Given May now has 3 days to produce alternatives if her Deal is voted down perhaps she will propose a Leave with the Deal or No Deal referendum and force MPs to insert a Remain option if they have the numbers so she can blame it on them if we end up with EUref2 with a Remain option
I don`t think she`s that clever, Mr HY.
Probably not, but what else can she do now? I'm certain there are enough MPs for a Remain option to get on there and no matter what she says or her team says there is nothing that can get the deal through, she simply cannot give most of the objectors what they want (ie a new deal or remain) with it so she has to suggest something.
Putin also opposes Isis and has put resources into destroying it. Does that mean we should support ISIS because Putin doesn't?
Its a crazy line of argument - of course no one even mentioned Putin or Russia as a factor in either vote until Brexit and Trump won. And then seemingly along with the red bus his oh so subtle intervention no one noticed as the time was apparently the entire cause of leave winning.
If social media drove Brexit why was the section of society - the old and poor - least likely to use social media and particularly twitter the most likely to vote leave and the most twitter engaged (young people) were massively pro remain.
Its as if austerity, large scale immigration and the destruction of manufacturing and secure jobs in the midlands, north and Wales never happened? But I presume Putin was responsible for those too?
People were mentioning the possibility of political intervention by foreign powers in the debate prior to the referendum - and got roundly shouted down by a load of verbal diarrhoea from leavers screeching "Project Fear!' The work of the Internet Research Agency was well known before then, and ISTR some of their pro-Brexit accounts were uncovered before the referendum.
And you may not have noticed, but people were talking about Trump's links with the Russians well before he won.
I'm not saying that the actions of Putin and his minions won the referendum; after all, there were plenty of sane reasons to vote leave. But I also find it remarkable to suggest that it did not have a positive effect for leave - and sadly we will never know the scale of that effect.
I don't think it is whether or not Putin had a direct impact on the result, though I think you would be foolish to think that he did not attempt to influence it, and probably did. Whether it was enough to make a difference is unknown. What is an important political point is that Puti pretty thin ice if they carry on with the nonsense about Brexit being patriotic. I don't really think all Leavers are traitors, and maybe calling them Useful Idiots maybe a bit harsh. Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.
I recall the former Head of MI6 speaking on Radio 4 recently about this and he took the view that although Russia certainly tried to influence Brexit, it is doubtful it was able to do so sufficiently to affect the outcome. His rationale was broadly along the lines of '....they're not really very good at that sort of thing.'
My own take is that even if Russia was pouring huge resources into a subversion exercise, we still ought to have been able to figure out for ourselves that Brexit was a dumb idea, and if we couldn't, we deserved everything we got.
What drama! And all for free. I used to do a lot of box sets but no need now. Just a matter of what to spend the savings on. Drugs, I suppose.
As to how it ends? Like all of the best shows, impossible to say.
Probably in the best soap tradition, on multiple cliffhangers.
Theresa May requests a six-month extension to the Brexit timetable seconds before being flung from the roof of Parliament by the power-hungry Chief Whip.
The real Jeremy Corbyn manages to escape from his captors and desperately tries to warn the world that he is being impersonated by his evil twin.
The whole of the Lib Dem parliamentary party is massacred by terrorists while attending a wedding in Moldavia.
Michael Gove is abducted by aliens in a flying saucer.
6,000 clones of Jacob Rees-Mogg are discovered in Brazil ....
The last one has some plausibility. I have always wondered why he looks so much like Himmler. I thought it was the glasses
I said Greek GDP almost tripled which was correct. My point was to show that the same level of bubble would not have been possible in the UK if we had joined the Euro.
And I said Spain's population increased more than the UK. I was just sloppy about the time period.
I have yet to see any economy even China in its boomiest of boom years triple in a decade. The increase according to the IMF was closer to 60% in the period. Which while still noticeable was primarily fuelled by a crazy borrowing binge. Hence the countries problems today.
Do you agree that it's not plausible that the UK would have become like Greece had we joined the Euro?
no
we have a role model in Ireland which was an anglo saxon economy meeting german economics. The housing market went ballistic on cheap mortgage rates, construction couldnt keep up with orders and then it all crashed in 2009. If the UK had been in the Euro we would have crashed the entire currency,
I said Greek GDP almost tripled which was correct. My point was to show that the same level of bubble would not have been possible in the UK if we had joined the Euro.
And I said Spain's population increased more than the UK. I was just sloppy about the time period.
I have yet to see any economy even China in its boomiest of boom years triple in a decade. The increase according to the IMF was closer to 60% in the period. Which while still noticeable was primarily fuelled by a crazy borrowing binge. Hence the countries problems today.
Do you agree that it's not plausible that the UK would have become like Greece had we joined the Euro?
no
we have a role model in Ireland which was an anglo saxon economy meeting german economics. The housing market went ballistic on cheap mortgage rates, construction couldnt keep up with orders and then it all crashed in 2009. If the UK had been in the Euro we would have crashed the entire currency,
House prices in Northern Ireland also went ballistic and then collapsed. If the UK had been in the Euro, the difference in availability of mortgage credit would have been marginal, and if the government didn't have the illusion of control, Gordon Brown would have been more likely to improve regulation of mortgage lenders, especially given the recent experience of a politically significant house price crash in the UK after the Lawson boom.
One of the new intake of Democratic Congresswomen. From New York.
She's young, female, fun and unashamedly socialist. Republicans have ABSOLUTELY no idea how to counter her. Probable medium term POTUS, barring accidents.
AOC derangement syndrome is the conservative equivalent of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
She is good fun, the successor to Bernie, enjoying a day of fame for this interview on 60 Minutes, a fairly high profile US current affairs show calling out Trump for racism:
She is also utterly clueless how to actually achieve most of the things she advocates.
Since when has that ever handicapped an aspiring politician?
I was kinda of hoping after trump we might get back to something more akin to people advocating realistic proposals.
She's Bernie's metaphorical granddaughter, fresh from student politics thinking she knows the answer to everything and enjoying her fifteen minutes of fame.
The nearest recent British equivalent was probably the SNP teenager from 2015, Mhairi Black.
She’s cute, young and dances well. A fantastic fake outrage story about republicans slating her on twitter or something like that she’s she has some savvy people behind her.
I appreciate you described her as cute, rather than photogenic. I know it can be used to mean more than just 'attractive', but it does often get used that way when I don't see the harm in just being clear that is what is meant.
I suspect that some Brexiteers are quite looking forward to us staying in and griping endlessly about betrayal without actually having to deliver anything.
Whereas Remain MPs can simply continue to get paid for doing nothing but what Brussels tells them
If you're going to play that stupid game, then leave MPs are willing to bend over backwards and take it from Putin.
If given a choice between the EU and Putin I'd take the Eu every time. Although at least one Brexiteer on here chooses Putin ...
Stupid comment. Putin might be keen to see the break up of the EU or even Britain leave it but no more so Trump. Proving involvement is rather more difficult.
Not too many Brexit supporters welcomed Putins’s aggression in Ukraine or welcomed his sanctioning Novichok in Salisbury. To pretend we are all Putin supporters is facile.
Parliament doing simply the EU’s bidding on the other hand has a long and undistinguished factual base.
Many Brexit supporters have said they'd see harm caused to Britain in order to get their wet-dream of being outside the EU. That harm means real people's jobs, incomes and lives.
That's your side. As I said above, one Brexiteer on here even said he'd prefer Putin.
Brexiteers a re traitorous winnets, one and all.
One day you might say something sensible. Sadly, not today.
I say many sensible things. The posts on this threads are a perfect example of my wisdom and all-round excellence.
As for you; you might want to look at your original comment: "Whereas Remain MPs can simply continue to get paid for doing nothing but what Brussels tells them"
If you really believe that, then you are accusing remain MPs of being traitors and taking orders from Brussels. If you really believe that then you are a stupid and nasty little troll.
You make my case for me. More than 60% of U.K. law is simply enacting EU directives.
Stock take: Remain plus some Dealers seeing what can be done to make no deal more difficult. Be interesting to see what firepower they have. Has the annual Income Tax renewal had all readings; Are there any bona fide supply votes still pending?
More firepower also potentially helpful to corral Brexiters towards Deal. May happy for this to happen?
A constitutional crisis over making Theresa say what next in 3 days after a defeat that has been anticipated for 2 months. What exactly is the issue here?
YC quotes last night interesting: to paraphrase - we're not sure we can manage this, we'll have to see where we are in March. A hint that she could ultimately switch to Deal?
Business of the House central to what happens. Next cabinet resignation: Leadsome or Greg Clark favourites surely?
I said Greek GDP almost tripled which was correct. My point was to show that the same level of bubble would not have been possible in the UK if we had joined the Euro.
And I said Spain's population increased more than the UK. I was just sloppy about the time period.
I have yet to see any economy even China in its boomiest of boom years triple in a decade. The increase according to the IMF was closer to 60% in the period. Which while still noticeable was primarily fuelled by a crazy borrowing binge. Hence the countries problems today.
Do you agree that it's not plausible that the UK would have become like Greece had we joined the Euro?
I doubt that things in the UK would've got quite as bad as in Greece - but, given the national obsession with property, it would probably have been like Ireland on steroids.
The Irish required a bailout worth £72bn in 2010; on a proportionate basis, given that the UK is fourteen times the size of the Republic, Britain would've needed a trillion pounds to cope with a collapse on a similar scale. Would the EU and the IMF have been able to find a trillion pounds down the back of the sofa to rescue us? I doubt it.
There's no entirely adequate comparison for the UK's likely fate in the event of it having joined the Euro at inception, but possibly the nearest equivalent would be Iceland. We'd have been forced into a gargantuan default, have had to float an emergency pound again in a state of extreme distress, and we might well have brought the entire Euro system down with us.
John Major's Maastricht opt-out could therefore be viewed as a hail of bullets successfully dodged by both the UK and the Eurozone states.
Corbyn will demand an extension of Article 50 in a speech tomorrow. And presumably will propose a motion in Parliament to that effect.
"No Deal" is only going to happen if the likes of Anna Soubry bottle out and decide to go with the government at the last minute; despite the conspiracy theories of some, Corbyn is not going to support it, either tacitly or otherwise.
A constitutional crisis over making Theresa say what next in 3 days after a defeat that has been anticipated for 2 months. What exactly is the issue here?
The purported impact on business of the house forevermore. Whatever the reasonableness of the amendment's intentions, the objection seems to be on supposed long term significant changes to how the whole place operates. Whether that is for the better or worse, one hopes at least that Bercow thought very very deeply about those impacts and not on the mere facts of the amendment itself.
Corbyn will demand an extension of Article 50 in a speech tomorrow.
Well, he and Labour are working their way through their options as part of the 'keep all options open' strategy which requires each be tested in turn I expect. Presumably an extension on the basis he needs time to negotiate a new deal? Since new deal is currently the policy, and then he can change direction when he doesn't get an extension and say we need a referendum.
I suspect that some Brexiteers are quite looking forward to us staying in and griping endlessly about betrayal without actually having to deliver anything.
Whereas Remain MPs can simply continue to get paid for doing nothing but what Brussels tells them
If you're going to play that stupid game, then leave MPs are willing to bend over backwards and take it from Putin.
If given a choice between the EU and Putin I'd take the Eu every time. Although at least one Brexiteer on here chooses Putin ...
Stupid comment. Putin might be keen to see the break up of the EU or even Britain leave it but no more so Trump. Proving involvement is rather more difficult.
Not too many Brexit supporters welcomed Putins’s aggression in Ukraine or welcomed his sanctioning Novichok in Salisbury. To pretend we are all Putin supporters is facile.
Parliament doing simply the EU’s bidding on the other hand has a long and undistinguished factual base.
Many Brexit supporters have said they'd see harm caused to Britain in order to get their wet-dream of being outside the EU. That harm means real people's jobs, incomes and lives.
That's your side. As I said above, one Brexiteer on here even said he'd prefer Putin.
Brexiteers a re traitorous winnets, one and all.
One day you might say something sensible. Sadly, not today.
I say many sensible things. The posts on this threads are a perfect example of my wisdom and all-round excellence.
As for you; you might want to look at your original comment: "Whereas Remain MPs can simply continue to get paid for doing nothing but what Brussels tells them"
If you really believe that, then you are accusing remain MPs of being traitors and taking orders from Brussels. If you really believe that then you are a stupid and nasty little troll.
You make my case for me. More than 60% of U.K. law is simply enacting EU directives.
No, I really do not.
Let us take one well-known example of a pro-EU MP: Ken Clarke. If you think he does what anyone tells him, yet alone Brussels, then I'm afraid you're either trolling or lack some rather critical knowledge ...
Corbyn will demand an extension of Article 50 in a speech tomorrow.
Doesn't that make it less likely for the Government to seek one?
What's he playing at?
To have it ruled out. At some point new dealers, Tory and Labour, have to accept they will not get a new deal before exit day. Then they will have to back something else. For him, that will be a referendum, eventually. Stated with reluctance perhaps, but he cannot pretend forever that he can get a new leave deal.
Difficult to see how the Tory Party survives in its current form. 117 MPs have no confidence in May and those that do don’t support her proposed legislation.
Labour too is split between inner city Remainers and working class Leavers in industrial areas
I am not really concerned about what happens to Labour. Having a leader who is disinterested in Brexit and clueless about it allows them to spend some time on other issues.
Corbyn will demand an extension of Article 50 in a speech tomorrow.
Doesn't that make it less likely for the Government to seek one?
What's he playing at?
If Parliament votes for it, then the government has no choice in the matter. (And yeah yeah, people can talk about "precedent" all they want, but as today's shown, if John Bercow decides a parliamentary vote is binding, then it's binding.)
What drama! And all for free. I used to do a lot of box sets but no need now. Just a matter of what to spend the savings on. Drugs, I suppose.
As to how it ends? Like all of the best shows, impossible to say.
Probably in the best soap tradition, on multiple cliffhangers.
Theresa May requests a six-month extension to the Brexit timetable seconds before being flung from the roof of Parliament by the power-hungry Chief Whip.
The real Jeremy Corbyn manages to escape from his captors and desperately tries to warn the world that he is being impersonated by his evil twin.
The whole of the Lib Dem parliamentary party is massacred by terrorists while attending a wedding in Moldavia.
Michael Gove is abducted by aliens in a flying saucer.
6,000 clones of Jacob Rees-Mogg are discovered in Brazil ....
Dynasty meets House of Cards - only the JRM cloning story didn't happen!
Still Brexit - the soap opera. Perhaps Netflix could make it?
Personally I would just send in the Slater family from Eastenders to sort it all out. Half an hour of Kat, Hayley, Stacey and Mo and the EU and parliament would capitulate immediately! A mass pub brawl would be one way to sort things out.
I said Greek GDP almost tripled which was correct. My point was to show that the same level of bubble would not have been possible in the UK if we had joined the Euro.
And I said Spain's population increased more than the UK. I was just sloppy about the time period.
I have yet to see any economy even China in . Hence the countries problems today.
Do you agree that it's not plausible that the UK would have become like Greece had we joined the Euro?
no
we have a role modeency,
House prices in Northern Ireland also went ballistic and then collapsed. If the UK had been in the Euro, the difference in availability of mortgage credit would have been marginal, and if the government didn't have the illusion of control, Gordon Brown would have been more likely to improve regulation of mortgage lenders, especially given the recent experience of a politically significant house price crash in the UK after the Lawson boom.
err no
the UK itself nearly went bust in 2009 and could only survive by issuing bonds on a scale the ECB of the time would not countenance, The tone of the times of the lead up was fill yer boots at no time did Gordon Brown try to turn off the taps. Most of the regulation failures in banking and borrowing were kicked off by Brown.
If there's a second referendum, I don't see why it would have a no deal option.
Give the Commons refuses to even allow last minute preparation for no deal, I don't see how it has the votes to be included. As stupid as including the deal would be, something has to go up against Remain.
I suspect that some Brexiteers are quite looking forward to us staying in and griping endlessly about betrayal without actually having to deliver anything.
Whereas Remain MPs can simply continue to get paid for doing nothing but what Brussels tells them
If you're going to play that stupid game, then leave MPs are willing to bend over backwards and take it from Putin.
If given a choice between the EU and Putin I'd take the Eu every time. Although at least one Brexiteer on here chooses Putin ...
Stupid comment. Putin might be keen to see the break up of the EU or even Britain leave it but no more so Trump. Proving involvement is rather more difficult.
Not too many Brexit supporters welcomed Putins’s aggression in Ukraine or welcomed his sanctioning Novichok in Salisbury. To pretend we are all Putin supporters is facile.
Parliament doing simply the EU’s bidding on the other hand has a long and undistinguished factual base.
Many Brexit supporters have said they'd see harm caused to Britain in order to get their wet-dream of being outside the EU. That harm means real people's jobs, incomes and lives.
That's your side. As I said above, one Brexiteer on here even said he'd prefer Putin.
Brexiteers a re traitorous winnets, one and all.
One day you might say something sensible. Sadly, not today.
I say many sensible things. The posts on this threads are a perfect example of my wisdom and all-round excellence.
As for you; you might want to look at your original comment: "Whereas Remain MPs can simply continue to get paid for doing nothing but what Brussels tells them"
If you really believe that, then you are accusing remain MPs of being traitors and taking orders from Brussels. If you really believe that then you are a stupid and nasty little troll.
You make my case for me. More than 60% of U.K. law is simply enacting EU directives.
No, I really do not.
Let us take one well-known example of a pro-EU MP: Ken Clarke. If you think he does what anyone tells him, yet alone Brussels, then I'm afraid you're either trolling or lack some rather critical knowledge ...
When has Clarke ever opposed an EU directive ?
You use those words troll and traitor a lot. They make you look stupid.
Corbyn will demand an extension of Article 50 in a speech tomorrow.
Well, he and Labour are working their way through their options as part of the 'keep all options open' strategy which requires each be tested in turn I expect. Presumably an extension on the basis he needs time to negotiate a new deal? Since new deal is currently the policy, and then he can change direction when he doesn't get an extension and say we need a referendum.
Corbyn will demand an extension of Article 50 in a speech tomorrow.
Doesn't that make it less likely for the Government to seek one?
What's he playing at?
An extension is a logical consequence of the unicorn renegotiation demand, for which there is almost no time left before March 29th.
Of course, said renegotiation ploy is just a rhetorical device to beat the Deal and claim that Labour could somehow do better if it were in charge, whilst the clock continues to run down. Corbyn's ideal scenario is a badly-managed No Deal, followed by victory in a General Election. As far as he's concerned, the sooner we're out the better.
Corbyn will demand an extension of Article 50 in a speech tomorrow.
Doesn't that make it less likely for the Government to seek one?
What's he playing at?
To have it ruled out. At some point new dealers, Tory and Labour, have to accept they will not get a new deal before exit day. Then they will have to back something else. For him, that will be a referendum, eventually. Stated with reluctance perhaps, but he cannot pretend forever that he can get a new leave deal.
You do seem to be confidently predicting Corbyn will pivot to a referendum when the evidence it would damage labour outside the cities and indeed many of his mps in leave constituencies would not agree
And neither does Len McCluskey of Unite
If I may ask, what makes you so certain or is it your desired outcome
Putin also opposes Isis and has put resources into destroying it. Does that mean we should support ISIS because Putin doesn't?
Its a crazy line of argument - of course no one even mentioned Putin or Russia as a factor in either vote until Brexit and Trump won. And then seemingly along with the red bus his oh so subtle intervention no one noticed as the time was apparently the entire cause of leave winning.
If social media drove Brexit why was the section of society - the old and poor - least likely to use social media and particularly twitter the most likely to vote leave and the most twitter engaged (young people) were massively pro remain.
Its as if austerity, large scale immigration and the destruction of manufacturing and secure jobs in the midlands, north and Wales never happened? But I presume Putin was responsible for those too?
People were mentioning the possibility of political intervention by foreign powers in the debate prior to the referendum - and got roundly shouted down by a load of verbal diarrhoea from leavers screeching "Project Fear!' The work of the Internet Research Agency was well known before then, and ISTR some of their pro-Brexit accounts were uncovered before the referendum.
And you may not have noticed, but people were talking about Trump's links with the Russians well before he won.
I'm not saying that the actions of Putin and his minions won the referendum; after all, there were plenty of sane reasons to vote leave. But I also find it remarkable to suggest that it did not have a positive effect for leave - and sadly we will never know the scale of that effect.
I don't think it is whether or not Putin had a direct impact on the result, though I think you would be foolish to think that he did not attempt to influence it, and probably did. Whether it was enough to make a difference is unknown. Whal point is that Puti pretty thin ice if they carry on with the nonsense about Brexit being patriotic. I don't really think all Leavers are traitors, and maybe calling them Useful Idiots maybe a bit harsh. Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.
I recall the former Head of MI6 speaking on Radio 4 recently about this and he took the view that although Russia certainly tried to influence Brexit, it is doubtful it was able to do so sufficiently to affect the outcome. His rationale was broadly along the lines of '....they're not really very good at that sort of thing.'
My own take is that even if Russia was pouring huge resources into a subversion exercise, we still ought to have been able to figure out for ourselves that Brexit was a dumb idea, and if we couldn't, we deserved everything we got.
I said Greek GDP almost tripled which was correct. My point was to show that the same level of bubble would not have been possible in the UK if we had joined the Euro.
And I said Spain's population increased more than the UK. I was just sloppy about the time period.
I have yet to see any economy even China in . Hence the countries problems today.
Do you agree that it's not plausible that the UK would have become like Greece had we joined the Euro?
no
we have a role modeency,
House prices in Northern Ireland also went ballistic and then collapsed. If the UK had been in the Euro, the difference in availability of mortgage credit would have been marginal, and if the government didn't have the illusion of control, Gordon Brown would have been more likely to improve regulation of mortgage lenders, especially given the recent experience of a politically significant house price crash in the UK after the Lawson boom.
err no
the UK itself nearly went bust in 2009 and could only survive by issuing bonds on a scale the ECB of the time would not countenance, The tone of the times of the lead up was fill yer boots at no time did Gordon Brown try to turn off the taps. Most of the regulation failures in banking and borrowing were kicked off by Brown.
If we had been in the Euro and had been experiencing a house price boom on the same or bigger scale, the political pressures on both Brown and Blair to tackle it would have been wholly different. Remember that in Brown's first budget speech he said "I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the recovery" and the house price crash in the south-east in the 1990s had been a huge political issue that helped the rise of New Labour.
Canvassing anecdote in oldie area. Strong support for tories amongst leavers. Some passionate no deal, anything other than no deal is a betrayal, and some that their mp must support the prime ministers deal. What’s a politician to do? Swing to Cons in the oldie area on a couple of years ago.
Archbishop of Canterbury just came out for a 2nd ref
Has the Pope expressed an opinion on the issue - as the head of the largest religion now in the UK in terms of practising members?
The Pope obviously wants us to reverse Brexit and the Reformation and return the Established Church to Rome and so we once again take our place with the other 1 billion Catholics in the world
Good evening. I'm currently dealing with a child who is ill (thankfully minor) and off school, so it's good to get away from dirty pants and wet wipes. And that's enough detail for everyone.
A dictionary definition of hostile is: "showing or feeling opposition or dislike; unfriendly."
I'd suggest that you are utterly wrong with that. Yes, countries have their own interests, and perform things like industrial espionage against us - and we do against them (*). But such acts are minor, and the positive things that we agree on far outweigh those silly little games.
In other words, sometimes even best friends swear at each other. But that doesn't mean they're not friendly, and they're certainly not hostile.
(*) Its unsurprising you don't mention our espionage in all that. It rather reminds me of General Melchett...
Not at all. I am sure we do undertake our own espionage (at least I hope we do) but I could find no immediate references to it unlike that of the US and France (who German industrialists apparently consider to be even worse than China!)
Nor do I consider such espionage to be something to be critical of per se. It is simply countries acting in their own best interests which is exactly the point I was trying to make.
And by your very definition countries are continually in opposition to each other. That does not mean that they are at war but it does mean they will always act in their own interests over those of anyone else. You only have to look at the way in which the UK took advantage of French tax policy to promote businesses moving to the UK or the way in which various countries will try to bend EU rules to their economic advantage. There is always actual or potential hostility (using your definition based on opposition) between governments as they seek to get the best outcome for their citizens. And long may it continue.
Corbyn will demand an extension of Article 50 in a speech tomorrow. And presumably will propose a motion in Parliament to that effect.
"No Deal" is only going to happen if the likes of Anna Soubry bottle out and decide to go with the government at the last minute; despite the conspiracy theories of some, Corbyn is not going to support it, either tacitly or otherwise.
No deal happens by default unless the government legislates against it
And that is the responsibility of each and every one of the 498 mps who voted to serve A50
They were much like the football chants ' you don't know what you are doing'
Corbyn will demand an extension of Article 50 in a speech tomorrow.
Doesn't that make it less likely for the Government to seek one?
What's he playing at?
To have it ruled out. At some point new dealers, Tory and Labour, have to accept they will not get a new deal before exit day. Then they will have to back something else. For him, that will be a referendum, eventually. Stated with reluctance perhaps, but he cannot pretend forever that he can get a new leave deal.
If anything, I'd say it's the opposite: a successful Parliament vote extending Article 50 would be a necessary minimum for Corbyn backing a 2nd referendum
If Tory Remain MPs don't even have the guts to just delay Brexit (through extending A50), then how the hell would they ever have the guts to stop Brexit altogether (through a new referendum)? There'd be even less incentive for Corbyn to (as he sees it) ruin his chance of winning Leave voters by backing a referendum, if it didn't even have a chance of securing a new referendum anyway.
If there's a second referendum, I don't see why it would have a no deal option.
As the Tory party and Leavers would go mad if it did not
They'd also go mad if it did. And that's not all leavers, just the no-dealers. Both dealers and Remainers would be happy it's off the table. Anyway, I'm not even convinced it'd get through parliament with a no deal option, which would make the political calculation a moot point.
I must say the Leave fanatics/Useful Idiots on here are getting very wound up about the Putin connection. They have become so convinced of their Nationalistic virtue, they are finding it hard to come to terms with their de facto betrayal of their country's best interests. It is like seeing a religious zealot finding something that questions the book of Genesis. It is always the fate of nationalists. Ultimately others in their own country pay the price of their stupidity.
There is no Putin connection. Putin has a derisory level of support in this country from people who voted Leave and Remain.
I mean, Brexit is very much a Putin project, so there's that.
One of the new intake of Democratic Congresswomen. From New York.
She's young, female, fun and unashamedly socialist. Republicans have ABSOLUTELY no idea how to counter her. Probable medium term POTUS, barring accidents.
AOC derangement syndrome is the conservative equivalent of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
She is good fun, the successor to Bernie, enjoying a day of fame for this interview on 60 Minutes, a fairly high profile US current affairs show calling out Trump for racism:
She is also utterly clueless how to actually achieve most of the things she advocates.
Since when has that ever handicapped an aspiring politician?
I was kinda of hoping after trump we might get back to something more akin to people advocating realistic proposals.
She's Bernie's metaphorical granddaughter, fresh from student politics thinking she knows the answer to everything and enjoying her fifteen minutes of fame.
The nearest recent British equivalent was probably the SNP teenager from 2015, Mhairi Black.
She’s cute, young and dances well. A fantastic fake outrage story about republicans slating her on twitter or something like that she’s she has some savvy people behind her.
I appreciate you described her as cute, rather than photogenic. I know it can be used to mean more than just 'attractive', but it does often get used that way when I don't see the harm in just being clear that is what is meant.
Cute as in attractive, moved gracefully, just the kind of girl you would wish you could pull, but was way out of your league.
Corbyn will demand an extension of Article 50 in a speech tomorrow. And presumably will propose a motion in Parliament to that effect.
"No Deal" is only going to happen if the likes of Anna Soubry bottle out and decide to go with the government at the last minute; despite the conspiracy theories of some, Corbyn is not going to support it, either tacitly or otherwise.
No deal happens by default unless the government legislates against it
Nope, not if Parliament orders the government to indefinitely delay the date of departure.
Canvassing anecdote in oldie area. Strong support for tories amongst leavers. Some passionate no deal, anything other than no deal is a betrayal, and some that their mp must support the prime ministers deal. What’s a politician to do? Swing to Cons in the oldie area on a couple of years ago.
If there's a second referendum Parliament will probably try to ban anyone over 60 from voting in it!
Archbishop of Canterbury just came out for a 2nd ref
With what options?
Heaven or Hell...
Talking of that, we're currently enjoying 'The Good Place' on E4. It's not classic comedy, but it's much better than much of what passes for US comedy nowadays.
The premise is that it is set in Heaven, aka 'The Good Place'. Except the protagonist is anything but a good person, and only got sent there because of a mix-up over names. Her presence, along with a somewhat incompetent 'helper' (i.e. angel), disrupts the Good Place.
We're only five episodes in, but it's already looking like there is much more going on in the Good Place than they realise. It's all blooming intriguing, and I'm desperately trying not to go on t'Internet to work out which way it's heading.
People were mentioning the possibility of political intervention by foreign powers in the debate prior to the referendum - and got roundly shouted down by a load of verbal diarrhoea from leavers screeching "Project Fear!' The work of the Internet Research Agency was well known before then, and ISTR some of their pro-Brexit accounts were uncovered before the referendum.
And you may not have noticed, but people were talking about Trump's links with the Russians well before he won.
I'm not saying that the actions of Putin and his minions won the referendum; after all, there were plenty of sane reasons to vote leave. But I also find it remarkable to suggest that it did not have a positive effect for leave - and sadly we will never know the scale of that effect.
I don't think it is whether or not Putin had a direct impact on the result, though I think you would be foolish to think that he did not attempt to influence it, and probably did. Whether it was enough to make a difference is unknown. Whal point is that Puti pretty thin ice if they carry on with the nonsense about Brexit being patriotic. I don't really think all Leavers are traitors, and maybe calling them Useful Idiots maybe a bit harsh. Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.
I recall the former Head of MI6 speaking on Radio 4 recently about this and he took the view that although Russia certainly tried to influence Brexit, it is doubtful it was able to do so sufficiently to affect the outcome. His rationale was broadly along the lines of '....they're not really very good at that sort of thing.'
My own take is that even if Russia was pouring huge resources into a subversion exercise, we still ought to have been able to figure out for ourselves that Brexit was a dumb idea, and if we couldn't, we deserved everything we got.
I think Putin is mentioned to troll Leavers.
He's there to demonstrate the narrow mindset of remainers, who can't possibly believe that people might look at the EU and have a different opinion of it to them without having their tiny little minds brainwashed by Putin's evil intelligence services.
They are still in total shock that their worldview is not the only one.
One of the new intake of Democratic Congresswomen. From New York.
She's young, female, fun and unashamedly socialist. Republicans have ABSOLUTELY no idea how to counter her. Probable medium term POTUS, barring accidents.
AOC derangement syndrome is the conservative equivalent of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The idea that the average Trump voter would care about the fact that she's been dancing on a video is one of the most bizarre claims I've ever heard. What a fuss about nothing.
Good evening. I'm currently dealing with a child who is ill (thankfully minor) and off school, so it's good to get away from dirty pants and wet wipes. And that's enough detail for everyone.
A dictionary definition of hostile is: "showing or feeling opposition or dislike; unfriendly."
I'd suggest that you are utterly wrong with that. Yes, countries have their own interests, and perform things like industrial espionage against us - and we do against them (*). But such acts are minor, and the positive things that we agree on far outweigh those silly little games.
In other words, sometimes even best friends swear at each other. But that doesn't mean they're not friendly, and they're certainly not hostile.
(*) Its unsurprising you don't mention our espionage in all that. It rather reminds me of General Melchett...
Not at all. I am sure we do undertake our own espionage (at least I hope we do) but I could find no immediate references to it unlike that of the US and France (who German industrialists apparently consider to be even worse than China!)
Nor do I consider such espionage to be something to be critical of per se. It is simply countries acting in their own best interests which is exactly the point I was trying to make.
And by your very definition countries are continually in opposition to each other. That does not mean that they are at war but it does mean they will always act in their own interests over those of anyone else. You only have to look at the way in which the UK took advantage of French tax policy to promote businesses moving to the UK or the way in which various countries will try to bend EU rules to their economic advantage. There is always actual or potential hostility (using your definition based on opposition) between governments as they seek to get the best outcome for their citizens. And long may it continue.
Your initials are RT RT is the name of the Russian propoganda channel ergo you are Vladimir Putin
Corbyn will demand an extension of Article 50 in a speech tomorrow.
Doesn't that make it less likely for the Government to seek one?
What's he playing at?
To have it ruled out. At some point new dealers, Tory and Labour, have to accept they will not get a new deal before exit day. Then they will have to back something else. For him, that will be a referendum, eventually. Stated with reluctance perhaps, but he cannot pretend forever that he can get a new leave deal.
If anything, I'd say it's the opposite: a successful Parliament vote extending Article 50 would be a necessary minimum for Corbyn backing a 2nd referendum .
I guess, and it is pretty obvious when some talk about extension they expect revocation one way or another afterwards, but by demanding it before the MV is lost (albeit being as near to certain to being lost as any vote can be - we'll be laughing at these tight defeats next week) it feels like it is just further posturing to get the gov to say no, because it has to before the MV is actually lost, so that when he changes position he looks less silly than when they have to after the MV.
Corbyn will demand an extension of Article 50 in a speech tomorrow. And presumably will propose a motion in Parliament to that effect.
"No Deal" is only going to happen if the likes of Anna Soubry bottle out and decide to go with the government at the last minute; despite the conspiracy theories of some, Corbyn is not going to support it, either tacitly or otherwise.
No deal happens by default unless the government legislates against it
Nope, not if Parliament orders the government to indefinitely delay the date of departure.
Parliament can express a view on the date of departure, but if my understanding is correct only the Government can request an extension of A50 (which might not be granted) and amend the exit date given in the Withdrawal Act.
If the Government won't play ball then the purported Remainian majority in Parliament can only impose its will by obtaining and winning a VoNC, and installing an alternative Prime Minister willing to accede to their demands.
Personally I would just send in the Slater family from Eastenders to sort it all out. Half an hour of Kat, Hayley, Stacey and Mo and the EU and parliament would capitulate immediately! A mass pub brawl would be one way to sort things out.
You could have hit on a slogan for the next referendum.
'the house price crash in the south-east in the 1990s had been a huge political issue that helped the rise of New Labour.'
It could have been 2010.
Thanks to New Labour increasing house prices by 400% and presiding over a 10 fold rise in buy to let me and my mum are being chucked out of our private rental today by our landlord after only one months notice despite mum paying the rent on time every month for the last 5 years - cos we complained about the boiler being broken. At least when my gran and mum got repossesed under the Tories 15 years ago it was because gran hadn't paid their mortgage for months and the banks gave us 3 months notice to leave!
A constitutional crisis over making Theresa say what next in 3 days after a defeat that has been anticipated for 2 months. What exactly is the issue here?
The purported impact on business of the house forevermore. Whatever the reasonableness of the amendment's intentions, the objection seems to be on supposed long term significant changes to how the whole place operates. Whether that is for the better or worse, one hopes at least that Bercow thought very very deeply about those impacts and not on the mere facts of the amendment itself.
Or, much more likely, Grieve and Bercow have been planning for months to sabotage things at this stage, without a care or a thought to any precedent it might set so long as it stops the Brexit process.
Republican Twitter melting down over AOC is genuinely one of the funniest things that has happened in years.
When they posted the video of her dancing when she was in school as if this was some damning incriminating evidence I was in fits of laughter.
Wasn’t that a bit of nonsense. Someone posted it, someone sneered at it, retweedted a dozen times, none of them connected with the republicans. Outrage at republicans supposedly smearing her retweeted 12,000,000 times.
Amusing to see some Leavers getting all lathered about having to wear the "traitor" title that many of them were happy to use to describe their opponents. I don't really consider many of them traitors, but they are Putin's Useful Idiots. Leavers have helped advance the foreign policy objectives of a hostile power, and now they continue to do so knowingly.
It is Remainers who are helping to advance the foreign policy objectives of a hostile power. Remember all foreign powers are hostile to a greater or lesser extent (the Palmerston assertion) so it is Remainers who are currently the EU's useful idiots. Again I won't say traitors as you are not bright enough to qualify.
Richard, do you really believe that? Is every foreign country hostile in your mind?
No wonder you voted UKIP. You fit in very well with them ...
Evening JJ. Polite question deserves a polite answer.
Yes. I do believe that. As I stated earlier (before I saw your question but after you posed it) the first and perhaps only duty of a government is to its people. That means that it can have no fixed loyalty to any other ally, country or organisation outside of that country. It can have temporary arrangements and even friendships but they should always be considered as fleeting at best. So whilst every country may not be actively or obviously hostile, every one must be considered as potentially hostile and acting in their own best interests. We can hope those match ours but we should never assume that will always be the case.
One only has to look at the recent history of French or US industrial espionage to see this in action.
Polite question then, do you consider Russia to exhibit greater or lesser hostility than the 27 sovereign nations of the EU?
Currently their (Russia's) actions are more hostile. That does not mean the EU 27 are not hostile. They are basically the same as much of the rest of the world currently. On a par with the US. The way in which certain EU countries are taking advantage of Brexit to try and improve their own economies and damage ours is a hostile act. I certainly don't condemn it as I would hope and assume we would do the same if the shoe were on the other foot. Again, the guiding principle is that a government should always act in what it considers to be the best interests of its citizens.
One of the new intake of Democratic Congresswomen. From New York.
She's young, female, fun and unashamedly socialist. Republicans have ABSOLUTELY no idea how to counter her. Probable medium term POTUS, barring accidents.
AOC derangement syndrome is the conservative equivalent of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The idea that the average Trump voter would care about the fact that she's been dancing on a video is one of the most bizarre claims I've ever heard. What a fuss about nothing.
I hope for her sake she is both competent and likable, as I have this nagging feeling if she lets the attention go to her head and/or is incompetent that she will find herself treated pretty badly by colleagues down the line when some problem occurs, as it inevitably does in a political career.
Corbyn will demand an extension of Article 50 in a speech tomorrow.
Doesn't that make it less likely for the Government to seek one?
What's he playing at?
To have it ruled out. At some point new dealers, Tory and Labour, have to accept they will not get a new deal before exit day. Then they will have to back something else. For him, that will be a referendum, eventually. Stated with reluctance perhaps, but he cannot pretend forever that he can get a new leave deal.
You do seem to be confidently predicting Corbyn will pivot to a referendum when the evidence it would damage labour outside the cities and indeed many of his mps in leave constituencies would not agree
And neither does Len McCluskey of Unite
If I may ask, what makes you so certain or is it your desired outcome
Andrew Rawnesley wrote a good piece in Sunday's Observer in which he covered just this point. He was emphatic: Corbyn is not going to pivot. If the Labour Party wants a Leader in tune with the views of its membership and its voters, it will have to replace Corbyn.
Corbyn will demand an extension of Article 50 in a speech tomorrow. And presumably will propose a motion in Parliament to that effect.
"No Deal" is only going to happen if the likes of Anna Soubry bottle out and decide to go with the government at the last minute; despite the conspiracy theories of some, Corbyn is not going to support it, either tacitly or otherwise.
No deal happens by default unless the government legislates against it
Nope, not if Parliament orders the government to indefinitely delay the date of departure.
Delaying departure date is not only down to the HOC, it has to be agreed by the 27
A constitutional crisis over making Theresa say what next in 3 days after a defeat that has been anticipated for 2 months. What exactly is the issue here?
The purported impact on business of the house forevermore. Whatever the reasonableness of the amendment's intentions, the objection seems to be on supposed long term significant changes to how the whole place operates. Whether that is for the better or worse, one hopes at least that Bercow thought very very deeply about those impacts and not on the mere facts of the amendment itself.
Or, much more likely, Grieve and Bercow have been planning for months to sabotage things at this stage, without a care or a thought to any precedent it might set so long as it stops the Brexit process.
His reported responses do not appear to suggest that he paid a great deal of care to longer term consequences. Grieve, that would not surprise me. The man is an absolute fanatic, just brighter than most of the fanatics who oppose him, and I am surprised his fanaticism, and willingness to do anything at all to achieve his ends, gets a pass from people.
Personally I would just send in the Slater family from Eastenders to sort it all out. Half an hour of Kat, Hayley, Stacey and Mo and the EU and parliament would capitulate immediately! A mass pub brawl would be one way to sort things out.
You could have hit on a slogan for the next referendum.
"LEAVE EU, RICKY, EE'S NOT WORTH IT"
(Snip)
Except Eastenders never ends. Every Christmas there would be a showdown in the Prince Albert over the last Brussels, and concerns that the influx of Turkey might be too large; a Brexiteer would be found in flagrante with a German, and landlady Farage would drunkenly shout: "Get out!" at random foreigners.
Good evening. I'm currently dealing with a child who is ill (thankfully minor) and off school, so it's good to get away from dirty pants and wet wipes. And that's enough detail for everyone.
A dictionary definition of hostile is: "showing or feeling opposition or dislike; unfriendly."
I'd suggest that you are utterly wrong with that. Yes, countries have their own interests, and perform things like industrial espionage against us - and we do against them (*). But such acts are minor, and the positive things that we agree on far outweigh those silly little games.
In other words, sometimes even best friends swear at each other. But that doesn't mean they're not friendly, and they're certainly not hostile.
(*) Its unsurprising you don't mention our espionage in all that. It rather reminds me of General Melchett...
Not at all. I am sure we do undertake our own espionage (at least I hope we do) but I could find no immediate references to it unlike that of the US and France (who German industrialists apparently consider to be even worse than China!)
Nor do I consider such espionage to be something to be critical of per se. It is simply countries acting in their own best interests which is exactly the point I was trying to make.
And by your very definition countries are continually in opposition to each other. That does not mean that they are at war but it does mean they will always act in their own interests over those of anyone else. You only have to look at the way in which the UK took advantage of French tax policy to promote businesses moving to the UK or the way in which various countries will try to bend EU rules to their economic advantage. There is always actual or potential hostility (using your definition based on opposition) between governments as they seek to get the best outcome for their citizens. And long may it continue.
Your initials are RT RT is the name of the Russian propoganda channel ergo you are Vladimir Putin
It can request it, but the decision lies with the 27.
But we are able to revoke A50 while reserving the right to re-invoke at any point in the future (which seems like an "extension" to all intents and purposes to me, but whatever) regardless of what the EU wants.
'the house price crash in the south-east in the 1990s had been a huge political issue that helped the rise of New Labour.'
Thanks to New Labour increasing house prices by 400% and presiding over a 10 fold rise in buy to let me and my mum are being chucked out of our private rental today by my landlord after only one months notice despite mum paying the rent on time every month for the last 5 years At least when my gran and mum got repossesed under the Tories 20 years ago it was because gran hadn't paid their mortgage for months and the banks gave us 3 months notice to leave!
That’s grim. And your landlord is acting unlawfully. Get advice ASAP. It is two months and for the eviction to be successful the landlord needs to fulfill every aspect of the law.
A wider point about private tenancies. Reform is desperately needed to protect tenants against eviction and landlords against tenants who don’t pay or break their tenancy. Long term tenancies should become the default offering. Even a condition that you can not evict a tenant without cause unless turning the house into your primary residence or selling.
If there's a second referendum, I don't see why it would have a no deal option.
As the Tory party and Leavers would go mad if it did not
They'd also go mad if it did. And that's not all leavers, just the no-dealers. Both dealers and Remainers would be happy it's off the table. Anyway, I'm not even convinced it'd get through parliament with a no deal option, which would make the political calculation a moot point.
No, the vast majority of Tory voters and MPs back the Deal or No Deal, only a small fraction back Remain now. It is only People's Vote who want a Deal v Remain referendum and to exclude No Deal
A constitutional crisis over making Theresa say what next in 3 days after a defeat that has been anticipated for 2 months. What exactly is the issue here?
The purported impact on business of the house forevermore. Whatever the reasonableness of the amendment's intentions, the objection seems to be on supposed long term significant changes to how the whole place operates. Whether that is for the better or worse, one hopes at least that Bercow thought very very deeply about those impacts and not on the mere facts of the amendment itself.
Or, much more likely, Grieve and Bercow have been planning for months to sabotage things at this stage, without a care or a thought to any precedent it might set so long as it stops the Brexit process.
Really ? Sounds a bit looney-conspiratorial, which is a surprise from you.
Considering the context of May essentially paralysing the Commons for extended periods of time, an ill-considered reaction is fairly explicable without resorting to an unlikely plot as an explanation.
Archbishop of Canterbury just came out for a 2nd ref
With what options?
Heaven or Hell...
Talking of that, we're currently enjoying 'The Good Place' on E4. It's not classic comedy, but it's much better than much of what passes for US comedy nowadays.
The premise is that it is set in Heaven, aka 'The Good Place'. Except the protagonist is anything but a good person, and only got sent there because of a mix-up over names. Her presence, along with a somewhat incompetent 'helper' (i.e. angel), disrupts the Good Place.
We're only five episodes in, but it's already looking like there is much more going on in the Good Place than they realise. It's all blooming intriguing, and I'm desperately trying not to go on t'Internet to work out which way it's heading.
It's into it's third season, and it's one of the best things on television. At times clever without seeming smug, absurd without being farce, stuffed full of great performances and which successfully switches up its entire structure such that I truly have no idea what might happen week to week, and yet am utterly invested with its charming characters.
Thanks to New Labour increasing house prices by 400% and presiding over a 10 fold rise in buy to let me and my mum are being chucked out of our private rental today by my landlord after only one months notice despite mum paying the rent on time every month for the last 5 years At least when my gran and mum got repossesed under the Tories 20 years ago it was because gran hadn't paid their mortgage for months and the banks gave us 3 months notice to leave!
I'm sorry to hear that. The complacency about ignoring house price inflation was a huge political failure that we still haven't put right.
Corbyn will demand an extension of Article 50 in a speech tomorrow. And presumably will propose a motion in Parliament to that effect.
"No Deal" is only going to happen if the likes of Anna Soubry bottle out and decide to go with the government at the last minute; despite the conspiracy theories of some, Corbyn is not going to support it, either tacitly or otherwise.
No deal happens by default unless the government legislates against it
Nope, not if Parliament orders the government to indefinitely delay the date of departure.
Can they do so? It would be nice if Parliament did have such power (although I would disagree with them using it in this case of course) but I was not aware that they can order the Executive to take such action.
Archbishop of Canterbury just came out for a 2nd ref
With what options?
Heaven or Hell...
Talking of that, we're currently enjoying 'The Good Place' on E4. It's not classic comedy, but it's much better than much of what passes for US comedy nowadays.
The premise is that it is set in Heaven, aka 'The Good Place'. Except the protagonist is anything but a good person, and only got sent there because of a mix-up over names. Her presence, along with a somewhat incompetent 'helper' (i.e. angel), disrupts the Good Place.
We're only five episodes in, but it's already looking like there is much more going on in the Good Place than they realise. It's all blooming intriguing, and I'm desperately trying not to go on t'Internet to work out which way it's heading.
Currently their (Russia's) actions are more hostile. That does not mean the EU 27 are not hostile. They are basically the same as much of the rest of the world currently. On a par with the US. The way in which certain EU countries are taking advantage of Brexit to try and improve their own economies and damage ours is a hostile act. I certainly don't condemn it as I would hope and assume we would do the same if the shoe were on the other foot. Again, the guiding principle is that a government should always act in what it considers to be the best interests of its citizens.
"The way in which certain EU countries are taking advantage of Brexit to try and improve their own economies and damage ours is a hostile act."
Using that sort of thinking, from their perspective Brexit could be seen as a hostile act designed to damage their economies.
And thanks to many Brexiteers saying they wanted not only to leave the EU, but to see it destroyed, who could blame them?
I'd much rather be friendly than see hostility everywhere.
I don't think it makes sense to put labels on people like that. You backed EU membership until some time after Cameron's Bloomberg speech.
Indeed, I backed substantive and meaningful reform of the EU, as Cameron laid out in his Bloomberg speech with repatriation of powers.
Putin certainly has an interest in chaos in the West. That could just as easily be caused by angry division within the EU by an unhappy member, as it could be avoided by an amicable divorce that leads to better and happier bilateral security and defence cooperation outside.
It can request it, but the decision lies with the 27.
But we are able to revoke A50 while reserving the right to re-invoke at any point in the future (which seems like an "extension" to all intents and purposes to me, but whatever) regardless of what the EU wants.
You cannot revoke A50 and reserve the right to re-invoke at any point in the future
It can request it, but the decision lies with the 27.
But we are able to revoke A50 while reserving the right to re-invoke at any point in the future (which seems like an "extension" to all intents and purposes to me, but whatever) regardless of what the EU wants.
I think that's it. The EU27 will know that if they don't allow an extension, we will revoke with every likelihood of re-invoking at some stage in the future.
It can request it, but the decision lies with the 27.
But we are able to revoke A50 while reserving the right to re-invoke at any point in the future (which seems like an "extension" to all intents and purposes to me, but whatever) regardless of what the EU wants.
You cannot revoke A50 and reserve the right to re-invoke at any point in the future
That was expressly ruled out by the ECJ
It's not quite as dramatic as that. If we genuinely revoke with the intention of remaining a member, and then genuinely reinvoke at a later date under different circumstances that's fine. It just can't be abused to unilaterally extend the exit negotiations.
'the house price crash in the south-east in the 1990s had been a huge political issue that helped the rise of New Labour.'
Thanks to New Labour increasing house prices by 400% and presiding over a 10 fold rise in buy to let me and my mum are being chucked out of our private rental today by my landlord after only one months notice despite mum paying the rent on time every month for the last 5 years At least when my gran and mum got repossesed under the Tories 20 years ago it was because gran hadn't paid their mortgage for months and the banks gave us 3 months notice to leave!
That’s grim. And your landlord is acting unlawfully. Get advice ASAP. It is two months and for the eviction to be successful the landlord needs to fulfill every aspect of the law.
A wider point about private tenancies. Reform is desperately needed to protect tenants against eviction and landlords against tenants who don’t pay or break their tenancy. Long term tenancies should become the default offering. Even a condition that you can not evict a tenant without cause unless turning the house into your primary residence or selling.
If it's being managed by a lettings agency, worth checking that they are doing everything correctly, as they are very sloppy. I once got an order thrown out because they hadn't even spelled the name of the road properly.
Although the notice to quit works to a short timescale, if you don't vacate it will take a lot longer for them to get an eviction order, assuming rent is up to date and continues to be paid. In practice, if you don't mind the unpleasant atmosphere, it's possible to stay for quite some months more and move at your leisure, with no downside.
'That’s grim. And your landlord is acting unlawfully. Get advice ASAP. It is two months and for the eviction to be successful the landlord needs to fulfill every aspect of the law.
A wider point about private tenancies. Reform is desperately needed to protect tenants against eviction and landlords against tenants who don’t pay or break their tenancy. Long term tenancies should become the default offering. Even a condition that you can not evict a tenant without cause unless turning the house into your primary residence or selling. '
I was providing a jokey retort to that Labour poster - but a serious one. People who got their homes repossessed in the 1990s did so because they didn't pay their mortgage - far more people now rent privately than then and get little or no sympathy when they are chucked out on the street at a few weeks notice despite paying their rent on time.
Renters still don't matter and are seen as second class citizens. But you would never see a party producing a similar poster now about a kid being made homeless by her buy to let landlord.
Perhaps if so many MPs weren't buy to let landlords or owned multiple homes.
Cos when people claim about poverty and austerity the focus is rarely on the extortionate private rent they pay but the cut in the benefit they get to pay it. And it was a partial driver of Corbyn and Brexit - as its one of the biggest drivers of insecurity.
Corbyn will demand an extension of Article 50 in a speech tomorrow.
Doesn't that make it less likely for the Government to seek one?
What's he playing at?
To have it ruled out. At some point new dealers, Tory and Labour, have to accept they will not get a new deal before exit day. Then they will have to back something else. For him, that will be a referendum, eventually. Stated with reluctance perhaps, but he cannot pretend forever that he can get a new leave deal.
You do seem to be confidently predicting Corbyn will pivot to a referendum when the evidence it would damage labour outside the cities and indeed many of his mps in leave constituencies would not agree
And neither does Len McCluskey of Unite
If I may ask, what makes you so certain or is it your desired outcome
Not in the least. I want the deal to pass. I think a second referendum is probably necessary to get any outcome agreed, but I think it would lead to remain, which is not what I would prefer.
My prediction is based on focusing on what options are untenable for him to back and how untenable they are. It is Labour policy to keep all options open at the moment, but certain ones will be ruled out as time goes by, indeed the current option already has been they just won't admit it yet because the MV has not happened yet.
So the deal is defeated, Labour do a vote of no confidence and lose, and the various other non referendum options are defeated. Then what do Labour do? Corbyn cannot back the deal. Abstaining would be enabling Brexit which would be poison to his voters and members. So if he cannot get a GE, will not support he deal, and cannot get a new deal, what can he back?
A referendum enables him to posture as wanting to listen to the people, let his MPs and members back remain to their hearts content, while he makes clear he did everything he could to get us a good leave. The Tories will still be far more divided in a referendum that his voters, and so the idea Labour would suffer more in a snap GE I do not believe is credible.
I’m still bemused that Banksy manages to paint all these murals so quickly all over the country in the dead of night, and no-one still knows who he is?
It can request it, but the decision lies with the 27.
But we are able to revoke A50 while reserving the right to re-invoke at any point in the future (which seems like an "extension" to all intents and purposes to me, but whatever) regardless of what the EU wants.
You cannot revoke A50 and reserve the right to re-invoke at any point in the future
That was expressly ruled out by the ECJ
No, as far as I know, it was only "ruled out" by one of their advisors in his own opinion a few days before. The final ruling by the ECJ made no mention of the revocation needing a commitment not to re-invoke in future.
If we choose to revoke, regardless of what we say we'll do in future, the EU has no choice but to accept.
It can request it, but the decision lies with the 27.
But we are able to revoke A50 while reserving the right to re-invoke at any point in the future (which seems like an "extension" to all intents and purposes to me, but whatever) regardless of what the EU wants.
You cannot revoke A50 and reserve the right to re-invoke at any point in the future
That was expressly ruled out by the ECJ
No. It wasn't.
Edit: Or perhaps it is truer to say you don't need to 'reserve the right to re-invoke' every member of the EU has the right to invoke A50, whether they have done so before.
What might be challengable in the courts and subsequently disallowed is a 2nd revocation.
1.5 billion light years away... they’ve probably given up waiting for a response. if we send one back straight away they’ll get it in 1.5 billion years, and we’ll get a confirmation about the time the sun goes supernova.
It can request it, but the decision lies with the 27.
But we are able to revoke A50 while reserving the right to re-invoke at any point in the future (which seems like an "extension" to all intents and purposes to me, but whatever) regardless of what the EU wants.
You cannot revoke A50 and reserve the right to re-invoke at any point in the future
That was expressly ruled out by the ECJ
It's not quite as dramatic as that. If we genuinely revoke with the intention of remaining a member, and then genuinely reinvoke at a later date under different circumstances that's fine. It just can't be abused to unilaterally extend the exit negotiations.
A constitutional crisis over making Theresa say what next in 3 days after a defeat that has been anticipated for 2 months. What exactly is the issue here?
The purported impact on business of the house forevermore. Whatever the reasonableness of the amendment's intentions, the objection seems to be on supposed long term significant changes to how the whole place operates. Whether that is for the better or worse, one hopes at least that Bercow thought very very deeply about those impacts and not on the mere facts of the amendment itself.
Or, much more likely, Grieve and Bercow have been planning for months to sabotage things at this stage, without a care or a thought to any precedent it might set so long as it stops the Brexit process.
Really ? Sounds a bit looney-conspiratorial, which is a surprise from you.
Considering the context of May essentially paralysing the Commons for extended periods of time, an ill-considered reaction is fairly explicable without resorting to an unlikely plot as an explanation.
Grieve's amendments have been via archaic processes and protocols, they're not the work of a few days but something that required extensive research and planning. It's unlikely this was done by Grieve alone, I'd say pretty likely that there were at least feelers put out as to how the Speaker might react in certain situations. There have been other similar cases in the last couple of years from memory.
Corbyn will demand an extension of Article 50 in a speech tomorrow.
Doesn't that make it less likely for the Government to seek one?
What's he playing at?
To have it ruled out. At some point new dealers, Tory and Labour, have to accept they will not get a new deal before exit day. Then they will have to back something else. For him, that will be a referendum, eventually. Stated with reluctance perhaps, but he cannot pretend forever that he can get a new leave deal.
You do seem to be confidently predicting Corbyn will pivot to a referendum when the evidence it would damage labour outside the cities and indeed many of his mps in leave constituencies would not agree
And neither does Len McCluskey of Unite
If I may ask, what makes you so certain or is it your desired outcome
Not in the least. I want the deal to pass. I think a second referendum is probably necessary to get any outcome agreed, but I think it would lead to remain, which is not what I would prefer.
My prediction is based on focusing on what options are untenable for him to back and how untenable they are. It is Labour policy to keep all options open at the moment, but certain ones will be ruled out as time goes by, indeed the current option already has been they just won't admit it yet because the MV has not happened yet.
So the deal is defeated, Labour do a vote of no confidence and lose, and the various other non referendum options are defeated. Then what do Labour do? Corbyn cannot back the deal. Abstaining would be enabling Brexit which would be poison to his voters and members. So if he cannot get a GE, will not support he deal, and cannot get a new deal, what can he back?
A referendum enables him to posture as wanting to listen to the people, let his MPs and members back remain to their hearts content, while he makes clear he did everything he could to get us a good leave. The Tories will still be far more divided in a referendum that his voters, and so the idea Labour would suffer more in a snap GE I do not believe is credible.
Thanks for that but I do not expect Corbyn to pivot to a referendum
Corbyn will demand an extension of Article 50 in a speech tomorrow.
Doesn't that make it less likely for the Government to seek one?
What's he playing at?
To have it ruled out. At some point new dealers, Tory and Labour, have to accept they will not get a new deal before exit day. Then they will have to back something else. For him, that will be a referendum, eventually. Stated with reluctance perhaps, but he cannot pretend forever that he can get a new leave deal.
You do seem to be confidently predicting Corbyn will pivot to a referendum when the evidence it would damage labour outside the cities and indeed many of his mps in leave constituencies would not agree
And neither does Len McCluskey of Unite
If I may ask, what makes you so certain or is it your desired outcome
Not in the least. I want the deal to pass. I think a second referendum is probably necessary to get any outcome agreed, but I think it would lead to remain, which is not what I would prefer.
My prediction is based on focusing on what options are untenable for him to back and how untenable they are. It is Labour policy to keep all options open at the moment, but certain ones will be ruled out as time goes by, indeed the current option already has been they just won't admit it yet because the MV has not happened yet.
So the deal is defeated, Labour do a vote of no confidence and lose, and the various other non referendum options are defeated. Then what do Labour do? Corbyn cannot back the deal. Abstaining would be enabling Brexit which would be poison to his voters and members. So if he cannot get a GE, will not support he deal, and cannot get a new deal, what can he back?
A referendum enables him to posture as wanting to listen to the people, let his MPs and members back remain to their hearts content, while he makes clear he did everything he could to get us a good leave. The Tories will still be far more divided in a referendum that his voters, and so the idea Labour would suffer more in a snap GE I do not believe is credible.
Thanks for that but I do not expect Corbyn to pivot to a referendum
So what will he pivot to? He cannot keep up the present intention.
Currently their (Russia's) actions are more hostile. That does not mean the EU 27 are not hostile. They are basically the same as much of the rest of the world currently. On a par with the US. The way in which certain EU countries are taking advantage of Brexit to try and improve their own economies and damage ours is a hostile act. I certainly don't condemn it as I would hope and assume we would do the same if the shoe were on the other foot. Again, the guiding principle is that a government should always act in what it considers to be the best interests of its citizens.
"The way in which certain EU countries are taking advantage of Brexit to try and improve their own economies and damage ours is a hostile act."
Using that sort of thinking, from their perspective Brexit could be seen as a hostile act designed to damage their economies.
And thanks to many Brexiteers saying they wanted not only to leave the EU, but to see it destroyed, who could blame them?
I'd much rather be friendly than see hostility everywhere.
Indeed, from their perspective Brexit is a hostile act. But it is in the best interests of our country and therefore is the right thing to do. Again I would expect no less from any other country. The alternative is that one expects the Government to act in a way that is not in the best interests of the citizens.
It can request it, but the decision lies with the 27.
But we are able to revoke A50 while reserving the right to re-invoke at any point in the future (which seems like an "extension" to all intents and purposes to me, but whatever) regardless of what the EU wants.
You cannot revoke A50 and reserve the right to re-invoke at any point in the future
That was expressly ruled out by the ECJ
No. It wasn't.
Edit: Or perhaps it is truer to say you don't need to 'reserve the right to re-invoke' every member of the EU has the right to invoke A50, whether they have done so before.
What might be challengable in the courts and subsequently disallowed is a 2nd revocation.
It can request it, but the decision lies with the 27.
But we are able to revoke A50 while reserving the right to re-invoke at any point in the future (which seems like an "extension" to all intents and purposes to me, but whatever) regardless of what the EU wants.
You cannot revoke A50 and reserve the right to re-invoke at any point in the future
That was expressly ruled out by the ECJ
It's not quite as dramatic as that. If we genuinely revoke with the intention of remaining a member, and then genuinely reinvoke at a later date under different circumstances that's fine. It just can't be abused to unilaterally extend the exit negotiations.
So if we revoked A50 then immediately called an election, following which the party winning power did so on a manifesto commitment to leave the EU, that would be okay?
Comments
My own take is that even if Russia was pouring huge resources into a subversion exercise, we still ought to have been able to figure out for ourselves that Brexit was a dumb idea, and if we couldn't, we deserved everything we got.
More firepower also potentially helpful to corral Brexiters towards Deal. May happy for this to happen?
A constitutional crisis over making Theresa say what next in 3 days after a defeat that has been anticipated for 2 months. What exactly is the issue here?
YC quotes last night interesting: to paraphrase - we're not sure we can manage this, we'll have to see where we are in March. A hint that she could ultimately switch to Deal?
Business of the House central to what happens. Next cabinet resignation: Leadsome or Greg Clark favourites surely?
The Irish required a bailout worth £72bn in 2010; on a proportionate basis, given that the UK is fourteen times the size of the Republic, Britain would've needed a trillion pounds to cope with a collapse on a similar scale. Would the EU and the IMF have been able to find a trillion pounds down the back of the sofa to rescue us? I doubt it.
There's no entirely adequate comparison for the UK's likely fate in the event of it having joined the Euro at inception, but possibly the nearest equivalent would be Iceland. We'd have been forced into a gargantuan default, have had to float an emergency pound again in a state of extreme distress, and we might well have brought the entire Euro system down with us.
John Major's Maastricht opt-out could therefore be viewed as a hail of bullets successfully dodged by both the UK and the Eurozone states.
"No Deal" is only going to happen if the likes of Anna Soubry bottle out and decide to go with the government at the last minute; despite the conspiracy theories of some, Corbyn is not going to support it, either tacitly or otherwise.
What's he playing at?
(Respectively: the finest church music composer of the 20th century, and the author of Shi*e Jesus Shi*e.)
Let us take one well-known example of a pro-EU MP: Ken Clarke. If you think he does what anyone tells him, yet alone Brussels, then I'm afraid you're either trolling or lack some rather critical knowledge ...
https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/1083013721381916677
Still Brexit - the soap opera. Perhaps Netflix could make it?
Personally I would just send in the Slater family from Eastenders to sort it all out. Half an hour of Kat, Hayley, Stacey and Mo and the EU and parliament would capitulate immediately! A mass pub brawl would be one way to sort things out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6xyBGjR4oM
the UK itself nearly went bust in 2009 and could only survive by issuing bonds on a scale the ECB of the time would not countenance, The tone of the times of the lead up was fill yer boots at no time did Gordon Brown try to turn off the taps. Most of the regulation failures in banking and borrowing were kicked off by Brown.
You use those words troll and traitor a lot. They make you look stupid.
Of course, said renegotiation ploy is just a rhetorical device to beat the Deal and claim that Labour could somehow do better if it were in charge, whilst the clock continues to run down. Corbyn's ideal scenario is a badly-managed No Deal, followed by victory in a General Election. As far as he's concerned, the sooner we're out the better.
And neither does Len McCluskey of Unite
If I may ask, what makes you so certain or is it your desired outcome
Nor do I consider such espionage to be something to be critical of per se. It is simply countries acting in their own best interests which is exactly the point I was trying to make.
And by your very definition countries are continually in opposition to each other. That does not mean that they are at war but it does mean they will always act in their own interests over those of anyone else. You only have to look at the way in which the UK took advantage of French tax policy to promote businesses moving to the UK or the way in which various countries will try to bend EU rules to their economic advantage. There is always actual or potential hostility (using your definition based on opposition) between governments as they seek to get the best outcome for their citizens. And long may it continue.
And that is the responsibility of each and every one of the 498 mps who voted to serve A50
They were much like the football chants ' you don't know what you are doing'
If Tory Remain MPs don't even have the guts to just delay Brexit (through extending A50), then how the hell would they ever have the guts to stop Brexit altogether (through a new referendum)? There'd be even less incentive for Corbyn to (as he sees it) ruin his chance of winning Leave voters by backing a referendum, if it didn't even have a chance of securing a new referendum anyway.
Anyway, I'm not even convinced it'd get through parliament with a no deal option, which would make the political calculation a moot point.
The premise is that it is set in Heaven, aka 'The Good Place'. Except the protagonist is anything but a good person, and only got sent there because of a mix-up over names. Her presence, along with a somewhat incompetent 'helper' (i.e. angel), disrupts the Good Place.
We're only five episodes in, but it's already looking like there is much more going on in the Good Place than they realise. It's all blooming intriguing, and I'm desperately trying not to go on t'Internet to work out which way it's heading.
I'd recommend it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfBgT5djaQw
They are still in total shock that their worldview is not the only one.
RT is the name of the Russian propoganda channel
ergo you are Vladimir Putin
deny it if you can
If the Government won't play ball then the purported Remainian majority in Parliament can only impose its will by obtaining and winning a VoNC, and installing an alternative Prime Minister willing to accede to their demands.
"LEAVE EU, RICKY, EE'S NOT WORTH IT" There are one or two regulars who can always be relied upon to throw insults around, sadly.
It could have been 2010.
Thanks to New Labour increasing house prices by 400% and presiding over a 10 fold rise in buy to let me and my mum are being chucked out of our private rental today by our landlord after only one months notice despite mum paying the rent on time every month for the last 5 years - cos we complained about the boiler being broken. At least when my gran and mum got repossesed under the Tories 15 years ago it was because gran hadn't paid their mortgage for months and the banks gave us 3 months notice to leave!
Life is even worse under Labour - vote Tory!
Wasn’t that a bit of nonsense. Someone posted it, someone sneered at it, retweedted a dozen times, none of them connected with the republicans. Outrage at republicans supposedly smearing her retweeted 12,000,000 times.
PARLIAMENT CANNOT EXTEND THE ARTICLE 50 DEADLINE.
It can request it, but the decision lies with the 27.
A wider point about private tenancies. Reform is desperately needed to protect tenants against eviction and landlords against tenants who don’t pay or break their tenancy. Long term tenancies should become the default offering. Even a condition that you can not evict a tenant without cause unless turning the house into your primary residence or selling.
Sounds a bit looney-conspiratorial, which is a surprise from you.
Considering the context of May essentially paralysing the Commons for extended periods of time, an ill-considered reaction is fairly explicable without resorting to an unlikely plot as an explanation.
According to that show pineapple on pizza is served in hell.
Using that sort of thinking, from their perspective Brexit could be seen as a hostile act designed to damage their economies.
And thanks to many Brexiteers saying they wanted not only to leave the EU, but to see it destroyed, who could blame them?
I'd much rather be friendly than see hostility everywhere.
Putin certainly has an interest in chaos in the West. That could just as easily be caused by angry division within the EU by an unhappy member, as it could be avoided by an amicable divorce that leads to better and happier bilateral security and defence cooperation outside.
That was expressly ruled out by the ECJ
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46811618
A wider point about private tenancies. Reform is desperately needed to protect tenants against eviction and landlords against tenants who don’t pay or break their tenancy. Long term tenancies should become the default offering. Even a condition that you can not evict a tenant without cause unless turning the house into your primary residence or selling.
If it's being managed by a lettings agency, worth checking that they are doing everything correctly, as they are very sloppy. I once got an order thrown out because they hadn't even spelled the name of the road properly.
Although the notice to quit works to a short timescale, if you don't vacate it will take a lot longer for them to get an eviction order, assuming rent is up to date and continues to be paid. In practice, if you don't mind the unpleasant atmosphere, it's possible to stay for quite some months more and move at your leisure, with no downside.
'That’s grim. And your landlord is acting unlawfully. Get advice ASAP. It is two months and for the eviction to be successful the landlord needs to fulfill every aspect of the law.
A wider point about private tenancies. Reform is desperately needed to protect tenants against eviction and landlords against tenants who don’t pay or break their tenancy. Long term tenancies should become the default offering. Even a condition that you can not evict a tenant without cause unless turning the house into your primary residence or selling. '
I was providing a jokey retort to that Labour poster - but a serious one. People who got their homes repossessed in the 1990s did so because they didn't pay their mortgage - far more people now rent privately than then and get little or no sympathy when they are chucked out on the street at a few weeks notice despite paying their rent on time.
Renters still don't matter and are seen as second class citizens. But you would never see a party producing a similar poster now about a kid being made homeless by her buy to let landlord.
Perhaps if so many MPs weren't buy to let landlords or owned multiple homes.
Cos when people claim about poverty and austerity the focus is rarely on the extortionate private rent they pay but the cut in the benefit they get to pay it. And it was a partial driver of Corbyn and Brexit - as its one of the biggest drivers of insecurity.
My prediction is based on focusing on what options are untenable for him to back and how untenable they are. It is Labour policy to keep all options open at the moment, but certain ones will be ruled out as time goes by, indeed the current option already has been they just won't admit it yet because the MV has not happened yet.
So the deal is defeated, Labour do a vote of no confidence and lose, and the various other non referendum options are defeated. Then what do Labour do? Corbyn cannot back the deal. Abstaining would be enabling Brexit which would be poison to his voters and members. So if he cannot get a GE, will not support he deal, and cannot get a new deal, what can he back?
A referendum enables him to posture as wanting to listen to the people, let his MPs and members back remain to their hearts content, while he makes clear he did everything he could to get us a good leave. The Tories will still be far more divided in a referendum that his voters, and so the idea Labour would suffer more in a snap GE I do not believe is credible.
How?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-46812657
If we choose to revoke, regardless of what we say we'll do in future, the EU has no choice but to accept.
Edit: Or perhaps it is truer to say you don't need to 'reserve the right to re-invoke' every member of the EU has the right to invoke A50, whether they have done so before.
What might be challengable in the courts and subsequently disallowed is a 2nd revocation.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/cab-seizes-viagra-in-raids-targeting-leading-former-ira-man-1.3752365