Mr Topping, surely the problem with the FoM argument and every other detail on Brexit is that there was no defined manifesto for Brexit, so we can only work from unreliable opinion polls as to what peoples' motivations were. Even Farage and Hannon regularly argued during the campaign in favour of Norway as an example which clearly involves FoM. Brexit means many different things to many people, depending on how extreme they are on the issue, (and others including gay marriage apparently!) . May's deal clearly delivers on the result based on the essentially wording of the question, and the fact that it is disliked by so many (including myself) probably means that it is about right.
It's important to note that the Grieve amendment is not limited to requiring the PM to make a statement in the Commons with three days, it requires the government to hold a ‘plan B’ vote within three sitting days - i.e., by Monday week. So she will have just six days to extract meaningful concessions from the EU27.
You might think that is a good thing, given the very limited time still left. It's certainly a substantive amendment.
What happens if Plan B is voted down?
There won't be a Plan B: it'll be Plan A again. Nothing has changed.
And in reality, nothing has changed. The government cannot magic up a Norway Plus agreement from thin air. The only solutions are Deal, No Deal and Remain: the same as they always were.
They could substitute the backstop with re-entry if a permanent deal is not agreed after X years.
That could pass HoC, satisfy the 2016 referendum and give all sides something to aim for. Alas. Will never happen.
They could propose May's Deal be put to the people. That would pass.
Well let's take the most contentious issue - freedom of movement. Some huge percentage (~50%) of Leave voters cited it as being the most important issue. That makes (0.5 x 17.4)/(16.1 + 17.4) = 26% of voters cared about it. And yet it drove almost her entire approach.
Why even our very own @Richard_Tyndall would have been happy with continued FoM. Don't even get me started on the single market and customs union.
She instituted red lines before she had thought it through. It was designed to appeal to her hard Brexit wing as she knew (and of course she was right) that they would cause trouble and in any case, she was set on a hard Brexit herself.
No mitigation for this, Richard - she owns it.
You are assuming that anyone who didn't vote Leave and who didn't put FoM down as the most important issue wasn't fussed about FoM. That's plainly wrong. Many people who voted Leave who wouldn't have put it first would nonetheless have put it as important, and many people who voted Remain did so despite not wanting FoM to continue unchanged.
A form of Brexit which left FoM untouched would be a complete travesty.
Brexit means Brexit, ie. leaving the EU. There was nothing on the ballot paper about what form Brexit should take.
No, but there was plenty in the Leave campaigns' material, which can't simply be ignored in delivering what people thought they were voting for. It included taking back control of our borders, negotiating an orderly exit from the EU, negotiating a comprehensive trade deal with the EU, and being in a position to do trade deals elsewhere. Theresa May has done an excellent job of synthesising an incoherent and sometimes self-contradictory set of aims into the most workable and least damaging implementation possible, assuming we're going to leave the EU at all. It's unfortunate that the Brexiteers, having got exactly what they campaigned for, decided to team up with a cynical Labour Party to trash it, leaving us with chaos.
Something else I find puzzling. Why would the president of the USA not get someone to check his spelling? (1) He's too arrogant to admit he has a problem with spelling. (2) He thinks bad spelling helps him because many of his supporters have the same problem.
Auto-correct affects even stable geniuses like myself, it really is the bane of my life.
I'll never forget the time an ex girlfriend reported me to the RSPCA when she received a text from me saying 'I can't wait to get home and kick your puppy'
1) Commands a majority in the house of commons 2) Sets the scheduling of the government business 3) Has a firm grasp of parliamentary reality and how to use it to achieve his ends 4) Is best placed to find a workable solution to the Brexit impasse that Parliament can support.
Conclusion: Dominic Grieve is actually the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
It's important to note that the Grieve amendment is not limited to requiring the PM to make a statement in the Commons within three days, it requires the government to hold a ‘plan B’ vote within three sitting days - i.e., by Monday week. So she will have just six days to extract meaningful concessions from the EU27.
You might think that is a good thing, given the very limited time still left. It's certainly a substantive amendment.
Maybe we should hold another vote on the Grieve amendment as its possible some MPs were not clear what they were voting for?!
Despite the handicap of being a Conservative it's fair to assume Rees Mogg knows more about parliamentary procedure than his colleagues on either side of the house.
And it's his wife's. That just about puts you on the same level as Holloway, Big G, and that's not a great place to be.
Not really.
Bercow has lost any pretence at being impartial and now is firmly seen as as wanting to stop brexit
You're on the wrong side of this one Big G. Allow your natural sense of justice and cool eye for common sense to prevail.
Parliament will be voting, not Bercow. You know, the whole take back control thing. What are you scared of?
Bercow is not a suitable speaker. However, TM deal or remain seem likely so I am content but am concerned about the divisive nature a referendum would be
The remain mps are in control and well organised. ERG are going to lose brexit due to their chaotic organisation
Its not their organisation or chaos that is their issue. They may have been backed by 52% of voters but the 48% have the majority of MPs. No organisation skills or even the Wisdom of Solomon could overcome that.
Not at all. May decided to treat the referendum result like it was a General Election - forget the other lot they can have their say in five years time. Except it was a once in a generation vote.
She should have brought together all sides of the debate to forge, together with the EU, a sensible, consensus-building Brexit.
But she didn't. She treated it like a GE and, like GEs, that set up the expectation of "the other side" having another crack at it via subsequent votes, in this case a second referendum.
Quite right. Not only was her slogan Brexit Meanz Brexit the most divisive slogan in living memory it might also be a rare example of a single slogan losing an election which otherwise would have been won.
Something else I find puzzling. Why would the president of the USA not get someone to check his spelling? (1) He's too arrogant to admit he has a problem with spelling. (2) He thinks bad spelling helps him because many of his supporters have the same problem.
Auto-correct affects even stable geniuses like myself, it really is the bane of my life.
I'll never forget the time an ex girlfriend reported me to the RSPCA when she received a text from me saying 'I can't wait to get home and kick your puppy'
Well let's take the most contentious issue - freedom of movement. Some huge percentage (~50%) of Leave voters cited it as being the most important issue. That makes (0.5 x 17.4)/(16.1 + 17.4) = 26% of voters cared about it. And yet it drove almost her entire approach.
Why even our very own @Richard_Tyndall would have been happy with continued FoM. Don't even get me started on the single market and customs union.
She instituted red lines before she had thought it through. It was designed to appeal to her hard Brexit wing as she knew (and of course she was right) that they would cause trouble and in any case, she was set on a hard Brexit herself.
No mitigation for this, Richard - she owns it.
You are assuming that anyone who didn't vote Leave and who didn't put FoM down as the most important issue wasn't fussed about FoM. That's plainly wrong. Many people who voted Leave who wouldn't have put it first would nonetheless have put it as important, and many people who voted Remain did so despite not wanting FoM to continue unchanged.
A form of Brexit which left FoM untouched would be a complete travesty.
Brexit means Brexit, ie. leaving the EU. There was nothing on the ballot paper about what form Brexit should take.
No, but there was plenty in the Leave campaigns' material, which can't simply be ignored in delivering what people thought they were voting for. It included taking back control of our borders, negotiating an orderly exit from the EU, negotiating a comprehensive trade deal with the EU, and being in a position to do trade deals elsewhere.
On that basis, the absence of £350m a week more funding for the NHS is a good reason to vote against Theresa May's Brexit deal. Or any Brexit proposal.
Something else I find puzzling. Why would the president of the USA not get someone to check his spelling? (1) He's too arrogant to admit he has a problem with spelling. (2) He thinks bad spelling helps him because many of his supporters have the same problem.
Auto-correct affects even stable geniuses like myself, it really is the bane of my life.
I'll never forget the time an ex girlfriend reported me to the RSPCA when she received a text from me saying 'I can't wait to get home and kick your puppy'
I know autocorrect is poor technology but correcting a common word like forest to a relatively rare given name like Forrest is fairly unlikely, I'd venture.
Something else I find puzzling. Why would the president of the USA not get someone to check his spelling? (1) He's too arrogant to admit he has a problem with spelling. (2) He thinks bad spelling helps him because many of his supporters have the same problem.
Auto-correct affects even stable geniuses like myself, it really is the bane of my life.
I'll never forget the time an ex girlfriend reported me to the RSPCA when she received a text from me saying 'I can't wait to get home and kick your puppy'
I know autocorrect is poor technology but correcting a common word like forest to a relatively rare given name like Forrest is fairly unlikely, I'd venture.
If the name Forrest is in Trump's contacts, I'd expect it do default to that.
Fairly predictably, I imagine some of the Conservative activists on here have been pretty negative about Layla. Well, that's to be expected. Any possible leader of any other party is immediately denigrated and mocked.
As for future Conservative leaders, well, the Tories do a very good line in parody and self-mockery which seems to consist of calling each other "sh1ts" or similar. Ho hum.
While I don't agree with her on policy (at least in this instance), I think if Layla Moran wants to be leader, fine, let her put herself forward and along with other Party members, I'll go to the hustings and see what she has to say.
She has impressed me thus far not least for wrenching Oxford West from the Conservatives last time. I do want to hear she would take the challenge to Labour and particularly how she could draw moderate Labour supporters toward the LDs.
The way she persuaded Lab tactical voters to the LDs, and for Greens to not field a candidate shows a degree of political persuasiveness much needed in the party.
I think that might be somewhat overstating her personal role in that movement
A lot of the vote shift seemed to happen in the Ab part of the constituency which had been heading in that direction significantly at council level.
I have no recollection of seeing her being personally active in driving any particular tactical agenda. There were those at work on it but it seemed to be from Labour modereates looking for a new home.
There was zero LD canvassing in my part of Jericho and very little leafleting.
It is, of course, possible that you were down as a non-swingable voter, and thus not targetted for either. There was a massive push all around the constituency, and I know for a fact that target letters were delivered in the Jericho ward.
Cable will stand down in the second quarter of this year. The media will talk up the possibility of Layla standing; she won't. The contest will be between Jo Swinson and Ed Davey, with Jo winning.
You seem very certain of that.
I have to keep reminding myself the Party I joined in 1981 died in the fire of the Coalition. This is a very new party with a new membership and I do think Layla's social liberal credentials will play very well. I'm concerned Jo and Ed carry the stench of the Coalition on them (as does Vince in all fairness) and you can be sure next time the Party will want a huge amount from any "deal" with anyone.
Its like implying if you think education is a more important issue than the NHS you don't care about the NHS!
You could equally quote other polls like this one which suggested 86% of Tory and two thirds of Labour voters wanted to reduce EU immigration. - which implies at the least they want some sort of reform/ending of freedom of movement or at least restricting access to welfare.
But like support for a people's vote on the deal vs a second referendum on Brexit voters responses to polls depend on the question asked - even if the options are the same in effect!
But that wasn't the option they were given at the referendum. As @Dadge has pointed out, that was not a choice they were asked to make. Although the loons have got hold of the Conch shell, and they would have you believe otherwise, it really is the case that Norway is not in the EU. Amazing, yes, but that is the case.
So the ballot paper asked us if, amongst other options, we might like to be like Norway. Not a sausage about the foreigners.
Indeed. This clear truth is all too rarely advanced. The Leave campaign promised a great many things, none of which were on the ballot paper save leaving the EU in some way or another.
Bringing up that Putin supports Brexit is idiotic in this context. The only acceptable thing to do for any Brit who has any influence over Brexit is to totally ignore what foreign actors want, including Putin, and decide their conscience on what should or should not be done.
If you want to argue against foreign influence in a matter, you don't use foreign preferences in the debate. You can bet that she would not have mentioned Putin at all if Putin's views coincided with hers.
In terms of dealing with unwelcome influence you are absolutely correct. Putin supports Brexit because he reckons it causes disarray and will make the West generally weaker. It should give pause to thought for those in favour of Brexit, why they are on the same side as the rogue statesman of Russia, who wishes us no good.
Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither
Well let's take the most contentious issue - freedom of movement. Some huge percentage (~50%) of Leave voters cited it as being the most important issue. That makes (0.5 x 17.4)/(16.1 + 17.4) = 26% of voters cared about it. And yet it drove almost her entire approach.
Why even our very own @Richard_Tyndall would have been happy with continued FoM. Don't even get me started on the single market and customs union.
She instituted red lines before she had thought it through. It was designed to appeal to her hard Brexit wing as she knew (and of course she was right) that they would cause trouble and in any case, she was set on a hard Brexit herself.
No mitigation for this, Richard - she owns it.
You are assuming that anyone who didn't vote Leave and who didn't put FoM down as the most important issue wasn't fussed about FoM. That's plainly wrong. Many people who voted Leave who wouldn't have put it first would nonetheless have put it as important, and many people who voted Remain did so despite not wanting FoM to continue unchanged.
A form of Brexit which left FoM untouched would be a complete travesty.
Brexit means Brexit, ie. leaving the EU. There was nothing on the ballot paper about what form Brexit should take.
No, but there was plenty in the Leave campaigns' material, which can't simply be ignored in delivering what people thought they were voting for. It included taking back control of our borders, negotiating an orderly exit from the EU, negotiating a comprehensive trade deal with the EU, and being in a position to do trade deals elsewhere.
On that basis, the absence of £350m a week more funding for the NHS is a good reason to vote against Theresa May's Brexit deal. Or any Brexit proposal.
Well, that was always impossible, so hardly counts one way or the other.
Something else I find puzzling. Why would the president of the USA not get someone to check his spelling? (1) He's too arrogant to admit he has a problem with spelling. (2) He thinks bad spelling helps him because many of his supporters have the same problem.
Auto-correct affects even stable geniuses like myself, it really is the bane of my life.
I'll never forget the time an ex girlfriend reported me to the RSPCA when she received a text from me saying 'I can't wait to get home and kick your puppy'
I know autocorrect is poor technology but correcting a common word like forest to a relatively rare given name like Forrest is fairly unlikely, I'd venture.
Perhaps it is a very obscure reference to Apocalypse Now ?
Something else I find puzzling. Why would the president of the USA not get someone to check his spelling? (1) He's too arrogant to admit he has a problem with spelling. (2) He thinks bad spelling helps him because many of his supporters have the same problem.
Auto-correct affects even stable geniuses like myself, it really is the bane of my life.
I'll never forget the time an ex girlfriend reported me to the RSPCA when she received a text from me saying 'I can't wait to get home and kick your puppy'
the variations on that are quite startling
I'm just glad when I was young and feckless mobile phones didn't let you take pictures/videos of my fecklessness.
Something else I find puzzling. Why would the president of the USA not get someone to check his spelling? (1) He's too arrogant to admit he has a problem with spelling. (2) He thinks bad spelling helps him because many of his supporters have the same problem.
Auto-correct affects even stable geniuses like myself, it really is the bane of my life.
I'll never forget the time an ex girlfriend reported me to the RSPCA when she received a text from me saying 'I can't wait to get home and kick your puppy'
Well let's take the most contentious issue - freedom of movement. Some huge percentage (~50%) of Leave voters cited it as being the most important issue. That makes (0.5 x 17.4)/(16.1 + 17.4) = 26% of voters cared about it. And yet it drove almost her entire approach.
Why even our very own @Richard_Tyndall would have been happy with continued FoM. Don't even get me started on the single market and customs union.
She instituted red lines before she had thought it through. It was designed to appeal to her hard Brexit wing as she knew (and of course she was right) that they would cause trouble and in any case, she was set on a hard Brexit herself.
No mitigation for this, Richard - she owns it.
You are assuming that anyone who didn't vote Leave and who didn't put FoM down as the most important issue wasn't fussed about FoM. That's plainly wrong. Many people who voted Leave who wouldn't have put it first would nonetheless have put it as important, and many people who voted Remain did so despite not wanting FoM to continue unchanged.
A form of Brexit which left FoM untouched would be a complete travesty.
Brexit means Brexit, ie. leaving the EU. There was nothing on the ballot paper about what form Brexit should take.
No, but there was plenty in the Leave campaigns' material, which can't simply be ignored in delivering what people thought they were voting for. It included taking back control of our borders, negotiating an orderly exit from the EU, negotiating a comprehensive trade deal with the EU, and being in a position to do trade deals elsewhere. Theresa May has done an excellent job of synthesising an incoherent and sometimes self-contradictory set of aims into the most workable and least damaging implementation possible, assuming we're going to leave the EU at all. It's unfortunate that the Brexiteers, having got exactly what they campaigned for, decided to team us with a cynical Labour Party to trash it, leaving us with chaos.
May's job was to find something that would pass the HoC. With a minority that means listening to and working with others. She didn't do that and that's essentially why we're in the mess we are in.
It's particularly heated because instead of working with others she actually set out to antagonise others. Now she is asking for support, surprisingly people aren't keen.
Something else I find puzzling. Why would the president of the USA not get someone to check his spelling? (1) He's too arrogant to admit he has a problem with spelling. (2) He thinks bad spelling helps him because many of his supporters have the same problem.
Auto-correct affects even stable geniuses like myself, it really is the bane of my life.
I'll never forget the time an ex girlfriend reported me to the RSPCA when she received a text from me saying 'I can't wait to get home and kick your puppy'
I know autocorrect is poor technology but correcting a common word like forest to a relatively rare given name like Forrest is fairly unlikely, I'd venture.
I agree. From the press she gets in the Oxford Mail, she seems obsessed with identity politics and little else and comes over as very lightweight. The comments sections predictably call her "Layla Moron" and routinely rip apart her statements.
She doesn't seem anything other than lightweight. No substance to her at all. Never have seen the appeal.
Hard-line Tories don`t.
Except I am not a hard-line Tory. I am an OxWAb voter who was not impressed by her at any point since she was selected. No actual substance to any of her positions. No rhetorical skill. No real world experience to add to the House. A deeply bland candidate. I have voted for a range of candidates over the past 30 years including Con and LD. But can't support Moran
My deepest apologies to you then. I always took you to be an extreme Tory. Unforgivable of me.
Yes, he had me fooled too.
Not much of an achievement in either case.
The Germans beat you to the sun-lounger again Felix?
Something else I find puzzling. Why would the president of the USA not get someone to check his spelling? (1) He's too arrogant to admit he has a problem with spelling. (2) He thinks bad spelling helps him because many of his supporters have the same problem.
Auto-correct affects even stable geniuses like myself, it really is the bane of my life.
I'll never forget the time an ex girlfriend reported me to the RSPCA when she received a text from me saying 'I can't wait to get home and kick your puppy'
the variations on that are quite startling
I'm just glad when I was young and feckless mobile phones didn't let you take pictures/videos of my fecklessness.
you would really have enjoyed the days when there were no mobile phones
Bringing up that Putin supports Brexit is idiotic in this context. The only acceptable thing to do for any Brit who has any influence over Brexit is to totally ignore what foreign actors want, including Putin, and decide their conscience on what should or should not be done.
If you want to argue against foreign influence in a matter, you don't use foreign preferences in the debate. You can bet that she would not have mentioned Putin at all if Putin's views coincided with hers.
In terms of dealing with unwelcome influence you are absolutely correct. Putin supports Brexit because he reckons it causes disarray and will make the West generally weaker. It should give pause to thought for those in favour of Brexit, why they are on the same side as the rogue statesman of Russia, who wishes us no good.
Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither
Which is why those who would take away the rights of UK citizens to secure their identity must be defeated.
Mr. Jonathan, play fair. She can't even build a coalition within the Conservative Party. Bit unreasonable to expect her to manage a cross-party consensus.
Well let's take the most contentious issue - freedom of movement. Some huge percentage (~50%) of Leave voters cited it as being the most important issue. That makes (0.5 x 17.4)/(16.1 + 17.4) = 26% of voters cared about it. And yet it drove almost her entire approach.
Why even our very own @Richard_Tyndall would have been happy with continued FoM. Don't even get me started on the single market and customs union.
She instituted red lines before she had thought it through. It was designed to appeal to her hard Brexit wing as she knew (and of course she was right) that they would cause trouble and in any case, she was set on a hard Brexit herself.
No mitigation for this, Richard - she owns it.
You are assuming that anyone who didn't vote Leave and who didn't put FoM down as the most important issue wasn't fussed about FoM. That's plainly wrong. Many people who voted Leave who wouldn't have put it first would nonetheless have put it as important, and many people who voted Remain did so despite not wanting FoM to continue unchanged.
A form of Brexit which left FoM untouched would be a complete travesty.
I voted remain but am certainly in favour of a lower YoY population...
Excluding yourself and your family presumably? It reminds me of the old paradox of overpopulation – we should remove people until exactly the point that it requires that we have to remove ourselves.
Something else I find puzzling. Why would the president of the USA not get someone to check his spelling? (1) He's too arrogant to admit he has a problem with spelling. (2) He thinks bad spelling helps him because many of his supporters have the same problem.
Auto-correct affects even stable geniuses like myself, it really is the bane of my life.
I'll never forget the time an ex girlfriend reported me to the RSPCA when she received a text from me saying 'I can't wait to get home and kick your puppy'
the variations on that are quite startling
I'm just glad when I was young and feckless mobile phones didn't let you take pictures/videos of my fecklessness.
you would really have enjoyed the days when there were no mobile phones
I don't think so. That 24 hours that o2 went down for, I felt like I had become Amish for the day.
Something else I find puzzling. Why would the president of the USA not get someone to check his spelling? (1) He's too arrogant to admit he has a problem with spelling. (2) He thinks bad spelling helps him because many of his supporters have the same problem.
Auto-correct affects even stable geniuses like myself, it really is the bane of my life.
I'll never forget the time an ex girlfriend reported me to the RSPCA when she received a text from me saying 'I can't wait to get home and kick your puppy'
I know autocorrect is poor technology but correcting a common word like forest to a relatively rare given name like Forrest is fairly unlikely, I'd venture.
Type in forest with two 'r's into an iPhone and auto-correct capitalises it to Forrest.
Well let's take the most contentious issue - freedom of movement. Some huge percentage (~50%) of Leave voters cited it as being the most important issue. That makes (0.5 x 17.4)/(16.1 + 17.4) = 26% of voters cared about it. And yet it drove almost her entire approach.
Why even our very own @Richard_Tyndall would have been happy with continued FoM. Don't even get me started on the single market and customs union.
She instituted red lines before she had thought it through. It was designed to appeal to her hard Brexit wing as she knew (and of course she was right) that they would cause trouble and in any case, she was set on a hard Brexit herself.
No mitigation for this, Richard - she owns it.
You are assuming that anyone who didn't vote Leave and who didn't put FoM down as the most important issue wasn't fussed about FoM. That's plainly wrong. Many people who voted Leave who wouldn't have put it first would nonetheless have put it as important, and many people who voted Remain did so despite not wanting FoM to continue unchanged.
A form of Brexit which left FoM untouched would be a complete travesty.
Brexit means Brexit, ie. leaving the EU. There was nothing on the ballot paper about what form Brexit should take.
No, but there was plenty in the Leave campaigns' material, which can't simply be ignored in delivering what people thought they were voting for. It included taking back control of our borders, negotiating an orderly exit from the EU, negotiating a comprehensive trade deal with the EU, and being in a position to do trade deals elsewhere. Theresa May has done an excellent job of synthesising an incoherent and sometimes self-contradictory set of aims into the most workable and least damaging implementation possible, assuming we're going to leave the EU at all. It's unfortunate that the Brexiteers, having got exactly what they campaigned for, decided to team us with a cynical Labour Party to trash it, leaving us with chaos.
May's job was to find something that would pass the HoC. With a minority that means listening to and working with others. She didn't do that and that's essentially why we're in the mess we are in.
It's particularly heated because instead of working with others she actually set out to antagonise others. Now she is asking for support, surprisingly people aren't keen.
Who are these 'others'? The SNP? The LibDems? Labour, whose position was the entirely cynical one of voting against whatever deal she came back with?
As I said, she did an abysmal job of persuasion, but her actual analysis and negotiation has been correctly positioned. There is no better deal available, never could be, and certainly won't be.
Something else I find puzzling. Why would the president of the USA not get someone to check his spelling? (1) He's too arrogant to admit he has a problem with spelling. (2) He thinks bad spelling helps him because many of his supporters have the same problem.
Auto-correct affects even stable geniuses like myself, it really is the bane of my life.
I'll never forget the time an ex girlfriend reported me to the RSPCA when she received a text from me saying 'I can't wait to get home and kick your puppy'
the variations on that are quite startling
I'm just glad when I was young and feckless mobile phones didn't let you take pictures/videos of my fecklessness.
you would really have enjoyed the days when there were no mobile phones
Did mean one really looked forward to Saturday and contact with one's other half. Even if the arrangement was only temporary.
Well let's take the most contentious issue - freedom of movement. Some huge percentage (~50%) of Leave voters cited it as being the most important issue. That makes (0.5 x 17.4)/(16.1 + 17.4) = 26% of voters cared about it. And yet it drove almost her entire approach.
Why even our very own @Richard_Tyndall would have been happy with continued FoM. Don't even get me started on the single market and customs union.
She instituted red lines before she had thought it through. It was designed to appeal to her hard Brexit wing as she knew (and of course she was right) that they would cause trouble and in any case, she was set on a hard Brexit herself.
No mitigation for this, Richard - she owns it.
You are assuming that anyone who didn't vote Leave and who didn't put FoM down as the most important issue wasn't fussed about FoM. That's plainly wrong. Many people who voted Leave who wouldn't have put it first would nonetheless have put it as important, and many people who voted Remain did so despite not wanting FoM to continue unchanged.
A form of Brexit which left FoM untouched would be a complete travesty.
Brexit means Brexit, ie. leaving the EU. There was nothing on the ballot paper about what form Brexit should take.
No, but there was plenty in the Leave campaigns' material, which can't simply be ignored in delivering what people thought they were voting for. It included taking back control of our borders, negotiating an orderly exit from the EU, negotiating a comprehensive trade deal with the EU, and being in a position to do trade deals elsewhere. Theresa May has done an excellent job of synthesising an incoherent and sometimes self-contradictory set of aims into the most workable and least damaging implementation possible, assuming we're going to leave the EU at all. It's unfortunate that the Brexiteers, having got exactly what they campaigned for, decided to team up with a cynical Labour Party to trash it, leaving us with chaos.
Farage, Hannon and many others argued at various times (perhaps when they thought they would lose) for us to consider Norway as a model. I think you may find it on YouTube. There was no clarity in the Leave side's argument that could be considered anything like a manifesto. Agree with you though, that while I would prefer the whole debacle had never happened, the May deal is the best bet for all sides and Leavers should stop carping and pretending that they clearly campaigned for a No Deal exit. After all, it was meant to be the easiest deal in history was it not?
It's important to note that the Grieve amendment is not limited to requiring the PM to make a statement in the Commons with three days, it requires the government to hold a ‘plan B’ vote within three sitting days - i.e., by Monday week. So she will have just six days to extract meaningful concessions from the EU27.
You might think that is a good thing, given the very limited time still left. It's certainly a substantive amendment.
What happens if Plan B is voted down?
There won't be a Plan B: it'll be Plan A again. Nothing has changed.
And in reality, nothing has changed. The government cannot magic up a Norway Plus agreement from thin air. The only solutions are Deal, No Deal and Remain: the same as they always were.
They could substitute the backstop with re-entry if a permanent deal is not agreed after X years.
That could pass HoC, satisfy the 2016 referendum and give all sides something to aim for. Alas. Will never happen.
Not without the agreement of the EU, you couldn't. Re-entry is subject to Article 49 and can't just be signed off in advance by the Council of Ministers, never mind the House of Commons.
This is the point. The Commons cannot rewrite what's in the WA. The EU won't re-open negotiations (or at least, not unless there is some new and compelling reason to do so, and without a new popular mandate of some sort, there won't be such a reason), so MPs are still stuck with the three options that have been there since the November summit.
Something else I find puzzling. Why would the president of the USA not get someone to check his spelling? (1) He's too arrogant to admit he has a problem with spelling. (2) He thinks bad spelling helps him because many of his supporters have the same problem.
Auto-correct affects even stable geniuses like myself, it really is the bane of my life.
I'll never forget the time an ex girlfriend reported me to the RSPCA when she received a text from me saying 'I can't wait to get home and kick your puppy'
the variations on that are quite startling
I'm just glad when I was young and feckless mobile phones didn't let you take pictures/videos of my fecklessness.
Something else I find puzzling. Why would the president of the USA not get someone to check his spelling? (1) He's too arrogant to admit he has a problem with spelling. (2) He thinks bad spelling helps him because many of his supporters have the same problem.
Auto-correct affects even stable geniuses like myself, it really is the bane of my life.
I'll never forget the time an ex girlfriend reported me to the RSPCA when she received a text from me saying 'I can't wait to get home and kick your puppy'
the variations on that are quite startling
I'm just glad when I was young and feckless mobile phones didn't let you take pictures/videos of my fecklessness.
you would really have enjoyed the days when there were no mobile phones
Did mean one really looked for forward to Saturday and contact with one's other half. Even if the arrangement was only temporary.
yes, but what was the gaffers chance of finding you once you were out of the office ?
Not at all. May decided to treat the referendum result like it was a General Election - forget the other lot they can have their say in five years time. Except it was a once in a generation vote.
She should have brought together all sides of the debate to forge, together with the EU, a sensible, consensus-building Brexit.
But she didn't. She treated it like a GE and, like GEs, that set up the expectation of "the other side" having another crack at it via subsequent votes, in this case a second referendum.
That's an unfair characterisation of what she did. It is true that she failed abysmally in the people-management aspect of building a consensus, but in terms of substantive positioning she has very much tried to come up with a compromise deal which should be acceptable to all sides. She's tried very hard to implement the letter and the spirit of the referendum vote, whilst keeping close ties with Europe and minimising the economic hit. Unfortunately she has catastrophically failed to prevent others from framing the deal as they want to, for their own purposes.
Well let's take the most contentious issue - freedom of movement. Some huge percentage (~50%) of Leave voters cited it as being the most important issue. That makes (0.5 x 17.4)/(16.1 + 17.4) = 26% of voters cared about it. And yet it drove almost her entire approach.
Why even our very own @Richard_Tyndall would have been happy with continued FoM. Don't even get me started on the single market and customs union.
She instituted red lines before she had thought it through. It was designed to appeal to her hard Brexit wing as she knew (and of course she was right) that they would cause trouble and in any case, she was set on a hard Brexit herself.
No mitigation for this, Richard - she owns it.
Odd logic, speaking as a Leave voter who doesn't care about freedom of movement. You think 0.0% of Remain voters cared about freedom of movement?
I believe even a significant proportion of remain voters still prefer control over migration, just not enough to vote Leave.
Huh? I'm saying that as an issue for 25% of the electorate it would have been a candidate for compromise.
Indeed. May obsessed about it to keep her hard right frother wing onside. Much good that did her. Indeed it was all for nothing as the Ergers will vote down her deal regardless of the fact that it DOES end FoM. Not going for a SM/CU compromise must rank as one of the biggest political miscalculations of modern times.
It's important to note that the Grieve amendment is not limited to requiring the PM to make a statement in the Commons within three days, it requires the government to hold a ‘plan B’ vote within three sitting days - i.e., by Monday week. So she will have just six days to extract meaningful concessions from the EU27.
You might think that is a good thing, given the very limited time still left. It's certainly a substantive amendment.
Maybe we should hold another vote on the Grieve amendment as its possible some MPs were not clear what they were voting for?!
Despite the handicap of being a Conservative it's fair to assume Rees Mogg knows more about parliamentary procedure than his colleagues on either side of the house.
I think it may be fair to assume that he doesn't. Despite his expensive education he is not regarded by colleagues to be the brightest ticket in parliament, hence why he has never held any serious office.
FTSE100 is liking the moves to head off No Deal - highest for a month.
The £ is up, slightly, against the $, but down marginally against the €. Conclusion: the markets see no deal/no Brexit as being no more or less likely than before.
Something else I find puzzling. Why would the president of the USA not get someone to check his spelling? (1) He's too arrogant to admit he has a problem with spelling. (2) He thinks bad spelling helps him because many of his supporters have the same problem.
Auto-correct affects even stable geniuses like myself, it really is the bane of my life.
I'll never forget the time an ex girlfriend reported me to the RSPCA when she received a text from me saying 'I can't wait to get home and kick your puppy'
the variations on that are quite startling
I'm just glad when I was young and feckless mobile phones didn't let you take pictures/videos of my fecklessness.
you would really have enjoyed the days when there were no mobile phones
I don't think so. That 24 hours that o2 went down for, I felt like I had become Amish for the day.
Well let's take the most contentious issue - freedom of movement. Some huge percentage (~50%) of Leave voters cited it as being the most important issue. That makes (0.5 x 17.4)/(16.1 + 17.4) = 26% of voters cared about it. And yet it drove almost her entire approach.
Why even our very own @Richard_Tyndall would have been happy with continued FoM. Don't even get me started on the single market and customs union.
She instituted red lines before she had thought it through. It was designed to appeal to her hard Brexit wing as she knew (and of course she was right) that they would cause trouble and in any case, she was set on a hard Brexit herself.
No mitigation for this, Richard - she owns it.
You are assuming that anyone who didn't vote Leave and who didn't put FoM down as the most important issue wasn't fussed about FoM. That's plainly wrong. Many people who voted Leave who wouldn't have put it first would nonetheless have put it as important, and many people who voted Remain did so despite not wanting FoM to continue unchanged.
A form of Brexit which left FoM untouched would be a complete travesty.
I voted remain but am certainly in favour of a lower YoY population...
Excluding yourself and your family presumably? It reminds me of the old paradox of overpopulation – we should remove people until exactly the point that it requires that we have to remove ourselves.
To the point of lower agricultural land values in the main..
Fairly predictably, I imagine some of the Conservative activists on here have been pretty negative about Layla. Well, that's to be expected. Any possible leader of any other party is immediately denigrated and mocked.
As for future Conservative leaders, well, the Tories do a very good line in parody and self-mockery which seems to consist of calling each other "sh1ts" or similar. Ho hum.
While I don't agree with her on policy (at least in this instance), I think if Layla Moran wants to be leader, fine, let her put herself forward and along with other Party members, I'll go to the hustings and see what she has to say.
She has impressed me thus far not least for wrenching Oxford West from the Conservatives last time. I do want to hear she would take the challenge to Labour and particularly how she could draw moderate Labour supporters toward the LDs.
The way she persuaded Lab tactical voters to the LDs, and for Greens to not field a candidate shows a degree of political persuasiveness much needed in the party.
I think that might be somewhat overstating her personal role in that movement
A lot of the vote shift seemed to happen in the Ab part of the constituency which had been heading in that direction significantly at council level.
I have no recollection of seeing her being personally active in driving any particular tactical agenda. There were those at work on it but it seemed to be from Labour modereates looking for a new home.
There was zero LD canvassing in my part of Jericho and very little leafleting.
It is, of course, possible that you were down as a non-swingable voter, and thus not targetted for either. There was a massive push all around the constituency, and I know for a fact that target letters were delivered in the Jericho ward.
My housemates who have different political perspectives to me did not receive anything either.
Something else I find puzzling. Why would the president of the USA not get someone to check his spelling? (1) He's too arrogant to admit he has a problem with spelling. (2) He thinks bad spelling helps him because many of his supporters have the same problem.
Auto-correct affects even stable geniuses like myself, it really is the bane of my life.
I'll never forget the time an ex girlfriend reported me to the RSPCA when she received a text from me saying 'I can't wait to get home and kick your puppy'
I know autocorrect is poor technology but correcting a common word like forest to a relatively rare given name like Forrest is fairly unlikely, I'd venture.
Type in forest with two 'r's into an iPhone and auto-correct capitalises it to Forrest.
Sure, so the illiterate imbecile simply misspelled it. As we thought.
Something else I find puzzling. Why would the president of the USA not get someone to check his spelling? (1) He's too arrogant to admit he has a problem with spelling. (2) He thinks bad spelling helps him because many of his supporters have the same problem.
Auto-correct affects even stable geniuses like myself, it really is the bane of my life.
I'll never forget the time an ex girlfriend reported me to the RSPCA when she received a text from me saying 'I can't wait to get home and kick your puppy'
the variations on that are quite startling
I'm just glad when I was young and feckless mobile phones didn't let you take pictures/videos of my fecklessness.
you would really have enjoyed the days when there were no mobile phones
I don't think so. That 24 hours that o2 went down for, I felt like I had become Amish for the day.
thats just going cold turkey
these days I put the ringer to zero and no calls after 19.00, Bliss. You can do your own stuff without people annoying you. Sleep better too.
It's important to note that the Grieve amendment is not limited to requiring the PM to make a statement in the Commons with three days, it requires the government to hold a ‘plan B’ vote within three sitting days - i.e., by Monday week. So she will have just six days to extract meaningful concessions from the EU27.
You might think that is a good thing, given the very limited time still left. It's certainly a substantive amendment.
What happens if Plan B is voted down?
There won't be a Plan B: it'll be Plan A again. Nothing has changed.
And in reality, nothing has changed. The government cannot magic up a Norway Plus agreement from thin air. The only solutions are Deal, No Deal and Remain: the same as they always were.
They could substitute the backstop with re-entry if a permanent deal is not agreed after X years.
That could pass HoC, satisfy the 2016 referendum and give all sides something to aim for. Alas. Will never happen.
Not without the agreement of the EU, you couldn't. Re-entry is subject to Article 49 and can't just be signed off in advance by the Council of Ministers, never mind the House of Commons.
This is the point. The Commons cannot rewrite what's in the WA. The EU won't re-open negotiations (or at least, not unless there is some new and compelling reason to do so, and without a new popular mandate of some sort, there won't be such a reason), so MPs are still stuck with the three options that have been there since the November summit.
I think it's high level enough to be doable. It could be agreed in weeks (now because May has delayed - with an extension).
Bringing up that Putin supports Brexit is idiotic in this context. The only acceptable thing to do for any Brit who has any influence over Brexit is to totally ignore what foreign actors want, including Putin, and decide their conscience on what should or should not be done.
If you want to argue against foreign influence in a matter, you don't use foreign preferences in the debate. You can bet that she would not have mentioned Putin at all if Putin's views coincided with hers.
In terms of dealing with unwelcome influence you are absolutely correct. Putin supports Brexit because he reckons it causes disarray and will make the West generally weaker. It should give pause to thought for those in favour of Brexit, why they are on the same side as the rogue statesman of Russia, who wishes us no good.
Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither
The rise of fundamentally undemocratic powers like Russia are a serious threat to liberty.
No, but there was plenty in the Leave campaigns' material, which can't simply be ignored in delivering what people thought they were voting for. It included taking back control of our borders, negotiating an orderly exit from the EU, negotiating a comprehensive trade deal with the EU, and being in a position to do trade deals elsewhere. Theresa May has done an excellent job of synthesising an incoherent and sometimes self-contradictory set of aims into the most workable and least damaging implementation possible, assuming we're going to leave the EU at all. It's unfortunate that the Brexiteers, having got exactly what they campaigned for, decided to team up with a cynical Labour Party to trash it, leaving us with chaos.
Your interpretation of the WA may be as politically nuanced as those stating their profound hostility. Ultimately, it's all about the politics and for whatever reason May has been unable to sell her Deal to anyone.
Many of those who support it do so only because they believe leaving without a Deal will be a catastrophe and therefore a bad deal is better than No Deal.
If the Deal did all you claim it does it would have more support - either people don't understand it or you see things in it other people can't.
It's important to note that the Grieve amendment is not limited to requiring the PM to make a statement in the Commons within three days, it requires the government to hold a ‘plan B’ vote within three sitting days - i.e., by Monday week. So she will have just six days to extract meaningful concessions from the EU27.
You might think that is a good thing, given the very limited time still left. It's certainly a substantive amendment.
Maybe we should hold another vote on the Grieve amendment as its possible some MPs were not clear what they were voting for?!
Despite the handicap of being a Conservative it's fair to assume Rees Mogg knows more about parliamentary procedure than his colleagues on either side of the house.
I think it may be fair to assume that he doesn't. Despite his expensive education he is not regarded by colleagues to be the brightest ticket in parliament, hence why he has never held any serious office.
Masturbating over Erskine May doesn't actually confer any special constitutional powers, as today demonstrated.
So no by-election in South Thanet then. When do we hear about sentencing for the soon-to-be-ex-MP for Peterborough?
All the signs are she won't be an ex-MP, she will cling on regardless.
If she is sentenced for less than 12 months, I am sure there will be a successful recall petition (bear in mind the Paisley one nearly succeeded and he was only suspended for a month)
Something else I find puzzling. Why would the president of the USA not get someone to check his spelling? (1) He's too arrogant to admit he has a problem with spelling. (2) He thinks bad spelling helps him because many of his supporters have the same problem.
Auto-correct affects even stable geniuses like myself, it really is the bane of my life.
I'll never forget the time an ex girlfriend reported me to the RSPCA when she received a text from me saying 'I can't wait to get home and kick your puppy'
I know autocorrect is poor technology but correcting a common word like forest to a relatively rare given name like Forrest is fairly unlikely, I'd venture.
Type in forest with two 'r's into an iPhone and auto-correct capitalises it to Forrest.
Sure, so the illiterate imbecile simply misspelled it. As we thought.
It's not his fault - he probably had a terrible education, few advantages, etc.
It's important to note that the Grieve amendment is not limited to requiring the PM to make a statement in the Commons within three days, it requires the government to hold a ‘plan B’ vote within three sitting days - i.e., by Monday week. So she will have just six days to extract meaningful concessions from the EU27.
You might think that is a good thing, given the very limited time still left. It's certainly a substantive amendment.
Maybe we should hold another vote on the Grieve amendment as its possible some MPs were not clear what they were voting for?!
Despite the handicap of being a Conservative it's fair to assume Rees Mogg knows more about parliamentary procedure than his colleagues on either side of the house.
I think it may be fair to assume that he doesn't. Despite his expensive education he is not regarded by colleagues to be the brightest ticket in parliament, hence why he has never held any serious office.
or more likely because he is from a different wing of the party to Cameron and May and has only been an MP since 2010. Pretty sure he's highly regarded in parliament, Jess Phillips is in awe of the bloke (if that says anything).
It's important to note that the Grieve amendment is not limited to requiring the PM to make a statement in the Commons with three days, it requires the government to hold a ‘plan B’ vote within three sitting days - i.e., by Monday week. So she will have just six days to extract meaningful concessions from the EU27.
You might think that is a good thing, given the very limited time still left. It's certainly a substantive amendment.
What happens if Plan B is voted down?
There won't be a Plan B: it'll be Plan A again. Nothing has changed.
And in reality, nothing has changed. The government cannot magic up a Norway Plus agreement from thin air. The only solutions are Deal, No Deal and Remain: the same as they always were.
They could substitute the backstop with re-entry if a permanent deal is not agreed after X years.
That could pass HoC, satisfy the 2016 referendum and give all sides something to aim for. Alas. Will never happen.
Not without the agreement of the EU, you couldn't. Re-entry is subject to Article 49 and can't just be signed off in advance by the Council of Ministers, never mind the House of Commons.
This is the point. The Commons cannot rewrite what's in the WA. The EU won't re-open negotiations (or at least, not unless there is some new and compelling reason to do so, and without a new popular mandate of some sort, there won't be such a reason), so MPs are still stuck with the three options that have been there since the November summit.
I think it's high level enough to be doable. It could be agreed in weeks (now because May has delayed - with an extension).
I like it because it gives something to everyone.
Weeks? To have a binding agreement, you'd need a treaty arranged in advance and ratified by all 27 other EU members.
In any case, a 're-entry rather than backstop' just gives the EU the incentive to force a failure in the Future Relationship talks and hey presto, Britain is back in the club.
Something else I find puzzling. Why would the president of the USA not get someone to check his spelling? (1) He's too arrogant to admit he has a problem with spelling. (2) He thinks bad spelling helps him because many of his supporters have the same problem.
Auto-correct affects even stable geniuses like myself, it really is the bane of my life.
I'll never forget the time an ex girlfriend reported me to the RSPCA when she received a text from me saying 'I can't wait to get home and kick your puppy'
the variations on that are quite startling
I'm just glad when I was young and feckless mobile phones didn't let you take pictures/videos of my fecklessness.
you would really have enjoyed the days when there were no mobile phones
Did mean one really looked for forward to Saturday and contact with one's other half. Even if the arrangement was only temporary.
yes, but what was the gaffers chance of finding you once you were out of the office ?
Zilch. Is being contactable by one's employer 100% of the time desirable?
Actually the mobile phone mean that on-call pharmacists, if not resident in the hospital, didn't have to sit at home.
Many, many years ago, when in my mid-teens, I lived in a small town which still had a human-operated exchange. One night I answered the phone to be asked by the operator, whom I knew, if I knew where one of the local GP's was; was he, as was often the case, out on some social event with my parents? And if so where? He was needed.
It's important to note that the Grieve amendment is not limited to requiring the PM to make a statement in the Commons with three days, it requires the government to hold a ‘plan B’ vote within three sitting days - i.e., by Monday week. So she will have just six days to extract meaningful concessions from the EU27.
You might think that is a good thing, given the very limited time still left. It's certainly a substantive amendment.
What happens if Plan B is voted down?
There won't be a Plan B: it'll be Plan A again. Nothing has changed.
And in reality, nothing has changed. The government cannot magic up a Norway Plus agreement from thin air. The only solutions are Deal, No Deal and Remain: the same as they always were.
They could substitute the backstop with re-entry if a permanent deal is not agreed after X years.
That could pass HoC, satisfy the 2016 referendum and give all sides something to aim for. Alas. Will never happen.
Not without the agreement of the EU, you couldn't. Re-entry is subject to Article 49 and can't just be signed off in advance by the Council of Ministers, never mind the House of Commons.
This is the point. The Commons cannot rewrite what's in the WA. The EU won't re-open negotiations (or at least, not unless there is some new and compelling reason to do so, and without a new popular mandate of some sort, there won't be such a reason), so MPs are still stuck with the three options that have been there since the November summit.
I think it's high level enough to be doable. It could be agreed in weeks (now because May has delayed - with an extension).
I like it because it gives something to everyone.
Weeks? To have a binding agreement, you'd need a treaty arranged in advance and ratified by all 27 other EU members.
In any case, a 're-entry rather than backstop' just gives the EU the incentive to force a failure in the Future Relationship talks and hey presto, Britain is back in the club.
Well we are better off than where we are now or if the deal passes in the bespoke backstop. Because if the talks crash and there is still poltiical will in the UK to leave you quit via A50 hard Brexit, on this time with two years to fully prepare for it.
It's important to note that the Grieve amendment is not limited to requiring the PM to make a statement in the Commons within three days, it requires the government to hold a ‘plan B’ vote within three sitting days - i.e., by Monday week. So she will have just six days to extract meaningful concessions from the EU27.
You might think that is a good thing, given the very limited time still left. It's certainly a substantive amendment.
Maybe we should hold another vote on the Grieve amendment as its possible some MPs were not clear what they were voting for?!
Despite the handicap of being a Conservative it's fair to assume Rees Mogg knows more about parliamentary procedure than his colleagues on either side of the house.
I think it may be fair to assume that he doesn't. Despite his expensive education he is not regarded by colleagues to be the brightest ticket in parliament, hence why he has never held any serious office.
Masturbating over Erskine May doesn't actually confer any special constitutional powers, as today demonstrated.
Thanks for that - I just had a highly unsavoury image of a nerdy looking middle age man in a double breasted suit with steamed up Himmler glasses asking Nanny where the Kleenex had gone - pass me the mind bleach
And Germany, who won't allow a Hard Border under any circumstances. (So how you gonna deal with that No Deal Hard Border, Mutti? Rather suggest she is urging a rethink to prevent that very No Deal. Come on, drop the backstop you say won't be needed - and suddenly 100+ Tory MPs fall into line.....)
They'll suddenly decide that paying £39bn for nothing but a vassal state transition is wonderful?
"Parliament would have to approve any decision to implement the backstop."
How is that a 'backstop', to be implemented if all else fails?
The mechanism is by a choice between extending the transition or implementing the backstop. I thought extending the transition required the EU to assent, which this would imply not, but if the choice were solely Parliament's then it would mean that a perpetual transition could be the new backstop, which has some advantages and some disadvantages, but is unlikely to convince most of those opposed to the backstop.
The Opposition benches look fuller than the government ones.....308 in favour 297 against.....a narrow win....
I'm surprised that the margin was that small.
I too thought it would be 20+, and others thought it would be even higher. I wonder if Bercows antics brought some on the government side into line....
While 11 is clearly a "loss" its hardly a "humiliation"....
Any loss will always be called a humiliation. And in fairness the shambles the government is in can quite rightly be called humiliating I think
If the Deal did all you claim it does it would have more support - either people don't understand it or you see things in it other people can't.
More support from whom? The LibDems don't want us to leave at all, the SNP also don't want us to leave at all but in any case are much more exercised about never supporting anything a UK government, and especially a UK Tory government, does, and the ERG don't want a deal at all. As for Labour MPs, they either want to overturn their own vote for Article 50, or they want exactly what is in the deal, but are cynically pretending the opposite.
It died when A50 could be unilaterally revoked. It's all over bar the shouting, but whether it's revoked in a referendum or without given deal and no deal have no path to passing now, it's over.
In 2016 leave wanted it more. That is not so now, and leave does not have the unity to procedurally see it through.
Something else I find puzzling. Why would the president of the USA not get someone to check his spelling? (1) He's too arrogant to admit he has a problem with spelling. (2) He thinks bad spelling helps him because many of his supporters have the same problem.
Auto-correct affects even stable geniuses your puppy'
the variations on that are quite startling
I'm just glad when I was young and feckless mobile phones didn't let you take pictures/videos of my fecklessness.
you would really have enjoyed the days when there were no mobile phones
Did mean one really looked for forward to Saturday and contact with one's other half. Even if the arrangement was only temporary.
yes, but what was the gaffers chance of finding you once you were out of the office ?
Zilch. Is being contactable by one's employer 100% of the time desirable?
Actually the mobile phone mean that on-call pharmacists, off not resident in the hospital, didn't have to sit at home.
Many, many years ago, when in my mid-teens, I lived in a small town which still had a human-operated exchange. One night I answered the phone to be asked by the operator, whom I knew, if I knew where one of the local GP's was; was he, as was often the case, out on some social event with my parents? And if so where? He was needed.
Im struggling to get my kids to understand that 24/7 availability is not obligatory and is only a recent innovation for stressed out control freaks.
An absolute colossus on all matters. What a thick twat. When I think that 52% of the population voted for a madness known as Brexit I have to conclude that we (or they at least) have the politicians we/they deserve
So no by-election in South Thanet then. When do we hear about sentencing for the soon-to-be-ex-MP for Peterborough?
All the signs are she won't be an ex-MP, she will cling on regardless.
If she is sentenced for less than 12 months, I am sure there will be a successful recall petition (bear in mind the Paisley one nearly succeeded and he was only suspended for a month)
Perhaps. Who will organise it? CCHQ will be checking the polling first, and the calendar.
An absolute colossus on all matters. What a thick twat. When I think that 52% of the population voted for a madness known as Brexit I have to conclude that we (or they at least) have the politicians we/they deserve
No, it's genius, or at least quite clever in maintaining Labour's studied ambiguity. He's not cured cancer, after all.
It's important to note that the Grieve amendment is not limited to requiring the PM to make a statement in the Commons within three days, it requires the government to hold a ‘plan B’ vote within three sitting days - i.e., by Monday week. So she will have just six days to extract meaningful concessions from the EU27.
You might think that is a good thing, given the very limited time still left. It's certainly a substantive amendment.
Maybe we should hold another vote on the Grieve amendment as its possible some MPs were not clear what they were voting for?!
Despite the handicap of being a Conservative it's fair to assume Rees Mogg knows more about parliamentary procedure than his colleagues on either side of the house.
I think it may be fair to assume that he doesn't. Despite his expensive education he is not regarded by colleagues to be the brightest ticket in parliament, hence why he has never held any serious office.
Masturbating over Erskine May doesn't actually confer any special constitutional powers, as today demonstrated.
Rees Mogg may be technically right (I don't know, though I'd give him the benefit of the doubt on this one); he is politically wrong. If the govt tried such a weasel procedural response, it'd just find itself of the wrong end of a much more firmly and tightly worded motion.
Something else I find puzzling. Why would the president of the USA not get someone to check his spelling? (1) He's too arrogant to admit he has a problem with spelling. (2) He thinks bad spelling helps him because many of his supporters have the same problem.
(1)
With a combination of
(3) He doesn't care enough about spelling to get it right.
So no by-election in South Thanet then. When do we hear about sentencing for the soon-to-be-ex-MP for Peterborough?
All the signs are she won't be an ex-MP, she will cling on regardless.
If she is sentenced for less than 12 months, I am sure there will be a successful recall petition (bear in mind the Paisley one nearly succeeded and he was only suspended for a month)
Perhaps. Who will organise it? CCHQ will be checking the polling first, and the calendar.
Reports of Brexit's death are greatly exaggerated ( I regret to think). It is impossible that the Brexit cancer that is in the country's brain can easily be removed even by the greatest of brain surgeons, let alone Mr "2Es" Corbyn or Theresa "fields of wheat" May
I suspect that some Brexiteers are quite looking forward to us staying in and griping endlessly about betrayal without actually having to deliver anything.
Mr Topping, surely the problem with the FoM argument and every other detail on Brexit is that there was no defined manifesto for Brexit, so we can only work from unreliable opinion polls as to what peoples' motivations were. Even Farage and Hannon regularly argued during the campaign in favour of Norway as an example which clearly involves FoM. Brexit means many different things to many people, depending on how extreme they are on the issue, (and others including gay marriage apparently!) . May's deal clearly delivers on the result based on the essentially wording of the question, and the fact that it is disliked by so many (including myself) probably means that it is about right.
Something else I find puzzling. Why would the president of the USA not get someone to check his spelling? (1) He's too arrogant to admit he has a problem with spelling. (2) He thinks bad spelling helps him because many of his supporters have the same problem.
Auto-correct affects even stable geniuses your puppy'
the variations on that are quite startling
I'm just glad when I was young and feckless mobile phones didn't let you take pictures/videos of my fecklessness.
you would really have enjoyed the days when there were no mobile phones
Did mean one really looked for forward to Saturday and contact with one's other half. Even if the arrangement was only temporary.
yes, but what was the gaffers chance of finding you once you were out of the office ?
Zilch. Is being contactable by one's employer 100% of the time desirable?
Actually the mobile phone mean that on-call pharmacists, off not resident in the hospital, didn't have to sit at home.
Many, many years ago, when in my mid-teens, I lived in a small town which still had a human-operated exchange. One night I answered the phone to be asked by the operator, whom I knew, if I knew where one of the local GP's was; was he, as was often the case, out on some social event with my parents? And if so where? He was needed.
Im struggling to get my kids to understand that 24/7 availability is not obligatory and is only a recent innovation for stressed out control freaks.
Works both ways, of course. When I was 18 or so I told my father that, once qualified, I planned to emigrate to Australia. He became quite upset; we'll never see you again, you'll break your mothers heart. Etc, etc. 60 years later I have a son who, with his wife and family, lives in the Far East. We see them at least once a year for a month or so, speak with them at least once a month and get texts from the grandchildren. Incidentally, when I told my mother of the conversation my father and I had had, some 20 years later she sniffed and said he was foolish; would have been an adventure to come out and see me!
Mentioning Trump, worth noting in passing that today is Day 19 of the shutdown. What I find surprising is the lack of urgency on all sides. I'm sure I recall in the two previous prolonged shutdowns (1995-6 and 2013), there were more-or-less continuous talks and votes at this stage.
This is only the third time since the shutdown process became a possibility (in 1976), that federal employees have been furloughed for more than a week. It does feel like both sides are settling in for a much longer timeframe. That is going to cause a lot of people a lot of hardship.
If it isn't, I think the only viable alternatives are:
1. Recognise the UK doesn't have a clue about Brexit. Exit anyway on EU terms to completely blind Brexit and worry about what happens later. We have 20 months to sort that out until the transition period comes to an end.
2. Remain.
No Deal isn't serious. I don't expect starvation but it is predicated on never at any time having an arrangement of any kind with the EU. Which is nonsense. Otherwise we are dependent on the whim of the EU for stuff that we need, who can demand what they want in return and can switch off the arrangement at any time of their choosing. It is an absurdly weak position to put ourselves into.
I suspect that some Brexiteers are quite looking forward to us staying in and griping endlessly about betrayal without actually having to deliver anything.
Spot on. I hope this also may be Mr Corbyn's thinking
Comments
I'll never forget the time an ex girlfriend reported me to the RSPCA when she received a text from me saying 'I can't wait to get home and kick your puppy'
He:
1) Commands a majority in the house of commons
2) Sets the scheduling of the government business
3) Has a firm grasp of parliamentary reality and how to use it to achieve his ends
4) Is best placed to find a workable solution to the Brexit impasse that Parliament can support.
Conclusion: Dominic Grieve is actually the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
There was a massive push all around the constituency, and I know for a fact that target letters were delivered in the Jericho ward.
I have to keep reminding myself the Party I joined in 1981 died in the fire of the Coalition. This is a very new party with a new membership and I do think Layla's social liberal credentials will play very well. I'm concerned Jo and Ed carry the stench of the Coalition on them (as does Vince in all fairness) and you can be sure next time the Party will want a huge amount from any "deal" with anyone.
It's particularly heated because instead of working with others she actually set out to antagonise others. Now she is asking for support, surprisingly people aren't keen.
Excluding yourself and your family presumably? It reminds me of the old paradox of overpopulation – we should remove people until exactly the point that it requires that we have to remove ourselves.
As I said, she did an abysmal job of persuasion, but her actual analysis and negotiation has been correctly positioned. There is no better deal available, never could be, and certainly won't be.
This is the point. The Commons cannot rewrite what's in the WA. The EU won't re-open negotiations (or at least, not unless there is some new and compelling reason to do so, and without a new popular mandate of some sort, there won't be such a reason), so MPs are still stuck with the three options that have been there since the November summit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOfZLb33uCg
these days I put the ringer to zero and no calls after 19.00, Bliss. You can do your own stuff without people annoying you. Sleep better too.
I like it because it gives something to everyone.
Many of those who support it do so only because they believe leaving without a Deal will be a catastrophe and therefore a bad deal is better than No Deal.
If the Deal did all you claim it does it would have more support - either people don't understand it or you see things in it other people can't.
I don't know.
"Parliament would have to approve any decision to implement the backstop."
How is that a 'backstop', to be implemented if all else fails?
In any case, a 're-entry rather than backstop' just gives the EU the incentive to force a failure in the Future Relationship talks and hey presto, Britain is back in the club.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1083024230709673985
Actually the mobile phone mean that on-call pharmacists, if not resident in the hospital, didn't have to sit at home.
Many, many years ago, when in my mid-teens, I lived in a small town which still had a human-operated exchange. One night I answered the phone to be asked by the operator, whom I knew, if I knew where one of the local GP's was; was he, as was often the case, out on some social event with my parents? And if so where? He was needed.
Bye bye, Miss American Pie
In 2016 leave wanted it more. That is not so now, and leave does not have the unity to procedurally see it through.
Leave won a majority in the country. Remain has a majority in Parliament.
Just a shame that Tories like Grieve seem to be doing their best to help him.
60 years later I have a son who, with his wife and family, lives in the Far East. We see them at least once a year for a month or so, speak with them at least once a month and get texts from the grandchildren.
Incidentally, when I told my mother of the conversation my father and I had had, some 20 years later she sniffed and said he was foolish; would have been an adventure to come out and see me!
This is only the third time since the shutdown process became a possibility (in 1976), that federal employees have been furloughed for more than a week. It does feel like both sides are settling in for a much longer timeframe. That is going to cause a lot of people a lot of hardship.
If it isn't, I think the only viable alternatives are:
1. Recognise the UK doesn't have a clue about Brexit. Exit anyway on EU terms to completely blind Brexit and worry about what happens later. We have 20 months to sort that out until the transition period comes to an end.
2. Remain.
No Deal isn't serious. I don't expect starvation but it is predicated on never at any time having an arrangement of any kind with the EU. Which is nonsense. Otherwise we are dependent on the whim of the EU for stuff that we need, who can demand what they want in return and can switch off the arrangement at any time of their choosing. It is an absurdly weak position to put ourselves into.