There are often arguments about what will happen based on "when you exclude the impossible..." The problem is the definition of "impossible" used by each poster is different, and that a good argument can be made for every possible route from here being "impossible". It does make it easy to exclude every option other than one's preferred one (which must therefore happen because every other route is impossible), but it doesn't tend to give much real illumination.
I have no idea what's going to happen. I think anyone who claims they do is talking more out of hope or preference than solid logic.
No deal, the deal and no Brexit are realistic possibilities that could happen.
Anything who thinks one is an impossibility is probably picking the one they like the least. There are good reasons to argue for and against them all and probably different possibilities of each but all 3 are realistic possibilities.
Oh, I know. We are told that each option is, in turn, impossible. We can Brexit with a Deal, we can Brexit with No Deal, we can not Brexit. The choice can be made by the politicians in the current House, given to the people in a referendum, or made following a new election.
By politicians The Deal is impossible, as the numbers against it are so huge. No Deal is impossible, as no Government would countenance it. Revoking A50 is impossible, as the Government would not be willing to face the backlash.
Referendum Going to a referendum itself is impossible as May and the Tories will never accept it. Even then, it is impossible to put No Deal on a referendum as the House would never implement it. It is impossible that Remain would be on a referendum as it would be suicide for the Tories to allow it there. The Deal cannot be on the referendum as it would already have been rejected by the House
Election An election is impossible as the Tories won't go into another one with May at the helm and won't risk losing. Even if it wasn't impossible, it wouldn't change the logic - there wouldn't be substantive changes to the Deal, and Labour wouldn't revoke A50, or countenance No Deal.
Ergo - all routes from here are impossible. There is no "something else" that could turn up, so that route is impossible.
But one of them will be taken
Unless you haven't thought of everything?
"Something unexpected" is the obvious way of cutting the Gordian knot - but what?
I wonder if this real anxiety might force the hardliners to back May? There's a lot of no-deal bravado, but given that May is likely to extend Article 50 rather than allow there to be no deal, the hardliners have to consider that their brinkmanship might give them the opposite of what they want.
Many of them genuinely would prefer no Brexit to a deal they regard as a humiliation, most of all the DUP.
While No Brexit would be my favourite, there are going to be some VERY unhappy people about if that is the case!
I do wonder though, whether the prospect of a visa waiver document, which has to be paid for, might start to make some previously firm mindsets often. Not so much because of the charge itself, but because of the necessity of jumping through that particular hoop.
I too would prefer no Brexit of course, but the visa waiver document is not going to sway many people imo. Shortages, job cuts or a recession (or the perceived prospect of any of them) will be what sways people, and may already be doing so.
Boycotting is pathetic. If you don't vote, you deserve everything that comes your way.
Yes but it is an effective way to delegitimise a poll. Which you would want to do if you thought you were going to lose but didn't want to have to accept the result.
I'd piss and whine about it for years on Twitter like the FBPE loons.
Actually, I'd move on with my life. If we do remain, there can no longer be any illusions that we're not going to be subsumed within a Federal Europe. If that's what the majority want, fair enough, but I'll be terribly sad for my beloved country.
However, it's important to retain perspective. My most immediate challenge is dealing with complications from my lens replacement surgery; post capsular opacity. That's affecting my life a hell of a lot more than Brexit . Next year is also decision time on vaginoplasty yea/nay and if yea, what flavour.
I am not sure what questions would be seemly here, and I'd understand if you wish to keep these matters private, but...flavour???
I use the term loosely .
As it's well before the lagershed, I shall simply say that (for transwomen) there's one major decision to be made first; polo mint or trebor mint? If polo mint, then where do the bits that surround the hole come from? There are a number of options, which can be further divided into moist/not moist.
Thus you are enlightened. Whenever you have a polo mint in future, please do think of me fondly:D.
I understand the difference between "moist" and "not moist", but I had to google "trebor mint" so I am not sure whether I fully understand. However I suspect further description would involve labelled diagrams and hence outside the scope of this board. Good luck with whichever you decide, and with your eyes also.
There are often arguments about what will happen based on "when you exclude the impossible..." The problem is the definition of "impossible" used by each poster is different, and that a good argument can be made for every possible route from here being "impossible". It does make it easy to exclude every option other than one's preferred one (which must therefore happen because every other route is impossible), but it doesn't tend to give much real illumination.
I have no idea what's going to happen. I think anyone who claims they do is talking more out of hope or preference than solid logic.
No deal, the deal and no Brexit are realistic possibilities that could happen.
Anything who thinks one is an impossibility is probably picking the one they like the least. There are good reasons to argue for and against them all and probably different possibilities of each but all 3 are realistic possibilities.
Oh, I know. We are told that each option is, in turn, impossible. We can Brexit with a Deal, we can Brexit with No Deal, we can not Brexit. The choice can be made by the politicians in the current House, given to the people in a referendum, or made following a new election.
By politicians The Deal is impossible, as the numbers against it are so huge. No Deal is impossible, as no Government would countenance it. Revoking A50 is impossible, as the Government would not be willing to face the backlash.
Referendum Going to a referendum itself is impossible as May and the Tories will never accept it. Even then, it is impossible to put No Deal on a referendum as the House would never implement it. It is impossible that Remain would be on a referendum as it would be suicide for the Tories to allow it there. The Deal cannot be on the referendum as it would already have been rejected by the House
Election An election is impossible as the Tories won't go into another one with May at the helm and won't risk losing. Even if it wasn't impossible, it wouldn't change the logic - there wouldn't be substantive changes to the Deal, and Labour wouldn't revoke A50, or countenance No Deal.
Ergo - all routes from here are impossible. There is no "something else" that could turn up, so that route is impossible.
But one of them will be taken
Unless you haven't thought of everything?
"Something unexpected" is the obvious way of cutting the Gordian knot - but what?
Can kick to extend Art 50 ?
And then? That just buys a little time to make one of the other choices, which are "impossible"
There are often arguments about what will happen based on "when you exclude the impossible..." The problem is the definition of "impossible" used by each poster is different, and that a good argument can be made for every possible route from here being "impossible". It does make it easy to exclude every option other than one's preferred one (which must therefore happen because every other route is impossible), but it doesn't tend to give much real illumination.
I have no idea what's going to happen. I think anyone who claims they do is talking more out of hope or preference than solid logic.
No deal, the deal and no Brexit are realistic possibilities that could happen.
Anything who thinks one is an impossibility is probably picking the one they like the least. There are good reasons to argue for and against them all and probably different possibilities of each but all 3 are realistic possibilities.
Oh, I know. We are told that each option is, in turn, impossible. We can Brexit with a Deal, we can Brexit with No Deal, we can not Brexit. The choice can be made by the politicians in the current House, given to the people in a referendum, or made following a new election.
By politicians The Deal is impossible, as the numbers against it are so huge. No Deal is impossible, as no Government would countenance it. Revoking A50 is impossible, as the Government would not be willing to face the backlash.
Referendum Going to a referendum itself is impossible as May and the Tories will never accept it. Even then, it is impossible to put No Deal on a referendum as the House would never implement it. It is impossible that Remain would be on a referendum as it would be suicide for the Tories to allow it there. The Deal cannot be on the referendum as it would already have been rejected by the House
Election An election is impossible as the Tories won't go into another one with May at the helm and won't risk losing. Even if it wasn't impossible, it wouldn't change the logic - there wouldn't be substantive changes to the Deal, and Labour wouldn't revoke A50, or countenance No Deal.
Ergo - all routes from here are impossible. There is no "something else" that could turn up, so that route is impossible.
But one of them will be taken
Unless you haven't thought of everything?
"Something unexpected" is the obvious way of cutting the Gordian knot - but what?
Perhaps Santa will deliver brains to all the Ultras on both sides.
Given the EU has offered to extend article 50 in the case of a referendum it is hard for May to force it down to those 2 options. You can't really take it off the table.
Combine that with pissed off people and it is easier to imagine them pushing for the alternative than helping out.
Ok thanks. My reading is that the passage of time will force the WA vs Crash Out choice so long as May holds her nerve. To stop it parliament would have to remove her and install someone else. Might happen of course but for me that has to be a long shot.
Anyway, last question and I'll stop bugging you.
My latest 'most likely unlikely'. JC cuts a deal with May. Labour let the WA pass and in return they get a GE fairly soon after exit day.
What am I missing there? What's the fatal flaw?
My guess...
So possibly their guess as well.... I'd assume some are thinking along these lines anyway.
A GE soon looks possible even without cutting a deal. Which is the main benefit of taking up such an offer. The negatives of doing so are probably members and MPs*. Actual enthusiastic supporters of May's deal among labour members must be a tiny minority, in fact in almost all groups related to Labour it is pretty small can't fully remember the polling but I think Labour voters supporting the deal was around 20% and my guess would be most of those aren't zealous about it.
He really wouldn't get thanked for it.
*The centrists in large numbers taking up the cause of second referendum badly limited the least Corbyn friendly MPs May could have reached out to. They have successfully pressured him into backing Trident previously. They aren't overwhelmingly powerful but they have push and that has been going against May's deal. Probably has influenced their other colleagues as well.
Edit: Always happy to discuss my opinion feel free to ask me questions. It is just my opinion based largely off observing TV, papers, podcasts and picking up other Labour viewpoints. No inside or especially connected information.
"For the fifth consecutive year, "123456" and "password" are the top two most popular passwords online. New entries on the list include "111111", "sunshine", "princess", "666666", "654321", and "donald" at number 23 . SplashData CEO Morgan Slain discussed the list: "Hackers have great success using celebrity names, terms from pop culture and sports, and simple keyboard patterns to break into accounts online because they know so many people are using those easy-to-remember combinations." "
For some, the Tories having had their best shot at it these past two years and seeing the crisis they are about to launch us towards, which bears no relation to anything promised during the vote, is quite sufficient respect for the referendum.
They certainly are a rabble. Just pass the WA for pete's sake. It provides for an orderly phased exit and it guarantees citizens' rights and no hard border in Ireland. We then have X years to negotiate the all important FTA, with the Backstop guiding us towards close alignment. You'd have offered me that the day after the 2016 referendum I'd have bitten your hand off.
I will remind you that there is a majority amongst Tory MPs for the WA and that Labour MPs' objections to it are mostly not on its own merits.
Given the EU has offered to extend article 50 in the case of a referendum it is hard for May to force it down to those 2 options. You can't really take it off the table.
Combine that with pissed off people and it is easier to imagine them pushing for the alternative than helping out.
Ok thanks. My reading is that the passage of time will force the WA vs Crash Out choice so long as May holds her nerve. To stop it parliament would have to remove her and install someone else. Might happen of course but for me that has to be a long shot.
Anyway, last question and I'll stop bugging you.
My latest 'most likely unlikely'. JC cuts a deal with May. Labour let the WA pass and in return they get a GE fairly soon after exit day.
There are often arguments about what will happen based on "when you exclude the impossible..." The problem is the definition of "impossible" used by each poster is different, and that a good argument can be made for every possible route from here being "impossible". It does make it easy to exclude every option other than one's preferred one (which must therefore happen because every other route is impossible), but it doesn't tend to give much real illumination.
I have no idea what's going to happen. I think anyone who claims they do is talking more out of hope or preference than solid logic.
No deal, the deal and no Brexit are realistic possibilities that could happen.
Anything who thinks one is an impossibility is probably picking the one they like the least. There are good reasons to argue for and against them all and probably different possibilities of each but all 3 are realistic possibilities.
Oh, I know. We are told that each option is, in turn, impossible. We can Brexit with a Deal, we can Brexit with No Deal, we can not Brexit. The choice can be made by the politicians in the current House, given to the people in a referendum, or made following a new election.
By politicians The Deal is impossible, as the numbers against it are so huge. No Deal is impossible, as no Government would countenance it. Revoking A50 is impossible, as the Government would not be willing to face the backlash.
Referendum Going to a referendum itself is impossible as May and the Tories will never accept it. Even then, it is impossible to put No Deal on a referendum as the House would never implement it. It is impossible that Remain would be on a referendum as it would be suicide for the Tories to allow it there. The Deal cannot be on the referendum as it would already have been rejected by the House
Election An election is impossible as the Tories won't go into another one with May at the helm and won't risk losing. Even if it wasn't impossible, it wouldn't change the logic - there wouldn't be substantive changes to the Deal, and Labour wouldn't revoke A50, or countenance No Deal.
Ergo - all routes from here are impossible. There is no "something else" that could turn up, so that route is impossible.
But one of them will be taken
Unless you haven't thought of everything?
"Something unexpected" is the obvious way of cutting the Gordian knot - but what?
Can kick to extend Art 50 ?
The big argument for this one is that it solves precisely nothing, which is a big favourite of British politicians
No deal, the deal and no Brexit are realistic possibilities that could happen.
Anything who thinks one is an impossibility is probably picking the one they like the least. There are good reasons to argue for and against them all and probably different possibilities of each but all 3 are realistic possibilities.
Oh, I know. We are told that each option is, in turn, impossible. We can Brexit with a Deal, we can Brexit with No Deal, we can not Brexit. The choice can be made by the politicians in the current House, given to the people in a referendum, or made following a new election.
By politicians The Deal is impossible, as the numbers against it are so huge. No Deal is impossible, as no Government would countenance it. Revoking A50 is impossible, as the Government would not be willing to face the backlash.
Referendum Going to a referendum itself is impossible as May and the Tories will never accept it. Even then, it is impossible to put No Deal on a referendum as the House would never implement it. It is impossible that Remain would be on a referendum as it would be suicide for the Tories to allow it there. The Deal cannot be on the referendum as it would already have been rejected by the House
Election An election is impossible as the Tories won't go into another one with May at the helm and won't risk losing. Even if it wasn't impossible, it wouldn't change the logic - there wouldn't be substantive changes to the Deal, and Labour wouldn't revoke A50, or countenance No Deal.
Ergo - all routes from here are impossible. There is no "something else" that could turn up, so that route is impossible.
But one of them will be taken
Unless you haven't thought of everything?
"Something unexpected" is the obvious way of cutting the Gordian knot - but what?
Can kick to extend Art 50 ?
And then? That just buys a little time to make one of the other choices, which are "impossible"
And in itself just builds uncertainty.
Plus there's no guarantee of the EU27 accepting it.
No deal, the deal and no Brexit are realistic possibilities that could happen.
Anything who thinks one is an impossibility is probably picking the one they like the least. There are good reasons to argue for and against them all and probably different possibilities of each but all 3 are realistic possibilities.
Oh, I know. We are told that each option is, in turn, impossible. We can Brexit with a Deal, we can Brexit with No Deal, we can not Brexit. The choice can be made by the politicians in the current House, given to the people in a referendum, or made following a new election.
By politicians The Deal is impossible, as the numbers against it are so huge. No Deal is impossible, as no Government would countenance it. Revoking A50 is impossible, as the Government would not be willing to face the backlash.
Referendum Going to a referendum itself is impossible as May and the Tories will never accept it. Even then, it is impossible to put No Deal on a referendum as the House would never implement it. It is impossible that Remain would be on a referendum as it would be suicide for the Tories to allow it there. The Deal cannot be on the referendum as it would already have been rejected by the House
Election An election is impossible as the Tories won't go into another one with May at the helm and won't risk losing. Even if it wasn't impossible, it wouldn't change the logic - there wouldn't be substantive changes to the Deal, and Labour wouldn't revoke A50, or countenance No Deal.
Ergo - all routes from here are impossible. There is no "something else" that could turn up, so that route is impossible.
But one of them will be taken
Unless you haven't thought of everything?
"Something unexpected" is the obvious way of cutting the Gordian knot - but what?
Can kick to extend Art 50 ?
And then? That just buys a little time to make one of the other choices, which are "impossible"
I think your earlier post lists the options very clearly but then marks each as impossible, whereas each are very unlikely but none is truly impossible. To take first of your list as an axample: "The Deal is impossible, as the numbers against it are so huge." But May could cut a deal with Labour - very unlikely but not impossible.
Similar possibilities apply to each of the others in your list.
"For the fifth consecutive year, "123456" and "password" are the top two most popular passwords online. New entries on the list include "111111", "sunshine", "princess", "666666", "654321", and "donald" at number 23 . SplashData CEO Morgan Slain discussed the list: "Hackers have great success using celebrity names, terms from pop culture and sports, and simple keyboard patterns to break into accounts online because they know so many people are using those easy-to-remember combinations." "
Given the EU has offered to extend article 50 in the case of a referendum it is hard for May to force it down to those 2 options. You can't really take it off the table.
Combine that with pissed off people and it is easier to imagine them pushing for the alternative than helping out.
Ok thanks. My reading is that the passage of time will force the WA vs Crash Out choice so long as May holds her nerve. To stop it parliament would have to remove her and install someone else. Might happen of course but for me that has to be a long shot.
Anyway, last question and I'll stop bugging you.
My latest 'most likely unlikely'. JC cuts a deal with May. Labour let the WA pass and in return they get a GE fairly soon after exit day.
What am I missing there? What's the fatal flaw?
Why would Labour trust May?
If the WA passes and the DUP remove support then avoiding a GE could be out of May's control.
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
Could well be right. Personally, as a Remainer, I'd be ok to see No Deal on a 3-way ref. Appreciate there's a risk but tbh if the country chooses No Deal we will just have to live with it.
I wonder if this real anxiety might force the hardliners to back May? There's a lot of no-deal bravado, but given that May is likely to extend Article 50 rather than allow there to be no deal, the hardliners have to consider that their brinkmanship might give them the opposite of what they want.
If you read Hannan's article it provides your answer:
"There was speculation that some MPs were looking for an excuse to drop their opposition to the proposed Withdrawal Agreement. But Mrs May cannot now offer them a fig-leaf, or even a pine needle. The EU isn’t bothering to pretend that it wants or expects the backstop to be temporary. Why should it? The backstop holds the British market captive for continental companies, who run a large surplus here, and removes any possibility that a more free-trading Britain might out-compete its neighbours. And that’s before we come to the legislative annexation of Northern Ireland, which would leave voters in the Province unable to influence the laws under which they live – other than by pleading with Dublin to represent them in Brussels....... the UK surrenders, signs up to all the obligations of EU membership including the customs union, payments and Euoprean Court of Justice jurisdiction and, in order to be able to claim that something technically called Brexit has passed, removes its representatives from EU institutions."
No Leaver should do anything other than oppose it. It is worse than the status quo in the terms it offers and, furthermore, we will have locked ourselves into it permanently. Johnson is right - it is the worst of all worlds.
No deal, the deal and no Brexit are realistic possibilities that could happen.
Anything who thinks one is an impossibility is probably picking the one they like the least. There are good reasons to argue for and against them all and probably different possibilities of each but all 3 are realistic possibilities.
Oh, I know. We are told that each option is, in turn, impossible. We can Brexit with a Deal, we can Brexit with No Deal, we can not Brexit. The choice can be made by the politicians in the current House, given to the people in a referendum, or made following a new election.
By politicians The Deal is impossible, as the numbers against it are so huge. No Deal is impossible, as no Government would countenance it. Revoking A50 is impossible, as the Government would not be willing to face the backlash.
Referendum Going to a referendum itself is impossible as May and the Tories will never accept it. Even then, it is impossible to put No Deal on a referendum as the House would never implement it. It is impossible that Remain would be on a referendum as it would be suicide for the Tories to allow it there. The Deal cannot be on the referendum as it would already have been rejected by the House
Election An election is impossible as the Tories won't go into another one with May at the helm and won't risk losing. Even if it wasn't impossible, it wouldn't change the logic - there wouldn't be substantive changes to the Deal, and Labour wouldn't revoke A50, or countenance No Deal.
Ergo - all routes from here are impossible. There is no "something else" that could turn up, so that route is impossible.
But one of them will be taken
Unless you haven't thought of everything?
"Something unexpected" is the obvious way of cutting the Gordian knot - but what?
Can kick to extend Art 50 ?
And then? That just buys a little time to make one of the other choices, which are "impossible"
I think your earlier post lists the options very clearly but then marks each as impossible, whereas each are very unlikely but none is truly impossible. To take first of your list as an axample: "The Deal is impossible, as the numbers against it are so huge." But May could cut a deal with Labour - very unlikely but not impossible.
Similar possibilities apply to each of the others in your list.
Indeed. That's my original point - that people are using the 'eliminate the impossible' argument against every point on that list.
Labour's members put Corbyn's head on a spike. He's got positioning problems whichever way he breaks. At the moment he can hide behind Labour's quantum Brexit. That won't last. He either loses the metropolitans or the WWC.
Would they though? If the choice is the WA or No Deal, could he not say (i) I've saved us from a chaotic and brutal jobs-destroying tory Brexit and (ii) I will now if elected PM negotiate an FTA that 'works for the many not the few' (or similar tosh)? Meaning in reality the very closely aligned model which is after all Labour policy. There is nothing in the WA which prevents this.
Not sure how it would play out in the subsequent GE but at least he would get one. A real shot at power before everyone gets a bit tired of him.
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
Could well be right. Personally, as a Remainer, I'd be ok to see No Deal on a 3-way ref. Appreciate there's a risk but tbh if the country chooses No Deal we will just have to live with it.
As a Leaver, I'd be incredibly unhappy if 'No Deal' was an option. We can (and, God knows, have) argue the niceties of separating ourselves from the Frankenstinian EUropean Project, but you don't exacerbate the situation by giving the electorate a chance to vote for the 'Don't press this button' option.
I wonder if this real anxiety might force the hardliners to back May? There's a lot of no-deal bravado, but given that May is likely to extend Article 50 rather than allow there to be no deal, the hardliners have to consider that their brinkmanship might give them the opposite of what they want.
If you read Hannan's article it provides your answer:
"There was speculation that some MPs were looking for an excuse to drop their opposition to the proposed Withdrawal Agreement. But Mrs May cannot now offer them a fig-leaf, or even a pine needle. The EU isn’t bothering to pretend that it wants or expects the backstop to be temporary. Why should it? The backstop holds the British market captive for continental companies, who run a large surplus here, and removes any possibility that a more free-trading Britain might out-compete its neighbours. And that’s before we come to the legislative annexation of Northern Ireland, which would leave voters in the Province unable to influence the laws under which they live – other than by pleading with Dublin to represent them in Brussels....... the UK surrenders, signs up to all the obligations of EU membership including the customs union, payments and Euoprean Court of Justice jurisdiction and, in order to be able to claim that something technically called Brexit has passed, removes its representatives from EU institutions."
No Leaver should do anything other than oppose it. It is worse than the status quo in the terms it offers and, furthermore, we will have locked ourselves into it permanently. Johnson is right - it is the worst of all worlds.
Hannan is of course talking bollocks. The whole UK would be in the Customs Union in a backstop situation, getting the benefits of access to the EU market whilst paying no fees and having no FoM. HOw far from Hannan's ostensibly preferred Switzerland solution is that?
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
Could well be right. Personally, as a Remainer, I'd be ok to see No Deal on a 3-way ref. Appreciate there's a risk but tbh if the country chooses No Deal we will just have to live with it.
As a Leaver, I'd be incredibly unhappy if 'No Deal' was an option. We can (and, God knows, have) argue the niceties of separating ourselves from the Frankenstinian EUropean Project, but you don't exacerbate the situation by giving the electorate a chance to vote for the 'Don't press this button' option.
Well, if you don't like it, don't vote for it - I certainly won't!
As a Stayer I, rather regretfully, must take Rory Stewarts advice (or what I think is his advice!), which is May’s Deal, if only because it will give a flavour of what life really will be like Outside, and doing so will give passions a chance to cool. After all, whatever the faults of the leaders on both sides, the vast majority of those voting did so with the best of intentions.
The immediate options are WA Agreement as is, [edit] cancel A50, No Deal. Just those.
Realistic longer term outcomes are, I believe, EU membership or SM+CU, which won't be a palatable choice to many people.
A Canada style FTA is a theoretical possibility involving a long drawn out negotiation that may never conclude and which will definitely be low benefit. Too difficult basket, I think.
Which leaves being a voting member of the EU or a do as you're told participant in its system. It's regrettable that it will take years for people to work that out.
"For the fifth consecutive year, "123456" and "password" are the top two most popular passwords online. New entries on the list include "111111", "sunshine", "princess", "666666", "654321", and "donald" at number 23 . SplashData CEO Morgan Slain discussed the list: "Hackers have great success using celebrity names, terms from pop culture and sports, and simple keyboard patterns to break into accounts online because they know so many people are using those easy-to-remember combinations." "
I think I see a way to hack Trump's tweeter feed...
I was once advised to use Welsh words as a base for passwords.
ISTR that the Brits used Welsh (and the Yanks Cherokee) for secret communications in the war
The Welsh Guards used Welsh in Bosnia. There are very few people able to speak both Serbo-Croat and Welsh fluently.
Simply type a short phrase or 5 or 6 words and use that as the password. Anything over 12 or 13 characters is usually safe and any phrase will do. Leave spaces in and capitalise at least one word, but avoid well known quotes or proverbs so "Mary had a little lamb" should be avoided whereas "I like lamb butties" would be fine.
That's the most secure way of doing it and much smarter than the internet banality of it must include lower case, upper case, numbers, symbols, sounds, silences and expletives.
Yes, that is remarkably annoying, and makes passwords far more difficult to remember - which encourages writing them down, thus rendering them far less secure.
Get the app 1Password. It syncs across phones, tablets and computers. It is a totally unbreakable vault.
You store all your passwords (and other crucial data and detail): in this secure vault, which can be accessed with iPhone fingerprint or face recognition, or one very complex password which you do need to remember, but only one.
I store everything sensitive on it, all passwords, bank codes, credit card details, passport details, etc. It's saved me countless times.
I wonder if this real anxiety might force the hardliners to back May? There's a lot of no-deal bravado, but given that May is likely to extend Article 50 rather than allow there to be no deal, the hardliners have to consider that their brinkmanship might give them the opposite of what they want.
That's been their only logical line of thought for a while, but it's about emotions more than logic. The WA gives them certainty of maybe 80% of what they want, but they prefer to gamble it for a chance at a full separation.
I have to say, despite the ordure that will now doubtless be thrown in my general direction, that having seen the performance of our politicians in the last two years and, specifically, in the last few weeks and days, I am more in favour of Remain than I have been. And that is despite my scepticism about many aspects of the European project.
Britain simply has no strategy. And no willingness to think about one in any sort of intelligent fashion. Rory Stewart cannot do it by himself. In the absence of this, to embark on Brexit, whether without a deal or with the WA, seems to me to be a very risky act. And to take such risks with peoples’ lives and futures seems to me to be self-indulgent folly.
“Dear Santa - please can a sensible way through be found. Please.”
At least he will keep his job I suppose if that does happen.
What will happen with the EU parliament elections if we withdraw article 50 before 29 March as our seats have been redistributed to other member states so any change will impact on the entire continent.
As a Stayer I, rather regretfully, must take Rory Stewarts advice (or what I think is his advice!), which is May’s Deal, if only because it will give a flavour of what life really will be like Outside, and doing so will give passions a chance to cool. After all, whatever the faults of the leaders on both sides, the vast majority of those voting did so with the best of intentions.
The immediate options are WA Agreement as is, Remain, No Deal. Just those.
Realistic longer term outcomes are, I believe, EU membership or SM+CU, which won't be a palatable choice to many people.
A Canada style FTA is a theoretical possibility involving a long drawn out negotiation that may never conclude and which will definitely be low benefit. Too difficult basket, I think.
Which leaves being a voting member of the EU or a do as you're told participant in its system. It's regrettable that it will take years for people to work that out.
Leavers were sold a pup. Fortunately we might still be in a cooling off period.
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
"For the fifth consecutive year, "123456" and "password" are the top two most popular passwords online. New entries on the list include "111111", "sunshine", "princess", and "donald" at number 23 . SplashData CEO Morgan Slain discussed the list: "Hackers have great success using celebrity names, terms from pop culture and sports, and simple keyboard patterns to break into accounts online because they know so many people are using those easy-to-remember combinations." "
I think I see a way to hack Trump's tweeter feed...
I was once advised to use Welsh words as a base for passwords.
ISTR that the Brits used Welsh (and the Yanks Cherokee) for secret communications in the war
The Welsh Guards used Welsh in Bosnia. There are very few people able to speak both Serbo-Croat and Welsh fluently.
Simply type a short phrase or 5 or 6 words and use that as the password. Anything over 12 or 13 characters is usually safe and any phrase will do. Leave spaces in and capitalise at least one word, but avoid well known quotes or proverbs so "Mary had a little lamb" should be avoided whereas "I like lamb butties" would be fine.
That's the most secure way of doing it and much smarter than the internet banality of it must include lower case, upper case, numbers, symbols, sounds, silences and expletives.
Yes, that is remarkably annoying, and makes passwords far more difficult to remember - which encourages writing them down, thus rendering them far less secure.
Get the app 1Password. It syncs across phones, tablets and computers. It is a totally unbreakable vault.
You store all your passwords (and other crucial data and detail): in this secure vault, which can be accessed with iPhone fingerprint or face recognition, or one very complex password which you do need to remember, but only one.
I store everything sensitive on it, all passwords, bank codes, credit card details, passport details, etc. It's saved me countless times.
At least he will keep his job I suppose if that does happen.
What will happen with the EU parliament elections if we withdraw article 50 before 29 March as our seats have been redistributed to other member states so any change will impact on the entire continent.
It's probably an easier issue to deal with than the consequences of a No Deal crash-out.
I wonder if this real anxiety might force the hardliners to back May? There's a lot of no-deal bravado, but given that May is likely to extend Article 50 rather than allow there to be no deal, the hardliners have to consider that their brinkmanship might give them the opposite of what they want.
That's been their only logical line of thought for a while, but it's about emotions more than logic. The WA gives them certainty of maybe 80% of what they want, but they prefer to gamble it for a chance at a full separation.
I don't know if they are lines for public consumption, something of a propaganda war but listening to a few of them talk there were similar themes about them only asking for what the Prime Minister herself had promised.
Whilst some people suspect May pretended to be a harder Brexiteer than she was to win votes in the election maybe she also convinced some of her MPs as well who do now genuinely feel betrayed.
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
Was it a 'friend' of Dan Hannan?
The quote mark indicates skepticism that Daniel Hannan has a friend?
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
That sounds most promising.
Your railing against Ireland yesterday was a classic illustration of how our power and influence is diminished by Brexit. Ireland has 26 other countries standing behind its defence of its interests; we stand alone. For the first time in dealing with the ROI they are in the more influential position - you don't like this, but it's the logical consequence of what you voted for.
The quicker we escape from this national suicide mission, the better.
Labour might bounce them into it - I think they have the numbers - but if so, expect a massacre in the North at a subsequent, indeed consecutive, General Election.
This is why crashout now looks likely.
Wrong! . Labour voters are not obsessed with Brexit in the way implied by your comment. Other issues would easily override it.
Labour might bounce them into it - I think they have the numbers - but if so, expect a massacre in the North at a subsequent, indeed consecutive, General Election.
This is why crashout now looks likely.
Wrong! . Labour voters are not obsessed with Brexit in the way implied by your comment. Other issues would easily override it.
They would be punished in leave leaning constituencies and I think you know it.
I totally disagree with that view. In so far as Brexit would cost Labour votes , they will already have been lost in 2017. At worst it might make it more difficult for Labour to win those voters back, but the overwhelming impression is that voters are sick to death of Brexit , they wish to move on and will respond positively to other issues being raised to which they can much more directly relate.
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
That sounds most promising.
Your railing against Ireland yesterday was a classic illustration of how our power and influence is diminished by Brexit. Ireland has 26 other countries standing behind its defence of its interests; we stand alone. For the first time in dealing with the ROI they are in the more influential position - you don't like this, but it's the logical consequence of what you voted for.
The quicker we escape from this national suicide mission, the better.
Sir Ivan Rogers made the point very forcibly in his Spectator article. Does a gang back it's members or the guy who’s just given the gang two fingers and left?
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
That sounds most promising.
Your railing against Ireland yesterday was a classic illustration of how our power and influence is diminished by Brexit. Ireland has 26 other countries standing behind its defence of its interests; we stand alone. For the first time in dealing with the ROI they are in the more influential position - you don't like this, but it's the logical consequence of what you voted for.
The quicker we escape from this national suicide mission, the better.
Small country in much larger union accorded respect, consulted with and its particular interests upheld?
Ivan Roger's speech was interesting. He makes some valid points regarding the negotiation, that are in line with my position all along, that we should always have been working toward WTO as default.
Of course, as a diplomat, he sees everything through the lense of preferential agreements regulations etc. Anyone who is concerned by his gloomy forecasts on the state of the British services sector following Brexit should look at whether the American service sector struggles currently in the UK under similar non-preferential circumstances.
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
That sounds most promising.
Your railing against Ireland yesterday was a classic illustration of how our power and influence is diminished by Brexit. Ireland has 26 other countries standing behind its defence of its interests; we stand alone. For the first time in dealing with the ROI they are in the more influential position - you don't like this, but it's the logical consequence of what you voted for.
The quicker we escape from this national suicide mission, the better.
Sir Ivan Rogers made the point very forcibly in his Spectator article. Does a gang back it's members or the guy who’s just given the gang two fingers and left?
Speaking personally, I'm extremely comfortable without the backing of the EU. I don't expect or want any favours from them, i just demand our own leaders defend our interests just as fiercely.
I think that's correct from my contacts. They think the WA is dead anyway, so, brutally speaking, why sacrifice yourself in defence of a corpse? (And Hoey isn't voting for it either.)
Labour MPs might be tempted by a referendum offer, or something else quite different. But not the WA. Like Justin, I think they are under very little pressure from Labour-voting constituents in general, though some do feel very strongly.
The argument is incidentally being distorted by the hyperbole of "No Deal=no food or medicine". That won't happen. If we can't reach a deal, a basic WTO arrangement allowing the flow of trade (with tariffs), aircraft flying etc., will be reached while we ponder what to do. The discussion should weigh that up against the deal or any other deal. The option would be extremely unsatisfactory but probably not permanent. The WA in all likelihood would be permanent.
Very interesting. If the notion that parliament 'will not allow' us to leave in March with no transition is mistaken such an outcome must be quite likely. Oh gosh.
But if push comes to shove why would Labour prefer that to the WA? Their policy is to negotiate an FTA that is closely aligned to the EU. The WA is compatible with that. Indeed the Backstop dictates that it be so.
Given the EU has offered to extend article 50 in the case of a referendum it is hard for May to force it down to those 2 options. You can't really take it off the table.
Combine that with pissed off people and it is easier to imagine them pushing for the alternative than helping out.
Ok thanks. My reading is that the passage of time will force the WA vs Crash Out choice so long as May holds her nerve. To stop it parliament would have to remove her and install someone else. Might happen of course but for me that has to be a long shot.
Anyway, last question and I'll stop bugging you.
My latest 'most likely unlikely'. JC cuts a deal with May. Labour let the WA pass and in return they get a GE fairly soon after exit day.
What am I missing there? What's the fatal flaw?
If I were a opposition MP, I would only support the Deal, if the bill passing it includes A50 extension and a #peoplesvote.
This allows a decisive decision, gives more time to prepare for No Deal, and hangs May out to dry.
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
That sounds most promising.
Your railing against Ireland yesterday was a classic illustration of how our power and influence is diminished by Brexit. Ireland has 26 other countries standing behind its defence of its interests; we stand alone. For the first time in dealing with the ROI they are in the more influential position - you don't like this, but it's the logical consequence of what you voted for.
The quicker we escape from this national suicide mission, the better.
Sir Ivan Rogers made the point very forcibly in his Spectator article. Does a gang back it's members or the guy who’s just given the gang two fingers and left?
Speaking personally, I'm extremely comfortable without the backing of the EU. I don't expect or want any favours from them, i just demand our own leaders defend our interests just as fiercely.
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
That sounds most promising.
Your railing against Ireland yesterday was a classic illustration of how our power and influence is diminished by Brexit. Ireland has 26 other countries standing behind its defence of its interests; we stand alone. For the first time in dealing with the ROI they are in the more influential position - you don't like this, but it's the logical consequence of what you voted for.
The quicker we escape from this national suicide mission, the better.
Sir Ivan Rogers made the point very forcibly in his Spectator article. Does a gang back it's members or the guy who’s just given the gang two fingers and left?
Speaking personally, I'm extremely comfortable without the backing of the EU. I don't expect or want any favours from them, i just demand our own leaders defend our interests just as fiercely.
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
Could well be right. Personally, as a Remainer, I'd be ok to see No Deal on a 3-way ref. Appreciate there's a risk but tbh if the country chooses No Deal we will just have to live with it.
As a Leaver, I'd be incredibly unhappy if 'No Deal' was an option. We can (and, God knows, have) argue the niceties of separating ourselves from the Frankenstinian EUropean Project, but you don't exacerbate the situation by giving the electorate a chance to vote for the 'Don't press this button' option.
I like your description "the 'Don't press this button' option". Some would and we can't risk it.
As a Stayer I, rather regretfully, must take Rory Stewarts advice (or what I think is his advice!), which is May’s Deal, if only because it will give a flavour of what life really will be like Outside, and doing so will give passions a chance to cool. After all, whatever the faults of the leaders on both sides, the vast majority of those voting did so with the best of intentions.
The immediate options are WA Agreement as is, [edit] cancel A50, No Deal. Just those.
Realistic longer term outcomes are, I believe, EU membership or SM+CU, which won't be a palatable choice to many people.
A Canada style FTA is a theoretical possibility involving a long drawn out negotiation that may never conclude and which will definitely be low benefit. Too difficult basket, I think.
Which leaves being a voting member of the EU or a do as you're told participant in its system. It's regrettable that it will take years for people to work that out.
Given that the majority of our trade is not with the EU, that the proportion of our trade that is with the EU has been in long-term decline, that the majority of future global growth will be outside the EU, that global trade has been (albeit slowly, erratically and with reverses) tending towards greater liberalisation, and that the proportion of our trade that is currently with the EU is to some extent artificially propped up by our EU membership imposing restrictions on non-EU trade, I remain unconvinced that the only viable position for the UK is, at a bare minimum, within the SM+CU. I can see the advantages thereof, including the extra heft with trade deals further afield, but I can't see that it would be a necessity for Britain to remain a reasonably prosperous nation.
(And if the only criterion were to be GDP per head, then as was proposed downthread we'd almost certainly be substantially better off as State 51 than in the EU. Though I think US of E vs US of A has always been a false dichotomy.)
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
Heard recently that John Pinaar thinks the same. The 2.2 (Betfair) against a second ref looks too big.
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
Could well be right. Personally, as a Remainer, I'd be ok to see No Deal on a 3-way ref. Appreciate there's a risk but tbh if the country chooses No Deal we will just have to live with it.
As a Leaver, I'd be incredibly unhappy if 'No Deal' was an option. We can (and, God knows, have) argue the niceties of separating ourselves from the Frankenstinian EUropean Project, but you don't exacerbate the situation by giving the electorate a chance to vote for the 'Don't press this button' option.
I like your description "the 'Don't press this button' option". Some would and we can't risk it.
No Deal is now the most likely outcome. Brace yourselves.
We none of us know. Deal, No Deal, Remain - any of those three is possible.
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
That sounds most promising.
Your railing against Ireland yesterday was a classic illustration of how our power and influence is diminished by Brexit. Ireland has 26 other countries standing behind its defence of its interests; we stand alone. For the first time in dealing with the ROI they are in the more influential position - you don't like this, but it's the logical consequence of what you voted for.
The quicker we escape from this national suicide mission, the better.
Sir Ivan Rogers made the point very forcibly in his Spectator article. Does a gang back it's members or the guy who’s just given the gang two fingers and left?
Speaking personally, I'm extremely comfortable without the backing of the EU. I don't expect or want any favours from them, i just demand our own leaders defend our interests just as fiercely.
Somehow I think you are going to be unlucky.
In our current leaders, yes. But that situation hardly looks permanent.
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
That sounds most promising.
Your railing against Ireland yesterday was a classic illustration of how our power and influence is diminished by Brexit. Ireland has 26 other countries standing behind its defence of its interests; we stand alone. For the first time in dealing with the ROI they are in the more influential position - you don't like this, but it's the logical consequence of what you voted for.
The quicker we escape from this national suicide mission, the better.
I wasn't "railing against Ireland". I love the country and its people, I was saying Brexit had revealed a latent Anglophobia in SOME Irish people, I caveatted this by saying it was historically understandable. Which it is.
My only real target was Dara O'Briain the comedian who writes mawkish tweets about how fond he is of Britain and the British, but when talking to an Irish audience, he mocks Brexit and Brexit voters, and is, moreover, a supporter of Scottish independence which would have broken up Britain and, inter alia, bankrupted Scotland and sent Scotland hurtling out of the EU.
And all this while he makes squillions on British TV from British licence-fee payers. Wanker.
The EU are helping Ireland that's for sure, though it's a high risk strategy given the potential downside belongs to Ireland alone.
I'll form a view as to whether it's *actually* helped once the bill comes due. If Ireland can stave off tax harmonisation for (say) another five years, I'll own that, yes, it has been helped. Otherwise, it's more like getting protection from Big Jean-Claude, who'll be along to break your kneecaps later.
Does David Campebell-Bannerman find time to post here under a number of identities?
“We got the Falklands task force going in two days,” David Campbell-Bannerman, a Tory MEP, said of a hard Brexit on Sky News on Friday. “We can do this by the 29th of March.”
As a Stayer I, rather regretfully, must take Rory Stewarts advice (or what I think is his advice!), which is May’s Deal, if only because it will give a flavour of what life really will be like Outside, and doing so will give passions a chance to cool. After all, whatever the faults of the leaders on both sides, the vast majority of those voting did so with the best of intentions.
The immediate options are WA Agreement as is, [edit] cancel A50, No Deal. Just those.
Realistic longer term outcomes are, I believe, EU membership or SM+CU, which won't be a palatable choice to many people.
A Canada style FTA is a theoretical possibility involving a long drawn out negotiation that may never conclude and which will definitely be low benefit. Too difficult basket, I think.
Which leaves being a voting member of the EU or a do as you're told participant in its system. It's regrettable that it will take years for people to work that out.
Given that the majority of our trade is not with the EU, that the proportion of our trade that is with the EU has been in long-term decline, that the majority of future global growth will be outside the EU, that global trade has been (albeit slowly, erratically and with reverses) tending towards greater liberalisation, and that the proportion of our trade that is currently with the EU is to some extent artificially propped up by our EU membership imposing restrictions on non-EU trade, I remain unconvinced that the only viable position for the UK is, at a bare minimum, within the SM+CU. I can see the advantages thereof, including the extra heft with trade deals further afield, but I can't see that it would be a necessity for Britain to remain a reasonably prosperous nation.
(And if the only criterion were to be GDP per head, then as was proposed downthread we'd almost certainly be substantially better off as State 51 than in the EU. Though I think US of E vs US of A has always been a false dichotomy.)
The assumption here is that by trading less with the EU we trade more with the rest of the world. There's no logical reason for that to be so. In fact will trade less because a lot of trade is system dependent. We sell stuff to third countries because we're part of the EU system
As a Stayer I, rather regretfully, must take Rory Stewarts advice (or what I think is his advice!), which is May’s Deal, if only because it will give a flavour of what life really will be like Outside, and doing so will give passions a chance to cool. After all, whatever the faults of the leaders on both sides, the vast majority of those voting did so with the best of intentions.
The immediate options are WA Agreement as is, [edit] cancel A50, No Deal. Just those.
Realistic longer term outcomes are, I believe, EU membership or SM+CU, which won't be a palatable choice to many people.
A Canada style FTA is a theoretical possibility involving a long drawn out negotiation that may never conclude and which will definitely be low benefit. Too difficult basket, I think.
Which leaves being a voting member of the EU or a do as you're told participant in its system. It's regrettable that it will take years for people to work that out.
Given that the majority of our trade is not with the EU, that the proportion of our trade that is with the EU has been in long-term decline, that the majority of future global growth will be outside the EU, that global trade has been (albeit slowly, erratically and with reverses) tending towards greater liberalisation, and that the proportion of our trade that is currently with the EU is to some extent artificially propped up by our EU membership imposing restrictions on non-EU trade, I remain unconvinced that the only viable position for the UK is, at a bare minimum, within the SM+CU. I can see the advantages thereof, including the extra heft with trade deals further afield, but I can't see that it would be a necessity for Britain to remain a reasonably prosperous nation.
(And if the only criterion were to be GDP per head, then as was proposed downthread we'd almost certainly be substantially better off as State 51 than in the EU. Though I think US of E vs US of A has always been a false dichotomy.)
The assumption here is that by trading less with the EU we trade more with the rest of the world. There's no logical reason for that to be so. In fact will trade less because a lot of trade is system dependent. We sell stuff to third countries because we're part of the EU system
There could be significant import substitution eg car components.
If it’s May’s Deal or Remain, will Farage still "don khaki and pick up a rifle!’
Semi-serious question; if that’s all that’s on the ballot paper will people like him get really angry. Boycotts are one thing; street protests are another.
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
Could well be right. Personally, as a Remainer, I'd be ok to see No Deal on a 3-way ref. Appreciate there's a risk but tbh if the country chooses No Deal we will just have to live with it.
As a Leaver, I'd be incredibly unhappy if 'No Deal' was an option. We can (and, God knows, have) argue the niceties of separating ourselves from the Frankenstinian EUropean Project, but you don't exacerbate the situation by giving the electorate a chance to vote for the 'Don't press this button' option.
I like your description "the 'Don't press this button' option". Some would and we can't risk it.
No Deal is now the most likely outcome. Brace yourselves.
If the MV results in the deal being rejected, surely No Deal is the default option. I cannot see there is any other alternative, unless there is a VONC, the current government is defeated and replaced (with/without a GE) by an alternative government that would delay/revoke A50. May and the current government won't do this, and Parliament can't force the executive to do so, they can only try to depose the government via a VONC. The other option of an internal Tory coup to replace May failed a few days ago and can't be tried again for 1 year.
As a Stayer I, rather regretfully, must take Rory Stewarts advice (or what I think is his advice!), which is May’s Deal, if only because it will give a flavour of what life really will be like Outside, and doing so will give passions a chance to cool. After all, whatever the faults of the leaders on both sides, the vast majority of those voting did so with the best of intentions.
The immediate options are WA Agreement as is, [edit] cancel A50, No Deal. Just those.
Realistic longer term outcomes are, I believe, EU membership or SM+CU, which won't be a palatable choice to many people.
A Canada style FTA is a theoretical possibility involving a long drawn out negotiation that may never conclude and which will definitely be low benefit. Too difficult basket, I think.
Which leaves being a voting member of the EU or a do as you're told participant in its system. It's regrettable that it will take years for people to work that out.
Given that the majority of our trade is not with the EU, that the proportion of our trade that is with the EU has been in long-term decline, that the majority of future global growth will be outside the EU, that global trade has been (albeit slowly, erratically and with reverses) tending towards greater liberalisation, and that the proportion of our trade that is currently with the EU is to some extent artificially propped up by our EU membership imposing restrictions on non-EU trade, I remain unconvinced that the only viable position for the UK is, at a bare minimum, within the SM+CU. I can see the advantages thereof, including the extra heft with trade deals further afield, but I can't see that it would be a necessity for Britain to remain a reasonably prosperous nation.
(And if the only criterion were to be GDP per head, then as was proposed downthread we'd almost certainly be substantially better off as State 51 than in the EU. Though I think US of E vs US of A has always been a false dichotomy.)
The assumption here is that by trading less with the EU we trade more with the rest of the world. There's no logical reason for that to be so. In fact will trade less because a lot of trade is system dependent. We sell stuff to third countries because we're part of the EU system
I accept the NIESR forecasts; Leavers who don't are, in my view, on a sticky wicket. However, we'll have to see what happens in practice. My biggest worry at the moment is that Europe appears to be flirting with recession.
As a Stayer I, rather regretfully, must take Rory Stewarts advice (or what I think is his advice!), which is May’s Deal, if only because it will give a flavour of what life really will be like Outside, and doing so will give passions a chance to cool. After all, whatever the faults of the leaders on both sides, the vast majority of those voting did so with the best of intentions.
The immediate options are WA Agreement as is, [edit] cancel A50, No Deal. Just those.
Realistic longer term outcomes are, I believe, EU membership or SM+CU, which won't be a palatable choice to many people.
A Canada style FTA is a theoretical possibility involving a long drawn out negotiation that may never conclude and which will definitely be low benefit. Too difficult basket, I think.
Which leaves being a voting member of the EU or a do as you're told participant in its system. It's regrettable that it will take years for people to work that out.
Given that the majority of our trade is not with the EU, that the proportion of our trade that is with the EU has been in long-term decline, that the majority of future global growth will be outside the EU, that global trade has been (albeit slowly, erratically and with reverses) tending towards greater liberalisation, and that the proportion of our trade that is currently with the EU is to some extent artificially propped up by our EU membership imposing restrictions on non-EU trade, I remain unconvinced that the only viable position for the UK is, at a bare minimum, within the SM+CU. I can see the advantages thereof, including the extra heft with trade deals further afield, but I can't see that it would be a necessity for Britain to remain a reasonably prosperous nation.
(And if the only criterion were to be GDP per head, then as was proposed downthread we'd almost certainly be substantially better off as State 51 than in the EU. Though I think US of E vs US of A has always been a false dichotomy.)
The assumption here is that by trading less with the EU we trade more with the rest of the world. There's no logical reason for that to be so. In fact will trade less because a lot of trade is system dependent. We sell stuff to third countries because we're part of the EU system
There could be significant import substitution eg car components.
In the medium term, depending on what deal we get, it's simply easier to relocate some, if not all, car production to EU countries, per JLR's Slovakian investments. That's not a reason to stop Brexit, but I think we're kidding ourselves if the UK economy in 2030 is the same shape as 2018 but 20% bigger.
As a Stayer I, rather regretfully, must take Rory Stewarts advice (or what I think is his advice!), which is May’s Deal, if only because it will give a flavour of what life really will be like Outside, and doing so will give passions a chance to cool. After all, whatever the faults of the leaders on both sides, the vast majority of those voting did so with the best of intentions.
The immediate options are WA Agreement as is, [edit] cancel A50, No Deal. Just those.
Realistic longer term outcomes are, I believe, EU membership or SM+CU, which won't be a palatable choice to many people.
A Canada style FTA is a theoretical possibility involving a long drawn out negotiation that may never conclude and which will definitely be low benefit. Too difficult basket, I think.
Which leaves being a voting member of the EU or a do as you're told participant in its system. It's regrettable that it will take years for people to work that out.
Given that the majority of our trade is not with the EU, that the proportion of our trade that is with the EU has been in long-term decline, that the majority of future global growth will be outside the EU, that global trade has been (albeit slowly, erratically and with reverses) tending towards greater liberalisation, and that the proportion of our trade that is currently with the EU is to some extent artificially propped up by our EU membership imposing restrictions on non-EU trade, I remain unconvinced that the only viable position for the UK is, at a bare minimum, within the SM+CU. I can see the advantages thereof, including the extra heft with trade deals further afield, but I can't see that it would be a necessity for Britain to remain a reasonably prosperous nation.
(And if the only criterion were to be GDP per head, then as was proposed downthread we'd almost certainly be substantially better off as State 51 than in the EU. Though I think US of E vs US of A has always been a false dichotomy.)
The assumption here is that by trading less with the EU we trade more with the rest of the world. There's no logical reason for that to be so. In fact will trade less because a lot of trade is system dependent. We sell stuff to third countries because we're part of the EU system
I accept the NIESR forecasts; Leavers who don't are, in my view, on a sticky wicket. However, we'll have to see what happens in practice. My biggest worry at the moment is that Europe appears to be flirting with recession.
That's true, and we're probably due one. Brexit could well cop the blame for that even if innocent (which I don't thin kit will be). Timing is bad for the Brexiteers.
Thanks as always to David H for an interesting piece.
The quintessential question is whether there is an absolute in democracy - that the opinion of the people, as voiced through the ballot box , whether in an election or referendum, is always to be respected and enacted whatever the consequences.
If you believe that, there is no option but to follow the wishes of 23/6/16 and for us to leave the EU on 29/3/19 on whatever terms we can obtain (or none).
The contrary view is notwithstanding the 23/6/16 referendum, the effect of leaving the EU will be deleterious to the country. Since it is the Government's prime duty to protect the citizens of the country, that must by definition include not only external and internal threats but harm to the country coming from the people themselves.
Since the decision to leave the EU will have an negative impact and since that negative impact can be mitigated by not leaving, it is the Government's duty and responsibility to take the lead and not allow harm to come to the country's economy and overrule the referendum.
That's an argument but the extent to which it challenges the basic relationship between Government and the governed as well as most people's basic understanding and acceptance of the democratic process is going to be the key factor into 2019 and especially if leaving the EU is stopped either via unilateral revocation of A50 or by a second vote.
I've often opined frightened people will sell their souls to not be frightened any more - this may well be proved or disproved in the weeks ahead.
...If we can't reach a deal, a basic WTO arrangement allowing the flow of trade (with tariffs), aircraft flying etc., will be reached while we ponder what to do...
For the record, I don't think flights will fail: I was the one who pointed out that the British and Ireland airspaces are adminstered from the UK mainland, we have the RAF air capacity to fly medicines in, and others have pointed out that some deals are in place. I similarly don't think there will be Big Apocalypses: things don't work like that. So the BIG CRISIS model doesn't work for me.
But I do think that there will be a lot of small problems all at once and cumulatively there will be some effect: adjustments do work lie that. So I deprecate your assumption that we have time to ponder which chocolate to pick.
As a Stayer I, rather regretfully, must take Rory Stewarts advice (or what I think is his advice!), which is May’s Deal, if only because it will give a flavour of what life really will be like Outside, and doing so will give passions a chance to cool. After all, whatever the faults of the leaders on both sides, the vast majority of those voting did so with the best of intentions.
The immediate options are WA Agreement as is, [edit] cancel A50, No Deal. Just those.
Realistic longer term outcomes are, I believe, EU membership or SM+CU, which won't be a palatable choice to many people.
A Canada style FTA is a theoretical possibility involving a long drawn out negotiation that may never conclude and which will definitely be low benefit. Too difficult basket, I think.
Which leaves being a voting member of the EU or a do as you're told participant in its system. It's regrettable that it will take years for people to work that out.
Given that the majority of our trade is not with the EU, that the proportion of our trade that is with the EU has been in long-term decline, that the majority of future global growth will be outside the EU, that global trade has been (albeit slowly, erratically and with reverses) tending towards greater liberalisation, and that the proportion of our trade that is currently with the EU is to some extent artificially propped up by our EU membership imposing restrictions on non-EU trade, I remain unconvinced that the only viable position for the UK is, at a bare minimum, within the SM+CU. I can see the advantages thereof, including the extra heft with trade deals further afield, but I can't see that it would be a necessity for Britain to remain a reasonably prosperous nation.
(And if the only criterion were to be GDP per head, then as was proposed downthread we'd almost certainly be substantially better off as State 51 than in the EU. Though I think US of E vs US of A has always been a false dichotomy.)
The assumption here is that by trading less with the EU we trade more with the rest of the world. There's no logical reason for that to be so. In fact will trade less because a lot of trade is system dependent. We sell stuff to third countries because we're part of the EU system
There could be significant import substitution eg car components.
I do wonder if this weeks further show of disrespect by the EU will have hardened opinion against them. As much as I dislike Farage he was impressive in his attack on the EU at last nights leave gathering
I am more convinced than ever a referendum is needed but how we arrive at it is a mystery, unless a cross party amendment to the meaningful vote is attached to the deal and it passes
That then gives TM the cover to start the process
Interesting that Farage is expecting another referendum
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
That sounds most promising.
Your railing against Ireland yesterday was a classic illustration of how our power and influence is diminished by Brexit. Ireland has 26 other countries standing behind its defence of its interests; we stand alone. For the first time in dealing with the ROI they are in the more influential position - you don't like this, but it's the logical consequence of what you voted for.
The quicker we escape from this national suicide mission, the better.
I wasn't "railing against Ireland". I love the country and its people, I was saying Brexit had revealed a latent Anglophobia in SOME Irish people, I caveatted this by saying it was historically understandable. Which it is.
My only real target was Dara O'Briain the comedian who writes mawkish tweets about how fond he is of Britain and the British, but when talking to an Irish audience, he mocks Brexit and Brexit voters, and is, moreover, a supporter of Scottish independence which would have broken up Britain and, inter alia, bankrupted Scotland and sent Scotland hurtling out of the EU.
And all this while he makes squillions on British TV from British licence-fee payers. Wanker.
The Irish already have their equivalent of Brexit voters - the people of Kerry who are the butt of Irish jokes (particularly from sneering establishment types in the capital city of Dublin!):
'How do keep a Kerryman happy for the afternoon - hand him a piece of paper with PTO on both sides.'
'How would you get a Kerryman to climb on the roof of a pub? Tell him the drinks are on the house!'
As someone whose grandparents were born in Kerry and who voted leave I just laugh alone with it cos we are the ones who know how to enjoy a joke!
Of course the people of Kerry get their revenge on the rest of the country by electing the marvellous Healy Rae brothers to the Dail. We think parliament has been crazy recently but its nothing to the Dail when those two Kerry men are around.
Realistic longer term outcomes are, I believe, EU membership or SM+CU, which won't be a palatable choice to many people.
Given that the majority of our trade is not with the EU, that the proportion of our trade that is with the EU has been in long-term decline, that the majority of future global growth will be outside the EU, that global trade has been (albeit slowly, erratically and with reverses) tending towards greater liberalisation, and that the proportion of our trade that is currently with the EU is to some extent artificially propped up by our EU membership imposing restrictions on non-EU trade, I remain unconvinced that the only viable position for the UK is, at a bare minimum, within the SM+CU. I can see the advantages thereof, including the extra heft with trade deals further afield, but I can't see that it would be a necessity for Britain to remain a reasonably prosperous nation.
(And if the only criterion were to be GDP per head, then as was proposed downthread we'd almost certainly be substantially better off as State 51 than in the EU. Though I think US of E vs US of A has always been a false dichotomy.)
The assumption here is that by trading less with the EU we trade more with the rest of the world. There's no logical reason for that to be so. In fact will trade less because a lot of trade is system dependent. We sell stuff to third countries because we're part of the EU system
I acknowledge the systems issue in terms of EU heft with trade deals further afield, so I'm not actually claiming that we would simply switch from EU trade to non-EU trade (or that in the Brexit scenario we would have, overall, more trade either in total or with non-EU countries specifically versus the Remain counterfactual). I imagine that the proportion of UK trade that is with non-EU states would rise as a result of Brexit, but that's not the same as me claiming it would necessarily mean more trade.
I still don't see what necessitates British membership of the SM+CU in the long run post-Brexit. Particularly if the economy restructures in favour of those firms/sectors which would benefit less from membership, and to the detriment of those that don't. To reiterate, I can see advantages of membership, but you seemed to suggest that those advantages were so large and compelling that British politicians would have no option but to rejoin if we ever left. I'm really not convinced that is true - I think that underestimates the capacity of people to just bodge along with what they've got rather than pursue every possible economically advantageous (but potentially politically dangerous) action.
The Rory Stewart / LBC interview linked to earlier in some ways makes me despair. Why isn’t he Brexit Secretary? Does May not want to win? Is it because so quickly people might start to think that this man would do a much better job as PM?
He was described as the Geoff Boycott of those arguing for May’s deal, the man who has spent longer at the crease defending the deal than anyone else. And yet, despite May having 2 vacancies for the post and a currently invisible occupant he is the Prisons Minister.
...If we can't reach a deal, a basic WTO arrangement allowing the flow of trade (with tariffs), aircraft flying etc., will be reached while we ponder what to do...
For the record, I don't think flights will fail: I was the one who pointed out that the British and Ireland airspaces are adminstered from the UK mainland, we have the RAF air capacity to fly medicines in, and others have pointed out that some deals are in place. I similarly don't think there will be Big Apocalypses: things don't work like that. So the BIG CRISIS model doesn't work for me.
But I do think that there will be a lot of small problems all at once and cumulatively there will be some effect: adjustments do work lie that. So I deprecate your assumption that we have time to ponder which chocolate to pick.
Much North Atlantic airspace is controlled from the UK. A proper falling out would mean no ATC over the Atlantic. From a Trump behavioural perspective (regardless of the effect on European airlines) that would be an unwise EU move. However the loss of rationality and proportionality which seems to have infected politics globally.....
Just can't see how "No Deal" will not be the final outcome (and in my opinion this has been the case for months). Parliament is deadlocked - they can't agree on anything viz. Brexit. Meanwhile the clock ticks.
Does David Campebell-Bannerman find time to post here under a number of identities?
“We got the Falklands task force going in two days,” David Campbell-Bannerman, a Tory MEP, said of a hard Brexit on Sky News on Friday. “We can do this by the 29th of March.”
Go on then, David. Invade Europe, force their surrender, make them give us a better treaty. In 104 days. Operation Certain Death, here we come...
The Rory Stewart / LBC interview linked to earlier in some ways makes me despair. Why isn’t he Brexit Secretary? Does May not want to win? Is it because so quickly people might start to think that this man would do a much better job as PM?
I only skipped through the interview, but didn't his argument fall apart at the end when his desire to end free movement while not doing damage to the economy was exposed as impossible?
I do wonder if this weeks further show of disrespect by the EU will have hardened opinion against them. As much as I dislike Farage he was impressive in his attack on the EU at last nights leave gathering
I am more convinced than ever a referendum is needed but how we arrive at it is a mystery, unless a cross party amendment to the meaningful vote is attached to the deal and it passes
That then gives TM the cover to start the process
Interesting that Farage is expecting another referendum
The Deal is dead - best to let it rot quietly in a corner and move on.
Once again, when all else fails, instead of blaming our useless Prime Minister for charging off on a fool's errand begging for help from the EU, we fall back on the old tactic of blaming "the nasty Europeans" for being disrespectful to our lovely Prime Minister.
No.
The EU made it abundantly clear the WA was done, no further negotiation was going to happen yet May scuttles off to Brussels pleading for help trying to save her political skin. It was humiliating. She will "see Brexit through" but to a second divisive vote or to leaving without any Deal at all remains to be seen.
We don't need a second vote, not if the first vote had been enacted properly and seriously. That has been her failure.
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
Could well be right. Personally, as a Remainer, I'd be ok to see No Deal on a 3-way ref. Appreciate there's a risk but tbh if the country chooses No Deal we will just have to live with it.
As a Leaver, I'd be incredibly unhappy if 'No Deal' was an option. We can (and, God knows, have) argue the niceties of separating ourselves from the Frankenstinian EUropean Project, but you don't exacerbate the situation by giving the electorate a chance to vote for the 'Don't press this button' option.
I like your description "the 'Don't press this button' option". Some would and we can't risk it.
No Deal is now the most likely outcome. Brace yourselves.
We none of us know. Deal, No Deal, Remain - any of those three is possible.
They are all possible but No Deal is (increasingly) the favourite, because it is the default option, and parliament has no ability to stop it per se. The Commons can vote all it likes against No Deal but unless it votes FOR an alternative, then we exit with No Deal.
Right now I'd put the odds at
50% No Deal 30% New vote 10% GE and Corbyn deal - Norway? 5% TMays WA 2% Revoke 2% A significantly better deal from the EU 1% Something completely mad, maybe a war after Juncker drunkenly assaults the Queen
Brexit to be settled by a duel.
The backstop at stake.
Boris and Juncker, pistols at dawn, on the Waterloo battlefield.
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
That’s exactly what I was saying last week when the ERG triggered the VonC in May. I am not so sure that the next referendum will be deemed to have legitimacy though. The price our democracy will pay will be heavy indeed. I also agree with the points Rory the Tory was making about both the very limited enthusiasm that such a step might be greeted in the EU and the consequences of this process to our standing in the EU going forward.
Realistic longer term outcomes are, I believe, EU membership or SM+CU, which won't be a palatable choice to many people.
(And if the only criterion were to be GDP per head, then as was proposed downthread we'd almost certainly be substantially better off as State 51 than in the EU. Though I think US of E vs US of A has always been a false dichotomy.)
The assumption here is that by trading less with the EU we trade more with the rest of the world. There's no logical reason for that to be so. In fact will trade less because a lot of trade is system dependent. We sell stuff to third countries because we're part of the EU system
I still don't see what necessitates British membership of the SM+CU in the long run post-Brexit. Particularly if the economy restructures in favour of those firms/sectors which would benefit less from membership, and to the detriment of those that don't. To reiterate, I can see advantages of membership, but you seemed to suggest that those advantages were so large and compelling that British politicians would have no option but to rejoin if we ever left. I'm really not convinced that is true - I think that underestimates the capacity of people to just bodge along with what they've got rather than pursue every possible economically advantageous (but potentially politically dangerous) action.
My reasoning is thusly. Everyone (?) agrees that the SM+CU is a thing of beauty and a joy forever, and our Remainer friends are very fond of claiming ownership of it (a bit like Labour and the NHS). However, if we were to become a third country with an FTA NIESR estimate that the 2030 UK economy would be 3.9% smaller than 2030 UK/EU28 economy.
That places a rough value on SM/CU membership of around a third of a percent a year. Now, that's not nothing; in 2016 prices it's around £70bn p.a. and on historical taxation rates it's around £30bn p.a. tax revenue forgone. However, I'm not mopping my brow in horror at the prospect of leaving it.
...If we can't reach a deal, a basic WTO arrangement allowing the flow of trade (with tariffs), aircraft flying etc., will be reached while we ponder what to do...
For the record, I don't think flights will fail: I was the one who pointed out that the British and Ireland airspaces are adminstered from the UK mainland, we have the RAF air capacity to fly medicines in, and others have pointed out that some deals are in place. I similarly don't think there will be Big Apocalypses: things don't work like that. So the BIG CRISIS model doesn't work for me.
But I do think that there will be a lot of small problems all at once and cumulatively there will be some effect: adjustments do work lie that. So I deprecate your assumption that we have time to ponder which chocolate to pick.
Much North Atlantic airspace is controlled from the UK. A proper falling out would mean no ATC over the Atlantic. From a Trump behavioural perspective (regardless of the effect on European airlines) that would be an unwise EU move. However the loss of rationality and proportionality which seems to have infected politics globally.....
The Spanish flights would be unaffected, the French flights could go by a great circle route via Norway-Iceland-Greenland-Canada. The UK is quite far north in comparison to the US/Canada: one of the closest ports to New York and the St Lawrence seaway is Southampton.
The Rory Stewart / LBC interview linked to earlier in some ways makes me despair. Why isn’t he Brexit Secretary? Does May not want to win? Is it because so quickly people might start to think that this man would do a much better job as PM?
I only skipped through the interview, but didn't his argument fall apart at the end when his desire to end free movement while not doing damage to the economy was exposed as impossible?
No but he did recognise that there will be difficult trade offs to be assimilated when we negotiate our trade agreement with the EU and that we cannot expect to have our cake and eat it as per Boris. It was like hearing from a grown up for a change.
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
Could well be right. Personally, as a Remainer, I'd be ok to see No Deal on a 3-way ref. Appreciate there's a risk but tbh if the country chooses No Deal we will just have to live with it.
As a Leaver, I'd be incredibly unhappy if 'No Deal' was an option. We can (and, God knows, have) argue the niceties of separating ourselves from the Frankenstinian EUropean Project, but you don't exacerbate the situation by giving the electorate a chance to vote for the 'Don't press this button' option.
I like your description "the 'Don't press this button' option". Some would and we can't risk it.
No Deal is now the most likely outcome. Brace yourselves.
We none of us know. Deal, No Deal, Remain - any of those three is possible.
They are all possible but No Deal is (increasingly) the favourite, because it is the default option, and parliament has no ability to stop it per se. The Commons can vote all it likes against No Deal but unless it votes FOR an alternative, then we exit with No Deal.
Right now I'd put the odds at
50% No Deal 30% New vote 10% GE and Corbyn deal - Norway? 5% TMays WA 2% Revoke 2% A significantly better deal from the EU 1% Something completely mad, maybe a war after Juncker drunkenly assaults the Queen
Simply isn't the case that no deal is default if Parliament doesn't agree.
Section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act is not in force, and requires secondary legislation.
And Article 50 notice can be withdrawn or extended without reference to Parliament. The Miller case doesn't apply to withdrawal or extension of notice, as rationale was you can't use prerogative to repeal legislation, not that prerogative power no longer exists to conduct international relations.
So, if Parliament doesn't agree a deal, Government has a decision to make... but it is Government's decision, not Parliament's.
Realistic longer term outcomes are, I believe, EU membership or SM+CU, which won't be a palatable choice to many people.
Given.)
The assumption here is that by trading less with the EU we trade more with the rest of the world. There's no logical reason for that to be so. In fact will trade less because a lot of trade is system dependent. We sell stuff to third countries because we're part of the EU system
I acknowledge the systems issue in terms of EU heft with trade deals further afield, so I'm not actually claiming that we would simply switch from EU trade to non-EU trade (or that in the Brexit scenario we would have, overall, more trade either in total or with non-EU countries specifically versus the Remain counterfactual). I imagine that the proportion of UK trade that is with non-EU states would rise as a result of Brexit, but that's not the same as me claiming it would necessarily mean more trade.
I still don't see what necessitates British membership of the SM+CU in the long run post-Brexit. Particularly if the economy restructures in favour of those firms/sectors which would benefit less from membership, and to the detriment of those that don't. To reiterate, I can see advantages of membership, but you seemed to suggest that those advantages were so large and compelling that British politicians would have no option but to rejoin if we ever left. I'm really not convinced that is true - I think that underestimates the capacity of people to just bodge along with what they've got rather than pursue every possible economically advantageous (but potentially politically dangerous) action.
Actually I don't think membership is the most likely option. I suspect Vassal State will be where we end up precisely because of the capacity of people to bodge along. It won't be particularly comfortable however. I think Canada, while theoretically possible, is too long drawn out, too uncertain and ultimately too unrewarding to actually happen. We might waste a lot of time in the attempt though. No Deal is Crisis State. It's unsustainable. And that covers the options, I believe.
I still don't see what necessitates British membership of the SM+CU in the long run post-Brexit. Particularly if the economy restructures in favour of those firms/sectors which would benefit less from membership, and to the detriment of those that don't. To reiterate, I can see advantages of membership, but you seemed to suggest that those advantages were so large and compelling that British politicians would have no option but to rejoin if we ever left. I'm really not convinced that is true - I think that underestimates the capacity of people to just bodge along with what they've got rather than pursue every possible economically advantageous (but potentially politically dangerous) action.
Actually I don't think membership is the most likely option. I suspect Vassal State will be where we end up precisely because of the capacity of people to bodge along. It won't be particularly comfortable however. I think Canada, while theoretically possible, is too long drawn out, too uncertain and ultimately too unrewarding to actually happen. We might waste a lot of time in the attempt though. No Deal is Crisis State. It's unsustainable. And that covers the options, I believe.
For you does "vassal state" mean being effectively a rule-taker but outside SM+CU membership?
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
Could well be right. Personally, as a Remainer, I'd be ok to see No Deal on a 3-way ref. Appreciate there's a risk but tbh if the country chooses No Deal we will just have to live with it.
As a Leaver, I'd be incredibly unhappy if 'No Deal' was an option. We can (and, God knows, have) argue the niceties of separating ourselves from the Frankenstinian EUropean Project, but you don't exacerbate the situation by giving the electorate a chance to vote for the 'Don't press this button' option.
I like your description "the 'Don't press this button' option". Some would and we can't risk it.
No Deal is now the most likely outcome. Brace yourselves.
We none of us know. Deal, No Deal, Remain - any of those three is possible.
They are all possible but No Deal is (increasingly) the favourite, because it is the default option, and parliament has no ability to stop it per se. The Commons can vote all it likes against No Deal but unless it votes FOR an alternative, then we exit with No Deal.
Right now I'd put the odds at
50% No Deal 30% New vote 10% GE and Corbyn deal - Norway? 5% TMays WA 2% Revoke 2% A significantly better deal from the EU 1% Something completely mad, maybe a war after Juncker drunkenly assaults the Queen
Simply isn't the case that no deal is default if Parliament doesn't agree.
Section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act is not in force, and requires secondary legislation.
And Article 50 notice can be withdrawn or extended without reference to Parliament. The Miller case doesn't apply to withdrawal or extension of notice, as rationale was you can't use prerogative to repeal legislation, not that prerogative power no longer exists to conduct international relations.
So, if Parliament doesn't agree a deal, Government has a decision to make... but it is Government's decision, not Parliament's.
I do wonder if this weeks further show of disrespect by the EU will have hardened opinion against them. As much as I dislike Farage he was impressive in his attack on the EU at last nights leave gathering
I am more convinced than ever a referendum is needed but how we arrive at it is a mystery, unless a cross party amendment to the meaningful vote is attached to the deal and it passes
That then gives TM the cover to start the process
Interesting that Farage is expecting another referendum
We might all assume how a second referendum might pan out. But who in late April 2017 when the Tories were ahead by 25 points in some polls - might have imagined 6 weeks later that May would lose her majority and only win by less than 3 per cent in the popular vote.
Who knows what the outcome will be - assuming of course there is a full Brexit option (not a BRINO May deal one) on the ballot paper!
If no deal isn't on the ballot paper of course that creates a whole different problem for the Tory party. It will do wonders for the Corbyn and the extremes of left and right.
Could well be right. Personally, as a Remainer, I'd be ok to see No Deal on a 3-way ref. Appreciate there's a risk but tbh if the country chooses No Deal we will just have to live with it.
Why would Parliament honour such a result when they won't even honour May's softish Brexit? This whole "they'll honour the 2nd referendum" line makes little sense when Parliament is busy trying to avoid honouring the 1st referendum.
It is clear now that the only outcomes Parliament will support are Remian or BINO, nothing else can get through.
Realistic longer term outcomes are, I believe, EU membership or SM+CU, which won't be a palatable choice to many people.
(And if the only criterion were to be GDP per head, then as was proposed downthread we'd almost certainly be substantially better off as State 51 than in the EU. Though I think US of E vs US of A has always been a false dichotomy.)
The assumption here is that by trading less with the EU we trade more with the rest of the world. There's no logical reason for that to be so. In fact will trade less because a lot of trade is system dependent. We sell stuff to third countries because we're part of the EU system
I still don't see what necessitates British membership of the SM+CU in the long run post-Brexit. Particularly if the economy restructures in favour of those firms/sectors which would benefit less from membership, and to the detriment of those that don't. To reiterate, I can see advantages of membership, but you seemed to suggest that those advantages were so large and compelling that British politicians would have no option but to rejoin if we ever left. I'm really not convinced that is true - I think that underestimates the capacity of people to just bodge along with what they've got rather than pursue every possible economically advantageous (but potentially politically dangerous) action.
My reasoning is thusly. Everyone (?) agrees that the SM+CU is a thing of beauty and a joy forever, and our Remainer friends are very fond of claiming ownership of it (a bit like Labour and the NHS). However, if we were to become a third country with an FTA NIESR estimate that the 2030 UK economy would be 3.9% smaller than 2030 UK/EU28 economy.
That places a rough value on SM/CU membership of around a third of a percent a year. Now, that's not nothing; in 2016 prices it's around £70bn p.a. and on historical taxation rates it's around £30bn p.a. tax revenue forgone. However, I'm not mopping my brow in horror at the prospect of leaving it.
But it does mean we'll be performing less well than our European neighbours. I remember that being a big deal in the seventies. Do you really want to feel like a poor relation when you are in Paris or Berlin? And remember that comes on top of the big chunk of wealth anyone with a positive bank balance lost when the pound fell. It still sounds like a pretty terrible bargain to me.
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
Could well be right. Personally, as a Remainer, I'd be ok to see No Deal on a 3-way ref. Appreciate there's a risk but tbh if the country chooses No Deal we will just have to live with it.
As a Leaver, I'd be incredibly unhappy if 'No Deal' was an option. We can (and, God knows, have) argue the niceties of separating ourselves from the Frankenstinian EUropean Project, but you don't exacerbate the situation by giving the electorate a chance to vote for the 'Don't press this button' option.
I like your description "the 'Don't press this button' option". Some would and we can't risk it.
No Deal is now the most likely outcome. Brace yourselves.
We none of us know. Deal, No Deal, Remain - any of those three is possible.
They are all possible but No Deal is (increasingly) the favourite, because it is the default option, and parliament has no ability to stop it per se. The Commons can vote all it likes against No Deal but unless it votes FOR an alternative, then we exit with No Deal.
Right now I'd put the odds at
50% No Deal 30% New vote 10% GE and Corbyn deal - Norway? 5% TMays WA 2% Revoke 2% A significantly better deal from the EU 1% Something completely mad, maybe a war after Juncker drunkenly assaults the Queen
Simply isn't the case that no deal is default if Parliament doesn't agree.
Section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act is not in force, and requires secondary legislation.
And Article 50 notice can be withdrawn or extended without reference to Parliament. The Miller case doesn't apply to withdrawal or extension of notice, as rationale was you can't use prerogative to repeal legislation, not that prerogative power no longer exists to conduct international relations.
So, if Parliament doesn't agree a deal, Government has a decision to make... but it is Government's decision, not Parliament's.
At the moment, that means May's decision.
A decision she shows no sign of making.
She's trying to ride two horses... telling Labour moderates that they risk no deal, and Tory headbangers they risk no Brexit. Ultimately, though, she'll need to jump one way or the other.
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
Could well be right. Personally, as a Remainer, I'd be ok to see No Deal on a 3-way ref. Appreciate there's a risk but tbh if the country chooses No Deal we will just have to live with it.
As a Leaver, I'ion.
I like your description "the 'Don't press this button' option". Some would and we can't risk it.
No Deal is now the most likely outcome. Brace yourselves.
We none of us know. Deal, No Deal, Remain - any of those three is possible.
They are 2% A significantly better deal from the EU 1% Something completely mad, maybe a war after Juncker drunkenly assaults the Queen
Simply isn't the case that no deal is default if Parliament doesn't agree.
Section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act is not in force, and requires secondary legislation.
And Article 50 notice can be withdrawn or extended without reference to Parliament. The Miller case doesn't apply to withdrawal or extension of notice, as rationale was you can't use prerogative to repeal legislation, not that prerogative power no longer exists to conduct international relations.
So, if Parliament doesn't agree a deal, Government has a decision to make... but it is Government's decision, not Parliament's.
OK, I am happy to be schooled, I am not an expert on parliamentary procedure, this is just how I saw it.
So what you are claiming is: if parliament cannot agree on the way ahead, then the decision reverts back to the government, and the government HAS to make a decision, presumably choose from TMay's deal or No Deal, Revoke or new referendum.? Or are you saying the government can in the end choose, but only between No Deal or Extension of A50? Or what?
And the government can simply enforce this, without parliament having a vote?
I don't understand. But I am a bear of little brain.
My parliamentary friend was emphatic a few weeks ago that in the absence of anything we leave with no deal in March. Has this changed or been amended?
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
Could well be right. Personally, as a Remainer, I'd be ok to see No Deal on a 3-way ref. Appreciate there's a risk but tbh if the country chooses No Deal we will just have to live with it.
As a Leaver, I'ion.
I like your description "the 'Don't press this button' option". Some would and we can't risk it.
No Deal is now the most likely outcome. Brace yourselves.
We none of us know. Deal, No Deal, Remain - any of those three is possible.
They are 2% A significantly better deal from the EU 1% Something completely mad, maybe a war after Juncker drunkenly assaults the Queen
Simply isn't the case that no deal is default if Parliament doesn't agree.
Section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act is not in force, and requires secondary legislation.
And Article 50 notice can be withdrawn or extended without reference to Parliament. The Miller case doesn't apply to withdrawal or extension of notice, as rationale was you can't use prerogative to repeal legislation, not that prerogative power no longer exists to conduct international relations.
So, if Parliament doesn't agree a deal, Government has a decision to make... but it is Government's decision, not Parliament's.
OK, I am happy to be schooled, I am not an expert on parliamentary procedure, this is just how I saw it.
So what you are claiming is: if parliament cannot agree on the way ahead, then the decision reverts back to the government, and the government HAS to make a decision, presumably choose from TMay's deal or No Deal, Revoke or new referendum.? Or are you saying the government can in the end choose, but only between No Deal or Extension of A50? Or what?
And the government can simply enforce this, without parliament having a vote?
I don't understand. But I am a bear of little brain.
She can't force through her deal without Parliament. She can leave on no deal, withdraw Article 50, or extend (with agreement of other EU member states).
As a Stayer I, rather regretfully, must take Rory Stewarts advice (or what I think is his advice!), which is May’s Deal, if only because it will give a flavour of what life really will be like Outside, and doing so will give passions a chance to cool. After all, whatever the faults of the leaders on both sides, the vast majority of those voting did so with the best of intentions.
The immediate options are WA Agreement as is, [edit] cancel A50, No Deal. Just those.
Realistic longer term outcomes are, I believe, EU membership or SM+CU, which won't be a palatable choice to many people.
A Canada style FTA is a theoretical possibility involving a long drawn out negotiation that may never conclude and which will definitely be low benefit. Too difficult basket, I think.
Which leaves being a voting member of the EU or a do as you're told participant in its system. It's regrettable that it will take years for people to work that out.
(And if the only criterion were to be GDP per head, then as was proposed downthread we'd almost certainly be substantially better off as State 51 than in the EU. Though I think US of E vs US of A has always been a false dichotomy.)
The assumption here is that by trading less with the EU we trade more with the rest of the world. There's no logical reason for that to be so. In fact will trade less because a lot of trade is system dependent. We sell stuff to third countries because we're part of the EU system
There could be significant import substitution eg car components.
Nissan VP of Manufacturing turned up to the select committee and said Nissan would like 100mill to move more third party component manufacturing to the UK.
Low and behold despite much speculation about the letter. 41million of Govt and EU money was quickly allocated to this.
Thanks as always to David H for an interesting piece.
The quintessential question is whether there is an absolute in democracy - that the opinion of the people, as voiced through the ballot box , whether in an election or referendum, is always to be respected and enacted whatever the consequences.
If, say, a majority of the people voted to kill every child under the age of 10 with an "E" in their name or, to be a touch less controversial, in favour of capital punishment, would such a vote be respected and enacted?
No.
So the answer to your question is that we don't, even now, have an absolute in our democracy. The question is where the boundary is. Those who think that continuing with a course which is harmful and therefore should not be continued think the boundary should be in a different place to those who think that a vote in a referendum should be enacted, regardless of the consequences and regardless of how harmful those consequences might be.
Does David Campebell-Bannerman find time to post here under a number of identities?
“We got the Falklands task force going in two days,” David Campbell-Bannerman, a Tory MEP, said of a hard Brexit on Sky News on Friday. “We can do this by the 29th of March.”
Go on then, David. Invade Europe, force their surrender, make them give us a better treaty. In 104 days. Operation Certain Death, here we come...
In the realms of impossible hypotheticals, but what really would be the UKs chances in a military attack on continental Europe??
The Rory Stewart / LBC interview linked to earlier in some ways makes me despair. Why isn’t he Brexit Secretary? Does May not want to win? Is it because so quickly people might start to think that this man would do a much better job as PM?
He was described as the Geoff Boycott of those arguing for May’s deal, the man who has spent longer at the crease defending the deal than anyone else. And yet, despite May having 2 vacancies for the post and a currently invisible occupant he is the Prisons Minister.
I think May would feel threatened by someone more competent than her in her Cabinet. I mean, look at those she actually chose when she was in a position to do so. They made her - by comparison - look good.
It is another example of why she is such a poor leader. The Tories really have made their - and the country's - position worse by keeping her as their leader. She is, at best, a competent administrator. Not a leader.
The Rory Stewart / LBC interview linked to earlier in some ways makes me despair. Why isn’t he Brexit Secretary? Does May not want to win? Is it because so quickly people might start to think that this man would do a much better job as PM?
He was described as the Geoff Boycott of those arguing for May’s deal, the man who has spent longer at the crease defending the deal than anyone else. And yet, despite May having 2 vacancies for the post and a currently invisible occupant he is the Prisons Minister.
He was my MP for a number of years. Very personable. Always knows peoples names etc. He can just stand up and give a speech. I loved one he gave about how parliament likes to talk about things with great earnest that it has no power over, but not things it does.
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
Of all the dumb ideas the Brexiteers have come up with, and there have been many, the boycott is vying for the dumbest yet.
"You didn't win, we just couldn't be arsed voting..."
Given the EU has offered to extend article 50 in the case of a referendum it is hard for May to force it down to those 2 options. You can't really take it off the table.
Combine that with pissed off people and it is easier to imagine them pushing for the alternative than helping out.
Ok thanks. My reading is that the passage of time will force the WA vs Crash Out choice so long as May holds her nerve. To stop it parliament would have to remove her and install someone else. Might happen of course but for me that has to be a long shot.
Anyway, last question and I'll stop bugging you.
My latest 'most likely unlikely'. JC cuts a deal with May. Labour let the WA pass and in return they get a GE fairly soon after exit day.
What am I missing there? What's the fatal flaw?
Why would Labour trust May?
As David's thread header says, Labour doesn't even need to turn up to do this deal. Whip an abstention on the WA meaningful vote, it sails through, DUP turn puce, supply and confidence fails, Lab calls VONC. The only reasons they aren't doing so yet are one temporary one and one rather longer term one: (1) something else might turn up; (2) JCICWNBPM.
Does David Campebell-Bannerman find time to post here under a number of identities?
“We got the Falklands task force going in two days,” David Campbell-Bannerman, a Tory MEP, said of a hard Brexit on Sky News on Friday. “We can do this by the 29th of March.”
Go on then, David. Invade Europe, force their surrender, make them give us a better treaty. In 104 days. Operation Certain Death, here we come...
In the realms of impossible hypotheticals, but what really would be the UKs chances in a military attack on continental Europe??
We could nuke it. But I don't think we could invade and occupy. We don't have enough people, planes, tanks, shells, boats, anything and everything.
As of 2018, the British Army comprises just over 81,500 trained regular (full-time) personnel and just over 27,000 trained reserve (part-time) personnel.
On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy.
The Rory Stewart / LBC interview linked to earlier in some ways makes me despair. Why isn’t he Brexit Secretary? Does May not want to win? Is it because so quickly people might start to think that this man would do a much better job as PM?
He was described as the Geoff Boycott of those arguing for May’s deal, the man who has spent longer at the crease defending the deal than anyone else. And yet, despite May having 2 vacancies for the post and a currently invisible occupant he is the Prisons Minister.
He was my MP for a number of years. Very personable. Always knows peoples names etc. He can just stand up and give a speech. I loved one he gave about how parliament likes to talk about things with great earnest that it has no power over, but not things it does.
Realistic longer term outcomes are, I believe, EU membership or SM+CU, which won't be a palatable choice to many people.
(And if the only criterion were to be GDP per head, then as was proposed downthread we'd almost certainly be substantially better off as State 51 than in the EU. Though I think US of E vs US of A has always been a false dichotomy.)
The assumption here is that by trading less with the EU we trade more with the rest of the world. There's no logical reason for that to be so. In fact will trade less because a lot of trade is system dependent. We sell stuff to third countries because we're part of the EU system
My reasoning is thusly. Everyone (?) agrees that the SM+CU is a thing of beauty and a joy forever, and our Remainer friends are very fond of claiming ownership of it (a bit like Labour and the NHS). However, if we were to become a third country with an FTA NIESR estimate that the 2030 UK economy would be 3.9% smaller than 2030 UK/EU28 economy.
That places a rough value on SM/CU membership of around a third of a percent a year. Now, that's not nothing; in 2016 prices it's around £70bn p.a. and on historical taxation rates it's around £30bn p.a. tax revenue forgone. However, I'm not mopping my brow in horror at the prospect of leaving it.
But it does mean we'll be performing less well than our European neighbours. I remember that being a big deal in the seventies. Do you really want to feel like a poor relation when you are in Paris or Berlin? And remember that comes on top of the big chunk of wealth anyone with a positive bank balance lost when the pound fell. It still sounds like a pretty terrible bargain to me.
Holiday in Europe? How vulgar and so very 80s.
You've made an assertion about relative economic performance. Only time will tell, but I'd point at the performance of the various European economies within the SM and shrug. There's not much correlation is there? Do Italians feel ashamed when they visit London? Do Germans cringe when they visit Poland?
I'll link this '17 study. It highlights the SM increasing European GDP by around 1.9% since 1990. Nice, but not stellar. It's unsurprising on reflection; even so-called export powerhouses like Germany are service economies first and foremost.
Had an email exchange with a v senior Brexiteer last night. He reckoned there would now be a referendum, the choice being Remain or TMay's deal. He further reckoned there would be a boycott, the boycott would not be sufficient to stop the referendum appearing legitimate, and Remain would win. No Brexit.
FWIW.
No Brexit would probably mean a right-wing populist party on at least 20% in the polls.
Mr. T, if the choice is May's Deal or Remain, a lot of Leave voters will see a departure in name only versus no departure at all, and sit on their hands.
It's why I, contrary to Mr. HYUFD, think Remain stands a better chance versus May's Deal than against No Deal.
Thanks as always to David H for an interesting piece.
The quintessential question is whether there is an absolute in democracy - that the opinion of the people, as voiced through the ballot box , whether in an election or referendum, is always to be respected and enacted whatever the consequences.
If, say, a majority of the people voted to kill every child under the age of 10 with an "E" in their name or, to be a touch less controversial, in favour of capital punishment, would such a vote be respected and enacted?
No.
Such questions would never be put to the people.
The biggest lesson of the referendum should be that politicians shouldn't ask a question if they don't like at least one of the answers.
Comments
Are we expecting any polls out tonight btw?
That just buys a little time to make one of the other choices, which are "impossible"
So possibly their guess as well.... I'd assume some are thinking along these lines anyway.
A GE soon looks possible even without cutting a deal. Which is the main benefit of taking up such an offer. The negatives of doing so are probably members and MPs*. Actual enthusiastic supporters of May's deal among labour members must be a tiny minority, in fact in almost all groups related to Labour it is pretty small can't fully remember the polling but I think Labour voters supporting the deal was around 20% and my guess would be most of those aren't zealous about it.
He really wouldn't get thanked for it.
*The centrists in large numbers taking up the cause of second referendum badly limited the least Corbyn friendly MPs May could have reached out to. They have successfully pressured him into backing Trident previously. They aren't overwhelmingly powerful but they have push and that has been going against May's deal. Probably has influenced their other colleagues as well.
Edit: Always happy to discuss my opinion feel free to ask me questions. It is just my opinion based largely off observing TV, papers, podcasts and picking up other Labour viewpoints. No inside or especially connected information.
Plus there's no guarantee of the EU27 accepting it.
Similar possibilities apply to each of the others in your list.
"There was speculation that some MPs were looking for an excuse to drop their opposition to the proposed Withdrawal Agreement. But Mrs May cannot now offer them a fig-leaf, or even a pine needle. The EU isn’t bothering to pretend that it wants or expects the backstop to be temporary. Why should it? The backstop holds the British market captive for continental companies, who run a large surplus here, and removes any possibility that a more free-trading Britain might out-compete its neighbours. And that’s before we come to the legislative annexation of Northern Ireland, which would leave voters in the Province unable to influence the laws under which they live – other than by pleading with Dublin to represent them in Brussels....... the UK surrenders, signs up to all the obligations of EU membership including the customs union, payments and Euoprean Court of Justice jurisdiction and, in order to be able to claim that something technically called Brexit has passed, removes its representatives from EU institutions."
No Leaver should do anything other than oppose it. It is worse than the status quo in the terms it offers and, furthermore, we will have locked ourselves into it permanently. Johnson is right - it is the worst of all worlds.
That's my original point - that people are using the 'eliminate the impossible' argument against every point on that list.
Not sure how it would play out in the subsequent GE but at least he would get one. A real shot at power before everyone gets a bit tired of him.
Realistic longer term outcomes are, I believe, EU membership or SM+CU, which won't be a palatable choice to many people.
A Canada style FTA is a theoretical possibility involving a long drawn out negotiation that may never conclude and which will definitely be low benefit. Too difficult basket, I think.
Which leaves being a voting member of the EU or a do as you're told participant in its system. It's regrettable that it will take years for people to work that out.
Britain simply has no strategy. And no willingness to think about one in any sort of intelligent fashion. Rory Stewart cannot do it by himself. In the absence of this, to embark on Brexit, whether without a deal or with the WA, seems to me to be a very risky act. And to take such risks with peoples’ lives and futures seems to me to be self-indulgent folly.
“Dear Santa - please can a sensible way through be found. Please.”
What will happen with the EU parliament elections if we withdraw article 50 before 29 March as our seats have been redistributed to other member states so any change will impact on the entire continent.
Whilst some people suspect May pretended to be a harder Brexiteer than she was to win votes in the election maybe she also convinced some of her MPs as well who do now genuinely feel betrayed.
Your railing against Ireland yesterday was a classic illustration of how our power and influence is diminished by Brexit. Ireland has 26 other countries standing behind its defence of its interests; we stand alone. For the first time in dealing with the ROI they are in the more influential position - you don't like this, but it's the logical consequence of what you voted for.
The quicker we escape from this national suicide mission, the better.
Strokes chin.
Of course, as a diplomat, he sees everything through the lense of preferential agreements regulations etc. Anyone who is concerned by his gloomy forecasts on the state of the British services sector following Brexit should look at whether the American service sector struggles currently in the UK under similar non-preferential circumstances.
But if push comes to shove why would Labour prefer that to the WA? Their policy is to negotiate an FTA that is closely aligned to the EU. The WA is compatible with that. Indeed the Backstop dictates that it be so.
This allows a decisive decision, gives more time to prepare for No Deal, and hangs May out to dry.
Some would and we can't risk it.
(And if the only criterion were to be GDP per head, then as was proposed downthread we'd almost certainly be substantially better off as State 51 than in the EU. Though I think US of E vs US of A has always been a false dichotomy.)
I'll form a view as to whether it's *actually* helped once the bill comes due. If Ireland can stave off tax harmonisation for (say) another five years, I'll own that, yes, it has been helped. Otherwise, it's more like getting protection from Big Jean-Claude, who'll be along to break your kneecaps later.
“We got the Falklands task force going in two days,” David Campbell-Bannerman, a Tory MEP, said of a hard Brexit on Sky News on Friday. “We can do this by the 29th of March.”
Semi-serious question; if that’s all that’s on the ballot paper will people like him get really angry. Boycotts are one thing; street protests are another.
Thanks as always to David H for an interesting piece.
The quintessential question is whether there is an absolute in democracy - that the opinion of the people, as voiced through the ballot box , whether in an election or referendum, is always to be respected and enacted whatever the consequences.
If you believe that, there is no option but to follow the wishes of 23/6/16 and for us to leave the EU on 29/3/19 on whatever terms we can obtain (or none).
The contrary view is notwithstanding the 23/6/16 referendum, the effect of leaving the EU will be deleterious to the country. Since it is the Government's prime duty to protect the citizens of the country, that must by definition include not only external and internal threats but harm to the country coming from the people themselves.
Since the decision to leave the EU will have an negative impact and since that negative impact can be mitigated by not leaving, it is the Government's duty and responsibility to take the lead and not allow harm to come to the country's economy and overrule the referendum.
That's an argument but the extent to which it challenges the basic relationship between Government and the governed as well as most people's basic understanding and acceptance of the democratic process is going to be the key factor into 2019 and especially if leaving the EU is stopped either via unilateral revocation of A50 or by a second vote.
I've often opined frightened people will sell their souls to not be frightened any more - this may well be proved or disproved in the weeks ahead.
Likewise, all the breezy assertions that ‘no deal’ would pose no great problems for aviation, for road haulage, for medicines, for food, for financial services, for data and for any number of other areas – for most of which, ‘WTO terms’ are simply not a safety harness.
No number of repetitions of the grossly misleading term ‘WTO deal’ makes it any more real or effective. Its proponents – or most of them – know this full well, incidentally.
This is not because of Establishment Remainer sabotage: it was because these were always fantasies, produced by people who at the point they said this stuff, would not have known a ‘trade Treaty’ if they had found one in their soup..." (The nine lessons of Brexit, Ivan Rogers)
For the record, I don't think flights will fail: I was the one who pointed out that the British and Ireland airspaces are adminstered from the UK mainland, we have the RAF air capacity to fly medicines in, and others have pointed out that some deals are in place. I similarly don't think there will be Big Apocalypses: things don't work like that. So the BIG CRISIS model doesn't work for me.
But I do think that there will be a lot of small problems all at once and cumulatively there will be some effect: adjustments do work lie that. So I deprecate your assumption that we have time to ponder which chocolate to pick.
I am more convinced than ever a referendum is needed but how we arrive at it is a mystery, unless a cross party amendment to the meaningful vote is attached to the deal and it passes
That then gives TM the cover to start the process
Interesting that Farage is expecting another referendum
'How do keep a Kerryman happy for the afternoon - hand him a piece of paper with PTO on both sides.'
'How would you get a Kerryman to climb on the roof of a pub? Tell him the drinks are on the house!'
http://www.fionasplace.net/irishjokes/Kerrymanjokes.html
As someone whose grandparents were born in Kerry and who voted leave I just laugh alone with it cos we are the ones who know how to enjoy a joke!
Of course the people of Kerry get their revenge on the rest of the country by electing the marvellous Healy Rae brothers to the Dail. We think parliament has been crazy recently but its nothing to the Dail when those two Kerry men are around.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3r8IBlVtys
I see no sign of anti British tendencies over Brexit in Ireland - just bemusement.
I still don't see what necessitates British membership of the SM+CU in the long run post-Brexit. Particularly if the economy restructures in favour of those firms/sectors which would benefit less from membership, and to the detriment of those that don't. To reiterate, I can see advantages of membership, but you seemed to suggest that those advantages were so large and compelling that British politicians would have no option but to rejoin if we ever left. I'm really not convinced that is true - I think that underestimates the capacity of people to just bodge along with what they've got rather than pursue every possible economically advantageous (but potentially politically dangerous) action.
He was described as the Geoff Boycott of those arguing for May’s deal, the man who has spent longer at the crease defending the deal than anyone else. And yet, despite May having 2 vacancies for the post and a currently invisible occupant he is the Prisons Minister.
Calamity approaches - prepare for it!
Once again, when all else fails, instead of blaming our useless Prime Minister for charging off on a fool's errand begging for help from the EU, we fall back on the old tactic of blaming "the nasty Europeans" for being disrespectful to our lovely Prime Minister.
No.
The EU made it abundantly clear the WA was done, no further negotiation was going to happen yet May scuttles off to Brussels pleading for help trying to save her political skin. It was humiliating. She will "see Brexit through" but to a second divisive vote or to leaving without any Deal at all remains to be seen.
We don't need a second vote, not if the first vote had been enacted properly and seriously. That has been her failure.
The backstop at stake.
Boris and Juncker, pistols at dawn, on the Waterloo battlefield.
It's for Britain, Boris....
That’s exactly what I was saying last week when the ERG triggered the VonC in May. I am not so sure that the next referendum will be deemed to have legitimacy though. The price our democracy will pay will be heavy indeed. I also agree with the points Rory the Tory was making about both the very limited enthusiasm that such a step might be greeted in the EU and the consequences of this process to our standing in the EU going forward.
That places a rough value on SM/CU membership of around a third of a percent a year. Now, that's not nothing; in 2016 prices it's around £70bn p.a. and on historical taxation rates it's around £30bn p.a. tax revenue forgone. However, I'm not mopping my brow in horror at the prospect of leaving it.
Section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act is not in force, and requires secondary legislation.
And Article 50 notice can be withdrawn or extended without reference to Parliament. The Miller case doesn't apply to withdrawal or extension of notice, as rationale was you can't use prerogative to repeal legislation, not that prerogative power no longer exists to conduct international relations.
So, if Parliament doesn't agree a deal, Government has a decision to make... but it is Government's decision, not Parliament's.
A decision she shows no sign of making.
Who knows what the outcome will be - assuming of course there is a full Brexit option (not a BRINO May deal one) on the ballot paper!
If no deal isn't on the ballot paper of course that creates a whole different problem for the Tory party. It will do wonders for the Corbyn and the extremes of left and right.
It is clear now that the only outcomes Parliament will support are Remian or BINO, nothing else can get through.
Low and behold despite much speculation about the letter. 41million of Govt and EU money was quickly allocated to this.
http://iampnortheast.co.uk/
Nissan got what they wanted, not that the Govt would every admit it.
There are more cases that could also be listed as well.
Not the cosiest of days.
No.
So the answer to your question is that we don't, even now, have an absolute in our democracy. The question is where the boundary is. Those who think that continuing with a course which is harmful and therefore should not be continued think the boundary should be in a different place to those who think that a vote in a referendum should be enacted, regardless of the consequences and regardless of how harmful those consequences might be.
It is another example of why she is such a poor leader. The Tories really have made their - and the country's - position worse by keeping her as their leader. She is, at best, a competent administrator. Not a leader.
He was my MP for a number of years. Very personable. Always knows peoples names etc. He can just stand up and give a speech. I loved one he gave about how parliament likes to talk about things with great earnest that it has no power over, but not things it does.
"You didn't win, we just couldn't be arsed voting..."
As of 2018, the British Army comprises just over 81,500 trained regular (full-time) personnel and just over 27,000 trained reserve (part-time) personnel.
On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy.
You've made an assertion about relative economic performance. Only time will tell, but I'd point at the performance of the various European economies within the SM and shrug. There's not much correlation is there? Do Italians feel ashamed when they visit London? Do Germans cringe when they visit Poland?
I'll link this '17 study. It highlights the SM increasing European GDP by around 1.9% since 1990. Nice, but not stellar. It's unsurprising on reflection; even so-called export powerhouses like Germany are service economies first and foremost.
http://www.amchameu.eu/sites/default/files/amcham_eu_single_market_web.pdf
It's why I, contrary to Mr. HYUFD, think Remain stands a better chance versus May's Deal than against No Deal.
The biggest lesson of the referendum should be that politicians shouldn't ask a question if they don't like at least one of the answers.