Because abiding by the referendum result was not just a Tory pledge but a Labour one too. So there are absolutely no excuses for MPs not enacting it.
And manifesto pledges should be legally binding - all of them. If you can't deliver it then don't promise it in the first place.
Traditionally the opposition manifesto resets when they lose the election, on the grounds that the voters took a look at what they were offering and told them to rethink it.
The vast majority of MPs who took their seats in Parliament stood on both party and personal manifestos that they would abide by the result of the referendum.
As an aside, those of you who want PR which would lead to almost permanent minority governments or coalitions should look at what is happening now in Parliament and realise this is the future if you get your way.
We'd learn how to talk to each other, I guess. And it might at least prevent us pursuing follies like Brexit in the future.
As an aside, 'manifesto pledges should be legally binding' is an aspiration entirely suitable for the 1st April.
So we should be content that our politicians are all liars and charlatans? Well of course we know that is the case but being so accepting of it seems to be rather defeatist.
You could probably expect most of the 6m who signed the petition and the 0.5-1m who marched to vote... for Remainery parties.
I am against the consensus on this. I think it unlikely that we partake of the European elections. Backed 'No' at 4 on Betfair.
I see this Letwin process as essentially being a way to allow MPs to vote through the WA (with PD either amended or iced) without looking like they have wasted everybody's time for the last 4 months. And I think it will work. We will pass the WA (either called May or Clarke) and leave on 22/5 or quite shortly thereafter, maybe 30/6.
And even if we don't (if instead there is a pause for GE/REF) I still suspect that a way will be found whereby we and the EU are spared our participation in the May Euros.
The salient point remains without a WA in place or an agreed extension, the rest of it is all just noise up to and including 12/4.
Liz Truss is taking an interesting line - there's a constituency among Conservatives, it seems, for sounding Conservative so there's a lot of tub-thumping about tax cutting and being tough on law & order though the devil will as always be in the detail.
She is of course fishing in the Boris pond but she may well think the way to win disillusioned Conservatives back is to remind them what it is to be a Conservative. May took the other choice by trying to sound as interventionist to win over Labour voters worried about Corbyn but that wasn't the same battle. Truss has a very specific electorate to win over first - how, were she to be successful, she would convey that message to the country is another question.
When are Mercedes going to force Merkel to give us a good deal?
They all know we hold all the cards don’t they ?
It needs repeating, and so I do, that there are no upsides to Brexit. If there were any we would know about them by now. Leavers have had three years to identify them. Therefore Brexit is entirely about managing the many downsides and to select from the various poor alternatives. I realise this is a difficult conversation for Leavers, who voted to make things better, as they saw it. The current crisis stems from this contradiction and was inevitable.
There’s one upside.
No Deal Brexit destroys the British Eurosceptic movement.
Within two years no one will admit to voting Leave except the mentally incapable and Russian trolls.
Unless of course it is a success. Which it likely will be as the bloody minded British public just muddle through.
I suspect everyone will get behind Brexit in the national interest in exactly the same way as Farage and co did their bed to make a success of our membership of the EU.
Nobody has to "get behind Brexit" since Brexit is a concept/event not a physical activity people need to work on. I'm a great believer in laissez-faire and the cold reality is that it is peoples self-interest that will see us though.
Some business people may think Brexit is a terrible idea but they're going to work to ensure their own business copes fine despite Brexit. Other business people May think Brexit is a great idea and they're going to work to ensure their own business gets the benefits of Brexit. Others may not think Brexit affects them and will work to ensure their own business works because that's what they do every day anyway.
Ultimately whether people are A B or C is irrelevant. What matters is that people look after themselves. Brexit is a sideshow really.
The EU was broadly an economic and political success, but that didn’t stop a relatively small band of ideologues from organising and creating what became Brexit.
Whatever happens next, any sneeze, fart or hiccup will be blamed on Brexit, which will provide enough Oxygen to sustain an equivalent movement to UKIP.
What is clear is that there will be no settlement.
So let's assume half a dozen cabinet ministers resign as May is forced to embraced the CU. Why does that mean the end for May? Surely only a Con VoNC in her (not before December) or a HoC VoNC on the government can force her out.
Corbyn lost 30+ didn't he? (Although that might have been planned to purge the cabinet of those not pure in thought).
When are Mercedes going to force Merkel to give us a good deal?
They all know we hold all the cards don’t they ?
It needs repeating, and so I do, that there are no upsides to Brexit. If there were any we would know about them by now. Leavers have had three years to identify them. Therefore Brexit is entirely about managing the many downsides and to select from the various poor alternatives. I realise this is a difficult conversation for Leavers, who voted to make things better, as they saw it. The current crisis stems from this contradiction and was inevitable.
There are upsides but as has oft been said ... we haven't left yet.
There hasn't really been much on the upsides of remaining - everything has been on how bad it will be to leave.
The obverse of the downsides of leaving is the upsides of remaining: frictionless trade and greater prosperity and opportunities; having a say in and influence over the rules we need to follow.
The downsides of leaving essentially are less trade and therefore less prosperity, jobs, public welfare etc; having to follow rules that we no say over; those rules increasingly being made against our interest because we don't attend the meetings where the decisions are made.
Those rules are increasingly being made at a level above the EU where, because of our membership of the EU, we have no voice and no seat. Leaving the EU increases, rather than decreases, our ability to shape rules and regulations.
Inside the EU we have no veto on the policy being advanced on our behalf in these organisations. The voice that speaks and the hand that votes is the EU, not us.
Outside the EU we have our own seat, our own voice and our own vote including the right to veto.
How much say did Switzerland have in GDPR legislation?
I don't recall GDPR coming from 'above EU level'.
Precisely. Richard's argument is deluded.
Nope because my argument was exactly about membership of those institutions above EU level which now dictate so many of our regulations. It is you who are deluded about this because of your Euro-fanaticism.
GDPR doesn't apply to Switzerland - the companies that use it there use it as it's best practice (and a lot of GDPR is simply, treat data the way you would like your data to be treated)..
Yes, this is surely Mrs May's biggest problem now, the prospect of cabinet resignations. It's one thing to lose a few PPSs, a minister of state here and there, but to lose cabinet ministers, especially those of the stature of Penny Mordaunt and Chris Grayling, that would be quite another.
FWIW, my opinion is that she could survive losing either one of Mordaunt or Grayling, but not both. If the two of them walk together, no doubt backed up with a powerful joint letter to the Daily Express, that spells the end of soft Brexit as a realistic possibility, and quite possibly the end of this government.
“Cabinet Ministers of the stature of Penny Mordaunt and Chris Grayling.......”
Very good attempt at an April’s Fool. The subtle reference to their height (“stature”) rather than their intellectual ability or competence was particularly good.
Because abiding by the referendum result was not just a Tory pledge but a Labour one too. So there are absolutely no excuses for MPs not enacting it.
And manifesto pledges should be legally binding - all of them. If you can't deliver it then don't promise it in the first place.
Yes absolutely. If there is an overall parliamentary majority. If not then it is a best efforts, everything has changed situation. How can you make it legally binding to implement a policy if the party you end up in bed with, however formally, objects to it?
Oh I agree with you on that. Again it highlights how bad coalitions (and hence PR) are for our democratic process. But in this instance I was talking more in terms of the personal manifestos and promises made by all those MPs now trying to prevent Brexit and the fact that both parties made the same pledge to honour the referendum result.
In countries with PR, what sort of Coalitions are more common: the 2010-2015 sort, or the 2017-present sort?
Looking around, seems like the former. However, our adversarial/majoritarian system is not set up to sustain such; it promotes rather the sort of chaos we have now when no false majority can be created.
Mr. Jonathan, the electorate should've been consulted at the ever deepening levels of integration. The Lisbon Treaty and the manner of its passing was disgraceful, planting the seed not only for the holding of the 2016 referendum but also its surprising result (lest we forget, the entire political establishment was pro-EU, [unless you count UKIP as part of the establishment, otherwise every front bench was for the EU]).
@rcs1000 hits the nail on the head. May’s deal is a temporary Customs Union.
Anyone who votes for a permanent CU versus a temporary CU is either mischief-making (Labour), or thick (Tories).
If we *do* end up with a CU, we will be looking to relitigate it about 5 minutes later. It is not a viable outcome.
Without a customs union, we have no viable way of leaving the European Union. Saying Japan etc doesn't have a CU misses the point. It doesn't have a controversial land border with the continental consortium. It doesn't have the same commitment to frictionless trade with its neighbours.
Leavers should be DESPERATE for a customs union with the EU. It's the only thing that makes Brexit sort of work.
PS I am VERY confident we will end up in a deep customs union of some kind with the EU (possibly full membership), but there could be a spell of No Deal chaos first.
ISTR that you were very confident that May would pivot to SM in her summer 2017 speech (Florence?)
Doesn't sound likely. I expected the December 2017 interim deal to be agreed, which it was. I also expected May's Deal to go through because it was designed to be as obfuscatory as possible. I am not quite so confident about that now. Since early 2017 I have expected the UK to end up in a Norway Plus-ish bespoke arrangement _eventually_ I still think that probably the case, but there is a greater possibility of future EU membership, if No Deal happens first. I have always said that the standstill transition period is the Brexiteer's best friend. It allows people to think, we have left and nothing seems to have changed.
I have given up trying to understand the backstop and why some MPs are opposed to it. I doubt it matters, to be honest. Some of the loonier ERG’ers are just opposed to any compromise at all with the EU. If it weren’t the backstop it would be something else.
The mistake Cameron - and now May - have made is trying to appease these people. They should have been faced down. If they are not - even at this late stage - they will continue to ruin this country.
Anyway, I have a cold to nurse, somewhat irritatingly in this lovely spring weather.
Because abiding by the referendum result was not just a Tory pledge but a Labour one too. So there are absolutely no excuses for MPs not enacting it.
And manifesto pledges should be legally binding - all of them. If you can't deliver it then don't promise it in the first place.
Yes absolutely. If there is an overall parliamentary majority. If not then it is a best efforts, everything has changed situation. How can you make it legally binding to implement a policy if the party you end up in bed with, however formally, objects to it?
Oh I agree with you on that. Again it highlights how bad coalitions (and hence PR) are for our democratic process. But in this instance I was talking more in terms of the personal manifestos and promises made by all those MPs now trying to prevent Brexit and the fact that both parties made the same pledge to honour the referendum result.
In countries with PR, what sort of Coalitions are more common: the 2010-2015 sort, or the 2017-present sort?
Looking around, seems like the former. However, our adversarial/majoritarian system is not set up to sustain such; it promotes rather the sort of chaos we have now when no false majority can be created.
It's the arrangement in the Commons. Expectation of sword-fighting across the House. An arrangement which was perpetuated, I believe, by Churchill; after the Commons was bombed he wanted it rebuilt 'just as it was. although there was a suggestion of a semi circular arrangement.
“Cabinet Ministers of the stature of Penny Mordaunt and Chris Grayling.......”
Very good attempt at an April’s Fool. The subtle reference to their height (“stature”) rather than their intellectual ability or competence was particularly good.
:-)
Chris is a 'towering' figure it must be said. He towers over one and all.
Because abiding by the referendum result was not just a Tory pledge but a Labour one too. So there are absolutely no excuses for MPs not enacting it.
And manifesto pledges should be legally binding - all of them. If you can't deliver it then don't promise it in the first place.
Traditionally the opposition manifesto resets when they lose the election, on the grounds that the voters took a look at what they were offering and told them to rethink it.
The vast majority of MPs who took their seats in Parliament stood on both party and personal manifestos that they would abide by the result of the referendum.
As an aside, those of you who want PR which would lead to almost permanent minority governments or coalitions should look at what is happening now in Parliament and realise this is the future if you get your way.
We'd learn how to talk to each other, I guess. And it might at least prevent us pursuing follies like Brexit in the future.
As an aside, 'manifesto pledges should be legally binding' is an aspiration entirely suitable for the 1st April.
So we should be content that our politicians are all liars and charlatans? Well of course we know that is the case but being so accepting of it seems to be rather defeatist.
We should accept that circumstances, and minds change.
And not imagine that more than 0.1% of the electorate pay any great attention to the manifestos in any event.
Ha ha thanks. Actually the train was on time today, and I even got to stick it to the man by sitting in a first class seat with a standard class ticket.
You’re proud of being a thief?
Thanks for that reaction, the thought of you spitting out your quail's egg and choking on your silver spoon has made my morning. But more seriously, the whole process of rail privatisation was such a massive act of theft that I consider sitting in the posh seats to be fairly meagre compensation. In any case, first class is unenforceable in South East London, I doubt anyone in there had paid for it.
Great response!
Edit: Charles seems to be proud of being descended from theives, so maybe his question was meant to be positive?
The thief who steals 3 kopeks gets hung. The thief who steals 50 kopeks gets praise... Russian proverb.
Defrauding the reeking and corrupt mess that is privatised rail is a moral good. Bravo OnlyLivingBoy whether you are in New Cross or not.
Perhaps the question should not be when the 737 Max will return to the sky but whether it should.
The model’s current problems are the result of a string of decisions dating back more than a half-century; its design shortcomings run far deeper than just a poorly written piece of software.
The story starts the 1960s, when Boeing was setting the specifications for the 737, the plane that would go on to become its best seller to date. Back then, jet travel was in its infancy, and many airports lacked the infrastructure that we take for granted today, such as jetways. “The airplane was designed to sit close to the ground,” says airplane designer and aviation journalist Peter Garrison. “It would have an airstair built into the door so it wouldn’t need exterior arrangements to get passengers off the plane.”
Climbed those airstairs.....BA used to have them, as did Thomson's Britannia on the -200s - of course the accountants pretty quickly got rid of that weight....
Ha ha thanks. Actually the train was on time today, and I even got to stick it to the man by sitting in a first class seat with a standard class ticket.
You’re proud of being a thief?
Thanks for that reaction, the thought of you spitting out your quail's egg and choking on your silver spoon has made my morning. But more seriously, the whole process of rail privatisation was such a massive act of theft that I consider sitting in the posh seats to be fairly meagre compensation. In any case, first class is unenforceable in South East London, I doubt anyone in there had paid for it.
Great response!
Edit: Charles seems to be proud of being descended from theives, so maybe his question was meant to be positive?
The thief who steals 3 kopeks gets hung. The thief who steals 50 kopeks gets praise... Russian proverb.
Defrauding the reeking and corrupt mess that is privatised rail is a moral good. Bravo OnlyLivingBoy whether you are in New Cross or not.
Sitting in first class without a first class ticket is, meanwhile, fraud or theft or whatever. Fraud/theft is why barriers on the tube were introduced all those years ago. But as @OnlyLivingBoy notes, sticking it to the man is compensation enough for some.
The PM's deal with no PD attached should have got support from the 30-40 soft brexit labour MPs but they are basically a bunch of cowards. I've given up on the ERG and hope they get expelled from the party, we need to kick every Tory MP who voted against MV3 out of the party. "Sincerely held beliefs" can take hike, no deal is not a tenable position.
Why the fuck "should" they when the tories are about to be shattered on the rusty anvil of brexit? Do you think the tories would help a Labour government if the positions were reversed?
Perhaps the question should not be when the 737 Max will return to the sky but whether it should.
The model’s current problems are the result of a string of decisions dating back more than a half-century; its design shortcomings run far deeper than just a poorly written piece of software.
The story starts the 1960s, when Boeing was setting the specifications for the 737, the plane that would go on to become its best seller to date. Back then, jet travel was in its infancy, and many airports lacked the infrastructure that we take for granted today, such as jetways. “The airplane was designed to sit close to the ground,” says airplane designer and aviation journalist Peter Garrison. “It would have an airstair built into the door so it wouldn’t need exterior arrangements to get passengers off the plane.”
Climbed those airstairs.....BA used to have them, as did Thomson's Britannia on the -200s - of course the accountants pretty quickly got rid of that weight....
They are still there. Ryanair use them on the front exit to save an airport charge.
Mussolini's granddaughter is an MEP? I didn't know that. And she backs her granddad and thinks critics of fascism are bastards?
And that's who you want voting to set our laws?
No thanks. That Tweet sums up why we should Brexit.
You put up with Farage & co for long enough (though their attendance record may suggest they had very little effect on setting 'our laws').
Actually I have voted against Farage & co every election I voted against moving away from FPTP which has kept Farage & co at bay and away from Westminster And I voted to make Farage & co redundant at the referendum.
Seeing the back of Farage & co is a nice side benefit of Brexit. Being able to kick out anyone we don't want setting our laws is the entire point of Brexit.
Miss Cyclefree, I think the main concern most have is that we cannot leave the backstop without EU agreement. It's harder to leave than the EU.
I think it is a McGuffin myself. A pretext. The likes of JRM and others seem to have a view of the world in which Britain can leave the EU without any adverse consequences, can get everything it wants, do what it wants and does not have to be bound by pesky rules or treaties or agreements with foreigners. This view has coincided with reality and rather than being told by grown ups in the Tory party to stop being so bloody stupid and childish they are being indulged and cosseted.
When are Mercedes going to force Merkel to give us a good deal?
They all know we hold all the cards don’t they ?
It needs repeating, and so I do, that there are no upsides to Brexit. If there were any we would know about them by now. Leavers have had three years to identify them. Therefore Brexit is entirely about managing the many downsides and to select from the various poor alternatives. I realise this is a difficult conversation for Leavers, who voted to make things better, as they saw it. The current crisis stems from this contradiction and was inevitable.
There’s one upside.
No Deal Brexit destroys the British Eurosceptic movement.
Within two years no one will admit to voting Leave except the mentally incapable and Russian trolls.
Unless of course it is a success. Which it likely will be as the bloody minded British public just muddle through.
I suspect everyone will get behind Brexit in the national interest in exactly the same way as Farage and co did their bed to make a success of our membership of the EU.
Nobody has to "get behind Brexit" since Brexit is a concept/event not a physical activity people need to work on. I'm a great believer in laissez-faire and the cold reality is that it is peoples self-interest that will see us though.
Some business people may think Brexit is a terrible idea but they're going to work to ensure their own business copes fine despite Brexit. Other business people May think Brexit is a great idea and they're going to work to ensure their own business gets the benefits of Brexit. Others may not think Brexit affects them and will work to ensure their own business works because that's what they do every day anyway.
Ultimately whether people are A B or C is irrelevant. What matters is that people look after themselves. Brexit is a sideshow really.
If you work for a business that relocates its UK operation - or shuts it down - because of Brexit that is not irrelevant. It is your livelihood.
Yes, this is surely Mrs May's biggest problem now, the prospect of cabinet resignations. It's one thing to lose a few PPSs, a minister of state here and there, but to lose cabinet ministers, especially those of the stature of Penny Mordaunt and Chris Grayling, that would be quite another.
FWIW, my opinion is that she could survive losing either one of Mordaunt or Grayling, but not both. If the two of them walk together, no doubt backed up with a powerful joint letter to the Daily Express, that spells the end of soft Brexit as a realistic possibility, and quite possibly the end of this government.
“Cabinet Ministers of the stature of Penny Mordaunt and Chris Grayling.......”
Very good attempt at an April’s Fool. The subtle reference to their height (“stature”) rather than their intellectual ability or competence was particularly good.
I suspect a handful of cabinet resignations - on either side (and possibly both) - are already factored in to most wargaming of the situation.
Where it'll become more relevant is when there's a custody battle over which side gets to be called Conservatives after any divorce.
I doubt a new party led by Grayling, Mordaunt, Raab and JRM will feel like majority Conservatism. If bigger and more centrist beasts like Hunt and Javid jump.. you'd start to think they might.
Likewise on the other wing.
Same in Labour, by the way.. suspect Tom Watson and Yvette Cooper are hanging around to fight for the 'soul' (ie party name) of Labour. If they thought Corbyn and McDonnell were nailed on for decades, they'd be off.
SOAS students should be particularly outraged. Is there not a Brunei gallery there?
Indeed, isn’t Penny Mordaunt meant to be the Equalities Minister? Perhaps she could get off her arse and do something about those Parkfield protests and this as well?
Mr. Tweed, that's possible (on the Watson/Cooper point) but that could be a misjudgement, and cowardice/fondness for Labour might also be affecting their perception.
When are Mercedes going to force Merkel to give us a good deal?
They all know we hold all the cards don’t they ?
It needs repeating, and so I do, that there are no upsides to Brexit. If there were any we would know about them by now. Leavers have had three years to identify them. Therefore Brexit is entirely about managing the many downsides and to select from the various poor alternatives. I realise this is a difficult conversation for Leavers, who voted to make things better, as they saw it. The current crisis stems from this contradiction and was inevitable.
There’s one upside.
No Deal Brexit destroys the British Eurosceptic movement.
Within two years no one will admit to voting Leave except the mentally incapable and Russian trolls.
Unless of course it is a success. Which it likely will be as the bloody minded British public just muddle through.
I suspect everyone will get behind Brexit in the national interest in exactly the same way as Farage and co did their bed to make a success of our membership of the EU.
Nobody has to "get behind Brexit" since Brexit is a concept/event not a physical activity people need to work on. I'm a great believer in laissez-faire and the cold reality is that it is peoples self-interest that will see us though.
Some business people may think Brexit is a terrible idea but they're going to work to ensure their own business copes fine despite Brexit. Other business people May think Brexit is a great idea and they're going to work to ensure their own business gets the benefits of Brexit. Others may not think Brexit affects them and will work to ensure their own business works because that's what they do every day anyway.
Ultimately whether people are A B or C is irrelevant. What matters is that people look after themselves. Brexit is a sideshow really.
If you work for a business that relocates its UK operation - or shuts it down - because of Brexit that is not irrelevant. It is your livelihood.
Indeed. Though given we have employment at a record high and wages growing faster than inflation that doesn't seem to be the rule at the moment.
Mussolini's granddaughter is an MEP? I didn't know that. And she backs her granddad and thinks critics of fascism are bastards?
And that's who you want voting to set our laws?
No thanks. That Tweet sums up why we should Brexit.
I always thought it was very unfair on the mistress.
Mussolini was captured in a partisan area controlled through extra judicial killings. The execution of Mussolini and his mistress was revenge for the deaths of the captors' brothers and cousins. It was personal.
Labour whipping this time (!) for the rather marvelous Common Market 2.0.
Frictionless trade, free movement of people, no need to spend years negotiating second rate trade treaties, plus regain control of our food and, most important of all, our fish.
Remainers happy because it feels quite European, Leavers happy because it also feels a little bit more sovereign.
Still needs us to pass the Withdrawal Agreement of course. And the vision might never be realized because it is not binding and all depends on Phase 2, and Phase 2 in turn depends on who is the PM and the government after the next election.
When are Mercedes going to force Merkel to give us a good deal?
They all know we hold all the cards don’t they ?
It needs repeating, and so I do, that there are no upsides to Brexit. If there were any we would know about them by now. Leavers have had three years to identify them. Therefore Brexit is entirely about managing the many downsides and to select from the various poor alternatives. I realise this is a difficult conversation for Leavers, who voted to make things better, as they saw it. The current crisis stems from this contradiction and was inevitable.
There are upsides but as has oft been said ... we haven't left yet.
There hasn't really been much on the upsides of remaining - everything has been on how bad it will be to leave.
The obverse of the downsides of leaving is the upsides of remaining: frictionless trade and greater prosperity and opportunities; having a say in and influence over the rules we need to follow.
The downsides of leaving essentially are less trade and therefore less prosperity, jobs, public welfare etc; having to follow rules that we no say over; those rules increasingly being made against our interest because we don't attend the meetings where the decisions are made.
Those rules are increasingly being made at a level above the EU where, because of our membership of the EU, we have no voice and no seat. Leaving the EU increases, rather than decreases, our ability to shape rules and regulations.
snip..
How much say did Switzerland have in GDPR legislation?
I don't recall GDPR coming from 'above EU level'.
Precisely. Richard's argument is deluded.
Nope because my argument was exactly about membership of those institutions above EU level which now dictate so many of our regulations. It is you who are deluded about this because of your Euro-fanaticism.
GDPR doesn't apply to Switzerland - the companies that use it there use it as it's best practice (and a lot of GDPR is simply, treat data the way you would like your data to be treated)..
well if they have EU citizens data it does apply to them - the regulation is quite specific on that point and a bit worrying if people don't understand it.
Labour whipping this time (!) for the rather marvelous Common Market 2.0.
Frictionless trade, free movement of people, no need to spend years negotiating second rate trade treaties, plus regain control of our food and, most important of all, our fish.
Remainers happy because it feels quite European, Leavers happy because it also feels a little bit more sovereign.
Still needs us to pass the Withdrawal Agreement of course. And the vision might never be realized because it is not binding and all depends on Phase 2, and Phase 2 in turn depends on who is the PM and the government after the next election.
But let's not dwell on that.
Well why not? It's no more unrealistic than May's Deal. It just sets the mood music for a soft, rather than a hard, Brexit.
Mussolini's granddaughter is an MEP? I didn't know that. And she backs her granddad and thinks critics of fascism are bastards?
And that's who you want voting to set our laws?
No thanks. That Tweet sums up why we should Brexit.
I always thought it was very unfair on the mistress.
Mussolini was captured in a partisan area controlled through extra judicial killings. The execution of Mussolini and his mistress was revenge for the deaths of the captors' brothers and cousins. It was personal.
It was not just personal.
What I find odd is why Jim Carrey bothered to do the drawing rather than use the photo. Also he rather undermines his point: it is not the rough justice meted out to the perpetrators of fascism and nazism which is the reason for being against these ideas. It is what these ideas do to their innocent victims.
Labour whipping this time (!) for the rather marvelous Common Market 2.0.
Frictionless trade, free movement of people, no need to spend years negotiating second rate trade treaties, plus regain control of our food and, most important of all, our fish.
Remainers happy because it feels quite European, Leavers happy because it also feels a little bit more sovereign.
Still needs us to pass the Withdrawal Agreement of course. And the vision might never be realized because it is not binding and all depends on Phase 2, and Phase 2 in turn depends on who is the PM and the government after the next election.
But let's not dwell on that.
This is the point I don't understand about the current arguments. There is no reason not to vote for this arrangement because it is not binding. It simply gets us over the line with withdrawal and after that whoever is in power can have an entirely different negotiating position as long as it doesn't run counter to the actual WA.
Labour whipping this time (!) for the rather marvelous Common Market 2.0.
Frictionless trade, free movement of people, no need to spend years negotiating second rate trade treaties, plus regain control of our food and, most important of all, our fish.
Remainers happy because it feels quite European, Leavers happy because it also feels a little bit more sovereign.
Still needs us to pass the Withdrawal Agreement of course. And the vision might never be realized because it is not binding and all depends on Phase 2, and Phase 2 in turn depends on who is the PM and the government after the next election.
But let's not dwell on that.
Plans to use the emergency brake would bump up against reality pdq.
Labour whipping this time (!) for the rather marvelous Common Market 2.0.
Frictionless trade, free movement of people, no need to spend years negotiating second rate trade treaties, plus regain control of our food and, most important of all, our fish.
Remainers happy because it feels quite European, Leavers happy because it also feels a little bit more sovereign.
Still needs us to pass the Withdrawal Agreement of course. And the vision might never be realized because it is not binding and all depends on Phase 2, and Phase 2 in turn depends on who is the PM and the government after the next election.
But let's not dwell on that.
Thinking about it it might be the best solution. CU sounds superficially appealing, but gets worse the more one looks into it. A true Norway could work well. Of course to really properly work we need to cut off Northern Ireland, perhaps they'll vote to join the Republic of Ireland and the island of Ireland will neatly fit into a single democratic entity. I'd assume all NI people would have a right to a British passport so it'll be like the situation is now but reversed wrt Ireland and rUK
When are Mercedes going to force Merkel to give us a good deal?
They all know we hold all the cards don’t they ?
It needs repeating, and so I do, that there are no upsides to Brexit. If there were any we would know about them by now. Leavers have had three years to identify them. Therefore Brexit is entirely about managing the many downsides and to select from the various poor alternatives. I realise this is a difficult conversation for Leavers, who voted to make things better, as they saw it. The current crisis stems from this contradiction and was inevitable.
There’s one upside.
No Deal Brexit destroys the British Eurosceptic movement.
Within two years no one will admit to voting Leave except the mentally incapable and Russian trolls.
Unless of course it is a success. Which it likely will be as the bloody minded British public just muddle through.
I suspect everyone will get behind Brexit in the national interest in exactly the same way as Farage and co did their bed to make a success of our membership of the EU.
Nobody has to "get behind Brexit" since Brexit is a concept/event not a physical activity people need to work on. I'm a great believer in laissez-faire and the cold reality is that it is peoples self-interest that will see us though.
Some business people may think Brexit is a terrible idea but they're going to work to ensure their own business copes fine despite Brexit. Other business people May think Brexit is a great idea and they're going to work to ensure their own business gets the benefits of Brexit. Others may not think Brexit affects them and will work to ensure their own business works because that's what they do every day anyway.
Ultimately whether people are A B or C is irrelevant. What matters is that people look after themselves. Brexit is a sideshow really.
If you work for a business that relocates its UK operation - or shuts it down - because of Brexit that is not irrelevant. It is your livelihood.
Given there was plenty of that going on whilst we were still members of the EU - often with EU assistance - I don't see the difference. It is the price we pay for globalisation. But of course that is an entirely different argument.
well if they have EU citizens data it does apply to them - the regulation is quite specific on that point and a bit worrying if people don't understand it.
My point is that the rule was made in the EU, it wasn't imposed on the EU by the rest of the world - rather the EU has imposed it on the rest of the world...
Labour whipping this time (!) for the rather marvelous Common Market 2.0.
Frictionless trade, free movement of people, no need to spend years negotiating second rate trade treaties, plus regain control of our food and, most important of all, our fish.
Remainers happy because it feels quite European, Leavers happy because it also feels a little bit more sovereign.
Still needs us to pass the Withdrawal Agreement of course. And the vision might never be realized because it is not binding and all depends on Phase 2, and Phase 2 in turn depends on who is the PM and the government after the next election.
But let's not dwell on that.
This is the point I don't understand about the current arguments. There is no reason not to vote for this arrangement because it is not binding. It simply gets us over the line with withdrawal and after that whoever is in power can have an entirely different negotiating position as long as it doesn't run counter to the actual WA.
You and me both. The WA could've/should've been passed in December. But the ERG tossers decided it was not pure enough and in so doing they created a whole new Pro-EU movemment which saw Revoke as a possibility.
Now I am torn between wanting the WA signed with No Deal consigned to the bin... and the allure of a possible long-extension, 2nd Ref and Remain.
Labour whipping this time (!) for the rather marvelous Common Market 2.0.
Frictionless trade, free movement of people, no need to spend years negotiating second rate trade treaties, plus regain control of our food and, most important of all, our fish.
Remainers happy because it feels quite European, Leavers happy because it also feels a little bit more sovereign.
Still needs us to pass the Withdrawal Agreement of course. And the vision might never be realized because it is not binding and all depends on Phase 2, and Phase 2 in turn depends on who is the PM and the government after the next election.
But let's not dwell on that.
This is the point I don't understand about the current arguments. There is no reason not to vote for this arrangement because it is not binding. It simply gets us over the line with withdrawal and after that whoever is in power can have an entirely different negotiating position as long as it doesn't run counter to the actual WA.
The ERG know the tide is going out on Brexit and want the dislocation of crashing out as insurance against any future change of direction. For them being sensible and taking it slowly risks their extreme vision never coming to pass
SOAS students should be particularly outraged. Is there not a Brunei gallery there?
Indeed, isn’t Penny Mordaunt meant to be the Equalities Minister? Perhaps she could get off her arse and do something about those Parkfield protests and this as well?
As Equalities minister, she is responsible for the rights of both racial minorities and the LGBT+ community. Which side of the Parkfield debate so you think she should be on?
(Rhetorical question; I know you believe the latter, and I agree entirely. But it's obviously a massive can of worms, and I don't blame her for staying the heck away from it. There are legitimate arguments about the extent to which parents should be allowed to decide on what their children are taught at school, and at what age, although inevitably these were the first casualties of the protests.)
Ha ha thanks. Actually the train was on time today, and I even got to stick it to the man by sitting in a first class seat with a standard class ticket.
You’re proud of being a thief?
Thanks for that reaction, the thought of you spitting out your quail's egg and choking on your silver spoon has made my morning. But more seriously, the whole process of rail privatisation was such a massive act of theft that I consider sitting in the posh seats to be fairly meagre compensation. In any case, first class is unenforceable in South East London, I doubt anyone in there had paid for it.
Great response!
Edit: Charles seems to be proud of being descended from theives, so maybe his question was meant to be positive?
The thief who steals 3 kopeks gets hung. The thief who steals 50 kopeks gets praise... Russian proverb.
Defrauding the reeking and corrupt mess that is privatised rail is a moral good. Bravo OnlyLivingBoy whether you are in New Cross or not.
Sitting in first class without a first class ticket is, meanwhile, fraud or theft or whatever. Fraud/theft is why barriers on the tube were introduced all those years ago. But as @OnlyLivingBoy notes, sticking it to the man is compensation enough for some.
There are several circumstances in which you can legitimately "sit in a first class seat with a standard class ticket" (to use the exact phrase from upthread). Sometimes First Class is declassified by the conductor - we had a spate of that on our line a while back when GWR appeared to run out of standard-class carriages and kept sending us HSTs with First Class randomly substituted for them. Sometimes rolling stock with First Class is used on a line for which no First Class fares exist. There's some batshit situation like this on Grayling's batshit Thameslink railway but I'm too tired of batshittery to look it up.
Or you could be pregnant and in recipient of the magic "this standard-class ticket holder may use First Class seating" letter which some train companies issue, though I grant you that OnlyLivingBoy's choice of PB monicker makes that a fairly unlikely outcome.
You and me both. The WA could've/should've been passed in December. But the ERG tossers decided it was not pure enough and in so doing they created a whole new Pro-EU movemment which saw Revoke as a possibility.
Now I am torn between wanting the WA signed with No Deal consigned to the bin... and the allure of a possible long-extension, 2nd Ref and Remain.
Currently I think the latter is more likely.
I broadly agree, with one proviso that I don't think Remain or Hard Brexit are tenable end states. With the country split over EU membership, and unlikely to decsively favour IN or OUT for a long time, we do in fact need a looser trade focused relationship with the EU. EEA/Norway/CU2.0 whatever form it takes doesn't matter that much, but fully IN or OUT are not the way ahead.
If we could magically flip a switch and be in EFTA with a customs arrangement tomorrow I would guess that at least 75% of the population would think "I can live with that".
Labour whipping this time (!) for the rather marvelous Common Market 2.0.
Frictionless trade, free movement of people, no need to spend years negotiating second rate trade treaties, plus regain control of our food and, most important of all, our fish.
Remainers happy because it feels quite European, Leavers happy because it also feels a little bit more sovereign.
Still needs us to pass the Withdrawal Agreement of course. And the vision might never be realized because it is not binding and all depends on Phase 2, and Phase 2 in turn depends on who is the PM and the government after the next election.
But let's not dwell on that.
This is the point I don't understand about the current arguments. There is no reason not to vote for this arrangement because it is not binding. It simply gets us over the line with withdrawal and after that whoever is in power can have an entirely different negotiating position as long as it doesn't run counter to the actual WA.
You and me both. The WA could've/should've been passed in December. But the ERG tossers decided it was not pure enough and in so doing they created a whole new Pro-EU movemment which saw Revoke as a possibility.
Now I am torn between wanting the WA signed with No Deal consigned to the bin... and the allure of a possible long-extension, 2nd Ref and Remain.
Currently I think the latter is more likely.
It would have been closer, but not enough. The DUP would never support it. It needs Labour support or acquiescence. Your point about excluding customs union from the WA applies equally to the WA including a customs union. Nothing is set in stone. So the immediate issue was Theresa May not attempting a cross party consensus by considering customs union.
Labour whipping this time (!) for the rather marvelous Common Market 2.0.
Frictionless trade, free movement of people, no need to spend years negotiating second rate trade treaties, plus regain control of our food and, most important of all, our fish.
Remainers happy because it feels quite European, Leavers happy because it also feels a little bit more sovereign.
Still needs us to pass the Withdrawal Agreement of course. And the vision might never be realized because it is not binding and all depends on Phase 2, and Phase 2 in turn depends on who is the PM and the government after the next election.
But let's not dwell on that.
Thinking about it it might be the best solution. CU sounds superficially appealing, but gets worse the more one looks into it. A true Norway could work well. Of course to really properly work we need to cut off Northern Ireland, perhaps they'll vote to join the Republic of Ireland and the island of Ireland will neatly fit into a single democratic entity. I'd assume all NI people would have a right to a British passport so it'll be like the situation is now but reversed wrt Ireland and rUK
It would be a pretty much ideal solution. But on current evidence that seems to make it most unlikely.
Ha ha thanks. Actually the train was on time today, and I even got to stick it to the man by sitting in a first class seat with a standard class ticket.
You’re proud of being a thief?
Thanks for that reaction, the thought of you spi compensation. In any case, first class is unenforceable in South East London, I doubt anyone in there had paid for it.
Great response!
Edit: Charles seems to be proud of being descended from theives, so maybe his question was meant to be positive?
The thief who steals 3 kopeks gets hung. The thief who steals 50 kopeks gets praise... Russian proverb.
Defrauding the reeking and corrupt mess that is privatised rail is a moral good. Bravo OnlyLivingBoy whether you are in New Cross or not.
Sitting in first class without a first class ticket is, meanwhile, fraud or theft or whatever. Fraud/theft is why barriers on the tube were introduced all those years ago. But as @OnlyLivingBoy notes, sticking it to the man is compensation enough for some.
There are several circumstances in which you can legitimately "sit in a first class seat with a standard class ticket" (to use the exact phrase from upthread). Sometimes First Class is declassified by the conductor - we had a spate of that on our line a while back when GWR appeared to run out of standard-class carriages and kept sending us HSTs with First Class randomly substituted for them. Sometimes rolling stock with First Class is used on a line for which no First Class fares exist. There's some batshit situation like this on Grayling's batshit Thameslink railway but I'm too tired of batshittery to look it up.
Or you could be pregnant and in recipient of the magic "this standard-class ticket holder may use First Class seating" letter which some train companies issue, though I grant you that OnlyLivingBoy's choice of PB monicker makes that a fairly unlikely outcome.
Surely the sticking it to the man-ness is undermined slightly if you are invited to sit there by, er, the man (or one of his lackeys)?
Labour whipping this time (!) for the rather marvelous Common Market 2.0.
Frictionless trade, free movement of people, no need to spend years negotiating second rate trade treaties, plus regain control of our food and, most important of all, our fish.
Remainers happy because it feels quite European, Leavers happy because it also feels a little bit more sovereign.
Still needs us to pass the Withdrawal Agreement of course. And the vision might never be realized because it is not binding and all depends on Phase 2, and Phase 2 in turn depends on who is the PM and the government after the next election.
But let's not dwell on that.
This is the point I don't understand about the current arguments. There is no reason not to vote for this arrangement because it is not binding. It simply gets us over the line with withdrawal and after that whoever is in power can have an entirely different negotiating position as long as it doesn't run counter to the actual WA.
You and me both. The WA could've/should've been passed in December. But the ERG tossers decided it was not pure enough and in so doing they created a whole new Pro-EU movemment which saw Revoke as a possibility.
Now I am torn between wanting the WA signed with No Deal consigned to the bin... and the allure of a possible long-extension, 2nd Ref and Remain.
Currently I think the latter is more likely.
It would have been closer, but not enough. The DUP would never support it. It needs Labour support or acquiescence. Your point about excluding customs union from the WA applies equally to the WA including a customs union. Nothing is set in stone. So the immediate issue was Theresa May not attempting a cross party consensus.
They're not even bothering to hide it. I was in a south Midlands city yesterday which is regularly flyposted with far-right messages, identifiably from one particular groupuscule. Yesterday, for the first time, one of their posters had an email address. It was [bunchoffascistmuppets]@yandex.ru.
The poster is now relocated safely in a canalside litter bin.
SOAS students should be particularly outraged. Is there not a Brunei gallery there?
Indeed, isn’t Penny Mordaunt meant to be the Equalities Minister? Perhaps she could get off her arse and do something about those Parkfield protests and this as well?
As Equalities minister, she is responsible for the rights of both racial minorities and the LGBT+ community. Which side of the Parkfield debate so you think she should be on?
(Rhetorical question; I know you believe the latter, and I agree entirely. But it's obviously a massive can of worms, and I don't blame her for staying the heck away from it. There are legitimate arguments about the extent to which parents should be allowed to decide on what their children are taught at school, and at what age, although inevitably these were the first casualties of the protests.)
There is no contradiction between her two roles: minority religions are free to teach children the tenets of their religion but must also ensure that they do not prevent their children from being taught - just like every other child - what is the law of the land.
As a general rule I don’t think parents should have a say in what is taught in school. Would you expect parents to determine what is in the physics curriculum or how Spanish is taught?
Mordaunt is being a coward in staying away from this issue. This is her job.
Labour whipping this time (!) for the rather marvelous Common Market 2.0.
Frictionless trade, free movement of people, no need to spend years negotiating second rate trade treaties, plus regain control of our food and, most important of all, our fish.
Remainers happy because it feels quite European, Leavers happy because it also feels a little bit more sovereign.
Still needs us to pass the Withdrawal Agreement of course. And the vision might never be realized because it is not binding and all depends on Phase 2, and Phase 2 in turn depends on who is the PM and the government after the next election.
But let's not dwell on that.
This is the point I don't understand about the current arguments. There is no reason not to vote for this arrangement because it is not binding. It simply gets us over the line with withdrawal and after that whoever is in power can have an entirely different negotiating position as long as it doesn't run counter to the actual WA.
You and me both. The WA could've/should've been passed in December. But the ERG tossers decided it was not pure enough and in so doing they created a whole new Pro-EU movemment which saw Revoke as a possibility.
Now I am torn between wanting the WA signed with No Deal consigned to the bin... and the allure of a possible long-extension, 2nd Ref and Remain.
Currently I think the latter is more likely.
It would have been closer, but not enough. The DUP would never support it. It needs Labour support or acquiescence. Your point about excluding customs union from the WA applies equally to the WA including a customs union. Nothing is set in stone. So the immediate issue was Theresa May not attempting a cross party consensus by considering customs union.
Both a more conciliatory approach from government and the ERG not trashing their own party's proposals would have avoided the current impasse
Those scamps in the Russian troll farms! What is odd is that there seems to be no serious attempt to investigate the role of trolls or Russians in stirring up not just Brexit but disputes in general (including antisemitism and islamophobia). Cynics might say it is because half the Establishment is too stupid to see the danger (no-one changed their vote for a single tweet!) and the other half wants to use the same techniques to win the next election.
Id have hoped suspension from the Commonwealth as a minimum - maybe Canada can lead as a useful distraction.
Yes. Definitely that. Plus telling the Sultan that he and his family and hangers on will not be welcome in the UK and that none of his hotels will be used for any government or royal events etc. We have soft power. We should use it. The law he has introduced it is no different to what IS did. We cannot control what he does in his country but we can register our disgust and make life a teeny bit more uncomfortable for him.
Indeed. Once we’re out I think, contrary to @TSE and others, that it will be a very long time before we are back in, if ever. Not because there won’t be a change of mood here but because the rest of the EU won’t want us back in.
TBH, I view this Letwin process as primarily a way of finding the political sweet spot which allows a majority of MPs to pass the WA so that we can leave on 22/5 or soon after. And I think (just) that it will succeed in this.
The package (WA plus meaningless PD) cannot be called the May Deal or the Corbyn Deal, that is bad PR, so let's call it Clarke or Boles.
The bottom line, as I see it, is that there is no mandate that can survive in this parliament for any particular approach to Phase 2, so we will need a general election later this year or early next year to decide that. Labour offering CU/SM versus the Tories under a new leader offering Canada, with a backstop commitment to walk away from the WA and No Deal if necessary.
I'm sure Labour would prefer to get the GE now (pre Brexit) but it will take tremendous party discipline for them to achieve that and I think they might have to wait.
Massive ramifications, since I think Labour win a pre Brexit GE offering REF2 and we end up Remaining, but they lose a post Brexit GE to the Hard Brexit Tories and we not only Leave but Leave good and proper.
SOAS students should be particularly outraged. Is there not a Brunei gallery there?
Indeed, isn’t Penny Mordaunt meant to be the Equalities Minister? Perhaps she could get off her arse and do something about those Parkfield protests and this as well?
Didn't SOAS take money from Saif Gadaffit? If so, I don't think they'll be concerned.
Ha ha thanks. Actually the train was on time today, and I even got to stick it to the man by sitting in a first class seat with a standard class ticket.
You’re proud of being a thief?
Thanks for that reaction, the thought of you spitting out your quail's egg and choking on your silver spoon has made my morning. But more seriously, the whole process of rail privatisation was such a massive act of theft that I consider sitting in the posh seats to be fairly meagre compensation. In any case, first class is unenforceable in South East London, I doubt anyone in there had paid for it.
Great response!
Edit: Charles seems to be proud of being descended from thieves, so maybe his question was meant to be positive?
pedant , fixed spelling of thieves but resisted putting it in bold capitals
I understand that our European citizenship, and the consequent obligation to not discriminate against other nationalities for welfare purposes, only applies to EU nationals, not those of the EEA.
Therefore, if we were to adopt Common Market 2.0, we would be able to restrict access to welfare benefits to U.K. nationals only.
Mr. Ace, could you elaborate, as the prospect of Medvedev, formerly, of course, and formally Russian president during Putin's ghost term, being arrested seems very significant?
I have given up trying to understand the backstop and why some MPs are opposed to it. I doubt it matters, to be honest. Some of the loonier ERG’ers are just opposed to any compromise at all with the EU. If it weren’t the backstop it would be something else.
The mistake Cameron - and now May - have made is trying to appease these people. They should have been faced down. If they are not - even at this late stage - they will continue to ruin this country.
Anyway, I have a cold to nurse, somewhat irritatingly in this lovely spring weather.
It is poetic justice , despite the bribes, that Ireland is haunting them given they caused all the Irish woes originally and put these types in power.
SOAS students should be particularly outraged. Is there not a Brunei gallery there?
Indeed, isn’t Penny Mordaunt meant to be the Equalities Minister? Perhaps she could get off her arse and do something about those Parkfield protests and this as well?
Didn't SOAS take money from Saif Gadaffit? If so, I don't think they'll be concerned.
That was the LSE. Two of its trustees were Howard Davies, ex-chair of the FSA and one Shami Chakrabati. You must remember her - always rabbiting on about civil liberties which, strangely, became less of a concern when a dictator was handing out money to the institution of which she was a trustee.
In countries with PR, what sort of Coalitions are more common: the 2010-2015 sort, or the 2017-present sort?
Looking around, seems like the former. However, our adversarial/majoritarian system is not set up to sustain such; it promotes rather the sort of chaos we have now when no false majority can be created.
Neither, but closer to the 2010 sort. Minority govenments are quite rare.
Of course every country is different, but a typical approach is to stat with talks about talks and come to a quick agreement whether a coalition between these parties is at all possible. The two or 3 parties then agree, that the will to form a coalition is there (usually within a few days). It was at this point that Nick Clegg and David Cameron claimed they had a coalition agreeement in the famous Rose Garden Conference. In other countries this is when the serious negotiations start. A detailed 4 or 5 year plan is thrashed out, published and maybe sent to the party members to vote on. This stage often takes months, and the country carries on perfectly normally in the mean time. Once agree then the government timetable is fixed for the duration. If something important comes up in the middle of the electoral term, that is not covered in the coalition agreement, then all parties will need to agree on the new direction.
A case study using Germany following the 2017 election. Merkel's CDU/CSU block had the most votes and could form a coalition with either SPD (Big coalition) or FDP(Business Liberals) + Greens (Jamaica Coalition). CDU would never form a coalition with die Linke (Left) or AFD (the "wer'e not racist but ..." party). The first round of talks was for CDU+FDP+Greens but it quickly became clear that the policies of the FDP were incompatible with the Greens and a serious coalition plan was never discussed. This forced the SPD to take part in a Big Coalition, even though the SPD was wary of this because they didn't come out well from the last two Big Coalitions. Because the SPD negotiated hard plus other issues within the CDU/CSU faction meant that it took about 6 months to finalise to coalition ageement
This approach to coalition building does lead to strong governments (contrary to what many claim) but at the cost of speed and adaptability.
There is no contradiction between her two roles: minority religions are free to teach children the tenets of their religion but must also ensure that they do not prevent their children from being taught - just like every other child - what is the law of the land.
As a general rule I don’t think parents should have a say in what is taught in school. Would you expect parents to determine what is in the physics curriculum or how Spanish is taught?
Mordaunt is being a coward in staying away from this issue. This is her job.
I think there's a difference between the purely academic curriculum (which most parents would, ab initio, expect their children to be taught in school) and the PSHE components, where large numbers of parents might reasonably argue that it's their job to instil values and behaviours in the manner they best see fit. Over time, as a society we've placed more and more of the latter burden on schools, partially since we seem to have decided that some parents can't be trusted to do it properly, or at all.
You might say that the Parkfield protests are a perfect example of that being true, and I wouldn't disagree if you did. But the law of the land also says that parents have the absolute right to home educate their children, and one of the main arguments being made in Parkfield is that if the schools persist in teaching in a way that they think runs contrary to their beliefs then they will effectively have no choice but to take their children out of state run education. Which is a situation with a whole bunch of future negative consequences.
You're probably right that she's being a coward. But it's a no-win situation: whatever she says she'll get it in the neck from one side, for no advantage from the other, and her opposite number on Labour's front bench has a history of taking to the airwaves to accuse the Tories of racism. I can't blame Mordaunt from steering clear. Or, really, Birmingham's clutch of Labour MPs.
Id have hoped suspension from the Commonwealth as a minimum - maybe Canada can lead as a useful distraction.
Yes. Definitely that. Plus telling the Sultan that he and his family and hangers on will not be welcome in the UK and that none of his hotels will be used for any government or royal events etc. We have soft power. We should use it. The law he has introduced it is no different to what IS did. We cannot control what he does in his country but we can register our disgust and make life a teeny bit more uncomfortable for him.
You are joking , they will continue to lick butt as there is plenty of cash there, hard to believe Tories would suddenly have principles over cash.
Why the fuck "should" they when the tories are about to be shattered on the rusty anvil of brexit? Do you think the tories would help a Labour government if the positions were reversed?
Yes, given that a 100% Tory confected mess is threatening to bring down a Tory government and give Labour a shot at power, it would be quite remarkable if Labour were lifting even a single finger to help them out.
Everyone ready for another crazy day on the Westminster merry-go-round?
Morning GIN, PB is a mirror view of Westminster, full of loons spouting as if they were experts whilst running about frothing. Good to see the Tory panic.
I understand that our European citizenship, and the consequent obligation to not discriminate against other nationalities for welfare purposes, only applies to EU nationals, not those of the EEA.
Therefore, if we were to adopt Common Market 2.0, we would be able to restrict access to welfare benefits to U.K. nationals only.
Is my understanding correct?
We could have restricted access anyway with a couple of very minor changes to our benefits system that would have impacted no-one living in the UK.
Sadly Blair and Brown ignored the advice so we are in the mess we are in...
I have given up trying to understand the backstop and why some MPs are opposed to it. I doubt it matters, to be honest. Some of the loonier ERG’ers are just opposed to any compromise at all with the EU. If it weren’t the backstop it would be something else.
The mistake Cameron - and now May - have made is trying to appease these people. They should have been faced down. If they are not - even at this late stage - they will continue to ruin this country.
Anyway, I have a cold to nurse, somewhat irritatingly in this lovely spring weather.
It is poetic justice , despite the bribes, that Ireland is haunting them given they caused all the Irish woes originally and put these types in power.
Indeed it is. The Irish nave been pushed around by the British for centuries. But, thanks to the EU and the Brexiters, the Irish are now in a position to do the pushing.
I understand that our European citizenship, and the consequent obligation to not discriminate against other nationalities for welfare purposes, only applies to EU nationals, not those of the EEA.
Therefore, if we were to adopt Common Market 2.0, we would be able to restrict access to welfare benefits to U.K. nationals only.
Is my understanding correct?
No. The obligation to not discriminate against other nationalities for welfare purposes applies to EEA citizens. In fact the position on Freedom Of Movement is 100% identical* in the EEA and the EU - exactly the same EU directive applies.
(* Someone will spring up to say this is not true because there's an 'emergency brake' in the EEA case. This is based on a misunderstanding, there's no such emergency brake without the risk of sanctions from the EU, which is much the same position as defying an EU directive as an EU member).
TBH, I view this Letwin process as primarily a way of finding the political sweet spot which allows a majority of MPs to pass the WA so that we can leave on 22/5 or soon after. And I think (just) that it will succeed in this.
The package (WA plus meaningless PD) cannot be called the May Deal or the Corbyn Deal, that is bad PR, so let's call it Clarke or Boles.
The bottom line, as I see it, is that there is no mandate that can survive in this parliament for any particular approach to Phase 2, so we will need a general election later this year or early next year to decide that. Labour offering CU/SM versus the Tories under a new leader offering Canada, with a backstop commitment to walk away from the WA and No Deal if necessary.
I'm sure Labour would prefer to get the GE now (pre Brexit) but it will take tremendous party discipline for them to achieve that and I think they might have to wait.
Massive ramifications, since I think Labour win a pre Brexit GE offering REF2 and we end up Remaining, but they lose a post Brexit GE to the Hard Brexit Tories and we not only Leave but Leave good and proper.
So we're saying that essentially... we have a *labelling* problem
Indeed. Once we’re out I think, contrary to @TSE and others, that it will be a very long time before we are back in, if ever. Not because there won’t be a change of mood here but because the rest of the EU won’t want us back in.
I don't think that is true. The EU will want the UK back, but only if it is prepared to accept the full deal (excepting the Euro which really is a different project). So all of the Opt-outs and specal negotiations that Thatcher, Major, Blair and even Cameron got will be out of the window.
SOAS students should be particularly outraged. Is there not a Brunei gallery there?
Indeed, isn’t Penny Mordaunt meant to be the Equalities Minister? Perhaps she could get off her arse and do something about those Parkfield protests and this as well?
Didn't SOAS take money from Saif Gadaffit? If so, I don't think they'll be concerned.
That was the LSE. Two of its trustees were Howard Davies, ex-chair of the FSA and one Shami Chakrabati. You must remember her - always rabbiting on about civil liberties which, strangely, became less of a concern when a dictator was handing out money to the institution of which she was a trustee.
It was contractual payment for a degree wasn't it?
Why the fuck "should" they when the tories are about to be shattered on the rusty anvil of brexit? Do you think the tories would help a Labour government if the positions were reversed?
Yes, given that a 100% Tory confected mess is threatening to bring down a Tory government and give Labour a shot at power, it would be quite remarkable if Labour were lifting even a single finger to help them out.
And yes we still get forecasts or if only they woulds of up to 40 Lab MPs voting for any of the MVs.
Everyone ready for another crazy day on the Westminster merry-go-round?
Morning GIN, PB is a mirror view of Westminster, full of loons spouting as if they were experts whilst running about frothing. Good to see the Tory panic.
Morning Malc,
I think most of our establishment are living on coffee, gin and valium now...
I understand that our European citizenship, and the consequent obligation to not discriminate against other nationalities for welfare purposes, only applies to EU nationals, not those of the EEA.
Therefore, if we were to adopt Common Market 2.0, we would be able to restrict access to welfare benefits to U.K. nationals only.
Is my understanding correct?
We could have restricted access anyway with a couple of very minor changes to our benefits system that would have impacted no-one living in the UK.
Sadly Blair and Brown ignored the advice so we are in the mess we are in...
There's no evidence that solving this particular non-problem would have made any difference to whether Cameron called the referendum, or what the result was when he did.
Everyone ready for another crazy day on the Westminster merry-go-round?
Morning GIN, PB is a mirror view of Westminster, full of loons spouting as if they were experts whilst running about frothing. Good to see the Tory panic.
Morning Malc,
I think most of our establishment are living on coffee, gin and valium now...
GIN, I am glad of the two week delay as I am off to Germany for a holiday at end of week, hopefully I will get back in.
Comments
I see this Letwin process as essentially being a way to allow MPs to vote through the WA (with PD either amended or iced) without looking like they have wasted everybody's time for the last 4 months. And I think it will work. We will pass the WA (either called May or Clarke) and leave on 22/5 or quite shortly thereafter, maybe 30/6.
And even if we don't (if instead there is a pause for GE/REF) I still suspect that a way will be found whereby we and the EU are spared our participation in the May Euros.
So, yes, at 3/1, No Euros, that is value IMO.
The salient point remains without a WA in place or an agreed extension, the rest of it is all just noise up to and including 12/4.
Liz Truss is taking an interesting line - there's a constituency among Conservatives, it seems, for sounding Conservative so there's a lot of tub-thumping about tax cutting and being tough on law & order though the devil will as always be in the detail.
She is of course fishing in the Boris pond but she may well think the way to win disillusioned Conservatives back is to remind them what it is to be a Conservative. May took the other choice by trying to sound as interventionist to win over Labour voters worried about Corbyn but that wasn't the same battle. Truss has a very specific electorate to win over first - how, were she to be successful, she would convey that message to the country is another question.
Whatever happens next, any sneeze, fart or hiccup will be blamed on Brexit, which will provide enough Oxygen to sustain an equivalent movement to UKIP.
What is clear is that there will be no settlement.
Very good attempt at an April’s Fool. The subtle reference to their height (“stature”) rather than their intellectual ability or competence was particularly good.
Looking around, seems like the former. However, our adversarial/majoritarian system is not set up to sustain such; it promotes rather the sort of chaos we have now when no false majority can be created.
As anyone who has spent longer than Karen Bradley studying the politics of Northern Ireland should have noticed.
The mistake Cameron - and now May - have made is trying to appease these people. They should have been faced down. If they are not - even at this late stage - they will continue to ruin this country.
Anyway, I have a cold to nurse, somewhat irritatingly in this lovely spring weather.
Chris is a 'towering' figure it must be said. He towers over one and all.
And not imagine that more than 0.1% of the electorate pay any great attention to the manifestos in any event.
Defrauding the reeking and corrupt mess that is privatised rail is a moral good. Bravo OnlyLivingBoy whether you are in New Cross or not.
The model’s current problems are the result of a string of decisions dating back more than a half-century; its design shortcomings run far deeper than just a poorly written piece of software.
The story starts the 1960s, when Boeing was setting the specifications for the 737, the plane that would go on to become its best seller to date. Back then, jet travel was in its infancy, and many airports lacked the infrastructure that we take for granted today, such as jetways. “The airplane was designed to sit close to the ground,” says airplane designer and aviation journalist Peter Garrison. “It would have an airstair built into the door so it wouldn’t need exterior arrangements to get passengers off the plane.”
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/is-the-boeing-737-max-worth-saving.html
Climbed those airstairs.....BA used to have them, as did Thomson's Britannia on the -200s - of course the accountants pretty quickly got rid of that weight....
Sitting in first class without a first class ticket is, meanwhile, fraud or theft or whatever. Fraud/theft is why barriers on the tube were introduced all those years ago. But as @OnlyLivingBoy notes, sticking it to the man is compensation enough for some.
I voted against moving away from FPTP which has kept Farage & co at bay and away from Westminster
And I voted to make Farage & co redundant at the referendum.
Seeing the back of Farage & co is a nice side benefit of Brexit. Being able to kick out anyone we don't want setting our laws is the entire point of Brexit.
Where it'll become more relevant is when there's a custody battle over which side gets to be called Conservatives after any divorce.
I doubt a new party led by Grayling, Mordaunt, Raab and JRM will feel like majority Conservatism. If bigger and more centrist beasts like Hunt and Javid jump.. you'd start to think they might.
Likewise on the other wing.
Same in Labour, by the way.. suspect Tom Watson and Yvette Cooper are hanging around to fight for the 'soul' (ie party name) of Labour. If they thought Corbyn and McDonnell were nailed on for decades, they'd be off.
SOAS students should be particularly outraged. Is there not a Brunei gallery there?
Indeed, isn’t Penny Mordaunt meant to be the Equalities Minister? Perhaps she could get off her arse and do something about those Parkfield protests and this as well?
Frictionless trade, free movement of people, no need to spend years negotiating second rate trade treaties, plus regain control of our food and, most important of all, our fish.
Remainers happy because it feels quite European, Leavers happy because it also feels a little bit more sovereign.
Still needs us to pass the Withdrawal Agreement of course. And the vision might never be realized because it is not binding and all depends on Phase 2, and Phase 2 in turn depends on who is the PM and the government after the next election.
But let's not dwell on that.
What I find odd is why Jim Carrey bothered to do the drawing rather than use the photo. Also he rather undermines his point: it is not the rough justice meted out to the perpetrators of fascism and nazism which is the reason for being against these ideas. It is what these ideas do to their innocent victims.
Now I am torn between wanting the WA signed with No Deal consigned to the bin... and the allure of a possible long-extension, 2nd Ref and Remain.
Currently I think the latter is more likely.
(Rhetorical question; I know you believe the latter, and I agree entirely. But it's obviously a massive can of worms, and I don't blame her for staying the heck away from it. There are legitimate arguments about the extent to which parents should be allowed to decide on what their children are taught at school, and at what age, although inevitably these were the first casualties of the protests.)
Or you could be pregnant and in recipient of the magic "this standard-class ticket holder may use First Class seating" letter which some train companies issue, though I grant you that OnlyLivingBoy's choice of PB monicker makes that a fairly unlikely outcome.
http://twitter.com/EmmaKennedy/status/1112261839348531201
http://twitter.com/EmmaKennedy/status/1112261877097213952
I broadly agree, with one proviso that I don't think Remain or Hard Brexit are tenable end states. With the country split over EU membership, and unlikely to decsively favour IN or OUT for a long time, we do in fact need a looser trade focused relationship with the EU. EEA/Norway/CU2.0 whatever form it takes doesn't matter that much, but fully IN or OUT are not the way ahead.
If we could magically flip a switch and be in EFTA with a customs arrangement tomorrow I would guess that at least 75% of the population would think "I can live with that".
The poster is now relocated safely in a canalside litter bin.
As a general rule I don’t think parents should have a say in what is taught in school. Would you expect parents to determine what is in the physics curriculum or how Spanish is taught?
Mordaunt is being a coward in staying away from this issue. This is her job.
Everyone ready for another crazy day on the Westminster merry-go-round?
TBH, I view this Letwin process as primarily a way of finding the political sweet spot which allows a majority of MPs to pass the WA so that we can leave on 22/5 or soon after. And I think (just) that it will succeed in this.
The package (WA plus meaningless PD) cannot be called the May Deal or the Corbyn Deal, that is bad PR, so let's call it Clarke or Boles.
The bottom line, as I see it, is that there is no mandate that can survive in this parliament for any particular approach to Phase 2, so we will need a general election later this year or early next year to decide that. Labour offering CU/SM versus the Tories under a new leader offering Canada, with a backstop commitment to walk away from the WA and No Deal if necessary.
I'm sure Labour would prefer to get the GE now (pre Brexit) but it will take tremendous party discipline for them to achieve that and I think they might have to wait.
Massive ramifications, since I think Labour win a pre Brexit GE offering REF2 and we end up Remaining, but they lose a post Brexit GE to the Hard Brexit Tories and we not only Leave but Leave good and proper.
https://twitter.com/andrew_heaton/status/1112478667349868545?s=21
Cannot think of anything more Spursy than a new one billion pound stadium and Europa League football.
I understand that our European citizenship, and the consequent obligation to not discriminate against other nationalities for welfare purposes, only applies to EU nationals, not those of the EEA.
Therefore, if we were to adopt Common Market 2.0, we would be able to restrict access to welfare benefits to U.K. nationals only.
Is my understanding correct?
Of course every country is different, but a typical approach is to stat with talks about talks and come to a quick agreement whether a coalition between these parties is at all possible. The two or 3 parties then agree, that the will to form a coalition is there (usually within a few days). It was at this point that Nick Clegg and David Cameron claimed they had a coalition agreeement in the famous Rose Garden Conference. In other countries this is when the serious negotiations start. A detailed 4 or 5 year plan is thrashed out, published and maybe sent to the party members to vote on. This stage often takes months, and the country carries on perfectly normally in the mean time. Once agree then the government timetable is fixed for the duration. If something important comes up in the middle of the electoral term, that is not covered in the coalition agreement, then all parties will need to agree on the new direction.
A case study using Germany following the 2017 election. Merkel's CDU/CSU block had the most votes and could form a coalition with either SPD (Big coalition) or FDP(Business Liberals) + Greens (Jamaica Coalition). CDU would never form a coalition with die Linke (Left) or AFD (the "wer'e not racist but ..." party). The first round of talks was for CDU+FDP+Greens but it quickly became clear that the policies of the FDP were incompatible with the Greens and a serious coalition plan was never discussed. This forced the SPD to take part in a Big Coalition, even though the SPD was wary of this because they didn't come out well from the last two Big Coalitions. Because the SPD negotiated hard plus other issues within the CDU/CSU faction meant that it took about 6 months to finalise to coalition ageement
This approach to coalition building does lead to strong governments (contrary to what many claim) but at the cost of speed and adaptability.
You might say that the Parkfield protests are a perfect example of that being true, and I wouldn't disagree if you did. But the law of the land also says that parents have the absolute right to home educate their children, and one of the main arguments being made in Parkfield is that if the schools persist in teaching in a way that they think runs contrary to their beliefs then they will effectively have no choice but to take their children out of state run education. Which is a situation with a whole bunch of future negative consequences.
You're probably right that she's being a coward. But it's a no-win situation: whatever she says she'll get it in the neck from one side, for no advantage from the other, and her opposite number on Labour's front bench has a history of taking to the airwaves to accuse the Tories of racism. I can't blame Mordaunt from steering clear. Or, really, Birmingham's clutch of Labour MPs.
Sadly Blair and Brown ignored the advice so we are in the mess we are in...
(* Someone will spring up to say this is not true because there's an 'emergency brake' in the EEA case. This is based on a misunderstanding, there's no such emergency brake without the risk of sanctions from the EU, which is much the same position as defying an EU directive as an EU member).
I think most of our establishment are living on coffee, gin and valium now...