FlyTheNest

Morning all.

Shambolic semipermanent hulk saw successful conclusion to campaign 100 years ago (8,9).

Ha ha.

Good morfternoon.

Hi again everybody

Just some reflections.....I can see there is some choreography now that May's deal is the deal and there will be no changes. It has not got support. I have tried to identify two main thrusts and some of the consequences for discussion

Labour Plan

May comes back before Xmas and puts deal to house
Deal rejected massively
Vote of no confidence immediateloy put down
Government falls and new election in late Jan/early Feb

This has a number risks attached to it. Some are covered later but the big one is, as PF described yesterday, is thathe GE takes us no further forward or is lost. The advantage is that it will strengthen some mandate for potential new referendum at least if Remain parties do well. Some may even put A50 withdrawal explicitly in manifesto (SNP and LD?). It also means Labour will have to set out during the Confidence debate what the options are in some detail going forward and have these at the heart of their manifesto. One advantage of a GE is the hopefuly removal of the DUP from being so critical to any votes

May Plan

Do not put WA to Parliament
Wait until last minute and then make clear it is only deal possible to prevent No Deal - she will rule out aithdrawal of A50

This is what she wants to do by the looks of things and is criminally negligent on her part (although you could use that to describe this whole episode). The issue for her is that Labour will be able to go for the confidence vote but without a WA vote to base it on the timing will be critical and based on the vagaries of the DUP. If that vote is lost then there will be the referendum option on the table as there is no other way to change course.

The other options is to go for a referendum ratrher than a no confidence vote. I see a couple of issues with that. Firstly, there is no mandate for it (but that could be overcome but is a'courageous' move) and the other is that there is no majority at the moment. I would also want to know who would move this to a vote as it is unlikely May will and anything else will be non-binding even if won (I think buit may be wrong here)

I will say that she has been appallingly bad and we should not offer much sympathy. Cameron left her in an invidious position but she has compounded that. She could have tried to have a non-partisan team looking after this to take the party politics out of it but she didn't. She chose a negotiating team that was inappropriate and actually very damaging which was seen as 'smart' at the tuime but is now shown to have been catastrophic. She could have made this deal a year ago as I do not see much having advanced as her red lines have been determinant on thee agreement - and in particular the lack of clarity on the forward plan. As a last point her complete lack of flexibility and empathy just compounds these failures

What concerns me is not the WA but the future plan. I do not want the Tories negotiating it at all because it will be a disaster. Take the backstop - the reality is no-one wants it but May's red lines do not give any confidence it can be avoided by 2022. If the position in the future agreement was that we would have a CU and close enough links to the SM to remove the need of aorder that would be much better but her red lines only leave some mythical technological response. It is the future negotiations that concern me much more than the WA itself and actually allowing it to pass would only be kicking the can down the road again

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/ ... up-with-it" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As well as avoiding climbing trees ..

https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news ... ies-grants" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Review calls for overhaul of Disabled Facilities Grants

Me again,

Have not posted much anywhere recently but getting back in to the swing a bit

I would like to comment on this from SGO last night on QT and take issue with some points.

For Labour we had Angela Rayner. Angela didn't just stick to the party line but went much further in expressing her obviously considerable distaste for the idea of a second referendum. Which seemed to (quite rightly I'd say) annoy some Labour members in the audience. She also claimed it was Labour that had forced the government into having the meaningful vote which is bollocks, that was Gina Miller, which was pointed out to her by another Labour member in the audience. So she didn't cover herself in glory.

Then we had Caroline Lucas for the Greens. Caroline was great because I agreed with everything she said so therefore she was evidently right about everything. She called once again for a people's vote, pointed out David Davis' uselessness to his smirking face, decried Labour's cynical prevarication and politicking, and treated an idiot in the audience who claimed she was betraying 'people who died in wars for our freedom' with far more respect than he deserved.

And finally Jo Brand who said she wanted another referendum and told a member of the audience that she'd sit on his face.

As this was Dimbleby's last outing he got a standing ovation which seemed to genuinely move him which was nice to see.

The first is the easiest - Dimbleby deserves no standing ovation and it is in fact not good to see. He got his job originally through nepotism, has never struck me as being that competent and has turned QT into a joke which most people I know ignore, apart from mocking ît every now and again. It is no longer a seriuos program and is bias shines through. Good that he is gone.

The next is the claim that Gina Miller forced the Meaningful Vote bill - well as was said - that is 'bollocks'. She took the Government to court over A50 which is a good thing, as was the recent challenge on the revocation. I am not sure how it would have gone down if a Labour front bench had been the lead in that. The Meaningful vote is a parliamentary bill and so has nothing to do with Gina Miller apart from it stemmed from the court case. Any victory in the HoC is not easy for any but the Government and takes a lot of work and preparation. We end up often hearing about the Grieve's and Soubry's of this world when they sometimes vote against the Government but most of the hard work is actually done by the opposition choosing when or not to oppose. As I was saying yesterday it seems that this 'no opposition' has become a bit of a mantra that bears little scrutiny.

And the final part of my rant is around 'Labour's cynical prevarication and politicking? which I find risible. An opposition does not have an easy job in defeating a Government and lot takes a lot of thinking. What is described in those terms is actually thinking tactically and deciding when to move or when not to. I see 'politicking' in the negative sense to be the shananigans we saw over the WA vote and also attempts by Hague to unseat Bercow. Using parliamentary arcania to prevent Parliament having a proper say. Labour have also used similar methods to get the Government to do things such as the 'humble address'. - obviously Labour should not have bothered.

In fact seeing the OP is such a fan of Lucas how would they describe the calls for a No Confidence vote at every opportunity when they know it sould be lost and so put Labour in a very tricky position? Aligning herself with the right wing neoliberals in the Labour party and the yellow Tories as well. I call that cynical!

I would again challenge Sky Gone Out to tell us what concrete differences to the current situation could have Labour made by taking a different position? I am not talking about posturing but a concretely different outcome. There must be something. The one I can think of is supporting May's current deal that would get it through Parliament thus confirming Brexit on 29 March and making sure our future relationship is negotiated by an extreme right wing Tory Party.

By adapting/making accessible your property you are also being non discriminatory,of course,a societal/public gain.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ... nd-appeals" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Open consultation

Changes to our rules for reviews of marking, moderation and appeals

(Ofqual)

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ... -resources" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Open consultation

Review of local authorities’ relative needs and resources

Open consultation

Provisional local government finance settlement 2019 to 2020: consultation


https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ... nsultation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... 0-children" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... xit-tweets" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sky's EU correspondent said earlier that Sebastian Vettel was the PM of Luxembourg. They're all cracking up!

Well this isn't getting the xmas shopping done I am buying 15 gift cards/vouchers I like to put time, thought and effort into it.

Constance is the face of Chanel

Ha! He nearly said it again - but hastily corrected himself this time.

Apparently, Theresa May will be giving a press conference around noon. Will she say, ""Brexit" means "Brexit"" as she did to Angela Merkel, yesterday?

Certainly a lot of activity re disability,of course restorative(forced upon), copy cat,rebranding,people,of course have died being denied,besmirched upon political machination and the kinder words remain patronising and do not disguise the fundamental burdensome narrative which retains

No idea why the lazy leeches sleeping off the latest treatment whilst the virtuous curtain watches and Wetherspoons patrols keep GB going may lack confidence,it is a wonder.

As ever, howsilly writes cogently even if you don't always agree with them.

Another comment I would make about Sky's QT review - he says that some Labour people in the audience disagreed with Rayner's scepticism over another referendum. That is certainly true. It is equally true, though, that quite a few Labour people will have agreed with her.

And that's the party's conundrum, right there.

There seems to be an assumption,that if there is one,it will solve something,it wouldn't,as we are seeing.Just another result to continually argue about until the end of time,and beyond.

Hamilton was the leader of Liverpool City Council,to be fair.Not sure if the same one.

I love SkysGoneOut's reviews. You just need to know his clearly stated political stance and they make perfect sense

PorFavor wrote:Sky's EU correspondent said earlier that Sebastian Vettel was the PM of Luxembourg. They're all cracking up!

If my counting back is correct, this is officially FtN's 200,000th post.

Well done everybody

@howsillyofme1

Labour Plan

May comes back before Xmas and puts deal to house
Deal rejected massively
Vote of no confidence immediateloy put down
Government falls and new election in late Jan/early Feb

Tory remainers finally got a proper meaningful vote through earlier in December. I don't know if it still stands now May has pulled the vote, but if not they are likely to reinstate it when she brings the WA back to parliament (if, of course, she ever does). The Withdrawal Act has already established May must present her alternative plan to parliament within 21 days of the WA being voted down. Does it not seem likely the DUP would want to wait until after parliament gets their say before deciding to support a vote of no confidence? If so, a "people's vote" might be debated and voted on in parliament before Labour have a realistic prospect of winning a no confidence vote. The biggest difficulty I see for Labour's plan is that their official Brexit position - a customs union, but outside the single market - will still inevitably leave NI on different regulatory terms as the rest of the UK if the Good Friday Agreement is to be respected. Ironically then, despite the DUP's passion for Brexit, a single market option or a further referendum with a likely remain outcome could well be more appealing to them than either May or Corbyn's current plans.

https://leonardcheshire.org/about-us/la ... s-and-bars" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

More than 8 in 10 disabled people face difficulties in pubs and bars


Certainly a rarity if the loo was actually usable as opposed to just getting in.

You can have as much legislation as you want it can't change general stupidity,lack of awareness,even the architects design had to be changed to allow movement/transfer.

It's a funny one,any non sitting in w/c is viewed with suspiscion ,yet many facillities assume.

Nebulous, moi?

God! She's still dripping on about seeking further assurances.

[youtube]IEhoISYxnb0[/youtube]

She's scuttled off abruptly.

PorFavor wrote:She's scuttled off abruptly.

How many letters?

117

Oh dear, apparently Alistair Campbell thinks Angela Rayner is "posh"

HindleA wrote:Constance is the face of Chanel

Good-afternoon, everyone

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... sal-credit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As an addition to my earlier post. I did forget one important thing that does unite a lot of MPs - probably a majority - and that is opposition to no deal

If the Benn amendment passes (and it has support of Labour front bench) then I think that pushes us in my view to another referendum of deal vs remain

howsillyofme1 wrote:As an addition to my earlier post. I did forget one important thing that does unite a lot of MPs - probably a majority - and that is opposition to no deal

If the Benn amendment passes (and it has support of Labour front bench) then I think that pushes us in my view to another referendum of deal vs remain

I wonder if the possibility of that passing was a significant factor in May's decision to cancel Monday's planned vote.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:I love SkysGoneOut's reviews. You just need to know his clearly stated political stance and they make perfect sense

I fully accept that but it doesn't mean it should go unchallenged. I am happy for it to come back to me too

This will be my last post on this subject today so not to be too annoying

I am interested din the response of the EU and how they play it now. Clearly a no deal scenario is not in their best interests either and I think both sides should be working towards avoiding this completely. Saying this it is mainly for us to do the legwork

However, I just wonder if the need to change their position somewhat regarding the current deal from May. This deal is dead and surely they must see that. The issues for me arise from her red lines and her pathetic future state vision which will lead to even more problems as it will inevitably lead to a backstop

The EU have already said that they are prepared to look at the deal again if there is a large change and also they have said that the WA is the final deal based on the current UK red lines. I think it would be helpful if they made what they mean more explicit - eg how would they view a new Government coming back with a new mandate?

Another thing to consider is that we tend to see the EU as apolitical but if we look at the political colour of the Governments in the EU, there are not many who would welcome a socialist voice at the table challenging the neoliberal consensus around austerity and equality. Merkel is almost the most left wing of theleaders of the most influential countries with Rutte being very right wing and Macron being something unclear - he is also concerned an Melanchon is emerging as a real pain for him.

Willow has also highlighted some of the issues from the Labour side as well but I would just say that Labour have not been negotiating with the EU to any extent and so had the ability to get detailed responses and then change their position. Some of Labour's concerns could be dealt with within the existing framework as we have discussed previously and also Starmer is still there and he seems to be one of the 'adults in the room'. There seems to be an impression in the media especially that Labour are in Government and should have the same influence - the number of times people suggest that the only thing stopping a referendum is Labour not supporting it, or winning a no confidence vote is just a matter of Labour tabling one.

Anyone looking at this objectively knows that it all leads back to remain and withdrawal of A50 - it is the path to it that matters and the worry I have, as a left winger who supports Corbyn's policy direction, is that overreaching and proposing this by Labour would damage him and the party so badly we will end up with years more of Tory or Tory lite Government with the consequent effect on the economy, fabric of society and environment. I know those of you who really are concerned about Brexit get frustrated sometimes but the idea that Labour could possibly stop Brexit but be damaged irreversibly to make them unelectable worries me

We often hear commentators saying 'Corbyn doesn't actually want to win an election' but I think the opposite is actually truer - he wants to implement his policies so badly that he doesn't do anything that could jeopardise that

Immigration:Written statement - HCWS1181
Home Office
Made on: 13 December 2018
Made by: Caroline Nokes (The Minister of State for Immigration )

The Government is committed to making it easier for lawful residents to demonstrate their right to work in the UK, and to strengthening the support we provide to employers when complying with the provisions in the Immigration Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 to avoid employing illegal workers.

In April this year, the Home Office launched a new online checking service. This service enables UK employers to check the current right to work, in real time, of a person who holds either a biometric residence permit or a biometric residence card, and to see whether they are subject to any restrictions.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/publ ... 3/HCWS1181" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Did we have this?
I didn't find this in the news; I receive written statements from Parliament.

Statutory Instruments
2018 No. 1340
The Immigration (Restrictions on Employment) (Code of Practice and Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2018
Made - 6th December 2018
Laid before Parliament - 13th December 2018
Coming into force - 28th January 2019

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/1340/made" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The legislation was tabled yesterday.

Now we know it's possible to revoke article 50, is their a danger that this open new ways for leaving 'without a deal'? One of the arguments at against was that preparations wouldn't be ready by 31st March, but presumably the Govt. could just revoke article 50, and restart process when preparations were further advanced. I think the preliminary judgement mentioned not using revocation to game the system, but don't know if there were specific rules attached.
Presumably the EU will at some point revise article 50 having learnt from the process, and maybe stipulate rules regarding how it's declared/revoked.

Can anyone offer me reassurance regarding the new legislation and online ID checking system, please?

tinybgoat wrote:Now we know it's possible to revoke article 50, is their a danger that this open new ways for leaving 'without a deal'? One of the arguments at against was that preparations wouldn't be ready by 31st March, but presumably the Govt. could just revoke article 50, and restart process when preparations were further advanced. I think the preliminary judgement mentioned not using revocation to game the system, but don't know if there were specific rules attached.
Presumably the EU will at some point revise article 50 having learnt from the process, and maybe stipulate rules regarding how it's declared/revoked.

I think this is why the EU are upset at that interpretation being passed as any amendment to A50 is a treaty change and they do not want to go through that again at the moment (I think that is right)

If we revoke A50 we should ethically only do this as a means to Remain, not to game the system in my view. The ruling has given us the unilateral option to remain which is a tremendous bit of luck, and it also applies to the transition too. The question si how we exploit it

The thing that makes me angriest about May's catastrophic negotiation is that the WA draft could have been done ages ago and put before Parliament - it is basically the same as last year's political declaration but her prevarication has led to us having no time to explore any other options. I do not think, and hope, that history will look kindly upon her