to be May's Deal - it's the least painful option for most MPs
If you think Labour are gonna give in to political blackmail, save the Tories' hides, and reap a whirlwind as remainers abandon them *en masse*, you're really reading the runes wrong.
That's why, politically and logically, TMay has to call a FREE vote, so Labour MPs cannot avoid making a personal and yet public decision. The final say on Brexit will then be owned by all of the Commons, not any one particular party,
In that situation, most Labour MPs will, surely, either go for a referendum or the Deal (unless they are in hardcore Remain seats, where they might opt for Revoke). I can't see any of them openly voting for No Deal.
The constitutional crisis has barely even started yet. Let's turn up the heat by a few more weeks, let's get MPs good and frantic.
Cross-party letter makes clear there is no majority for crashing out of the bloc.
Theresa May faces fresh mutiny from her backbenchers after 19 Tory MPs signed a cross-party demand for the prime minister to rule out a no-deal Brexit.
The letter to Downing Street, co-signed by Labour heavyweight Jack Dromey and May ally Caroline Spelman, underlines how there is no majority in parliament for the UK crashing out of the EU without an agreement.
While it is Labour and SNP policy to block a no-deal exit, the significant number of Conservatives willing to rebel makes it clear that, even with the backing of the 11 DUP MPs, May could not win parliament’s backing.
There are a lot more than 19 Conservative MPs who will vote to try to block No Deal if and when push comes to shove.
Anecdote time: I was chatting to a business contact of mine a couple days ago. He's not as far as I know a party member, but he knows his (Conservative) MP quite well because he's a prominent business figure in the constituency and has worked with the MP on various initiatives.
The MP's answer was revealing, something like (as verbatim as I can remember it from what I was told): "I'm glad you said that. You see, I'm coming under pressure from my constituency chairman and others in the local party who are all gung-ho for me to support the full no-deal Brexit, but they are all retired and they haven't a clue about the practicalities."
Amazing how No Deal, which seemed so bizarrely improbable during the campaign that even Remainers barely raised it as a concern, has now become an orthodoxy in itself. I can only assume it's become some kind of virility symbol, with its advocates revelling in its sheer naughtiness.
Richard has hit the nail on the head - the pressure within the Tory Party is coming predominantly from retired people who don't understand, don't care as they think their fixed incomes are safe, and are viewing the situation through a frame of reference they shaped during or shortly after the last war.
Yes, that reasonably accurately describes the Tory membership.
To which we should flag up Big_G as a noble exception, even though he fits the demographic.
Thanks Ben - I am a minority in our membership - I value business and the union
So here's what's going on with the no-confidence vote: Jeremy Corbyn will tell PM she MUST name a date for meaningful vote or he will table a vote of no confidence in her. If she fails to do so, motion will be tabled tomorrow.
Cross-party letter makes clear there is no majority for crashing out of the bloc.
Theresa May faces fresh mutiny from her backbenchers after 19 Tory MPs signed a cross-party demand for the prime minister to rule out a no-deal Brexit.
The letter to Downing Street, co-signed by Labour heavyweight Jack Dromey and May ally Caroline Spelman, underlines how there is no majority in parliament for the UK crashing out of the EU without an agreement.
While it is Labour and SNP policy to block a no-deal exit, the significant number of Conservatives willing to rebel makes it clear that, even with the backing of the 11 DUP MPs, May could not win parliament’s backing.
There are a lot more than 19 Conservative MPs who will vote to try to block No Deal if and when push comes to shove.
Anecdote time: I was chatting to a business contact of mine a couple days ago. He's not as far as I know a party member, but he knows his (Conservative) MP quite well because he's a prominent business figure in the constituency and has worked with the MP on various initiatives.
The MP's answer was revealing, something like (as verbatim as I can remember it from what I was told): "I'm glad you said that. You see, I'm coming under pressure from my constituency chairman and others in the local party who are all gung-ho for me to support the full no-deal Brexit, but they are all retired and they haven't a clue about the practicalities."
Amazing how No Deal, which seemed so bizarrely improbable during the campaign that even Remainers barely raised it as a concern, has now become an orthodoxy in itself. I can only assume it's become some kind of virility symbol, with its advocates revelling in its sheer naughtiness.
Richard has hit the nail on the head - the pressure within the Tory Party is coming predominantly from retired people who don't understand, don't care as they think their fixed incomes are safe, and are viewing the situation through a frame of reference they shaped during or shortly after the last war.
Yes, that reasonably accurately describes the Tory membership.
To which we should flag up Big_G as a noble exception, even though he fits the demographic.
Thanks Ben - I am a minority in our membership - I value business and the union
... and a common decency not shared by all the older Conservative members I have met.
The irony of May resigning while the PB Thread Header entitled "The magnificent resilience of TMay ploughing on relentlessly against all the odds" would be truly delicious!
She will resign when parliament opts for Ref2, reflecting the red line she is painting in a circle around herself as we speak.
If remain win a referendum TM will resign at that point
May will resign before she lets a referendum happen.
Not too sure if Parliament, through an amendment, make the legislation necessary.
That's it. Them's the choices. It's horrible and depressing but it's not quantum mechanics, not any more. It is political painful, but logically simple. The Commons must decide.
It's going to be May's Deal - it's the least painful option for most MPs
If you think Labour are gonna give in to political blackmail, save the Tories' hides, and reap a whirlwind as remainers abandon them *en masse*, you're really reading the runes wrong.
That's why, politically and logically, TMay has to call a FREE vote, so Labour MPs cannot avoid making a personal and yet public decision. The final say on Brexit will then be owned by all of the Commons, not any one particular party,
In that situation, most Labour MPs will, surely, either go for a referendum or the Deal (unless they are in hardcore Remain seats, where they might opt for Revoke). I can't see any of them openly voting for No Deal.
Unlikely for someone with such control freak instincts, but you never know.
Sources say Corbyn WILL call for a vote of no confidence in the PM (not the govt) if she does not announce a date for a vote on her Brexit deal asap - expect the move from him in response to PM's statement at 3.30
(BBCLauraK)
This is actually quite sensible. If the deal is going to die it needs to die early so they can prepare for either remain or no deal exit.
I can understand the wish for a second referendum, and there are strong arguments for having one. But I cannot get beyond a feeling that it would be pointless: views have generally not changed, and even if remain did win (which is far from assured, given that views appear not to have shifted much) then it would be a marginal win and not solve anything.
You don't know that. The lesson from 2017 is that campaigns matter and can create a meaningful shift in opinion. There is no certainty at all about a second referendum leading to a marginal result. A decisive shift one way or another is absolutely possible, and would leave the country in a much better place politically.
You are right, I don't *know* that.
But I reckon it's a good guess. My reasons: 1) The polling has not shifted much towards remain. 2) The 'betrayal' of a second vote will be a strong recruiting sergeant for leave. 3) Anecdotally, I'm not hearing or seeing many people changing their views; if anything they're becoming more entrenched. 4) Remain has already lost once. 5) Remainers are being lazy. With a few exceptions, they're saying how awful leaving is, and not giving a positive case for remaining in the EU. That's what's needed, and what they failed to do during ref1.
I'd love there to be a second referendum and for one result - leave or remain - to decisively win. I just cannot see it happening, and another close result will not only not solve anything, it would be actively disastrous.
So let's hope parliament can sort it out.
If I am anything like an ordinary voter, I am getting more & more confused. I don't truly understand any of it. I see the Mrs May has arrived at a deal which would at least see us start to leave the EU (which is what I voted for). I don't understand why MP leavers are so against this deal. I do understand that remainers are much more positive about the chances of not leaving at all.
The net result is that I'm left where I was: wanting to leave; but now I'm starting to feel obstinate.
So it seems to me that both sides are simply getting more entrenched.
I reckon that we are about 15 years behind on that curve. County Lines and cheap Chinese synthetic opiods will do the same here. Dealers have adopted the gig economy and JIT delivery systems. Like in the US, it isn't just a ghetto thing anymore.
This has never happened before. If the House did express no confidence in Theresa May, the public administration and constitutional affairs committee finds that she would be bound by honour and convention to resign.
as to call a FREE vote, so Labour MPs cannot avoid making a personal and yet public decision.
The government can declare a vote "free" for Tory MPs. But the leadership of Labour or the Lib Dems or the SNP could still enforce the whip on their own MPs.
Someone correct me if this is rubbish.
More speculatively, I imagine the Lib Dem or SNP MPs would vote largely in unison on a "free" vote whether they imposed a whip or not, but it isn't clear to me why Corbyn would play ball to appease May if the votes were a way to impose pressure on her.
Eurosceptics took a VERY keen interest in this report by the Public Administration committee, which was largely overlooked in the furore of last week. Key line: 'If House were to express no confidence... PM would be expected to give notice that he or she will resign'
Sources say Corbyn WILL call for a vote of no confidence in the PM (not the govt) if she does not announce a date for a vote on her Brexit deal asap - expect the move from him in response to PM's statement at 3.30
(BBCLauraK)
This is actually quite sensible. If the deal is going to die it needs to die early so they can prepare for either remain or no deal exit.
Indeed, smart move from Labour. If May announces the date they can say they have forced her hand. If she doesn't they can have another debate in which the deal and May will be further trashed from all sides and, who knows, they may get the DUP on board and win the vote if it is clear that it is only the PM who is under threat and not the government.
This has never happened before. If the House did express no confidence in Theresa May, the public administration and constitutional affairs committee finds that she would be bound by honour and convention to resign.
But she won't.
Will any Tory MPs be thick enough to fall for the ruse. Bridgen.... ?
I reckon that we are about 15 years behind on that curve. County Lines and cheap Chinese synthetic opiods will do the same here. Dealers have adopted the gig economy and JIT delivery systems. Like in the US, it isn't just a ghetto thing anymore.
Sobering if true.
Completely the opposite of 'sobering' if true. Sadly.
Will add £12bn to the budget deficit, apparently, which makes the extra expenditure that Hammond announced in the budget seem somewhat brave. It would also be fair to say that any "war chest" designed to protect the economy in the event of a no deal Brexit is now somewhat depleted.
Personally, I think that the current mess makes the argument for a much simpler graduate tax almost unanswerable. If 45% of student loans are never going to be repaid what is the point in such inefficiency?
That's it. Them's the choices. It's horrible and depressing but it's not quantum mechanics, not any more. It is political painful, but logically simple. The Commons must decide.
It's going to be May's Deal - it's the least painful option for most MPs
If you think Labour are gonna give in to political blackmail, save the Tories' hides, and reap a whirlwind as remainers abandon them *en masse*, you're really reading the runes wrong.
That's why, politically and logically, TMay has to call a FREE vote, so Labour MPs cannot avoid making a personal and yet public decision. The final say on Brexit will then be owned by all of the Commons, not any one particular party,
In that situation, most Labour MPs will, surely, either go for a referendum or the Deal (unless they are in hardcore Remain seats, where they might opt for Revoke). I can't see any of them openly voting for No Deal.
But it's up to each party whether to treat each vote as free or whipped. Labour would (probably) whip for their "Corbyn's better deal" "position", even if the Conservatives allowed a free vote.
Will add £12bn to the budget deficit, apparently, which makes the extra expenditure that Hammond announced in the budget seem somewhat brave. It would also be fair to say that any "war chest" designed to protect the economy in the event of a no deal Brexit is now somewhat depleted.
Personally, I think that the current mess makes the argument for a much simpler graduate tax almost unanswerable. If 45% of student loans are never going to be repaid what is the point in such inefficiency?
I'm 2.7k away from the end of my loan. My other half never took one (She went to uni 2005-9 iirc). There best bloody not be a retrospective grad tax for us.
Will add £12bn to the budget deficit, apparently, which makes the extra expenditure that Hammond announced in the budget seem somewhat brave. It would also be fair to say that any "war chest" designed to protect the economy in the event of a no deal Brexit is now somewhat depleted.
Personally, I think that the current mess makes the argument for a much simpler graduate tax almost unanswerable. If 45% of student loans are never going to be repaid what is the point in such inefficiency?
The deficit would still be falling, it would just be higher than we thought in all years since the new system was introduced (potentially before IDK).
The difference between this and a graduate tax is largely one of style.
I'd like to think that Labour have done the math on this one. If they're prepared to call the vote, that means they think there's a chance they can win it. If the DUP aren't on board, must mean they think they can flip enough of the 115 Tories that voted against her last week to nail her in public.
This has never happened before. If the House did express no confidence in Theresa May, the public administration and constitutional affairs committee finds that she would be bound by honour and convention to resign.
But she won't.
Well, on that sort of thing, Mr Corbyn has shown us where the new politics leads.
as to call a FREE vote, so Labour MPs cannot avoid making a personal and yet public decision.
The government can declare a vote "free" for Tory MPs. But the leadership of Labour or the Lib Dems or the SNP could still enforce the whip on their own MPs.
Someone correct me if this is rubbish.
More speculatively, I imagine the Lib Dem or SNP MPs would vote largely in unison on a "free" vote whether they imposed a whip or not, but it isn't clear to me why Corbyn would play ball to appease May if the votes were a way to impose pressure on her.
"But in meantime, might I introduce you to Griffith and Ryle, aside from Erskine May, Parliamentary experts, who say convention suggests the govt does have to give Labour the time for this debate (apologies if this sounds like utter gobbledybook - it sort of is)"
This has never happened before. If the House did express no confidence in Theresa May, the public administration and constitutional affairs committee finds that she would be bound by honour and convention to resign.
But she won't.
Will any Tory MPs be thick enough to fall for the ruse. Bridgen.... ?
I think we are about to find out. Any Tory MPs not opposing such a quasi-VONC will put themselves at the top of the Whips watchlist when Corbyn finally gets round to scheduling a meaningful VONC.
This has never happened before. [...S]he would be bound by [...] convention to resign.
Curious convention, that.
Well, the convention is that if the house expresses no confidence in any other government minister, they must resign. No reason that shouldn't apply to the PM either.
We give our politicians hell and yet no Leaver on here says "I do not want a 2nd referendum because I do not think Leave would win it". Instead we get all sorts of obfuscations and such instead of basic honesty.
Have the referendum. We know exactly what the options are now as opposed to nebulous sunny upland stuff. There are exactly three of them.
-No Deal -May's Deal -Remain
I am an arch-Remainer (apparently!!) but I will abide by the result however it turns out.
I would suggest that this is a PR vote - select 1st, 2nd and 3rd Preference. Put all three on the ballot.
Yes but no one trusts you. Plenty of MPs such as David Lammy said they would respect the result and voted to have the referendum and yet on June 24th 2016 they started work to overturn it. I think very few leave voters would respect the result of a hypothetical 2nd ref win or lose and I suspect most like myself would just boycott it to ensure it had zero worth.
Not sure about Lammy, but the vote has been respected.
No it hasn't, because what was voted for hasn't happened.
Oh that is incredibly naïve, or disingenuous, if not both.
The 52% voted to leave for all manner of reasons but as we have seen in the succeeding period there is nothing like a consensus amongst them, nor even the semblance of a plan, or means of implementation. It is as if Leavers thought you could just flick a switch. Subsequent events have indicated how unrealistic that was. The Government has done its best to cobble together some kind of sensible plan out of the amorphous wishes of the 52%. It has done its best, and it has an agreement. That it cannot get the agreement accepted is due the very nature of Brexit and the incoherence of its supporters.
You cannot say however that the Government has not done its level best to implement the vote. You can only say that the outcome of the vote was unimplementable.
No, that it cannot get the agreement accepted is because the opposition are playing silly games.
Oh, now we have 'the wrong type of communism' argument.
Look, it doesn't work. It doesn't work for a reason. The reason is that Brexit makes no sense, and never did. So it isn't being implemented, because it can't be.
I can understand the wish for a second referendum, and there are strong arguments for having one. But I cannot get beyond a feeling that it would be pointless: views have generally not changed, and even if remain did win (which is far from assured, given that views appear not to have shifted much) then it would be a marginal win and not solve anything.
You don't know that. The lesson from 2017 is that campaigns matter and can create a meaningful shift in opinion. There is no certainty at all about a second referendum leading to a marginal result. A decisive shift one way or another is absolutely possible, and would leave the country in a much better place politically.
You are right, I don't *know* that.
But I reckon it's a good guess. My reasons: 1) The polling has not shifted much towards remain. 2) The 'betrayal' of a second vote will be a strong recruiting sergeant for leave. 3) Anecdotally, I'm not hearing or seeing many people changing their views; if anything they're becoming more entrenched. 4) Remain has already lost once. 5) Remainers are being lazy. With a few exceptions, they're saying how awful leaving is, and not giving a positive case for remaining in the EU. That's what's needed, and what they failed to do during ref1.
I'd love there to be a second referendum and for one result - leave or remain - to decisively win. I just cannot see it happening, and another close result will not only not solve anything, it would be actively disastrous.
So let's hope parliament can sort it out.
If I am anything like an ordinary voter, I am getting more & more confused. I don't truly understand any of it. I see the Mrs May has arrived at a deal which would at least see us start to leave the EU (which is what I voted for). I don't understand why MP leavers are so against this deal. I do understand that remainers are much more positive about the chances of not leaving at all.
The net result is that I'm left where I was: wanting to leave; but now I'm starting to feel obstinate.
So it seems to me that both sides are simply getting more entrenched.
Good afternoon, everyone.
The bottom line is that leaving is, if done sensibly, a journey (as you say), and a fairly slow one. But leavers don't have confidence in their project and worry that the journey might not end, or might be reversed at some point, and so they want to force us into cold turkey Brexit regardless of the consequences. In doing so they clearly risk no Brexit at all, since tearing up all our existing arrangements and just walking out would be idiotic.
This has never happened before. [...S]he would be bound by [...] convention to resign.
Curious convention, that.
Well, the convention is that if the house expresses no confidence in any other government minister, they must resign. No reason that shouldn't apply to the PM either.
I'd be astounded if seven Tories supported Corbyn on this right now. Come February or March the calculus might be different. But not right now.
Will add £12bn to the budget deficit, apparently, which makes the extra expenditure that Hammond announced in the budget seem somewhat brave. It would also be fair to say that any "war chest" designed to protect the economy in the event of a no deal Brexit is now somewhat depleted.
Personally, I think that the current mess makes the argument for a much simpler graduate tax almost unanswerable. If 45% of student loans are never going to be repaid what is the point in such inefficiency?
I'm 2.7k away from the end of my loan. My other half never took one (She went to uni 2005-9 iirc). There best bloody not be a retrospective grad tax for us.
That is going to be a problem. It was a shambolic idea from the start and imposing a fairly harsh "commercial" interest rate on the debt seriously aggravated the problem.
I'd like to think that Labour have done the math on this one. If they're prepared to call the vote, that means they think there's a chance they can win it. If the DUP aren't on board, must mean they think they can flip enough of the 115 Tories that voted against her last week to nail her in public.
Yes, Jezza may have played a blinder. Though voting against your own party in a vote of no confidence would result in deselection, presumably doing so against you're own PM wouldn't. It will be fascinating to see the likes of Rees-Mogg dancing to Jezza's tune to destroy his own leader.
I'd like to think that Labour have done the math on this one. If they're prepared to call the vote, that means they think there's a chance they can win it. If the DUP aren't on board, must mean they think they can flip enough of the 115 Tories that voted against her last week to nail her in public.
I'd like to think that Labour have done the math on this one. If they're prepared to call the vote, that means they think there's a chance they can win it. If the DUP aren't on board, must mean they think they can flip enough of the 115 Tories that voted against her last week to nail her in public.
Yes, Jezza may have played a blinder. Though voting against your own party in a vote of no confidence would result in deselection, presumably doing so against you're own PM wouldn't. It will be fascinating to see the likes of Rees-Mogg dancing to Jezza's tune to destroy his own leader.
If the DUP support TM ERG will as they are in lockstep
Will add £12bn to the budget deficit, apparently, which makes the extra expenditure that Hammond announced in the budget seem somewhat brave. It would also be fair to say that any "war chest" designed to protect the economy in the event of a no deal Brexit is now somewhat depleted.
Personally, I think that the current mess makes the argument for a much simpler graduate tax almost unanswerable. If 45% of student loans are never going to be repaid what is the point in such inefficiency?
I'm 2.7k away from the end of my loan. My other half never took one (She went to uni 2005-9 iirc). There best bloody not be a retrospective grad tax for us.
That is going to be a problem. It was a shambolic idea from the start and imposing a fairly harsh "commercial" interest rate on the debt seriously aggravated the problem.
I'm plan 1 - so before the real nonsense started and didn't get into paying it off properly for about a decade after I graduated. I could pay it off, but the interest rate is almost identical to my mortgage and I'd prefer to keep the remaining capital back for "other things".
We give our politicians hell and yet no Leaver on here says "I do not want a 2nd referendum because I do not think Leave would win it". Instead we get all sorts of obfuscations and such instead of basic honesty.
Have the referendum. We know exactly what the options are now as opposed to nebulous sunny upland stuff. There are exactly three of them.
-No Deal -May's Deal -Remain
I am an arch-Remainer (apparently!!) but I will abide by the result however it turns out.
I would suggest that this is a PR vote - select 1st, 2nd and 3rd Preference. Put all three on the ballot.
Yes but no one trusts you. Plenty of MPs such as David Lammy said they would respect the result and voted to have the referendum and yet on June 24th 2016 they started work to overturn it. I think very few leave voters would respect the result of a hypothetical 2nd ref win or lose and I suspect most like myself would just boycott it to ensure it had zero worth.
Not sure about Lammy, but the vote has been respected.
No it hasn't, because what was voted for hasn't happened.
Oh that is incredibly naïve, or disingenuous, if not both.
The 52% voted to leave for all manner of reasons but as we have seen in the succeeding period there is nothing like a consensus amongst them, nor even the semblance of a plan, or means of implementation. It is as if Leavers thought you could just flick a switch. Subsequent events have indicated how unrealistic that was. The Government has done its best to cobble together some kind of sensible plan out of the amorphous wishes of the 52%. It has done its best, and it has an agreement. That it cannot get the agreement accepted is due the very nature of Brexit and the incoherence of its supporters.
You cannot say however that the Government has not done its level best to implement the vote. You can only say that the outcome of the vote was unimplementable.
No, that it cannot get the agreement accepted is because the opposition are playing silly games.
Oh, now we have 'the wrong type of communism' argument.
Look, it doesn't work. It doesn't work for a reason. The reason is that Brexit makes no sense, and never did. So it isn't being implemented, because it can't be.
Got it?
It can be. The Commons just has to judge the deal on its merits and accept that it is better than no deal (80% agree already) and better than telling the people they have to vote again because they got the answer wrong last time (about 55% agree already).
Will add £12bn to the budget deficit, apparently, which makes the extra expenditure that Hammond announced in the budget seem somewhat brave. It would also be fair to say that any "war chest" designed to protect the economy in the event of a no deal Brexit is now somewhat depleted.
Personally, I think that the current mess makes the argument for a much simpler graduate tax almost unanswerable. If 45% of student loans are never going to be repaid what is the point in such inefficiency?
I'm 2.7k away from the end of my loan. My other half never took one (She went to uni 2005-9 iirc). There best bloody not be a retrospective grad tax for us.
That is going to be a problem. It was a shambolic idea from the start and imposing a fairly harsh "commercial" interest rate on the debt seriously aggravated the problem.
Another issue is that a grad tax needs to have a lifetime cap (otherwise those who reasonably foresee being high earners will take out private provision), but such a cap may prove difficult to sustain politically.
I actually think we've ended up with a fairly reasonable system, albeit one accompanied by a huge quantity of disingenuous politicised talk about debt, and also some heroic national accounting.
Will add £12bn to the budget deficit, apparently, which makes the extra expenditure that Hammond announced in the budget seem somewhat brave. It would also be fair to say that any "war chest" designed to protect the economy in the event of a no deal Brexit is now somewhat depleted.
Personally, I think that the current mess makes the argument for a much simpler graduate tax almost unanswerable. If 45% of student loans are never going to be repaid what is the point in such inefficiency?
I'm 2.7k away from the end of my loan. My other half never took one (She went to uni 2005-9 iirc). There best bloody not be a retrospective grad tax for us.
That is going to be a problem. It was a shambolic idea from the start and imposing a fairly harsh "commercial" interest rate on the debt seriously aggravated the problem.
Another issue is that a grad tax needs to have a lifetime cap (otherwise those who reasonably foresee being high earners will take out private provision), but such a cap may prove difficult to sustain politically.
I actually think we've ended up with a fairly reasonable system, albeit one accompanied by a huge quantity of disingenuous politicised talk about debt, and also some heroic national accounting.
Are you in favour of the new or old accounting ?
On the question of the debt produced from Plan II, it should undoubtedly be recognised as (mostly) national and not personal debt.
Will add £12bn to the budget deficit, apparently, which makes the extra expenditure that Hammond announced in the budget seem somewhat brave. It would also be fair to say that any "war chest" designed to protect the economy in the event of a no deal Brexit is now somewhat depleted.
Personally, I think that the current mess makes the argument for a much simpler graduate tax almost unanswerable. If 45% of student loans are never going to be repaid what is the point in such inefficiency?
I'm 2.7k away from the end of my loan. My other half never took one (She went to uni 2005-9 iirc). There best bloody not be a retrospective grad tax for us.
That is going to be a problem. It was a shambolic idea from the start and imposing a fairly harsh "commercial" interest rate on the debt seriously aggravated the problem.
Another issue is that a grad tax needs to have a lifetime cap (otherwise those who reasonably foresee being high earners will take out private provision), but such a cap may prove difficult to sustain politically.
I actually think we've ended up with a fairly reasonable system, albeit one accompanied by a huge quantity of disingenuous politicised talk about debt, and also some heroic national accounting.
The current system is effectively a capped grad tax. Most people pay 7% of their income over the threshold for their working life.
I can understand the wish for a second referendum, and there are strong arguments for having one. But I cannot get beyond a feeling that it would be pointless: views have generally not changed, and even if remain did win (which is far from assured, given that views appear not to have shifted much) then it would be a marginal win and not solve anything.
another is absolutely possible, and would leave the country in a much better place politically.
You are right, I don't *know* that.
But I reckon it's a good guess. My reasons: 1) The polling has not shifted much towards remain. 2) The 'betrayal' of a second vote will be a strong recruiting sergeant for leave. 3) Anecdotally, I'm not hearing or seeing many people changing their views; if anything they're becoming more entrenched. 4) Remain has already lost once. 5) Remainers are being lazy. With a few exceptions, they're saying how awful leaving is, and not giving a positive case for remaining in the EU. That's what's needed, and what they failed to do during ref1.
I'd love there to be a second referendum and for one result - leave or remain - to decisively win. I just cannot see it happening, and another close result will not only not solve anything, it would be actively disastrous.
So let's hope parliament can sort it out.
If the chances of not leaving at all.
The net result is that I'm left where I was: wanting to leave; but now I'm starting to feel obstinate.
So it seems to me that both sides are simply getting more entrenched.
Good afternoon, everyone.
Tt would be idiotic.
If you wanted to leave the Eu, the obvious and sensible way to do it would be to draft a plan, canvass support, test it as best one could and put it to the people. If the Leave Campaign had done that Mrs May would never have needed to go on her long and ultimately fruitless campaign. Either she would have implemented the plan, or more likely a Leaver would have, or more likely still the vote would have been lost because a realistic and detailed plan would probably not have won 52% of the vote, or anything like it, because there would not have been a Leave consensus for it.
Instead we got a majority for Leave based on disinformation and a collection of promises that were utterly unimplementable - a recipe for disaster if ever there was one.
May has earned widespread applause for trying to mitigate the disaster by concocting a sort of acceptable fudge, but it now seems doomed to failure. Parliament now has the obligation and the power to avert disaster, and like it or loathe it they will have to get on with it.
Will add £12bn to the budget deficit, apparently, which makes the extra expenditure that Hammond announced in the budget seem somewhat brave. It would also be fair to say that any "war chest" designed to protect the economy in the event of a no deal Brexit is now somewhat depleted.
Personally, I think that the current mess makes the argument for a much simpler graduate tax almost unanswerable. If 45% of student loans are never going to be repaid what is the point in such inefficiency?
I'm 2.7k away from the end of my loan. My other half never took one (She went to uni 2005-9 iirc). There best bloody not be a retrospective grad tax for us.
That is going to be a problem. It was a shambolic idea from the start and imposing a fairly harsh "commercial" interest rate on the debt seriously aggravated the problem.
Another issue is that a grad tax needs to have a lifetime cap (otherwise those who reasonably foresee being high earners will take out private provision), but such a cap may prove difficult to sustain politically.
I actually think we've ended up with a fairly reasonable system, albeit one accompanied by a huge quantity of disingenuous politicised talk about debt, and also some heroic national accounting.
Are you in favour of the new or old accounting ?
In principle in favour of the new. Where you can reasonably mark-to-market you should, and we now have more data to help do that with greater accuracy.
I think it comes back w/c 7th Jan and vote is on the 14th January
She definitely said week commencing 7th Jan for the debate with the vote "in the week following". But the Times had the vote for the 14th. Confirmation when Leadsom speaks on Thursday.
Will add £12bn to the budget deficit, apparently, which makes the extra expenditure that Hammond announced in the budget seem somewhat brave. It would also be fair to say that any "war chest" designed to protect the economy in the event of a no deal Brexit is now somewhat depleted.
Personally, I think that the current mess makes the argument for a much simpler graduate tax almost unanswerable. If 45% of student loans are never going to be repaid what is the point in such inefficiency?
I'm 2.7k away from the end of my loan. My other half never took one (She went to uni 2005-9 iirc). There best bloody not be a retrospective grad tax for us.
That is going to be a problem. It was a shambolic idea from the start and imposing a fairly harsh "commercial" interest rate on the debt seriously aggravated the problem.
Another issue is that a grad tax needs to have a lifetime cap (otherwise those who reasonably foresee being high earners will take out private provision), but such a cap may prove difficult to sustain politically.
I actually think we've ended up with a fairly reasonable system, albeit one accompanied by a huge quantity of disingenuous politicised talk about debt, and also some heroic national accounting.
The current system is effectively a capped grad tax. Most people pay 7% of their income over the threshold for their working life.
Yes. But moving to a pure grad tax (with no cap) would create a lot of distortions.
I think it comes back w/c 7th Jan and vote is on the 14th January
She definitely said week commencing 7th Jan for the debate with the vote "in the week following". But the Times had the vote for the 14th. Confirmation when Leadsom speaks on Thursday.
There are still two days of debate remaining, including the disposal of all the amendments.
If you wanted to leave the Eu, the obvious and sensible way to do it would be to draft a plan, canvass support, test it as best one could and put it to the people. If the Leave Campaign had done that Mrs May would never have needed to go on her long and ultimately fruitless campaign. Either she would have implemented the plan, or more likely a Leaver would have, or more likely still the vote would have been lost because a realistic and detailed plan would probably not have won 52% of the vote, or anything like it, because there would not have been a Leave consensus for it.
Instead we got a majority for Leave based on disinformation and a collection of promises that were utterly unimplementable - a recipe for disaster if ever there was one.
May has earned widespread applause for trying to mitigate the disaster by concocting a sort of acceptable fudge, but it now seems doomed to failure. Parliament now has the obligation and the power to avert disaster, and like it or loathe it they will have to get on with it.
I think that they will cancel A50 using a cross party majority of MPs at the last minute.
They won't allow no deal and they won't have another referendum (what would the question even be?).
My guess is that it will be an A50 extension, followed by a referendum to choose between revoking A50 (remain) or May's Deal. I expect that by mid-summer next year it will be all over for Leave.
That would be a bit of a farce though without the no deal option. I can't see it happening.
Our politicians may not be that bright, but they wili have learrned not to put damaging ill-defined propositions to a vote
If they have learned that they have no need to put anything to the vote at all. Yes it would anger people, but if they do not wish to take the risk of options they do not like, then they should be brave enough to just admit that rather than seek a democratic figleaf which still runs the risk of options they despise and do not want to take.
We give our politicians hell and yet no Leaver on here says "I do not want a 2nd referendum because I do not think Leave would win it". Instead we get all sorts of obfuscations and such instead of basic honesty.
Have the referendum. We know exactly what the options are now as opposed to nebulous sunny upland stuff. There are exactly three of them. herence of its supporters.
You cannot say however that the Government has not done its level best to implement the vote. You can only say that the outcome of the vote was unimplementable.
No, that it cannot get the agreement accepted is because the opposition are playing silly games.
Oh, now we have 'the wrong type of communism' argument.
Look, it doesn't work. It doesn't work for a reason. The reason is that Brexit makes no sense, and never did. So it isn't being implemented, because it can't be.
Got it?
It can be. The Commons just has to judge the deal on its merits and accept that it is better than no deal (80% agree already) and better than telling the people they have to vote again because they got the answer wrong last time (about 55% agree already).
The Commons has judged the deal on its merits. They just don't happen to agree with you.
Ooh, what a scary threat. We know a vote of no confidence is coming, which the Tories may or may not win, the threat of one is therefore denuded since it is already a certainty, it's only the date which is unclear and how big a threat is learning when that will be?
Will add £12bn to the budget deficit, apparently, which makes the extra expenditure that Hammond announced in the budget seem somewhat brave. It would also be fair to say that any "war chest" designed to protect the economy in the event of a no deal Brexit is now somewhat depleted.
Personally, I think that the current mess makes the argument for a much simpler graduate tax almost unanswerable. If 45% of student loans are never going to be repaid what is the point in such inefficiency?
I'm 2.7k away from the end of my loan. My other half never took one (She went to uni 2005-9 iirc). There best bloody not be a retrospective grad tax for us.
That is going to be a problem. It was a shambolic idea from the start and imposing a fairly harsh "commercial" interest rate on the debt seriously aggravated the problem.
Another issue is that a grad tax needs to have a lifetime cap (otherwise those who reasonably foresee being high earners will take out private provision), but such a cap may prove difficult to sustain politically.
I actually think we've ended up with a fairly reasonable system, albeit one accompanied by a huge quantity of disingenuous politicised talk about debt, and also some heroic national accounting.
The current system is effectively a capped grad tax. Most people pay 7% of their income over the threshold for their working life.
Yes. But moving to a pure grad tax (with no cap) would create a lot of distortions.
Which is why i don’t really have a problem with current system. People just need to be re-educated that it isn’t debt, it’s a grad tax. But the message is severely distorted, The number of parents I meet who think they are going to be the ones paying £9k a year upfront is scary.
If you wanted to leave the Eu, the obvious and sensible way to do it would be to draft a plan, canvass support, test it as best one could and put it to the people.
Which Cameron refused to allow to happen, of course.
Corbyn's argument for an early vote is that "the deal cannot be renegotiated"
!!
You what? Surely that is not right, his whole pretext for a GE is so he can renegotiate (since the obvious benefits of a Labour government in themselves do not justify calls for a new government). Is this signalling he is finally accepting it is time to go for a referendum, or is it just part of Labour's deliberate strategy of vagueness which will be 'clarified' later?
Comments
Would any of them back a government VoNC which would see their parliamentary careers brought to a premature end?
Edit: You are of course entirely correct.
Er... What will Corbyn do if May says the MV will be on 21 January?
Edit: Yes I know there have been plenty of Gov't VoNCs before.
You could be right though
Smart from Corbyn, looks like he's taking the initiative to move things forward when he's doing anything but.
The net result is that I'm left where I was: wanting to leave; but now I'm starting to feel obstinate.
So it seems to me that both sides are simply getting more entrenched.
Good afternoon, everyone.
I think technically the government can continue after a VONC as long as it retains the confidence of the Queen, but of course it never does.
But she won't.
Someone correct me if this is rubbish.
More speculatively, I imagine the Lib Dem or SNP MPs would vote largely in unison on a "free" vote whether they imposed a whip or not, but it isn't clear to me why Corbyn would play ball to appease May if the votes were a way to impose pressure on her.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MPs_elected_in_the_2017_United_Kingdom_general_election#Defections,_suspensions_and_removal_of_whip
The chairman of the committee is an ERG-er.
Will add £12bn to the budget deficit, apparently, which makes the extra expenditure that Hammond announced in the budget seem somewhat brave. It would also be fair to say that any "war chest" designed to protect the economy in the event of a no deal Brexit is now somewhat depleted.
Personally, I think that the current mess makes the argument for a much simpler graduate tax almost unanswerable. If 45% of student loans are never going to be repaid what is the point in such inefficiency?
The difference between this and a graduate tax is largely one of style.
https://twitter.com/cath_haddon/status/1074684534803841024
So no obligation on the govt to make time for a VoNC in the PM.
As an aside, this also highlights why it's really only the official Opposition who can table a VoNC in the government.
Look, it doesn't work. It doesn't work for a reason. The reason is that Brexit makes no sense, and never did. So it isn't being implemented, because it can't be.
Got it?
Would not require many of them to do so again for May to lose.
H A S
C H A N G E D
You keep on using these words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
Also, she plans to run down the clock for another month.
I actually think we've ended up with a fairly reasonable system, albeit one accompanied by a huge quantity of disingenuous politicised talk about debt, and also some heroic national accounting.
On the question of the debt produced from Plan II, it should undoubtedly be recognised as (mostly) national and not personal debt.
Mean.
Instead we got a majority for Leave based on disinformation and a collection of promises that were utterly unimplementable - a recipe for disaster if ever there was one.
May has earned widespread applause for trying to mitigate the disaster by concocting a sort of acceptable fudge, but it now seems doomed to failure. Parliament now has the obligation and the power to avert disaster, and like it or loathe it they will have to get on with it.
Rattled.
Good.
Mind you the price for that was doing my A Levels when A Levels were hard.
Good afternoon, everyone.
Tt would be idiotic.
If you wanted to leave the Eu, the obvious and sensible way to do it would be to draft a plan, canvass support, test it as best one could and put it to the people. If the Leave Campaign had done that Mrs May would never have needed to go on her long and ultimately fruitless campaign. Either she would have implemented the plan, or more likely a Leaver would have, or more likely still the vote would have been lost because a realistic and detailed plan would probably not have won 52% of the vote, or anything like it, because there would not have been a Leave consensus for it.
Instead we got a majority for Leave based on disinformation and a collection of promises that were utterly unimplementable - a recipe for disaster if ever there was one.
May has earned widespread applause for trying to mitigate the disaster by concocting a sort of acceptable fudge, but it now seems doomed to failure. Parliament now has the obligation and the power to avert disaster, and like it or loathe it they will have to get on with it.
Can't disagree with any of that.
!!
Two Business Partners of Former Trump Adviser Mike Flynn Indicted
Bijan Kian and Kamil Alptekin accused of acting as Turkish agents; Indictment also charges conspiracy, false statements
https://www.wsj.com/articles/two-business-partners-of-former-trump-adviser-mike-flynn-indicted-11545060554
Has the House of Commons ever been so useless?
At least you didn’t have to do them when they were really really propa ‘ard.