Blimey, I read this and thought: things are getting really serious if we're going to have to hold the COBRA meetings on the other side of the Atlantic!
Because it keeps in his pocket the card of tabling the motion that won't be passed?
He could table a VoNC in the government as many times as he likes - it's not a one-shot option.
Using that card even once nullifies the loophole he is using to avoid the terms of his Conference motion. Naughty Mr Corbyn, who once used to take Conference so seriously.
Or naughty Mr. Milne who probably holds similar views on the EU to John Redwood.
This isn't completely stupid at 250/1 (or even 100/1).
Cameron might well be asked to mind the shop if: (1) a vacancy arose at no notice; (2) a HoC VoNC propelled May out of office, Corbyn tried to form a govt but lost a HoC vote too, and someone was required to head the government during the ensuing election, who hadn't just been No Confidenced by the House.
I appreciate that scenario (2) is unorthodox but I'm not sure we fully appreciate the dynamics of the FTPA yet. Previously, if a govt loses a VoNC then it either resigns immediately or goes to the country immediately. That no longer applies. The two-week period effectively makes for a game of pass-the-parcel. Would it be right that whoever was the last to try to form a government and failed to do so got to hold on in office for the general election? My guess is that it wouldn't be - that they too should resign as the previous government had. In that situation, it might well be appropriate to call on an experienced politician who is out of current front-line politics to head things up on a temporary basis until the GE had clarified matters - and that someone from the party in govt before the VoNC would be the natural choice.
Surely it would have to be someone who is in the HoC or at the very outside, the HoL?
Hague, Cable, Clarke, Beckett all more likely interim candidates imo.
Aside from not being in parliament, Cameron would be far, far too divisive, as would for example Blair or Brown.
If someone in the Lords is acceptable, then anyone can be ennobled in a matter of minutes.
There are IMO two realistic scenarios in which someone like Cameron might be needed. The first, as I've mentioned, is in the event of some political crisis that requires someone to act as a temporary PM pending the resolution of the crisis, when all other leading candidates are ruled out for political reasons. I agree that Cameron, in such circumstances might be divisive. However, he'd still be a possibility.
The other is in what we might call the Brighton Bomb scenario, where other current leaders might not be available.
Bear in mind that in the 73 years since Attlee formed his government, the average PM tenure is about 5 years, so a 250/1 shot implies the sort of thing that happens less than once-a-millennium. Granted that there's much more flux at the moment and a change of PM is more likely that usual but I still think that 250/1 is more than fair.
All countries have their 'myths' ours of "stood alone" (with a quarter of the planet) is no substitute for rational analysis
It is things like this that make me want No Deal Brexit. Queues of lorries, high unemployment and everything completely FUBAR'd, because it seems to be the only way we will ever be free of this Plucky Little Britain Triumphs Again bullsh*t.
Basically, wallowing in nostalgia is no way to improve the future.
And, as a minor side consequence, so will the Tories be. They will be wiped out on a scale that is like Canada when the utter disaster that is no-deal happens in April. No matter how long they put off the GE. No voter will give a hoot, or even remember, that they voted for this: they will be too busy going nuts about job losses, lack of food and basic supplies, byzantine rationing schemes, meds problems, hospitals busting open with the elderly who can't get regular meds etc etc.
Don't forget this lot can't even organize a new railway timetable without chaos. Imagine them rationing food and organizing twenty miles of backed-up lorries full of vital supplies.
I see one of the Cabinet warned others that in the end the massive job losses would include their own voters who would act accordingly.
Yes.. one of the TV highlights in the first week of April after a No Deal will be watching Tory MPs beaming at having delivered What The People Voted For, and wondering why the People in question don't seem very grateful.
There will be some very short memories in voter-land if jobs are lost and people go short of meds (or, frankly, have to wait for half an hour at Tesco for a delivery of Petit Filous).
This isn't completely stupid at 250/1 (or even 100/1).
Cameron might well be asked to mind the shop if: (1) a vacancy arose at no notice; (2) a HoC VoNC propelled May out of office, Corbyn tried to form a govt but lost a HoC vote too, and someone was required to head the government during the ensuing election, who hadn't just been No Confidenced by the House.
I appreciate that scenario (2) is unorthodox but I'm not sure we fully appreciate the dynamics of the FTPA yet. Previously, if a govt loses a VoNC then it either resigns immediately or goes to the country immediately. That no longer applies. The two-week period effectively makes for a game of pass-the-parcel. Would it be right that whoever was the last to try to form a government and failed to do so got to hold on in office for the general election? My guess is that it wouldn't be - that they too should resign as the previous government had. In that situation, it might well be appropriate to call on an experienced politician who is out of current front-line politics to head things up on a temporary basis until the GE had clarified matters - and that someone from the party in govt before the VoNC would be the natural choice.
Surely it would have to be someone who is in the HoC or at the very outside, the HoL?
Hague, Cable, Clarke, Beckett all more likely interim candidates imo.
Aside from not being in parliament, Cameron would be far, far too divisive, as would for example Blair or Brown.
If someone in the Lords is acceptable, then anyone can be ennobled in a matter of minutes.
There are IMO two realistic scenarios in which someone like Cameron might be needed. The first, as I've mentioned, is in the event of some political crisis that requires someone to act as a temporary PM pending the resolution of the crisis, when all other leading candidates are ruled out for political reasons. I agree that Cameron, in such circumstances might be divisive. However, he'd still be a possibility.
The other is in what we might call the Brighton Bomb scenario, where other current leaders might not be available.
Bear in mind that in the 73 years since Attlee formed his government, the average PM tenure is about 5 years, so a 250/1 shot implies the sort of thing that happens less than once-a-millennium. Granted that there's much more flux at the moment and a change of PM is more likely that usual but I still think that 250/1 is more than fair.
As you can see I am in a foul mood this afternoon.
The mess we are in is off the scale and we are being led by clowns of the highest order.
History will hold these people as effectively wanton criminals who should never have been near office.
...the thing that annoys me more is that the person who is the default replacement PM is a thick twat of the first order, and he is playing games with the prosperity of the country
Should produce a decent Tory lead in the polls once the pivot to no deal is complete. Rather cruelly for the Lib Dems Labour will also do well as it ensures further polarisation.
So how much money are we going to spend on this ‘no deal’ Brexit that should not happen?
About £3.6bn iirc.
The whole cabinet should be tried for missuse of public funds in my opinion. This could have been done 2 years ago for much cheaper im sure! What a disgrace.
Whoever we blame for no deal being a real possibility and how much we blame them, it is a very real possibility, it is not madness to prepare for it. Indeed, that they have not prepared because of the backlash they'd get for doing so is part of the madness.
Her Premiership would beg to differ. Things like pulling the MV at the last minute even though it was known for quite some time it would be defeated do not particularly suggest she thinks about more than getting through the next day.
Alternatively yes, she does think several moves ahead, but unfortunately she only does so assuming everyone else will make the moves she wants them to make, and if they do differently she has no real contingency.
Firstly playing chicken with Parliament and the country and then spending over £3b in the process. 3 billion pounds for a game of chicken! Madness. Disgraceful.
On the fourth day of Christmas my true love sent me
Four waiting Lorries, three customs officers, two portaloos and a riot in the city...
And for balance, just how will that be any different from across the Irish Sea, The Channel, and North Sea ports
The EU will be well and truely log jammed and if you think the French are having a go just now, just wait for 20 mile queus at Calais, and the Irish hgv blocked in Dun Laoghaire
On the fourth day of Christmas my true love sent me
Four waiting Lorries, three customs officers, two portaloos and a riot in the city...
And for balance, just how will that be any different from across the Irish Sea, The Channel, and North Sea ports
The EU will be well and truely log jammed and if you think the French are having a go just now, just wait for 20 mile queus at Calais, and the Irish hgv blocked in Dun Laoghaire
On the 9th day of christmas, my true love gave to me 9 VAT box obselete, 8 box too !!!
Firstly playing chicken with Parliament and the country and then spending over £3b in the process. 3 billion pounds for a game of chicken! Madness. Disgraceful.
Whatever they want to do now no outcome can be guaranteed. It would be madness to not spend on no deal prep even if they have no intention of going down that route, because the proceedings of parliament might lead to no deal anyway. So no, it is not a disgrace whatever their motivation, since no deal could happen and must be prepared for, motivation is irrelevant.
On the fourth day of Christmas my true love sent me
Four waiting Lorries, three customs officers, two portaloos and a riot in the city...
And for balance, just how will that be any different from across the Irish Sea, The Channel, and North Sea ports
The EU will be well and truely log jammed and if you think the French are having a go just now, just wait for 20 mile queus at Calais, and the Irish hgv blocked in Dun Laoghaire
They’ll be a long time blocked in Dun Laoghire given the port is long gone.
A predictably lively Cabinet meeting today as ministers discussed no-deal planning. Jeremy Hunt said that EU attitudes were hardening because they could see a second referendum coming into view, in part, because of the speculation that people around the Cabinet table were indulging in it. The Foreign Secretary warned that a failure to deliver Brexit would be as devastating for the Tories as the Lib Dems’s failure on tuition fees was to them.
Firstly playing chicken with Parliament and the country and then spending over £3b in the process. 3 billion pounds for a game of chicken! Madness. Disgraceful.
Whatever they want to do now no outcome can be guaranteed. It would be madness to not spend on no deal prep even if they have no intention of going down that route, because the proceedings of parliament might lead to no deal anyway. So no, it is not a disgrace whatever their motivation, since no deal could happen and must be prepared for, motivation is irrelevant.
No deal can be ruled out by revocation of Article 50 as you well know. There is no way we can accidentally fall into ‘no deal’ unless the Government chooses to.
This is nothing more than a misuse of public funds.
A predictably lively Cabinet meeting today as ministers discussed no-deal planning. Jeremy Hunt said that EU attitudes were hardening because they could see a second referendum coming into view, in part, because of the speculation that people around the Cabinet table were indulging in it. The Foreign Secretary warned that a failure to deliver Brexit would be as devastating for the Tories as the Lib Dems’s failure on tuition fees was to them.
Yes, it might well be. They won't be able to deliver no deal Brexit though, too many in their own ranks will prevent it despite its default status. So they're pretty screwed. Just a question of how long before they have to face the electorate. 3.5 years or less.
Anything short of total end of the world mayhem on Brexit day will be seen as another reason to ignore rejoiners in the future.
No, any significant economic disruption and its the hard Brexiters who will take the hit. But May's plan to force her side to the deal is all coming along nicely.
Firstly playing chicken with Parliament and the country and then spending over £3b in the process. 3 billion pounds for a game of chicken! Madness. Disgraceful.
Whatever they want to do now no outcome can be guaranteed. It would be madness to not spend on no deal prep even if they have no intention of going down that route, because the proceedings of parliament might lead to no deal anyway. So no, it is not a disgrace whatever their motivation, since no deal could happen and must be prepared for, motivation is irrelevant.
No deal can be ruled out by revocation of Article 50 as you well know. There is no way we can accidentally fall into ‘no deal’ unless the Government chooses to.
This is nothing more than a misuse of public funds.
No it is not. Revocation can indeed happen but there may not be parliamentary approval to do so. So actually we can fall into no deal. I think people upset that the government is, at last, preparing for a worst case scenario are getting mad at the wrong things. Just hoping that revocation will happen just because it must would be insanely reckless.
As it happens I think we would revoke rather than crash out, but getting mad at the government for at least trying to put in place a contingency? I bet if the worst happens and no deal happens you'd cry foul that they never prepared for it.
We can hope that no deal will not be as bad as people think (though beware anyone trying to dismiss it with mere aphorisms and bland assurances).
Another day, another instalment of Project Fear and watch how frightened everyone gets as soon as the Army gets mentioned.
Calculated nonsense aimed at panicking frightened people into signing up to May's Deal. All she and her allies have now is fear and they are hoping a couple of weeks of this propaganda will do the job.
There's nothing that can't be arranged or sorted in plenty of time (and would have been if this group of dullards had considered the most elementary contingency planning).
No one is going to starve, run out of medicines or be stopped from going anywhere. A great man once said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Nowadays, the only weapon a bad politician has is fear.
Firstly playing chicken with Parliament and the country and then spending over £3b in the process. 3 billion pounds for a game of chicken! Madness. Disgraceful.
NO DEAL has to look for real in order that it can be avoided.
Firstly playing chicken with Parliament and the country and then spending over £3b in the process. 3 billion pounds for a game of chicken! Madness. Disgraceful.
To be fair, the money is not being wasted, it is being used in Keynesian stimulus. Admittedly substantially for wharehouses and fridges, but not wasted.
Firstly playing chicken with Parliament and the country and then spending over £3b in the process. 3 billion pounds for a game of chicken! Madness. Disgraceful.
Whatever they want to do now no outcome can be guaranteed. It would be madness to not spend on no deal prep even if they have no intention of going down that route, because the proceedings of parliament might lead to no deal anyway. So no, it is not a disgrace whatever their motivation, since no deal could happen and must be prepared for, motivation is irrelevant.
No deal can be ruled out by revocation of Article 50 as you well know. There is no way we can accidentally fall into ‘no deal’ unless the Government chooses to.
This is nothing more than a misuse of public funds.
No it is not. Revocation can indeed happen but there may not be parliamentary approval to do so. So actually we can fall into no deal. I think people upset that the government is, at last, preparing for a worst case scenario are getting mad at the wrong things. Just hoping that revocation will happen just because it must would be insanely reckless.
As it happens I think we would revoke rather than crash out, but getting mad at the government for at least trying to put in place a contingency? I bet if the worst happens and no deal happens you'd cry foul that they never prepared for it.
Then we should have had the vote already so we could have found out! Playing a 3.6b game of chicken with Parliament and the country is a misuse of public funds and an utter disgrace.
Firstly playing chicken with Parliament and the country and then spending over £3b in the process. 3 billion pounds for a game of chicken! Madness. Disgraceful.
Whatever they want to do now no outcome can be guaranteed. It would be madness to not spend on no deal prep even if they have no intention of going down that route, because the proceedings of parliament might lead to no deal anyway. So no, it is not a disgrace whatever their motivation, since no deal could happen and must be prepared for, motivation is irrelevant.
No deal can be ruled out by revocation of Article 50 as you well know. There is no way we can accidentally fall into ‘no deal’ unless the Government chooses to.
This is nothing more than a misuse of public funds.
No it is not. Revocation can indeed happen but there may not be parliamentary approval to do so. So actually we can fall into no deal. I think people upset that the government is, at last, preparing for a worst case scenario are getting mad at the wrong things. Just hoping that revocation will happen just because it must would be insanely reckless.
As it happens I think we would revoke rather than crash out, but getting mad at the government for at least trying to put in place a contingency? I bet if the worst happens and no deal happens you'd cry foul that they never prepared for it.
Then we should have had the vote already so we could have found out! Playing a 3.6b game of chicken with Parliament and the country is a misuse of public funds and an utter disgrace.
Yes we should have had the vote, and other votes, before now. That is a disgrace. But given parliament has no majority for anything, that is well known, preparing is still not a disgrace. And it is definitely not a misuse of public funds just because you think it a bad use of public funds.
On the fourth day of Christmas my true love sent me
Four waiting Lorries, three customs officers, two portaloos and a riot in the city...
And for balance, just how will that be any different from across the Irish Sea, The Channel, and North Sea ports
The EU will be well and truely log jammed and if you think the French are having a go just now, just wait for 20 mile queus at Calais, and the Irish hgv blocked in Dun Laoghaire
Firstly playing chicken with Parliament and the country and then spending over £3b in the process. 3 billion pounds for a game of chicken! Madness. Disgraceful.
Whatever they want to do now no outcome can be guaranteed. It would be madness to not spend on no deal prep even if they have no intention of going down that route, because the proceedings of parliament might lead to no deal anyway. So no, it is not a disgrace whatever their motivation, since no deal could happen and must be prepared for, motivation is irrelevant.
No deal can be ruled out by revocation of Article 50 as you well know. There is no way we can accidentally fall into ‘no deal’ unless the Government chooses to.
This is nothing more than a misuse of public funds.
No it is not. Revocation can indeed happen but there may not be parliamentary approval to do so. So actually we can fall into no deal. I think people upset that the government is, at last, preparing for a worst case scenario are getting mad at the wrong things. Just hoping that revocation will happen just because it must would be insanely reckless.
As it happens I think we would revoke rather than crash out, but getting mad at the government for at least trying to put in place a contingency? I bet if the worst happens and no deal happens you'd cry foul that they never prepared for it.
We can hope that no deal will not be as bad as people think (though beware anyone trying to dismiss it with mere aphorisms and bland assurances).
We need a Supreme Courth ruling on the legal protocol to revoke A50 in domestic law.
Firstly playing chicken with Parliament and the country and then spending over £3b in the process. 3 billion pounds for a game of chicken! Madness. Disgraceful.
Whatever they want to do now no outcome can be guaranteed. It would be madness to not spend on no deal prep even if they have no intention of going down that route, because the proceedings of parliament might lead to no deal anyway. So no, it is not a disgrace whatever their motivation, since no deal could happen and must be prepared for, motivation is irrelevant.
No deal can be ruled out by revocation of Article 50 as you well know. There is no way we can accidentally fall into ‘no deal’ unless the Government chooses to.
This is nothing more than a misuse of public funds.
No it is not. Revocation can indeed happen but there may not be parliamentary approval to do so. So actually we can fall into no deal. I think people upset that the government is, at last, preparing for a worst case scenario are getting mad at the wrong things. Just hoping that revocation will happen just because it must would be insanely reckless.
As it happens I think we would revoke rather than crash out, but getting mad at the government for at least trying to put in place a contingency? I bet if the worst happens and no deal happens you'd cry foul that they never prepared for it.
We can hope that no deal will not be as bad as people think (though beware anyone trying to dismiss it with mere aphorisms and bland assurances).
We need a Supreme Courth ruling on the legal protocol to revoke A50 in domestic law.
Yes indeed - given the arguments that would no doubt occur if it is tried.
On the fourth day of Christmas my true love sent me
Four waiting Lorries, three customs officers, two portaloos and a riot in the city...
And for balance, just how will that be any different from across the Irish Sea, The Channel, and North Sea ports
The EU will be well and truely log jammed and if you think the French are having a go just now, just wait for 20 mile queus at Calais, and the Irish hgv blocked in Dun Laoghaire
They’ll be a long time blocked in Dun Laoghire given the port is long gone.
It is years since I crossed from Holyhead to Dun Laoghire so I did not know it was now Dublin but the same issue applies
If one believes "No deal" would be a disaster then I reckon the following.
Number of politicians putting the national interest first
i) Not May & the Cabinet - Even Nabavi warns No deal would be a disaster. Failed to reach out over the aisle, now engaged in wanton blackmail. ii) Not Corbyn, playing games and trying to make the Tories own a hard Brexit. iii) Not the Lib Dems, not backing the deal. iv) Not the DUP - Prepared to head to "No deal" v) Not the bulk of the TOry remainers, prepared to vote down the deal to try and engender a 2nd ref. vi) Definitely not the ERG !
Politicians putting the national interest first
i) Lady Hermon, Caroline Flint, Stephen Lloyd, Ken Clarke & the SDLP
Politicians putting Scotland'sthe SNP's interests first
Another day, another instalment of Project Fear and watch how frightened everyone gets as soon as the Army gets mentioned.
Calculated nonsense aimed at panicking frightened people into signing up to May's Deal. All she and her allies have now is fear and they are hoping a couple of weeks of this propaganda will do the job.
There's nothing that can't be arranged or sorted in plenty of time (and would have been if this group of dullards had considered the most elementary contingency planning).
No one is going to starve, run out of medicines or be stopped from going anywhere. A great man once said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Nowadays, the only weapon a bad politician has is fear.
You seem very confident.
I suspect your post will not age well on a No Deal exit.
All this no deal buzz, it makes total sense. To get the deal through TM has to scare the shit out of the remainer opposers. They are a bigger and softer target than the hard brexiters. Bigger because there are a lot more of them and softer because they are not maniacs. So she stamps on 2nd referendum but ramps up no deal. The choice she wants to present is not deal vs 2nd ref (that won't do the business because too many MPs quite like the idea of the 2nd ref) but the pure and diabolical noel edmunds. I thought that the Grieve amendment was supposed to stop her doing this but perhaps she has sussed out that it doesn't. Smart and robust, if so. An appalling carry on, but smart and robust. What a woman.
All this no deal buzz, it makes total sense. To get the deal through TM has to scare the shit out of the remainer opposers. They are a bigger and softer target than the hard brexiters. Bigger because there are a lot more of them and softer because they are not maniacs. So she stamps on 2nd referendum but ramps up no deal. The choice she wants to present is not deal vs 2nd ref (that won't do the business because too many MPs quite like the idea of the 2nd ref) but the pure and diabolical noel edmunds. I thought that the Grieve amendment was supposed to stop her doing this but perhaps she has sussed out that it doesn't. Smart and robust, if so. An appalling carry on, but smart and robust. What a woman.
Blackmailing Parliament, using the fear of ‘no deal’, to accept a sub-par agreement that Parliament does not want?
On the fourth day of Christmas my true love sent me
Four waiting Lorries, three customs officers, two portaloos and a riot in the city...
And for balance, just how will that be any different from across the Irish Sea, The Channel, and North Sea ports
The EU will be well and truely log jammed and if you think the French are having a go just now, just wait for 20 mile queus at Calais, and the Irish hgv blocked in Dun Laoghaire
Probably, but that is not our problem.
It is everyone's problem including the EU who will have failed completely. The pressure on governments across the EU will be colossal
Caveats apply but the poll really does show the unique awfulness of Corbyn as Labour leader. Essentially Labour voters are strongly remain. The party has to either be remain or as close to it as practically possible or, as shown the left splits rather as was shown in earlier polls on what would happen if the party split - between liberal social democrats and Corbynite true believers who think Brexit is a price worth paying for radical socialism.
But Corbyn still loses backing remain or BINO. Why? Because he's uniquely awful as a persuader. Labour could win as a party of remain but it would need to do two things. Firstly persuade remain voting Tories and Lib Dem holdouts that it wasn't a threat - your Matthew Parris types who think Brexit is such a bad idea that they'd be prepared to vote Labour. However, Corbyn is unlikely loathed even on the centre-left let alone the centre-right for his hard left connections and the authoritarian nastiness and worse that they entail.
Secondly, win over wavering Brexiteers. This has been the great opportunity cost of the past three years. Firstly, because Corbyn's dislike of the EU and approach to politics makes him unable to passionately advocate for it. He can't tour the country telling factory workers to get behind remain to safeguard their jobs and that staying could create new ones because he thinks the nebulous concept that is neoliberalism is at fault, not Brexit and that his brand of socialism is the only solution that matters. Secondly, he just isn't good at persuading people. Having spoken to political allies all his life and shunned anyone who doesn't fit with his worldview, he lacks the kind of persuasive empathy, that even if faked, can win round those who disagree. Great at comforting those whose suffering fits with his beliefs. As we've seen with anti-Semitism, repulsive to those who believe he's a cause of their suffering.
Oh dear. He got away with it in 2017 thanks to May's awfulness and the large amounts of sceptics who held their nose to vote for the more socially liberal party. Can't see it happening again. Probably why he's holding out for a Brexit cataclysm to sort it all out for him.
Bear in mind that in the 73 years since Attlee formed his government, the average PM tenure is about 5 years, so a 250/1 shot implies the sort of thing that happens less than once-a-millennium. Granted that there's much more flux at the moment and a change of PM is more likely that usual but I still think that 250/1 is more than fair.
On which note, I would have thought the 250/1 on the Lib Dems winning Most Seats at the next election represents value. There's a fair few steps needed but they're all more than possible.
How long were the queues at Dover back in 1972 before we joined the EEC?
A slightly pointless question. Firstly, the amount of trade has increased massively in that time. But most importantly, that was a static situation: processes had been in place for decades, if not centuries, slowly evolving. Brexit means a revolution, and one that the processes and systems might not be in place for.
All this no deal buzz, it makes total sense. To get the deal through TM has to scare the shit out of the remainer opposers. They are a bigger and softer target than the hard brexiters. Bigger because there are a lot more of them and softer because they are not maniacs. So she stamps on 2nd referendum but ramps up no deal. The choice she wants to present is not deal vs 2nd ref (that won't do the business because too many MPs quite like the idea of the 2nd ref) but the pure and diabolical noel edmunds. I thought that the Grieve amendment was supposed to stop her doing this but perhaps she has sussed out that it doesn't. Smart and robust, if so. An appalling carry on, but smart and robust. What a woman.
Remember that '2nd Ref' is not a Brexit outcome; it's a Brexit mechanism. There's no such thing as Deal vs Ref, the true option is certainty of Deal vs (one of various options delivered via an uncertain and uncontrollable referendum).
Bear in mind that in the 73 years since Attlee formed his government, the average PM tenure is about 5 years, so a 250/1 shot implies the sort of thing that happens less than once-a-millennium. Granted that there's much more flux at the moment and a change of PM is more likely that usual but I still think that 250/1 is more than fair.
On which note, I would have thought the 250/1 on the Lib Dems winning Most Seats at the next election represents value. There's a fair few steps needed but they're all more than possible.
Is this the start of one of those Turkey is joining the EU threads?
All this no deal buzz, it makes total sense. To get the deal through TM has to scare the shit out of the remainer opposers. They are a bigger and softer target than the hard brexiters. Bigger because there are a lot more of them and softer because they are not maniacs. So she stamps on 2nd referendum but ramps up no deal. The choice she wants to present is not deal vs 2nd ref (that won't do the business because too many MPs quite like the idea of the 2nd ref) but the pure and diabolical noel edmunds. I thought that the Grieve amendment was supposed to stop her doing this but perhaps she has sussed out that it doesn't. Smart and robust, if so. An appalling carry on, but smart and robust. What a woman.
Remember that '2nd Ref' is not a Brexit outcome; it's a Brexit mechanism. There's no such thing as Deal vs Ref, the true option is certainty of Deal vs (one of various options delivered via an uncertain and uncontrollable referendum).
There is still Deal vs Remain in a referendum, though. Think of the way it would be sold. I have negotiated an exit to the EU but parliament cannot agree and therefore I am going to ask you the people to decide.
Follows a unilateral extension of A50 and done by May (the month, not the Prime Minister).
All this no deal buzz, it makes total sense. To get the deal through TM has to scare the shit out of the remainer opposers. They are a bigger and softer target than the hard brexiters. Bigger because there are a lot more of them and softer because they are not maniacs. So she stamps on 2nd referendum but ramps up no deal. The choice she wants to present is not deal vs 2nd ref (that won't do the business because too many MPs quite like the idea of the 2nd ref) but the pure and diabolical noel edmunds. I thought that the Grieve amendment was supposed to stop her doing this but perhaps she has sussed out that it doesn't. Smart and robust, if so. An appalling carry on, but smart and robust. What a woman.
Remember that '2nd Ref' is not a Brexit outcome; it's a Brexit mechanism. There's no such thing as Deal vs Ref, the true option is certainty of Deal vs (one of various options delivered via an uncertain and uncontrollable referendum).
If the referendum is Deal v Remain (backed by a successful meaningful vote with a people's vote amendment), then it locks down the outcome to either the deal or Remain.
Panic on PB.com as the chances of May's deal passing and remain being consigned to the dustbin of history are rising at pace...
The chances of it passing are rising? I must have missed that.
What you've missed is that talk of Norway Plus, Canada Plus and of other Starred Unicorns has markedly diminished. People are at last focussing on the genuine options before us, and as they do so, the actual deal available will become more attractive. Whether that's enough is a whole different question.
NO DEAL has to look for real in order that it can be avoided.
Exactly right. If it looks like a bluff the remainer opposition in the various parties will hang in there and then she will be forced to cancel brexit via a referendum. If it looks like for real enough of them will cave in and the deal will be passed. The challenge (and it's a big one) is to make it look real even though it must be a bluff, because there is no way that a prime minister of this country will really sanction a chaotic no deal exit from the EU. In other words, yes, in a nutshell, no deal has to look real in order that it can be avoided. See how I can use many sentences to express what could just as well be expressed in one?
All countries have their 'myths' ours of "stood alone" (with a quarter of the planet) is no substitute for rational analysis
It is things like this that make me want No Deal Brexit. Queues of lorries, high unemployment and everything completely FUBAR'd, because it seems to be the only way we will ever be free of this Plucky Little Britain Triumphs Again bullsh*t.
Basically, wallowing in nostalgia is no way to improve the future.
Bear in mind that in the 73 years since Attlee formed his government, the average PM tenure is about 5 years, so a 250/1 shot implies the sort of thing that happens less than once-a-millennium. Granted that there's much more flux at the moment and a change of PM is more likely that usual but I still think that 250/1 is more than fair.
On which note, I would have thought the 250/1 on the Lib Dems winning Most Seats at the next election represents value. There's a fair few steps needed but they're all more than possible.
The last three elections have all had results that were surprising.
Panic on PB.com as the chances of May's deal passing and remain being consigned to the dustbin of history are rising at pace...
The chances of it passing are rising? I must have missed that.
What you've missed is that talk of Norway Plus, Canada Plus and of other Starred Unicorns has markedly diminished. People are at last focussing on the genuine options before us, and as they do so, the actual deal available will become more attractive. Whether that's enough is a whole different question.
I think every Conservative supporter of Norway Plus said they would back the deal anyway, so there's no net gain for the deal. Narrowing the choices and making it clear how unpalatable no deal is makes a Deal/Remain referendum more credible.
Bear in mind that in the 73 years since Attlee formed his government, the average PM tenure is about 5 years, so a 250/1 shot implies the sort of thing that happens less than once-a-millennium. Granted that there's much more flux at the moment and a change of PM is more likely that usual but I still think that 250/1 is more than fair.
On which note, I would have thought the 250/1 on the Lib Dems winning Most Seats at the next election represents value. There's a fair few steps needed but they're all more than possible.
The last three elections have all had results that were surprising.
Indeed, and the Lib Dems traded at single figures for Most Seats in 2010.
All countries have their 'myths' ours of "stood alone" (with a quarter of the planet) is no substitute for rational analysis
It is things like this that make me want No Deal Brexit. Queues of lorries, high unemployment and everything completely FUBAR'd, because it seems to be the only way we will ever be free of this Plucky Little Britain Triumphs Again bullsh*t.
Basically, wallowing in nostalgia is no way to improve the future.
Until plucky little Britain triumphs again.
It's what we do.
We haven't got an Empire we can call on for help now.
On the fourth day of Christmas my true love sent me
Four waiting Lorries, three customs officers, two portaloos and a riot in the city...
And for balance, just how will that be any different from across the Irish Sea, The Channel, and North Sea ports
The EU will be well and truely log jammed and if you think the French are having a go just now, just wait for 20 mile queus at Calais, and the Irish hgv blocked in Dun Laoghaire
Probably, but that is not our problem.
It is everyone's problem including the EU who will have failed completely. The pressure on governments across the EU will be colossal
All countries have their 'myths' ours of "stood alone" (with a quarter of the planet) is no substitute for rational analysis
It is things like this that make me want No Deal Brexit. Queues of lorries, high unemployment and everything completely FUBAR'd, because it seems to be the only way we will ever be free of this Plucky Little Britain Triumphs Again bullsh*t.
Basically, wallowing in nostalgia is no way to improve the future.
Until plucky little Britain triumphs again.
It's what we do.
We haven't got an Empire we can call on for help now.
And at least half the population think that the hardcore Leavers are demented.
All this no deal buzz, it makes total sense. To get the deal through TM has to scare the shit out of the remainer opposers. They are a bigger and softer target than the hard brexiters. Bigger because there are a lot more of them and softer because they are not maniacs. So she stamps on 2nd referendum but ramps up no deal. The choice she wants to present is not deal vs 2nd ref (that won't do the business because too many MPs quite like the idea of the 2nd ref) but the pure and diabolical noel edmunds. I thought that the Grieve amendment was supposed to stop her doing this but perhaps she has sussed out that it doesn't. Smart and robust, if so. An appalling carry on, but smart and robust. What a woman.
Remember that '2nd Ref' is not a Brexit outcome; it's a Brexit mechanism. There's no such thing as Deal vs Ref, the true option is certainty of Deal vs (one of various options delivered via an uncertain and uncontrollable referendum).
There is still Deal vs Remain in a referendum, though. Think of the way it would be sold. I have negotiated an exit to the EU but parliament cannot agree and therefore I am going to ask you the people to decide.
Follows a unilateral extension of A50 and done by May (the month, not the Prime Minister).
The PM can't unilaterally extend A50 - though for a referendum most people seem to think that the EU would agree to one. Not that I think another referendum is at all likely anyway.
How long were the queues at Dover back in 1972 before we joined the EEC?
A slightly pointless question. Firstly, the amount of trade has increased massively in that time. But most importantly, that was a static situation: processes had been in place for decades, if not centuries, slowly evolving. Brexit means a revolution, and one that the processes and systems might not be in place for.
I understand that - though technology changes might well bring greater flexiblity rather than imposing restrictions. We also have the Channel Tunnel today which was not available to us in that earlier period. I am not sure the position was as static as suggested - trade had increased greatly in the more than 25 years following World War 2.
All this no deal buzz, it makes total sense. To get the deal through TM has to scare the shit out of the remainer opposers. They are a bigger and softer target than the hard brexiters. Bigger because there are a lot more of them and softer because they are not maniacs. So she stamps on 2nd referendum but ramps up no deal. The choice she wants to present is not deal vs 2nd ref (that won't do the business because too many MPs quite like the idea of the 2nd ref) but the pure and diabolical noel edmunds. I thought that the Grieve amendment was supposed to stop her doing this but perhaps she has sussed out that it doesn't. Smart and robust, if so. An appalling carry on, but smart and robust. What a woman.
Remember that '2nd Ref' is not a Brexit outcome; it's a Brexit mechanism. There's no such thing as Deal vs Ref, the true option is certainty of Deal vs (one of various options delivered via an uncertain and uncontrollable referendum).
There is still Deal vs Remain in a referendum, though. Think of the way it would be sold. I have negotiated an exit to the EU but parliament cannot agree and therefore I am going to ask you the people to decide.
Follows a unilateral extension of A50 and done by May (the month, not the Prime Minister).
The PM can't unilaterally extend A50 - though for a referendum most people seem to think that the EU would agree to one. Not that I think another referendum is at all likely anyway.
Yes sorry when I mean unilaterally I mean on our side. I think the EU as you say would agree. And neither do I think a referendum is likely. I gave it a 15% chance earlier. But it is possible especially if the move towards Deal acceptance (85%) stalls short of being able to pass in the HoC.
In which case I believe the sequence and referendum question would be as I stated.
On the fourth day of Christmas my true love sent me
Four waiting Lorries, three customs officers, two portaloos and a riot in the city...
And for balance, just how will that be any different from across the Irish Sea, The Channel, and North Sea ports
The EU will be well and truely log jammed and if you think the French are having a go just now, just wait for 20 mile queus at Calais, and the Irish hgv blocked in Dun Laoghaire
Probably, but that is not our problem.
It is everyone's problem including the EU who will have failed completely. The pressure on governments across the EU will be colossal
Nothing like the pressure here.
After all, Brexit was our choice not theirs.
Indeed because we see a positive out of this. They don't.
Comments
Madness. Utter madness.
Blimey, I read this and thought: things are getting really serious if we're going to have to hold the COBRA meetings on the other side of the Atlantic!
There are IMO two realistic scenarios in which someone like Cameron might be needed. The first, as I've mentioned, is in the event of some political crisis that requires someone to act as a temporary PM pending the resolution of the crisis, when all other leading candidates are ruled out for political reasons. I agree that Cameron, in such circumstances might be divisive. However, he'd still be a possibility.
The other is in what we might call the Brighton Bomb scenario, where other current leaders might not be available.
Bear in mind that in the 73 years since Attlee formed his government, the average PM tenure is about 5 years, so a 250/1 shot implies the sort of thing that happens less than once-a-millennium. Granted that there's much more flux at the moment and a change of PM is more likely that usual but I still think that 250/1 is more than fair.
Basically, wallowing in nostalgia is no way to improve the future.
There will be some very short memories in voter-land if jobs are lost and people go short of meds (or, frankly, have to wait for half an hour at Tesco for a delivery of Petit Filous).
I didn't think they had the minerals.
This is going down to the wire
TM's deal looks more and more like the safety blanket the country needs
Which may not be quite the same thing......
Alternatively yes, she does think several moves ahead, but unfortunately she only does so assuming everyone else will make the moves she wants them to make, and if they do differently she has no real contingency. As long as I have some sand to put my head in I'll be fine.
Firstly playing chicken with Parliament and the country and then spending over £3b in the process. 3 billion pounds for a game of chicken! Madness. Disgraceful.
The EU will be well and truely log jammed and if you think the French are having a go just now, just wait for 20 mile queus at Calais, and the Irish hgv blocked in Dun Laoghaire
Us Tories don’t know what she is planning, other than getting through day to day.
9 VAT box obselete, 8 box too !!!
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/the-cabinet-steps-up-planning-for-no-deal/
This is nothing more than a misuse of public funds.
2) If your business trades with businesses who themselves trade with the EU, then see item 1.
As it happens I think we would revoke rather than crash out, but getting mad at the government for at least trying to put in place a contingency? I bet if the worst happens and no deal happens you'd cry foul that they never prepared for it.
We can hope that no deal will not be as bad as people think (though beware anyone trying to dismiss it with mere aphorisms and bland assurances).
Another day, another instalment of Project Fear and watch how frightened everyone gets as soon as the Army gets mentioned.
Calculated nonsense aimed at panicking frightened people into signing up to May's Deal. All she and her allies have now is fear and they are hoping a couple of weeks of this propaganda will do the job.
There's nothing that can't be arranged or sorted in plenty of time (and would have been if this group of dullards had considered the most elementary contingency planning).
No one is going to starve, run out of medicines or be stopped from going anywhere. A great man once said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Nowadays, the only weapon a bad politician has is fear.
BBC now reporting that May is planning series of votes on options before her own.
This after it was reported that she was against this idea in Cabinet, which took place, oh a whole four hours ago.
Is her software being updated on a hourly basis now?
Number of politicians putting the national interest first
i) Not May & the Cabinet - Even Nabavi warns No deal would be a disaster. Failed to reach out over the aisle, now engaged in wanton blackmail.
ii) Not Corbyn, playing games and trying to make the Tories own a hard Brexit.
iii) Not the Lib Dems, not backing the deal.
iv) Not the DUP - Prepared to head to "No deal"
v) Not the bulk of the TOry remainers, prepared to vote down the deal to try and engender a 2nd ref.
vi) Definitely not the ERG !
Politicians putting the national interest first
i) Lady Hermon, Caroline Flint, Stephen Lloyd, Ken Clarke & the SDLP
Politicians putting Scotland's the SNP's interests first
THE SNP
I suspect your post will not age well on a No Deal exit.
Yeah, some woman. History will not be kind.
https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/1075068053052899331
Trade, modern supply chains, new technology etc etc etc Transformed out of all sight compared to 1972.
But Corbyn still loses backing remain or BINO. Why? Because he's uniquely awful as a persuader. Labour could win as a party of remain but it would need to do two things. Firstly persuade remain voting Tories and Lib Dem holdouts that it wasn't a threat - your Matthew Parris types who think Brexit is such a bad idea that they'd be prepared to vote Labour. However, Corbyn is unlikely loathed even on the centre-left let alone the centre-right for his hard left connections and the authoritarian nastiness and worse that they entail.
Secondly, win over wavering Brexiteers. This has been the great opportunity cost of the past three years. Firstly, because Corbyn's dislike of the EU and approach to politics makes him unable to passionately advocate for it. He can't tour the country telling factory workers to get behind remain to safeguard their jobs and that staying could create new ones because he thinks the nebulous concept that is neoliberalism is at fault, not Brexit and that his brand of socialism is the only solution that matters. Secondly, he just isn't good at persuading people. Having spoken to political allies all his life and shunned anyone who doesn't fit with his worldview, he lacks the kind of persuasive empathy, that even if faked, can win round those who disagree. Great at comforting those whose suffering fits with his beliefs. As we've seen with anti-Semitism, repulsive to those who believe he's a cause of their suffering.
Oh dear. He got away with it in 2017 thanks to May's awfulness and the large amounts of sceptics who held their nose to vote for the more socially liberal party. Can't see it happening again. Probably why he's holding out for a Brexit cataclysm to sort it all out for him.
https://twitter.com/jeremy_hunt/status/1075069498921750528?s=21
The only question is does he become Tory leader/PM in a coronation or landslide.
The prime minister was previously thought to be against this idea.
So that's a no, then...!
And a full default on intergalactic debt.
Follows a unilateral extension of A50 and done by May (the month, not the Prime Minister).
What you've missed is that talk of Norway Plus, Canada Plus and of other Starred Unicorns has markedly diminished. People are at last focussing on the genuine options before us, and as they do so, the actual deal available will become more attractive. Whether that's enough is a whole different question.
It's what we do.
https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/1075072323693277184?s=21
I think every Conservative supporter of Norway Plus said they would back the deal anyway, so there's no net gain for the deal. Narrowing the choices and making it clear how unpalatable no deal is makes a Deal/Remain referendum more credible.
After all, Brexit was our choice not theirs.
In which case I believe the sequence and referendum question would be as I stated.
Lock him up!