As predicted. But Parliament should not let her get away with it. It is a negligent running down of the clock.
If I were a Tory Remainer I would seriously consider supporting a VONC if she responds with “Nothing has Changed”.
I wonder how quick they’d be booted out of the party.
Instantaneously.
The Conservatives should be expelling the rebel remainers from the party in order to appoint new Conservative candidates in their constituencies in readiness for a general election to get more Leave MPs in place.
I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country. It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
I think it was stated earlier that we can't revoke just to decide how to leave
That's wrong. The advocate general's recommendation was that we shouldn't be able to revoke, only to re-invoke later -- but the ECJ's final ruling rejected that recommendation. The ECJ's only caveat to our right to revoke A50 was that it had to be within the UK's own constitutional requirements.
Our 'Constitutional Requirements' are whatever the last person got away with.
Well, quite - so in effect our right to revoke A50 is absolute, even if we were to re-invoke it just 5 minutes later.
No, it's not. It needs to be "unequivocal and unconditional". I wouldn't call revoking for five minutes unequivocal.
Eh? It would be unequivocal and unconditional. No-one's suggesting we'd say "we revoke Article 50, only on condition that our contributions to the EU Budget are reduced".
You really think after revoking and invoking after five minutes that the EU Commission wouldn't challenge that at the ECJ?
On what grounds would the EU Commission challenge it? They'd have to prove it was against the UK's "constitutional requirements", since that was the only caveat to our right to revoke.
Except those other two conditions quoted earlier. If we were never serious about it it isn't an unequivocal revocation.
Hannan’s Interest has only ever been trade. Nothing wrong with that but negotiating trade deals with others if you’re bound by the SM regs would be a challenge.
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken early on in the campaign, by Gove I think, precisely to facilitate trade deals with other countries.
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken by the Prime Minister when she took office.
It was a Vote Leave commitment in the campaign. May didn’t have to honour that. She saw it as the only way to stop freedom of movement, which it is, but then she only ever saw the referendum result in terms of stopping freedom of movement.
WTF is a "vote leave commitment"?
"There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it."
What could this possibly be describing if not the EEA?
Hannan’s Interest has only ever been trade. Nothing wrong with that but negotiating trade deals with others if you’re bound by the SM regs would be a challenge.
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken early on in the campaign, by Gove I think, precisely to facilitate trade deals with other countries.
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken by the Prime Minister when she took office.
It was a Vote Leave commitment in the campaign. May didn’t have to honour that. She saw it as the only way to stop freedom of movement, which it is, but then she only ever saw the referendum result in terms of stopping freedom of movement.
Is there ANY section of life in which Brexit does not cause a balls-up? Seriously??
And hordes of people still think that this shambles of an idea is a good one?
Unbelievable!!
It's millions of people in the EU27/EEA countries who might not be able to claim - and that is because the EU has screwed up.
In practice I can't see it being a problem, the EU will just extend a blanket extension to the authorisations, so it's probably a non-story.
It's not a non-story. It's one of several (we will not run out of medicines, there will be enough food after March 29th) the need for which, if only to dismiss the premise, is mind-boggling.
I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country. It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
I think it was stated earlier that we can't revoke just to decide how to leave
That's wrong. The advocate general's recommendation was that we shouldn't be able to revoke, only to re-invoke later -- but the ECJ's final ruling rejected that recommendation. The ECJ's only caveat to our right to revoke A50 was that it had to be within the UK's own constitutional requirements.
Our 'Constitutional Requirements' are whatever the last person got away with.
Well, quite - so in effect our right to revoke A50 is absolute, even if we were to re-invoke it just 5 minutes later.
No, it's not. It needs to be "unequivocal and unconditional". I wouldn't call revoking for five minutes unequivocal.
Eh? It would be unequivocal and unconditional. No-one's suggesting we'd say "we revoke Article 50, only on condition that our contributions to the EU Budget are reduced".
You really think after revoking and invoking after five minutes that the EU Commission wouldn't challenge that at the ECJ?
On what grounds would the EU Commission challenge it? They'd have to prove it was against the UK's "constitutional requirements", since that was the only caveat to our right to revoke.
Except those other two conditions quoted earlier. If we were never serious about it it isn't an unequivocal revocation.
Yes it is. Again you seem to be basing your arguments on what the advocate general said, as opposed to what the ECJ said -- revoking Article 50 only "unequivocally and unconditionally" brings that particular withdrawal process to an end, it doesn't require a pledge of lifelong loyalty to the EU.
Watching the convoluted speeches from utterly committed remainers claiming that somehow their objection based on some technicality. If that technicality wasnt there, they would find another.
Those dumb witted leavers who have been told that it is Brexit In Name Only, and believe it. One MP just said that we should respect the decision, but that the WA had us half in and half out. Seriously, this is a pretty darn hard and clean brexit. We arent half in and half out. On that basis there's absolutely no Brexit agreement he could sign up to that didnt involve us building a wall at Dover.
Utter cretins. And those leavers who are going to vote against it because they think they might get an even harder brexist? You clueless muppets you are going to lose everything you have fought for decades.
The results from more than 2,500 respondents revealed the curious trend. “What we found is that as the extremity of opposition increased, objective knowledge went down, but self-assessed knowledge went up,” Fernbach said.
“The extremists are more poorly calibrated. If you don’t know much, it’s hard to assess how much you know,” Fernbach added. “The feeling of understanding that they have then stops them from learning the truth. Extremism can be perverse in that way.”
Not curious, because isn’t that basically just the Dunning–Kruger effect in action.
I like the way people are talking like an 80 vote defeat is a victory. What comes next? Redefining black as white? Wet as dry?
A defeat of 80 is still a defeat. And a big one.
once again the inadequacies of the FTPA come to the fore
A damn shame the Tories didn't get a majority at the last election - it would have been ditched (although quite how you close pandora's box wrt the prerogative is beyond me).
You can’t restore an extinguished prerogative but I would have thought some form of words along the lines of “Her Majesty, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, may make an order-in-council to dissolve Parliament” would do the trick.
I remember reading a private members bill put up in the Lords that simply stated that the FTPA was repealed. They forgot that the FTPA also repealed the Septennial Act, and therefore it would have meant parliament did not have a finite duration, rendering elections purely optional.
I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country. It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
I think it was stated earlier that we can't revoke just to decide how to leave
That's wrong. The advocate general's recommendation was that we shouldn't be able to revoke, only to re-invoke later -- but the ECJ's final ruling rejected that recommendation. The ECJ's only caveat to our right to revoke A50 was that it had to be within the UK's own constitutional requirements.
Our 'Constitutional Requirements' are whatever the last person got away with.
Well, quite - so in effect our right to revoke A50 is absolute, even if we were to re-invoke it just 5 minutes later.
No, it's not. It needs to be "unequivocal and unconditional". I wouldn't call revoking for five minutes unequivocal.
Eh? It would be unequivocal and unconditional. No-one's suggesting we'd say "we revoke Article 50, only on condition that our contributions to the EU Budget are reduced".
You really think after revoking and invoking after five minutes that the EU Commission wouldn't challenge that at the ECJ?
On what grounds would the EU Commission challenge it? They'd have to prove it was against the UK's "constitutional requirements", since that was the only caveat to our right to revoke.
Except those other two conditions quoted earlier. If we were never serious about it it isn't an unequivocal revocation.
Yes it is. Again you seem to be basing your arguments on what the advocate general said, as opposed to what the ECJ said -- revoking Article 50 only "unequivocally and unconditionally" brings that particular withdrawal process to an end, it doesn't require a pledge of lifelong loyalty to the EU.
No, I'm basing it on the use of those two terms in the actual judgement. It's not an unequivocal declaration if you know you are going to renege on it in a few minutes.
I like the way people are talking like an 80 vote defeat is a victory. What comes next? Redefining black as white? Wet as dry?
A defeat of 80 is still a defeat. And a big one.
once again the inadequacies of the FTPA come to the fore
A damn shame the Tories didn't get a majority at the last election - it would have been ditched (although quite how you close pandora's box wrt the prerogative is beyond me).
You can’t restore an extinguished prerogative but I would have thought some form of words along the lines of “Her Majesty, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, may make an order-in-council to dissolve Parliament” would do the trick.
The FTPA is a good idea badly implemented. It's wrong for the PM to be able to decide when an election takes place.
Is there ANY section of life in which Brexit does not cause a balls-up? Seriously??
And hordes of people still think that this shambles of an idea is a good one?
Unbelievable!!
It's millions of people in the EU27/EEA countries who might not be able to claim - and that is because the EU has screwed up.
In practice I can't see it being a problem, the EU will just extend a blanket extension to the authorisations, so it's probably a non-story.
It's not a non-story. It's one of several (we will not run out of medicines, there will be enough food after March 29th) the need for which, if only to dismiss the premise, is mind-boggling.
Yes but people seize on these headlines, don't read the article, and react as though what was being said was that millions of UK residents were going to be left uninsured. In this case (as the article makes clear) it's the other way round: the UK has sensibly sorted this out already, but the EU hasn't.
Hannan’s Interest has only ever been trade. Nothing wrong with that but negotiating trade deals with others if you’re bound by the SM regs would be a challenge.
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken early on in the campaign, by Gove I think, precisely to facilitate trade deals with other countries.
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken by the Prime Minister when she took office.
It was a Vote Leave commitment in the campaign. May didn’t have to honour that. She saw it as the only way to stop freedom of movement, which it is, but then she only ever saw the referendum result in terms of stopping freedom of movement.
WTF is a "vote leave commitment"?
The referendum campaign obviously passed you by.
The campaign for a referendum is not a manifesto for government. Not even remotely close.
The results from more than 2,500 respondents revealed the curious trend. “What we found is that as the extremity of opposition increased, objective knowledge went down, but self-assessed knowledge went up,” Fernbach said.
“The extremists are more poorly calibrated. If you don’t know much, it’s hard to assess how much you know,” Fernbach added. “The feeling of understanding that they have then stops them from learning the truth. Extremism can be perverse in that way.”
Not curious, because isn’t that basically just the Dunning–Kruger effect in action.
Yes, which is mentioned in the piece. I'm just glad someone is willing to call it out: "you're against this because you're a dumbass".
Hannan’s Interest has only ever been trade. Nothing wrong with that but negotiating trade deals with others if you’re bound by the SM regs would be a challenge.
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken early on in the campaign, by Gove I think, precisely to facilitate trade deals with other countries.
Iceland is a member of the Single Market and has, for example, an FTA with China. (As does Switzerland, although it is only a member of the SM for goods.)
The biggest issue, really, is the US, where the recent renegotiation of NAFTA specifically forbids either Mexico or Canada from having FTAs with China. Nations must choose: do I wish a close trading relationship with the US, or with China?
I like the way people are talking like an 80 vote defeat is a victory. What comes next? Redefining black as white? Wet as dry?
A defeat of 80 is still a defeat. And a big one.
once again the inadequacies of the FTPA come to the fore
A damn shame the Tories didn't get a majority at the last election - it would have been ditched (although quite how you close pandora's box wrt the prerogative is beyond me).
You can’t restore an extinguished prerogative but I would have thought some form of words along the lines of “Her Majesty, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, may make an order-in-council to dissolve Parliament” would do the trick.
The FTPA is a good idea badly implemented. It's wrong for the PM to be able to decide when an election takes place.
its also wrong to keep a lame duck government in place and to absolve MPs from the consequencesof their actions.
No, I'm basing it on the use of those two terms in the actual judgement. It's not an unequivocal declaration if you know you are going to renege on it in a few minutes.
I really don't know why you're interpreting "unequivocal" as "permanent".
But I can unequivocally say that I'm bored of this argument now, so whatever
The results from more than 2,500 respondents revealed the curious trend. “What we found is that as the extremity of opposition increased, objective knowledge went down, but self-assessed knowledge went up,” Fernbach said.
“The extremists are more poorly calibrated. If you don’t know much, it’s hard to assess how much you know,” Fernbach added. “The feeling of understanding that they have then stops them from learning the truth. Extremism can be perverse in that way.”
Is there ANY section of life in which Brexit does not cause a balls-up? Seriously??
And hordes of people still think that this shambles of an idea is a good one?
Unbelievable!!
It's millions of people in the EU27/EEA countries who might not be able to claim - and that is because the EU has screwed up.
In practice I can't see it being a problem, the EU will just extend a blanket extension to the authorisations, so it's probably a non-story.
It's not a non-story. It's one of several (we will not run out of medicines, there will be enough food after March 29th) the need for which, if only to dismiss the premise, is mind-boggling.
Yes but people seize on these headlines, don't read the article, and react as though what was being said was that millions of UK residents were going to be left uninsured. In this case (as the article makes clear) it's the other way round: the UK has sensibly sorted this out already, but the EU hasn't.
But we are in the zone where the people need to read the article to be reassured that we won't be uninsured, or run out of Chocolate Bourbon biscuits, come March 30th. There would be no headline saying "People over 5ft tall to be denied passports."
Hannan’s Interest has only ever been trade. Nothing wrong with that but negotiating trade deals with others if you’re bound by the SM regs would be a challenge.
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken early on in the campaign, by Gove I think, precisely to facilitate trade deals with other countries.
Iceland is a member of the Single Market and has, for example, an FTA with China. (As does Switzerland, although it is only a member of the SM for goods.)
The biggest issue, really, is the US, where the recent renegotiation of NAFTA specifically forbids either Mexico or Canada from having FTAs with China. Nations must choose: do I wish a close trading relationship with the US, or with China?
The results from more than 2,500 respondents revealed the curious trend. “What we found is that as the extremity of opposition increased, objective knowledge went down, but self-assessed knowledge went up,” Fernbach said.
“The extremists are more poorly calibrated. If you don’t know much, it’s hard to assess how much you know,” Fernbach added. “The feeling of understanding that they have then stops them from learning the truth. Extremism can be perverse in that way.”
But we are in the zone where the people need to read the article to be reassured that we won't be uninsured, or run out of Chocolate Bourbon biscuits, come March 30th. There would be no headline saying "People over 5ft tall to be denied passports."
I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country. It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
I think it was stated earlier that we can't revoke just to decide how to leave
That's wrong. The advocate general's recommendation was that we shouldn't be able to revoke, only to re-invoke later -- but the ECJ's final ruling rejected that recommendation. The ECJ's only caveat to our right to revoke A50 was that it had to be within the UK's own constitutional requirements.
Our 'Constitutional Requirements' are whatever the last person got away with.
Well, quite - so in effect our right to revoke A50 is absolute, even if we were to re-invoke it just 5 minutes later.
No, it's not. It needs to be "unequivocal and unconditional". I wouldn't call revoking for five minutes unequivocal.
Eh? It would be unequivocal and unconditional. No-one's suggesting we'd say "we revoke Article 50, only on condition that our contributions to the EU Budget are reduced".
You really think after revoking and invoking after five minutes that the EU Commission wouldn't challenge that at the ECJ?
On what grounds would the EU Commission challenge it? They'd have to prove it was against the UK's "constitutional requirements", since that was the only caveat to our right to revoke.
Except those other two conditions quoted earlier. If we were never serious about it it isn't an unequivocal revocation.
Yes it is. Again you seem to be basing your arguments on what the advocate general said, as opposed to what the ECJ said -- revoking Article 50 only "unequivocally and unconditionally" brings that particular withdrawal process to an end, it doesn't require a pledge of lifelong loyalty to the EU.
No, I'm basing it on the use of those two terms in the actual judgement. It's not an unequivocal declaration if you know you are going to renege on it in a few minutes.
It's not reneging. The CJEU ruling dropped the 'good faith' clause from the advocate general's opinion. It is legally possible to revoke and invoke on the same afternoon. How the politics of that would play out is a different matter.
It's not reneging. The CJEU ruling dropped the 'good faith' clause from the advocate general's opinion. It is legally possible to revoke and invoke on the same afternoon. How the politics of that would play out is a different matter.
I still contest it wouldn't be unequivocal, and would at least be tested at the ECJ.
People do vote to be poorer (eg overseas aid) and the only questions on the ballot were leave and remain.
Although I can imagine that Overseas Aid would come a cropper in a referendum. Probably by 52/48. But yes, absolutely, it was Leave or Remain, c'est ca. And if Leave won and we leave - and because of that people are poorer - then QED people voted to be poorer. The phrase is actually just code for 'people did not understand the consequences of their vote.'
Hannan’s Interest has only ever been trade. Nothing wrong with that but negotiating trade deals with others if you’re bound by the SM regs would be a challenge.
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken early on in the campaign, by Gove I think, precisely to facilitate trade deals with other countries.
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken by the Prime Minister when she took office.
It was a Vote Leave commitment in the campaign. May didn’t have to honour that. She saw it as the only way to stop freedom of movement, which it is, but then she only ever saw the referendum result in terms of stopping freedom of movement.
WTF is a "vote leave commitment"?
The referendum campaign obviously passed you by.
The campaign for a referendum is not a manifesto for government. Not even remotely close.
Sure - but arguing that leaving the SM was a decision made by May that came out of the blue is just plain wrong. It was fully discussed as part of the referendum. As I said earlier, May didn’t have to honour that but she chose to.
Watching the convoluted speeches from utterly committed remainers claiming that somehow their objection based on some technicality. If that technicality wasnt there, they would find another.
Those dumb witted leavers who have been told that it is Brexit In Name Only, and believe it. One MP just said that we should respect the decision, but that the WA had us half in and half out. Seriously, this is a pretty darn hard and clean brexit. We arent half in and half out. On that basis there's absolutely no Brexit agreement he could sign up to that didnt involve us building a wall at Dover.
Utter cretins. And those leavers who are going to vote against it because they think they might get an even harder brexist? You clueless muppets you are going to lose everything you have fought for decades.
The level of ignorance about the difference between the Withdrawal Agreement and a long term arrangement is - frankly - appalling.
Frankly, you get a great deal better expertise on this board. (With the exception of a few posters whose names I shall not mention.)
The results from more than 2,500 respondents revealed the curious trend. “What we found is that as the extremity of opposition increased, objective knowledge went down, but self-assessed knowledge went up,” Fernbach said.
“The extremists are more poorly calibrated. If you don’t know much, it’s hard to assess how much you know,” Fernbach added. “The feeling of understanding that they have then stops them from learning the truth. Extremism can be perverse in that way.”
I saw that paraphrased earlier
Those who know the least, know it the loudest
Explains Cox, Johnson, Farage...
I'd venture that Cox knows rather more about Brexit than you.....
I like the way people are talking like an 80 vote defeat is a victory. What comes next? Redefining black as white? Wet as dry?
A defeat of 80 is still a defeat. And a big one.
once again the inadequacies of the FTPA come to the fore
A damn shame the Tories didn't get a majority at the last election - it would have been ditched (although quite how you close pandora's box wrt the prerogative is beyond me).
You can’t restore an extinguished prerogative but I would have thought some form of words along the lines of “Her Majesty, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, may make an order-in-council to dissolve Parliament” would do the trick.
It's certainly possible to write legislation to enable either the PM or the sovereign to dissolve parliament but the wording as proposed is a nasty mismash. Either the power should lie with the PM - in which case he or she should be able to exercise it unfettered (this is a bad idea) - or it should rest with the crown as a reserve power, in which case HM should *not* be obliged by legislation to act on the PM's advice.
Before the FTPA, PMs could only request a dissolution, not advise one. That's a crucial distinction as it provides a slight constitutional check in normal times (Wilson didn't request an immediate election after forming a government in March 1974 because he didn't know whether the Palace would allow it), but it also acts as a constitutional safety valve if, say, a government was proposing something deeply undemocratic (e.g. extending parliaments to 20 years).
Thought the same thing. Embarrassed to be on the same side.
And me, conservative mps are making me despair and ashamed of many of them
I thought that stopping speaking as soon as he had set out his full knowledge, understanding and insight of the subject was an example to be followed, frankly. I greatly wish that other members would do the same.
But we are in the zone where the people need to read the article to be reassured that we won't be uninsured, or run out of Chocolate Bourbon biscuits, come March 30th. There would be no headline saying "People over 5ft tall to be denied passports."
Blame the headline writers for that.
I think you are wilfully missing my point but I can live with it.
Watching the convoluted speeches from utterly committed remainers claiming that somehow their objection based on some technicality. If that technicality wasnt there, they would find another.
Those dumb witted leavers who have been told that it is Brexit In Name Only, and believe it. One MP just said that we should respect the decision, but that the WA had us half in and half out. Seriously, this is a pretty darn hard and clean brexit. We arent half in and half out. On that basis there's absolutely no Brexit agreement he could sign up to that didnt involve us building a wall at Dover.
Utter cretins. And those leavers who are going to vote against it because they think they might get an even harder brexist? You clueless muppets you are going to lose everything you have fought for decades.
The level of ignorance about the difference between the Withdrawal Agreement and a long term arrangement is - frankly - appalling.
Frankly, you get a great deal better expertise on this board. (With the exception of a few posters whose names I shall not mention.)
It really is pitiful and yet it seems to be a significant element in ERG opposition to the deal.
Watching the convoluted speeches from utterly committed remainers claiming that somehow their objection based on some technicality. If that technicality wasnt there, they would find another.
Those dumb witted leavers who have been told that it is Brexit In Name Only, and believe it. One MP just said that we should respect the decision, but that the WA had us half in and half out. Seriously, this is a pretty darn hard and clean brexit. We arent half in and half out. On that basis there's absolutely no Brexit agreement he could sign up to that didnt involve us building a wall at Dover.
Utter cretins. And those leavers who are going to vote against it because they think they might get an even harder brexist? You clueless muppets you are going to lose everything you have fought for decades.
The level of ignorance about the difference between the Withdrawal Agreement and a long term arrangement is - frankly - appalling.
Frankly, you get a great deal better expertise on this board. (With the exception of a few posters whose names I shall not mention.)
I think some (both Remain and Leave) are well aware of the difference, but pretend to mix up the two.
Watching the convoluted speeches from utterly committed remainers claiming that somehow their objection based on some technicality. If that technicality wasnt there, they would find another.
Those dumb witted leavers who have been told that it is Brexit In Name Only, and believe it. One MP just said that we should respect the decision, but that the WA had us half in and half out. Seriously, this is a pretty darn hard and clean brexit. We arent half in and half out. On that basis there's absolutely no Brexit agreement he could sign up to that didnt involve us building a wall at Dover.
Utter cretins. And those leavers who are going to vote against it because they think they might get an even harder brexist? You clueless muppets you are going to lose everything you have fought for decades.
The level of ignorance about the difference between the Withdrawal Agreement and a long term arrangement is - frankly - appalling.
Frankly, you get a great deal better expertise on this board. (With the exception of a few posters whose names I shall not mention.)
I've been unable to find any certain information about Kelvin Hopkins.
That suggests to me that he is minded to vote for the deal. He's on the naughty step still and this will hardly improve his image with much of institutional Labour (the top might be more indulgent). So if he is going to vote for it, he'll probably not want to boast about it.
The Hull one is very much we don't want to be the only shop left in this desolate shopping centre... Even though it was obviously going to happen it has still gone down like a lead balloon...
More I think a maverick with a colourful past including infiltration of other parties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Lewis and opposed to war in Syria, i.e. capable of independent thought.
I used to hate low level letterboxes when delivering newspapers. They were never big enough, chewed up the paper and all too often had a really annoying yappy dog on the other side of it trying to get your fingers. Sign me up for that one.
Watching the convoluted speeches from utterly committed remainers claiming that somehow their objection based on some technicality. If that technicality wasnt there, they would find another.
Those dumb witted leavers who have been told that it is Brexit In Name Only, and believe it. One MP just said that we should respect the decision, but that the WA had us half in and half out. Seriously, this is a pretty darn hard and clean brexit. We arent half in and half out. On that basis there's absolutely no Brexit agreement he could sign up to that didnt involve us building a wall at Dover.
Utter cretins. And those leavers who are going to vote against it because they think they might get an even harder brexist? You clueless muppets you are going to lose everything you have fought for decades.
The level of ignorance about the difference between the Withdrawal Agreement and a long term arrangement is - frankly - appalling.
Frankly, you get a great deal better expertise on this board. (With the exception of a few posters whose names I shall not mention.)
I think some (both Remain and Leave) are well aware of the difference, but pretend to mix up the two.
Others, like Guto Bebb, are just thick.
He is indeed and he is my mp but for how long is a good question.
Before the FTPA, PMs could only request a dissolution, not advise one. That's a crucial distinction as it provides a slight constitutional check in normal times (Wilson didn't request an immediate election after forming a government in March 1974 because he didn't know whether the Palace would allow it), but it also acts as a constitutional safety valve if, say, a government was proposing something deeply undemocratic (e.g. extending parliaments to 20 years).
I think the biggest issue that the FTPA has brought to light is that by prescribing the form that a confidence motion must take, it has denuded what were previously confidence issues from acting as such, and we end up with a curious situation like the current one where the government has de jure but not de facto confidence, and it's a mess.
At the very least we should restore things that were previously considered confidence matters (queen's speeches, finance bills) as well as allowing the Prime Minister to ask the Speaker to rule other votes confidence votes too, so it could include things like the Meaningful Vote.
I'm not sure there's a desire to return the process behind the choice to dissolve Parliament to an anonymous letter written in the Times. But if the FTPA made *explicit* the process by which the Crown would and would not grant a dissolution at the request of the Prime Minister, that might assuage people.
Is there ANY section of life in which Brexit does not cause a balls-up? Seriously??
And hordes of people still think that this shambles of an idea is a good one?
Unbelievable!!
It's millions of people in the EU27/EEA countries who might not be able to claim - and that is because the EU has screwed up.
In practice I can't see it being a problem, the EU will just extend a blanket extension to the authorisations, so it's probably a non-story.
It's not a non-story. It's one of several (we will not run out of medicines, there will be enough food after March 29th) the need for which, if only to dismiss the premise, is mind-boggling.
Yes but people seize on these headlines, don't read the article, and react as though what was being said was that millions of UK residents were going to be left uninsured. In this case (as the article makes clear) it's the other way round: the UK has sensibly sorted this out already, but the EU hasn't.
That's not what the article says. Some UK insurers have started the process (not all of them, although this is not mentioned in the article), but because not all the Part VIIs can complete before April, there will be rEU policyholders left holding policies with UK insurance entities on which they can no longer claim.
On the flip side, very few EU insurers (again, I know of some exceptions) have started the process of partitioning their business into UK and EU entities, which means that any UK citizens with insurance policies incepting before Brexit day will no longer be able to make claims for events occurring afterwards.
So although the article doesn't explicitly say this, a reasonable inference is that there are a lot of UK citizens who may be left uninsured (in practice they won't be, as it's trivial for the insurers to simply decide to honour claims anyway, but there are some interesting questions on corporate governance as to whether they should).
Watching the convoluted speeches from utterly committed remainers claiming that somehow their objection based on some technicality. If that technicality wasnt there, they would find another.
Those dumb witted leavers who have been told that it is Brexit In Name Only, and believe it. One MP just said that we should respect the decision, but that the WA had us half in and half out. Seriously, this is a pretty darn hard and clean brexit. We arent half in and half out. On that basis there's absolutely no Brexit agreement he could sign up to that didnt involve us building a wall at Dover.
Utter cretins. And those leavers who are going to vote against it because they think they might get an even harder brexist? You clueless muppets you are going to lose everything you have fought for decades.
The level of ignorance about the difference between the Withdrawal Agreement and a long term arrangement is - frankly - appalling.
Frankly, you get a great deal better expertise on this board. (With the exception of a few posters whose names I shall not mention.)
I think some (both Remain and Leave) are well aware of the difference, but pretend to mix up the two.
Others, like Guto Bebb, are just thick.
He is indeed and he is my mp but for how long is a good question.
I have already asked for his de-selection
Matthew Parris, OTOH, is very intelligent, so we can assume that when we mixes up the WA and long term agreement, he is just intending to deceive his readers.
I used to hate low level letterboxes when delivering newspapers. They were never big enough, chewed up the paper and all too often had a really annoying yappy dog on the other side of it trying to get your fingers. Sign me up for that one.
Anyone who has ever done party leafletting would sign up for that in a flash!
I used to hate low level letterboxes when delivering newspapers. They were never big enough, chewed up the paper and all too often had a really annoying yappy dog on the other side of it trying to get your fingers. Sign me up for that one.
Anyone who has ever done party leafletting would sign up for that in a flash!
Use a wooden spoon to poke them through. Bit of luck, you'll choke the litte yappy sod too.....
Quite right too. It would be a democratic outrage if due consideration of the proposal to ban low-level letterboxes was jeopardised.
What is the rationale for banning low-level letterboxes? Has Graham Brady's postman been given a bad back?
It seems to be a campaign by the Communication Workers Union, and would apply only to new builds or changes requiring building regs:
The CWU has been striving for the European Standard (EN13724) to be added to U.K building regulations- this requires letterboxes being at a height accessible to postal workers, significantly reducing possible injuries such as, dog bites, fingers being trapped or back strain caused when bending excessively to reach ground level boxes.
This issue was first raised as far back as 1958 when the British Standards Agency deemed it appropriate that letter boxes be at a proper height. Unfortunately it was not enshrined into building standards Law. Half a century later and several high profile campaigns later the problem still exists. The Union would stress that it does not expect householders or businesses to change their doors immediately
Watching the convoluted speeches from utterly committed remainers claiming that somehow their objection based on some technicality. If that technicality wasnt there, they would find another.
Those dumb witted leavers who have been told that it is Brexit In Name Only, and believe it. One MP just said that we should respect the decision, but that the WA had us half in and half out. Seriously, this is a pretty darn hard and clean brexit. We arent half in and half out. On that basis there's absolutely no Brexit agreement he could sign up to that didnt involve us building a wall at Dover.
Utter cretins. And those leavers who are going to vote against it because they think they might get an even harder brexist? You clueless muppets you are going to lose everything you have fought for decades.
The level of ignorance about the difference between the Withdrawal Agreement and a long term arrangement is - frankly - appalling.
Frankly, you get a great deal better expertise on this board. (With the exception of a few posters whose names I shall not mention.)
I think some (both Remain and Leave) are well aware of the difference, but pretend to mix up the two.
Others, like Guto Bebb, are just thick.
He is indeed and he is my mp but for how long is a good question.
I have already asked for his de-selection
Matthew Parris, OTOH, is very intelligent, so we can assume that when we mixes up the WA and long term agreement, he is just intending to deceive his readers.
Advocates of the deal are the most guilty of conflating the two. You can't simultaneously argue on the basis of the virtues of the future relationship (e.g. "free movement will end") while admitting that the future relationship is undefined.
Quite right too. It would be a democratic outrage if due consideration of the proposal to ban low-level letterboxes was jeopardised.
What is the rationale for banning low-level letterboxes? Has Graham Brady's postman been given a bad back?
It seems to be a campaign by the Communication Workers Union, and would apply only to new builds:
The CWU has been striving for the European Standard (EN13724) to be added to U.K building regulations- this requires letterboxes being at a height accessible to postal workers, significantly reducing possible injuries such as, dog bites, fingers being trapped or back strain caused when bending excessively to reach ground level boxes.
This issue was first raised as far back as 1958 when the British Standards Agency deemed it appropriate that letter boxes be at a proper height. Unfortunately it was not enshrined into building standards Law. Half a century later and several high profile campaigns later the problem still exists. The Union would stress that it does not expect householders or businesses to change their doors immediately
Thought the same thing. Embarrassed to be on the same side.
And me, conservative mps are making me despair and ashamed of many of them
I thought that stopping speaking as soon as he had set out his full knowledge, understanding and insight of the subject was an example to be followed, frankly. I greatly wish that other members would do the same.
If that were true, he’d never have opened his mouth.
I used to hate low level letterboxes when delivering newspapers. They were never big enough, chewed up the paper and all too often had a really annoying yappy dog on the other side of it trying to get your fingers. Sign me up for that one.
Anyone who has ever done party leafletting would sign up for that in a flash!
Very true and for similar reasons. They are indeed an evil menace which have been left unregulated for far too long.
I propose that this house bans low level letter boxes and revokes Article 50
Convention has it that the Speaker rule riders that are irrelevant to the subject at hand out of order.
That's doesn't mean he would
How about "This house bans low level letter boxes and moves that the government should not stoop so low as to ask for a second vote on the Withdrawal Agreement"? Would that be in order?
I'm told Kelvin Hopkins will likely vote against the deal, holding the party line for the party he's currently suspended from...... After all, he is bessy mates with Corbyn and was one of his nominators.
I used to hate low level letterboxes when delivering newspapers. They were never big enough, chewed up the paper and all too often had a really annoying yappy dog on the other side of it trying to get your fingers. Sign me up for that one.
Anyone who has ever done party leafletting would sign up for that in a flash!
Use a wooden spoon to poke them through. Bit of luck, you'll choke the litte yappy sod too.....
Is that referring to private members bills and the Speaker ?
I used to hate low level letterboxes when delivering newspapers. They were never big enough, chewed up the paper and all too often had a really annoying yappy dog on the other side of it trying to get your fingers. Sign me up for that one.
Anyone who has ever done party leafletting would sign up for that in a flash!
Use a wooden spoon to poke them through. Bit of luck, you'll choke the litte yappy sod too.....
Rolled up Sunday Times was my fave. Wait till the furry rat took a hold and then whack the other end.
[EDIT: That second sentence looks like a jolly amusing euphemism for something or other]
Is there ANY section of life in which Brexit does not cause a balls-up? Seriously??
And hordes of people still think that this shambles of an idea is a good one?
Unbelievable!!
It's millions of people in the EU27/EEA countries who might not be able to claim - and that is because the EU has screwed up.
In practice I can't see it being a problem, the EU will just extend a blanket extension to the authorisations, so it's probably a non-story.
It's not a non-story. It's one of several (we will not run out of medicines, there will be enough food after March 29th) the need for which, if only to dismiss the premise, is mind-boggling.
Yes but people seize on these headlines, don't read the article, and react as though what was being said was that millions of UK residents were going to be left uninsured. In this case (as the article makes clear) it's the other way round: the UK has sensibly sorted this out already, but the EU hasn't.
I have been off-line for a few days and the climate of opinion seems even warmer now than it was before.
People who want to Leave, don't want the Deal, they'd rather Remain. People who want to Remain, don't want the Deal, they'd rather Leave No-deal.
All these MPs are thinking purely of the good of the country. Very encouraging: it seems that the actual on-the-ground outcomes of both Remain and the No-deal Brexit are so lacking in threat that the MPs are happy risking an all-or-nothing gamble on them.
Watching the convoluted speeches from utterly committed remainers claiming that somehow their objection based on some technicality. If that technicality wasnt there, they would find another.
Those dumb witted leavers who have been told that it is Brexit In Name Only, and believe it. One MP just said that we should respect the decision, but that the WA had us half in and half out. Seriously, this is a pretty darn hard and clean brexit. We arent half in and half out. On that basis there's absolutely no Brexit agreement he could sign up to that didnt involve us building a wall at Dover.
Utter cretins. And those leavers who are going to vote against it because they think they might get an even harder brexist? You clueless muppets you are going to lose everything you have fought for decades.
The level of ignorance about the difference between the Withdrawal Agreement and a long term arrangement is - frankly - appalling.
Frankly, you get a great deal better expertise on this board. (With the exception of a few posters whose names I shall not mention.)
I think some (both Remain and Leave) are well aware of the difference, but pretend to mix up the two.
Others, like Guto Bebb, are just thick.
He is indeed and he is my mp but for how long is a good question.
I have already asked for his de-selection
Matthew Parris, OTOH, is very intelligent, so we can assume that when we mixes up the WA and long term agreement, he is just intending to deceive his readers.
Advocates of the deal are the most guilty of conflating the two. You can't simultaneously argue on the basis of the virtues of the future relationship (e.g. "free movement will end") while admitting that the future relationship is undefined.
Rubbish. The point of the deal is that we leave the EU on good terms having met our agreed responsibilities and having joint aspirations for a close relationship in the future. That is what it is about and anyone thinking we are going to get a FTA with the EU after walking away from it is deluding themselves. So they are linked, they are just not the same.
I used to hate low level letterboxes when delivering newspapers. They were never big enough, chewed up the paper and all too often had a really annoying yappy dog on the other side of it trying to get your fingers. Sign me up for that one.
Anyone who has ever done party leafletting would sign up for that in a flash!
Very true and for similar reasons. They are indeed an evil menace which have been left unregulated for far too long.
I just can't imagine MPs abstaining on this en masse. Just imagine how ridiculous you'd look public stating that after all the time you've had you still can't make your mind up?
Comments
The Conservatives should be expelling the rebel remainers from the party in order to appoint new Conservative candidates in their constituencies in readiness for a general election to get more Leave MPs in place.
https://news.sky.com/story/labour-mp-john-mann-set-to-break-ranks-and-back-pms-brexit-deal-11606502
What could this possibly be describing if not the EEA?
Never heard of most of these jokers!
Those dumb witted leavers who have been told that it is Brexit In Name Only, and believe it. One MP just said that we should respect the decision, but that the WA had us half in and half out. Seriously, this is a pretty darn hard and clean brexit. We arent half in and half out. On that basis there's absolutely no Brexit agreement he could sign up to that didnt involve us building a wall at Dover.
Utter cretins. And those leavers who are going to vote against it because they think they might get an even harder brexist? You clueless muppets you are going to lose everything you have fought for decades.
The biggest issue, really, is the US, where the recent renegotiation of NAFTA specifically forbids either Mexico or Canada from having FTAs with China. Nations must choose: do I wish a close trading relationship with the US, or with China?
https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1085215003932848134
But I can unequivocally say that I'm bored of this argument now, so whatever
Those who know the least, know it the loudest
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/1085212765671833601
Frankly, you get a great deal better expertise on this board. (With the exception of a few posters whose names I shall not mention.)
Before the FTPA, PMs could only request a dissolution, not advise one. That's a crucial distinction as it provides a slight constitutional check in normal times (Wilson didn't request an immediate election after forming a government in March 1974 because he didn't know whether the Palace would allow it), but it also acts as a constitutional safety valve if, say, a government was proposing something deeply undemocratic (e.g. extending parliaments to 20 years).
https://twitter.com/johannketel/status/1085176207052890113
Others, like Guto Bebb, are just thick.
https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1085218412597600258
You have to love Parliament...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Lewis
and opposed to war in Syria, i.e. capable of independent thought.
I propose that this house bans low level letter boxes and revokes Article 50
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/425422-a-majority-of-americans-support-raising-the-top-tax-rate-to-70
I have already asked for his de-selection
At the very least we should restore things that were previously considered confidence matters (queen's speeches, finance bills) as well as allowing the Prime Minister to ask the Speaker to rule other votes confidence votes too, so it could include things like the Meaningful Vote.
I'm not sure there's a desire to return the process behind the choice to dissolve Parliament to an anonymous letter written in the Times. But if the FTPA made *explicit* the process by which the Crown would and would not grant a dissolution at the request of the Prime Minister, that might assuage people.
On the flip side, very few EU insurers (again, I know of some exceptions) have started the process of partitioning their business into UK and EU entities, which means that any UK citizens with insurance policies incepting before Brexit day will no longer be able to make claims for events occurring afterwards.
So although the article doesn't explicitly say this, a reasonable inference is that there are a lot of UK citizens who may be left uninsured (in practice they won't be, as it's trivial for the insurers to simply decide to honour claims anyway, but there are some interesting questions on corporate governance as to whether they should).
The CWU has been striving for the European Standard (EN13724) to be added to U.K building regulations- this requires letterboxes being at a height accessible to postal workers, significantly reducing possible injuries such as, dog bites, fingers being trapped or back strain caused when bending excessively to reach ground level boxes.
This issue was first raised as far back as 1958 when the British Standards Agency deemed it appropriate that letter boxes be at a proper height. Unfortunately it was not enshrined into building standards Law. Half a century later and several high profile campaigns later the problem still exists. The Union would stress that it does not expect householders or businesses to change their doors immediately
https://cwue5.org/2016/10/03/low-level-letter-boxes-the-cwu-low-level-letter-box-campaign/
Actually seems quite sensible.
That's doesn't mean he would
[EDIT: That second sentence looks like a jolly amusing euphemism for something or other]
People who want to Leave, don't want the Deal, they'd rather Remain. People who want to Remain, don't want the Deal, they'd rather Leave No-deal.
All these MPs are thinking purely of the good of the country. Very encouraging: it seems that the actual on-the-ground outcomes of both Remain and the No-deal Brexit are so lacking in threat that the MPs are happy risking an all-or-nothing gamble on them.
Glad to hear it.
Good evening, everyone.
Well, whatever you need to assuage your confidence, m8.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1085223967164719104
I'll get my coat
The next thing we can ban is describing houses exclusively with names rather than numbers.