So, I genuinely don't know what will happen. I think the right thing for the country is a No Deal vs EFTA/EEA referendum, as it respects the first referendum.
What's your solution for Northern Ireland under both scenarios?
There's also some unexpected and unusual repetitions in the dates of Easter too. For instance the Easters we're all living through from 1948 to 2047 will repeat exactly between 2100 and 2199.
Remarkable when you consider 2000 was a leap year yet 2100 won't be.
The changing dates of Easter is a joke. It’s a pain for business and, when it’s early, short changes workers because the holidays are short and under GMT hours.
Fix the long holiday weekend to the second week of April and stop messing about. If the church wants to faff about celebrating a bloke’s death on a different day each year, let it go ahead.
That we haven’t done this always shows how sycophantic we still are in the face of organised religion.
So, I genuinely don't know what will happen. I think the right thing for the country is a No Deal vs EFTA/EEA referendum, as it respects the first referendum.
What's your solution for Northern Ireland under both scenarios?
The Independent Republic of Northern Ireland.
That's a very May compromise. A solution nobody wanted or asked for and makes everyone furious.
Personally I think we should give Northern Ireland to Belgium.
I wonder if Mortimer and the other true believers will waste as many pixels analysing this one as they did the recent meaningless random number generator that had the Tories a few points ahead.
So, I genuinely don't know what will happen. I think the right thing for the country is a No Deal vs EFTA/EEA referendum, as it respects the first referendum.
What's your solution for Northern Ireland under both scenarios?
The Independent Republic of Northern Ireland.
Not an option, and given that your starting assumption in both scenarios is that the UK will cease to exist, the mandate from the first referendum will have been discharged already - the UK will no longer be a member of the EU.
A spokesperson for TM confirms she has ruled out extending A50
I would suggest she will hold this line, as the nearer it gets the more pressure arises to accept her deal - either plan A or B
I'm convinced No Deal will happen on 29th March.
And TOPPING is convinced the deal will pass...
Who to believe?
The power of inertia points to No Deal. Corbyn wants Brexit to be as messy as possible because it increases the chance of his becoming Prime Minister down the line.
But there are probably 100s of Remainer MPs, who - if push came to shove - would choose the Deal over No Deal.
So, I genuinely don't know what will happen. I think the right thing for the country is a No Deal vs EFTA/EEA referendum, as it respects the first referendum.
But that's far too sensible, so I don't think it's going to happen.
But surely (a) Norway+CU requires the assent of the EFTA states (which, if the noises off that have filtered into our press are anything to go by, they may not give); and (b) there's no incentive for the EU27 to grant an A50 extension for a referendum including a No Deal option, even if they're both willing and able to do so to begin with?
It may or may not be sensible, but regardless I don't see how it flies.
Whether or not the Deal passes presumably depends on if Parliament, having rejected it, can find a majority for anything else (and also on timing; again, I assume if they leave it late enough then they'll run out of time to pass all the associated legislation needed to make any kind of Brexit work?) If it gets very close to March 29th without MPs having coalesced around any single option, then it may come down to whether they've the nerve to force revocation, or we end up with a disorderly No Deal.
We could become signatories to the EEA Treaty without being members of EFTA, so I don't think that's an issue.
I think the EU would allow us a (three month?) extension for No Deal / EEA referendum, because they would rather we remained in their orbit.
A spokesperson for TM confirms she has ruled out extending A50
I would suggest she will hold this line, as the nearer it gets the more pressure arises to accept her deal - either plan A or B
I'm convinced No Deal will happen on 29th March.
And TOPPING is convinced the deal will pass...
Who to believe?
The power of inertia points to No Deal. Corbyn wants Brexit to be as messy as possible because it increases the chance of his becoming Prime Minister down the line.
But there are probably 100s of Remainer MPs, who - if push came to shove - would choose the Deal over No Deal.
So, I genuinely don't know what will happen. I think the right thing for the country is a No Deal vs EFTA/EEA referendum, as it respects the first referendum.
But that's far too sensible, so I don't think it's going to happen.
But surely (a) Norway+CU requires the assent of the EFTA states (which, if the noises off that have filtered into our press are anything to go by, they may not give); and (b) there's no incentive for the EU27 to grant an A50 extension for a referendum including a No Deal option, even if they're both willing and able to do so to begin with?
It may or may not be sensible, but regardless I don't see how it flies.
Whether or not the Deal passes presumably depends on if Parliament, having rejected it, can find a majority for anything else (and also on timing; again, I assume if they leave it late enough then they'll run out of time to pass all the associated legislation needed to make any kind of Brexit work?) If it gets very close to March 29th without MPs having coalesced around any single option, then it may come down to whether they've the nerve to force revocation, or we end up with a disorderly No Deal.
We could become signatories to the EEA Treaty without being members of EFTA, so I don't think that's an issue.
Only by being designated an "EFTA state" which amounts to the same thing.
No sign of any decisive break one way or another over Brexit. Its basically 50/50.
AFAIK it's not particularly different to the intermittent narrow leads for Remain that have been reported in such polls for some time. There may be some evidence of Bregret, but as you point out I'm not aware of any evidence to suggest that public opinion has shifted decisively.
It certainly isn't a result to fill advocates of a second referendum with confidence. Personally I think they'd win a Deal versus Remain poll, but that's obviously a reasoned hunch rather than a confident prediction, and all those people who want to stay in the EU but loathe the Deal will presumably have to weigh seriously the risk of the Deal winning out if they manage to secure a new plebiscite.
Only by being designated an "EFTA state" which amounts to the same thing.
That's not true. The EEA treaty could be amended to say "the EFTA states and the United Kingdom", it wouldn't be much of a stretch.
You'd have to amend more than that. Which governance pillar would the UK fall under? Once you get into such a substantive amendment we'd no longer be acceding to the same thing so it loses all meaning.
Polish Police Arrest Huawei Executive On Suspicion Of Spying For China
Poland's Internal Security Agency has arrested and charged an executive of Chinese tech giant Huawei on suspicion of spying for China. A government spokesman identified the suspect as Weijing W.; media reports in Poland and China say he also is known as Stanislaw Wang, Huawei's sales director in Poland.
Only by being designated an "EFTA state" which amounts to the same thing.
That's not true. The EEA treaty could be amended to say "the EFTA states and the United Kingdom", it wouldn't be much of a stretch.
Yeah, it's only a treaty ratified by 31 sovereign nations, amending it is NO BIGGIE.
Treaties are amended all the time.
What would be in it for them? Your position seems to be that we should tell them, "Now look here, either you amend the EEA treaty to say that the UK is a special country that deserves its own special arrangements or it's no deal and we will leave your orbit!"
Only by being designated an "EFTA state" which amounts to the same thing.
That's not true. The EEA treaty could be amended to say "the EFTA states and the United Kingdom", it wouldn't be much of a stretch.
Yeah, it's only a treaty ratified by 31 sovereign nations, amending it is NO BIGGIE.
Treaties are amended all the time.
What would be in it for them? Your position seems to be that we should tell them, "Now look here, either you amend the EEA treaty to say that the UK is a special country that deserves its own special arrangements or it's no deal and we will leave your orbit!"
What would be in it for the EU? Well, we'd remain - as you say - in their orbit. The economic consequences - for them as well as us - would be ameliorated. And we'd still write large cheques to the EU every year.
If I were the EU, that would sound a lot better than a chaotic No Deal Brexit.
That makes sense. I thought maybe there was a new political force arising...
But no. It's simple "Another Party".
Boring.
The latest party registered with the Electoral Commission is the 'Both Unions Party', perhaps it will be them who arise unlike the other hundreds upon hundreds.
That makes sense. I thought maybe there was a new political force arising...
But no. It's simple "Another Party".
Boring.
The latest party registered with the Electoral Commission is the 'Both Unions Party', perhaps it will be them who arise unlike the other hundreds upon hundreds.
Only by being designated an "EFTA state" which amounts to the same thing.
That's not true. The EEA treaty could be amended to say "the EFTA states and the United Kingdom", it wouldn't be much of a stretch.
Yeah, it's only a treaty ratified by 31 sovereign nations, amending it is NO BIGGIE.
Treaties are amended all the time.
What would be in it for them? Your position seems to be that we should tell them, "Now look here, either you amend the EEA treaty to say that the UK is a special country that deserves its own special arrangements or it's no deal and we will leave your orbit!"
What would be in it for the EU? Well, we'd remain - as you say - in their orbit. The economic consequences - for them as well as us - would be ameliorated. And we'd still write large cheques to the EU every year.
If I were the EU, that would sound a lot better than a chaotic No Deal Brexit.
The threatened alternative of a chaotic No Deal Brexit lacks credibility. They get to keep us in their orbit no matter what because ultimately we need a deal with them.
Only by being designated an "EFTA state" which amounts to the same thing.
That's not true. The EEA treaty could be amended to say "the EFTA states and the United Kingdom", it wouldn't be much of a stretch.
Yeah, it's only a treaty ratified by 31 sovereign nations, amending it is NO BIGGIE.
Treaties are amended all the time.
When was the last time that a treaty with 31 separate signatories was successfully amended?
The EU treaties were amended in 2008 to allow the creation of the European Stability Mechanism, and in 2010 to change the state of St Bartholomew (the island.)
Only by being designated an "EFTA state" which amounts to the same thing.
That's not true. The EEA treaty could be amended to say "the EFTA states and the United Kingdom", it wouldn't be much of a stretch.
Yeah, it's only a treaty ratified by 31 sovereign nations, amending it is NO BIGGIE.
Treaties are amended all the time.
When was the last time that a treaty with 31 separate signatories was successfully amended?
The EU treaties were amended in 2008 to allow the creation of the European Stability Mechanism, and in 2010 to change the state of St Bartholomew (the island.)
Only by being designated an "EFTA state" which amounts to the same thing.
That's not true. The EEA treaty could be amended to say "the EFTA states and the United Kingdom", it wouldn't be much of a stretch.
Yeah, it's only a treaty ratified by 31 sovereign nations, amending it is NO BIGGIE.
Treaties are amended all the time.
When was the last time that a treaty with 31 separate signatories was successfully amended?
The EU treaties were amended in 2008 to allow the creation of the European Stability Mechanism, and in 2010 to change the state of St Bartholomew (the island.)
Do they count?
The ESM was a new treaty.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. While there was a treaty for establishing the ESM, the existing EU treaties had to be amended to allow its creation.
Only by being designated an "EFTA state" which amounts to the same thing.
That's not true. The EEA treaty could be amended to say "the EFTA states and the United Kingdom", it wouldn't be much of a stretch.
Yeah, it's only a treaty ratified by 31 sovereign nations, amending it is NO BIGGIE.
Treaties are amended all the time.
When was the last time that a treaty with 31 separate signatories was successfully amended?
The EU treaties were amended in 2008 to allow the creation of the European Stability Mechanism, and in 2010 to change the state of St Bartholomew (the island.)
Do they count?
The ESM was a new treaty.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. While there was a treaty for establishing the ESM, the existing EU treaties had to be amended to allow its creation.
Inserting a single sentence took two and a half years before coming into effect.
I wonder if Mortimer and the other true believers will waste as many pixels analysing this one as they did the recent meaningless random number generator that had the Tories a few points ahead.
Plugging that into Electoral Calculus puts Lab on 299 as largest Party, 271 Con, 40 SNP, 19 LD
There's also some unexpected and unusual repetitions in the dates of Easter too. For instance the Easters we're all living through from 1948 to 2047 will repeat exactly between 2100 and 2199.
Remarkable when you consider 2000 was a leap year yet 2100 won't be.
I was born on the 29th February 1944 and have a birthday each olympic year
I just missed that - born at 5.0am on March 1st in 1944.
Comments
The changing dates of Easter is a joke. It’s a pain for business and, when it’s early, short changes workers because the holidays are short and under GMT hours.
Fix the long holiday weekend to the second week of April and stop messing about. If the church wants to faff about celebrating a bloke’s death on a different day each year, let it go ahead.
That we haven’t done this always shows how sycophantic we still are in the face of organised religion.
It really is embarrassing.
Personally I think we should give Northern Ireland to Belgium.
So, in 2016 there were a lot of Republican candidates, and they flipped the Presidency. This probably needs some analysis...
I wonder if Mortimer and the other true believers will waste as many pixels analysing this one as they did the recent meaningless random number generator that had the Tories a few points ahead.
C U R S E D N U M B E R S
are back!
I think the EU would allow us a (three month?) extension for No Deal / EEA referendum, because they would rather we remained in their orbit.
I've been setting up an Amazon Echo tonight.
It certainly isn't a result to fill advocates of a second referendum with confidence. Personally I think they'd win a Deal versus Remain poll, but that's obviously a reasoned hunch rather than a confident prediction, and all those people who want to stay in the EU but loathe the Deal will presumably have to weigh seriously the risk of the Deal winning out if they manage to secure a new plebiscite.
Poland's Internal Security Agency has arrested and charged an executive of Chinese tech giant Huawei on suspicion of spying for China. A government spokesman identified the suspect as Weijing W.; media reports in Poland and China say he also is known as Stanislaw Wang, Huawei's sales director in Poland.
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/11/684378595/polish-police-arrest-huawei-executive-accused-of-spying-for-china
But no. It's simple "Another Party".
Boring.
If I were the EU, that would sound a lot better than a chaotic No Deal Brexit.
http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP6885
*waits for pogrom*
Do they count?
(And someone's already brought up the Civil Contingencies Act on this one. Such japes.)
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents-publications/treaties-agreements/agreement/?id=2011030