Blimey, I thought everyone had chosen to ignore his trolling. This must have made your morning Smudger!
Someone tried score a point out of the tragic death of Jo Cox, it was handy to remind people that opposition parties sought to gain advantage out of the tragic death of Ian Gow.
You completely missed the point of my post if you think I was point-scoring.
Yes you were.
No, I wasn't. Re-read my post, it is axiomatic what I was actually stating.
And you can't really accuse others of point-scoring when you link a completely unrelated event to Corbyn.
Blimey, I thought everyone had chosen to ignore his trolling. This must have made your morning Smudger!
Someone tried score a point out of the tragic death of Jo Cox, it was handy to remind people that opposition parties sought to gain advantage out of the tragic death of Ian Gow.
But you then focus your criticism on Labour ("the party of Corbyn" - a backbencher at the time) and not the Lib Dems (because they "are a minority party") when it was the Lib Dems who actually won the by-election....?
Blimey, I thought everyone had chosen to ignore his trolling. This must have made your morning Smudger!
Someone tried score a point out of the tragic death of Jo Cox, it was handy to remind people that opposition parties sought to gain advantage out of the tragic death of Ian Gow.
Top Tip: It's better to score a point than an own goal.
I'm not sure how far away I am from being a Remainer to a Hard Brexiter should another vote come to pass. That's how screwed this all is.
Me too.
Well if you two guys are serious, perhaps you'd like to explain why you now think a Hard Brexit is in the national interest, and separately, the personal interests of you and your nearest and dearest?
So have I got this right? Jeremy Corbyn got himself backed into a political corner having missed his main opportunity to trigger a no confidence vote in the government so far (as May refused to put her deal to the vote).
So rather than put I a vote against the government which the Speaker has to put in time for, he put in an entirely meaningless vote of no confidence in May.
Which was duly ignored.
His team had better be better at the long game than me or we are in deep shit and sinking fast.
So have I got this right? Jeremy Corbyn got himself backed into a political corner having missed his main opportunity to trigger a no confidence vote in the government so far (as May refused to put her deal to the vote).
So rather than put I a vote against the government which the Speaker has to put in time for, he put in an entirely meaningless vote of no confidence in May.
Which was duly ignored.
His team had better be better at the long game than me or we are in deep shit and sinking fast.
It appears that way. But don't worry he can still call an election, win the election and negotiate a good Brexit deal by the 29th March 2019.
Meanwhile, IDS on Sky News has revealed the government's hand by admitting the No Deal Planning is all a show of force to prove to the EU that we are serious about leaving, with or without a deal.
The problem with this is twofold:
1) the government is effectively giving the EU an ultimatum:
i. Give us our unicorn
Or ii. We will commit economic suicide
The EU isn't going to give us our unicorn, all the no-deal planning amounts to is loading the pistol and pressing it against our own head.
2) announcing that this is your tactic basically negates the effectiveness of such a tactic. "We are only no-deal planning just so the EU will be compelled to conjure a unicorn".
I wonder if the government are aware that having a conversation about stepping up no deal planning 100 days before no deal happens makes them look even more incompetent than they’ve already managed?
It is being done as a threat. It is a desperate attempt by the government to try to make it between her deal and no deal but Parliament will have to swing into action as soon as her deal is defeated. I think it is important it is defeated in the house.
Calling a vote of no confidence in May was never a big deal, but it highlights Tories who voted to say they have no confidence in her and a week later they have confidence in her. It doesn't surprise me that there is little focus on that though.
I wonder if the government are aware that having a conversation about stepping up no deal planning 100 days before no deal happens makes them look even more incompetent than they’ve already managed?
Indeed, especially as no-deal planning on the EU side, especially around the most relevant seaports, started months ago.
Blimey, I thought everyone had chosen to ignore his trolling. This must have made your morning Smudger!
Someone tried score a point out of the tragic death of Jo Cox, it was handy to remind people that opposition parties sought to gain advantage out of the tragic death of Ian Gow.
But you then focus your criticism on Labour ("the party of Corbyn" - a backbencher at the time) and not the Lib Dems (because they "are a minority party") when it was the Lib Dems who actually won the by-election....?
I agree with Bournemouth now, ignore the troll.
Sometimes it's hard to have your entrenched views challenged.
The satisfying crunch of a libcuck's skull as the rock in your hand sinks into their brain matter. We are always one Cause, one permission away from barbarism
The satisfying crunch of a libcuck's skull as the rock in your hand sinks into their brain matter. We are always one Cause, one permission away from barbarism
To be honest, it isn't white liberal intellectuals that'll be the first targets of the alt-right rage once violence is sanctioned.
The satisfying crunch of a libcuck's skull as the rock in your hand sinks into their brain matter. We are always one Cause, one permission away from barbarism
To be honest, it isn't white liberal intellectuals that'll be the first targets of the alt-right rage once violence is sanctioned.
Looks like a second referendum is out of the question. I wrote here several weeks ago that it seemed to me there was not enough time for one. Now here is the constitutional reasoning:
Steven Swinford at the Telegraph says the government has legal advice that effectively rules out a second referendum.
The advice states that Britain will be legally obliged to take part in European Parliament elections in May of next year if it extends Article 50 and subsequently send British MEPs to Brussels.
It warns that there will be a “high risk of a successful legal challenge” if the UK refuses to take part in the elections because doing so will be breaching people’s rights as EU citizens.
Ministers who have seen the advice argue that this means that July 2nd, the start of the next five-year session of the European Parliament, is a “hard” deadline for extending Article 50.
They say it will take at least a year to complete preparations and hold a second vote, making it technically impossible to have another EU referendum.
I've been struck for a while how the political class doesn't seem to have any time-critical perspective, as if 29.3.19 was just a set of figures. Sad to see from this that it wasn't just the Brexit-loonies who had this affliction. Didn't Umunna, Soubry and co. realise this?
Precisely! No developed country has left a trade bloc before but some can't be bothered to ask why. They'd rather blather on about something else or, better still, blame the opposition for a Tory Brexit.
It matters not for the WA will go to the House in January, it will fail and then we will see what comes of that. It's all warming up quite nicely with the latest polls showing 60:40 in favour of a second referendum and 53:47 remain - with leave split 31:16 No Deal vs WA.
In other words May states that a second referendum is undemocratic but appears determined to pursue a policy that is supported by just one in six of the population! Her best way out is a referendum, but it's doubtful she'll take that because she's the head of a rabid leave party.
This is going to build and build until something gives - Labour simply won't back the WA so either the government falls in 2019 or there's a second referendum. And the closer we move towards a no deal outcome on March 29th, the more inclined Tory remainers will be to jump ship and abandon May's flawed approach.
A no confidence attempt in the Government would fail today - give it another 4-8 weeks and the landscape might shift? The Labour approach is designed to smoke out Remainers and bring the Government down. Of course the Tories could try uniting and pushing through the WA.
Then we leave the EU and they run things for two years with little change in transition but massive uncertainty about what's at the end. @golfaddick is happy enough with a domestic market selling products and advice. But any sector that exports to our largest market the EU will be in limbo.
Leaving the EU with the subsequent issues when Remain has a consistent 53:47 lead in the polls spells the end of the Tories whenever the next election is called. The UK could stay in the Single Market at the end of the transition but we cannot wind back what will be 10 years of Tory austerity in 2020. Austerity and Brexit will be the Tory legacy - they will try deficits and bribing the electorate in 2021 but it will be too little, too late.
Perhaps the UK can move on after the 2022 election, but it isn't going to get easier between now and then.
Looks like a second referendum is out of the question. I wrote here several weeks ago that it seemed to me there was not enough time for one. Now here is the constitutional reasoning:
Steven Swinford at the Telegraph says the government has legal advice that effectively rules out a second referendum.
The advice states that Britain will be legally obliged to take part in European Parliament elections in May of next year if it extends Article 50 and subsequently send British MEPs to Brussels.
It warns that there will be a “high risk of a successful legal challenge” if the UK refuses to take part in the elections because doing so will be breaching people’s rights as EU citizens.
Ministers who have seen the advice argue that this means that July 2nd, the start of the next five-year session of the European Parliament, is a “hard” deadline for extending Article 50.
They say it will take at least a year to complete preparations and hold a second vote, making it technically impossible to have another EU referendum.
I've been struck for a while how the political class doesn't seem to have any time-critical perspective, as if 29.3.19 was just a set of figures. Sad to see from this that it wasn't just the Brexit-loonies who had this affliction. Didn't Umunna, Soubry and co. realise this?
It is still the most likely scenario - Parliament can suspend article 50 and make time. Not sure how they get the year from - May called a general election and we didn't have to wait a year for it. Where there's a will and all that.
Looks like a second referendum is out of the question. I wrote here several weeks ago that it seemed to me there was not enough time for one. Now here is the constitutional reasoning:
Steven Swinford at the Telegraph says the government has legal advice that effectively rules out a second referendum.
The advice states that Britain will be legally obliged to take part in European Parliament elections in May of next year if it extends Article 50 and subsequently send British MEPs to Brussels.
It warns that there will be a “high risk of a successful legal challenge” if the UK refuses to take part in the elections because doing so will be breaching people’s rights as EU citizens.
Ministers who have seen the advice argue that this means that July 2nd, the start of the next five-year session of the European Parliament, is a “hard” deadline for extending Article 50.
They say it will take at least a year to complete preparations and hold a second vote, making it technically impossible to have another EU referendum.
I've been struck for a while how the political class doesn't seem to have any time-critical perspective, as if 29.3.19 was just a set of figures. Sad to see from this that it wasn't just the Brexit-loonies who had this affliction. Didn't Umunna, Soubry and co. realise this?
It is still the most likely scenario - Parliament can suspend article 50 and make time. Not sure how they get the year from - May called a general election and we didn't have to wait a year for it. Where there's a will and all that.
Comments
And you can't really accuse others of point-scoring when you link a completely unrelated event to Corbyn.
Surely a “sensible government” avoids disatorous scenarios in the first place?
So rather than put I a vote against the government which the Speaker has to put in time for, he put in an entirely meaningless vote of no confidence in May.
Which was duly ignored.
His team had better be better at the long game than me or we are in deep shit and sinking fast.
The problem with this is twofold:
1) the government is effectively giving the EU an ultimatum:
i. Give us our unicorn
Or ii. We will commit economic suicide
The EU isn't going to give us our unicorn, all the no-deal planning amounts to is loading the pistol and pressing it against our own head.
2) announcing that this is your tactic basically negates the effectiveness of such a tactic. "We are only no-deal planning just so the EU will be compelled to conjure a unicorn".
Calling a vote of no confidence in May was never a big deal, but it highlights Tories who voted to say they have no confidence in her and a week later they have confidence in her. It doesn't surprise me that there is little focus on that though.
I will be wearing a blond wig though
Steven Swinford at the Telegraph says the government has legal advice that effectively rules out a second referendum.
The advice states that Britain will be legally obliged to take part in European Parliament elections in May of next year if it extends Article 50 and subsequently send British MEPs to Brussels.
It warns that there will be a “high risk of a successful legal challenge” if the UK refuses to take part in the elections because doing so will be breaching people’s rights as EU citizens.
Ministers who have seen the advice argue that this means that July 2nd, the start of the next five-year session of the European Parliament, is a “hard” deadline for extending Article 50.
They say it will take at least a year to complete preparations and hold a second vote, making it technically impossible to have another EU referendum.
I've been struck for a while how the political class doesn't seem to have any time-critical perspective, as if 29.3.19 was just a set of figures. Sad to see from this that it wasn't just the Brexit-loonies who had this affliction. Didn't Umunna, Soubry and co. realise this?
It matters not for the WA will go to the House in January, it will fail and then we will see what comes of that. It's all warming up quite nicely with the latest polls showing 60:40 in favour of a second referendum and 53:47 remain - with leave split 31:16 No Deal vs WA.
In other words May states that a second referendum is undemocratic but appears determined to pursue a policy that is supported by just one in six of the population! Her best way out is a referendum, but it's doubtful she'll take that because she's the head of a rabid leave party.
This is going to build and build until something gives - Labour simply won't back the WA so either the government falls in 2019 or there's a second referendum. And the closer we move towards a no deal outcome on March 29th, the more inclined Tory remainers will be to jump ship and abandon May's flawed approach.
A no confidence attempt in the Government would fail today - give it another 4-8 weeks and the landscape might shift? The Labour approach is designed to smoke out Remainers and bring the Government down. Of course the Tories could try uniting and pushing through the WA.
Then we leave the EU and they run things for two years with little change in transition but massive uncertainty about what's at the end. @golfaddick is happy enough with a domestic market selling products and advice. But any sector that exports to our largest market the EU will be in limbo.
Leaving the EU with the subsequent issues when Remain has a consistent 53:47 lead in the polls spells the end of the Tories whenever the next election is called. The UK could stay in the Single Market at the end of the transition but we cannot wind back what will be 10 years of Tory austerity in 2020. Austerity and Brexit will be the Tory legacy - they will try deficits and bribing the electorate in 2021 but it will be too little, too late.
Perhaps the UK can move on after the 2022 election, but it isn't going to get easier between now and then.