Friday 21st December 2018

[refitman]

Morning all.

[Willow904]

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

PM highly unlikely to get meaningful Brexit deal changes - Starmer

I'm still unclear what in the agreement Labour, as opposed to the ERG and DUP, object to and there is no further detail here.

There are some hints of a shadow cabinet split on how to proceed. I continue to feel Starmer is right (if indeed he is being reported accurately here) that an attempt by the opposition to force an election, if that's what they want to do, needs to come sooner rather than later.

Some Labour MPs were left exasperated on Monday when Jeremy Corbyn opted not to table a full no-confidence motion in the government, which would have had to be debated and voted on in the Commons and could have led to a general election if it had been lost.

Instead, he chose a motion of censure criticising May – for which the government did not set aside time for parliament to debate. Starmer had been advocating a full-blown motion of no confidence; but others in the shadow cabinet, including Ian Lavery and Richard Burgon, felt the party should wait until it was sure of winning.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

New thinking is desperately needed in the Brexit shambles. Short term approaches have demonstrably failed.

I'm pretty sure the majority of the UK population want something that lies between extreme Remain and May's Deal, but virtually nothing is being discussed and those like Morgan, Sturgeon and, yes, Corbyn who try and speak in this space are routinely howled down.

Nothing will be resolved satisfactorily while May and her red lines are there. Presumably we are now waiting again for the WA to return to the House and then eventually to a No Confidence vote.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

I know I've already done this, but I want to flag again a proper newspaper doing it's job.

Front page of the Examiner today.

[RogerOThornhill]

Morning all.

The New European
‏
Verified account

@TheNewEuropean
15h15 hours ago
More
Brexiteers who thought Obama shouldn't have an opinion on Brexit are very quiet about Putin supporting Leave

Well quite.

People maybe should ask themselves why it is that both Trump and Putin are both very enthusiastic for us to Leave...

[tinybgoat]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... exit-plans

PM highly unlikely to get meaningful Brexit deal changes - Starmer

I'm still unclear what in the agreement Labour, as opposed to the ERG and DUP, object to and there is no further detail here.

There are some hints of a shadow cabinet split on how to proceed. I continue to feel Starmer is right (if indeed he is being reported accurately here) that an attempt by the opposition to force an election, if that's what they want to do, needs to come sooner rather than later.

Some Labour MPs were left exasperated on Monday when Jeremy Corbyn opted not to table a full no-confidence motion in the government, which would have had to be debated and voted on in the Commons and could have led to a general election if it had been lost.

Instead, he chose a motion of censure criticising May – for which the government did not set aside time for parliament to debate. Starmer had been advocating a full-blown motion of no confidence; but others in the shadow cabinet, including Ian Lavery and Richard Burgon, felt the party should wait until it was sure of winning.

Presumably they've got complaints about open ended backstop, and some of withdrawal agreements details, but maybe the main stumbling block is the 'blind brexit' aspects, Keir Starmner has stated Labour could never support agreement without more details of future arrangement.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politi ... warns/amp/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer said the opposition Labour Party “can’t be expected” to vote for a “vague or blind Brexit” that fails to detail the nature of Britain’s future relationship with the EU.

“What we can’t be expected to do now, with a gun to our head, is to back the prime minister whatever she brings back, however good or bad the deal is, without the detail around it. That’s not opposition, that’s surrender,” 

[gilsey]

I'm pretty sure the majority of the UK population want something that lies between extreme Remain and May's Deal,

I'm sure that's been true until recently but TWOTP might be on the move.
'Extreme' Remain is the only option that will let us stop talking about it and I think that's increasingly endearing it to many.

As for your 'remain and reform', how can the UK possibly drive any reform now, even with a new government? If we're fortunate enough to wangle staying in, a period of silence from us would be welcome.

[gilsey]

Starmer's position doesn't really stand up imo, I think Labour are on a bit of a sticky wicket opposing the WA. I don't mean I want them to support it, but at the end of the day if they want us to Leave what else is there? The PD isn't binding. The only logical grounds for opposing it are if you oppose Brexit.

I'd be delighted if Labour said they wanted May's sentence about ending FoM taken out, but it's clear they're not going to say that.

[adam]

Starmer's position doesn't really stand up imo, I think Labour are on a bit of a sticky wicket opposing the WA. I don't mean I want them to support it, but at the end of the day if they want us to Leave what else is there? The PD isn't binding. The only logical grounds for opposing it are if you oppose Brexit.

I'd be delighted if Labour said they wanted May's sentence about ending FoM taken out, but it's clear they're not going to say that.

I think - and I'm very aware that this is a sneaky deceitful backdoor option but it's also right and the truth - that May's plans will inevitably break Northern Ireland away from the rest of the UK, and if she wants to do that she needs to have a specific referendum asking that question - possibly just in NI - because every other significant movement of devolution has only come after such a referendum.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

I'm pretty sure the majority of the UK population want something that lies between extreme Remain and May's Deal,

I'm sure that's been true until recently but TWOTP might be on the move.
'Extreme' Remain is the only option that will let us stop talking about it and I think that's increasingly endearing it to many.

As for your 'remain and reform', how can the UK possibly drive any reform now, even with a new government? If we're fortunate enough to wangle staying in, a period of silence from us would be welcome.

You may be right, but that depends on the interests of others around the EU. My remain and reform isn't a Cameronesque list of demands to Brussels. It's a conversation with them about their future plans and aspirations and looking for common interests and synergies.

I mean this is basic leadership stuff. It's just so shocking that we're nowhere near it and that those who raise the prospect get shouted down as idiots (not on here I hasten to add).

[PaulfromYorkshire]

And of all the things that might come out of a grown up conversation with Brussels, a sensible way forward on freedom of movement that respected the human rights of all would be the real prize.

[Lost Soul]

Well then - there you go - sorted...

Puut'n tells May to 'fulfil will of people' on Brexit

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

[AnatolyKasparov]

Last night, Sky told us that if Corbyn supported another referendum it would "blow the Tories apart".

One reason (though far from the only one) for some of us being sceptical about it, is that we genuinely think it might have the opposite effect.

Let's do away with this idea that it is only silly old Jez's personal stubbornness that is preventing some magical solution to our Brexit woes, whilst we are at it.

The truth is much more complicated (and intractable)

[Willow904]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... exit-plans

PM highly unlikely to get meaningful Brexit deal changes - Starmer

I'm still unclear what in the agreement Labour, as opposed to the ERG and DUP, object to and there is no further detail here.

There are some hints of a shadow cabinet split on how to proceed. I continue to feel Starmer is right (if indeed he is being reported accurately here) that an attempt by the opposition to force an election, if that's what they want to do, needs to come sooner rather than later.

Some Labour MPs were left exasperated on Monday when Jeremy Corbyn opted not to table a full no-confidence motion in the government, which would have had to be debated and voted on in the Commons and could have led to a general election if it had been lost.

Instead, he chose a motion of censure criticising May – for which the government did not set aside time for parliament to debate. Starmer had been advocating a full-blown motion of no confidence; but others in the shadow cabinet, including Ian Lavery and Richard Burgon, felt the party should wait until it was sure of winning.

Presumably they've got complaints about open ended backstop, and some of withdrawal agreements details, but maybe the main stumbling block is the 'blind brexit' aspects, Keir Starmner has stated Labour could never support agreement without more details of future arrangement.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politi ... warns/amp/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer said the opposition Labour Party “can’t be expected” to vote for a “vague or blind Brexit” that fails to detail the nature of Britain’s future relationship with the EU.

“What we can’t be expected to do now, with a gun to our head, is to back the prime minister whatever she brings back, however good or bad the deal is, without the detail around it. That’s not opposition, that’s surrender,” 

The difficulty, though, is that the article 50 process makes both a backstop and a blind Brexit inevitable. As gilsey says, if you want Brexit you are going to have to have a withdrawal agreement more or less like this. Which is precisely why the EU was expecting the UK to dismiss article 50 as not fit for purpose and demand simultaneous negotiations on both withdrawal and future relationship instead. That the Tories have done this all wrong is self-evident but you can't turn back the clock. Which leaves us with a choice of this deal, no deal or no Brexit. As a majority of Tory voters support leave, as long as you have a Tory government you are unlikely to get no Brexit, imo, so rejecting this deal is going to leave us with no deal and a full-blown constitutional crisis. This is exactly why parliament should never have given the government permission to trigger article 50 before it had produced a detailed white paper about how it was going to achieve its ridiculous "red,white and blue" Brexit in the first place. Although the opposition could not have stopped the Tories from taking us down this road of reckless endeavour, they could have used the article 50 debate to blow some holes in the government's approach and underlined it with a vote against. Fears of how the press might spin sensible parliamentary debate and procedure as "blocking Brexit" have a lot to answer for, but then the press have a lot to answer for generally when it comes to the imbecilic attitude of a large chunk of this country towards the EU and our European neighbours in general.

Only a strong PM with a genuine sense of patriotic duty and good diplomatic skills could steer the Commons towards a sensible consensus that goes beyond partisan party lines. Unfortunately we don't have one and are unlikely to get one in the time remaining before we fall off a cliff. We are way past something turning up. Someone somewhere has to shift position if a majority consensus on a way forward can be found. Obviously that person should be Theresa May but how likely is that? We are therefore basically screwed. This rather sums up the rabbits in headlights comment I made the other day:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

not with a bang but a row about a whisper.jpg (128.56 KiB) Viewed 7633 times

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Last night, Sky told us that if Corbyn supported another referendum it would "blow the Tories apart".

One reason (though far from the only one) for some of us being sceptical about it, is that we genuinely think it might have the opposite effect.

Let's do away with this idea that it is only silly old Jez's personal stubbornness that is preventing some magical solution to our Brexit woes, whilst we are at it.

The truth is much more complicated (and intractable)

Indeed.

This mess is pretty much everyone's fault.

Apart from those under 21.

[AnatolyKasparov]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... exit-plans

PM highly unlikely to get meaningful Brexit deal changes - Starmer

I'm still unclear what in the agreement Labour, as opposed to the ERG and DUP, object to and there is no further detail here.

There are some hints of a shadow cabinet split on how to proceed. I continue to feel Starmer is right (if indeed he is being reported accurately here) that an attempt by the opposition to force an election, if that's what they want to do, needs to come sooner rather than later.

Some Labour MPs were left exasperated on Monday when Jeremy Corbyn opted not to table a full no-confidence motion in the government, which would have had to be debated and voted on in the Commons and could have led to a general election if it had been lost.

Instead, he chose a motion of censure criticising May – for which the government did not set aside time for parliament to debate. Starmer had been advocating a full-blown motion of no confidence; but others in the shadow cabinet, including Ian Lavery and Richard Burgon, felt the party should wait until it was sure of winning.

"Some Labour MPs" are exasperated by Corbyn's mere existence tbf.

[Willow904]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... exit-plans

PM highly unlikely to get meaningful Brexit deal changes - Starmer

I'm still unclear what in the agreement Labour, as opposed to the ERG and DUP, object to and there is no further detail here.

There are some hints of a shadow cabinet split on how to proceed. I continue to feel Starmer is right (if indeed he is being reported accurately here) that an attempt by the opposition to force an election, if that's what they want to do, needs to come sooner rather than later.

Some Labour MPs were left exasperated on Monday when Jeremy Corbyn opted not to table a full no-confidence motion in the government, which would have had to be debated and voted on in the Commons and could have led to a general election if it had been lost.

Instead, he chose a motion of censure criticising May – for which the government did not set aside time for parliament to debate. Starmer had been advocating a full-blown motion of no confidence; but others in the shadow cabinet, including Ian Lavery and Richard Burgon, felt the party should wait until it was sure of winning.

"Some Labour MPs" are exasperated by Corbyn's mere existence tbf.

I think the significant bit is the claim about Starmer.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Revise similar clownish MP in antisemitism row (5,10)

[citizenJA]

Good-afternoon, everyone

[AnatolyKasparov]

I think the significant bit is the claim about Starmer.

Not that surprising to anybody who recalls his conference speech, really.

[Willow904]

I think the significant bit is the claim about Starmer.

Not that surprising to anybody who recalls his conference speech, really.

I don't really follow what that's supposed to mean.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

For info

Some have said we may support a vague deal – a ‘blind Brexit’ – that gives no detail about the terms of our future relationship. So, let me be very clear – right here, right now: If Theresa May brings back a deal that fails our tests – and that looks increasingly likely – Labour will vote against it. No ifs, no buts. And if the Prime Minister thinks we’ll wave through a vague deal asking us to jump blindfold into the unknown she can think again. You can’t meet Labour’s tests by failing to provide answers. We will vote down a blind Brexit. This isn’t about frustrating the process. It’s about stopping a destructive Tory Brexit. It’s about fighting for our values and about fighting for our country. And when it comes to the vote in Parliament we do not accept that the choice is between whatever deal Theresa May cobbles together or no deal. That’s not a meaningful choice. No deal would be a catastrophe and no government has the right to plunge this country into chaos because of its own failure. So, if Parliament votes down the Prime Minister’s deal or she can’t reach a deal that’s not the end of the debate. Labour must step up again and shape what happens next. Our preference is clear: We want a general election to sweep away this failed Government. And having swept them away we want to install a radical Labour Government capable of transforming this country. That’s what should happen after two years of negotiations ending in failure. But if that’s not possible then we must have other options – and that must include campaigning for a public vote. It is right that Parliament has the first say but if we need to break the impasse, our options must include campaigning for a public vote – and nobody is ruling out Remain as an option. That’s why I’m happy to throw our full weight behind the motion being debated this morning.

[citizenJA]

Where's that from, Paul?

[Willow904]

I still don't really follow. It doesn't matter which you favour - a General Election or a referendum - both will take time, time we're not going to have come the end of January. If parliament wants to do something other than choose between May's deal and no deal they've got to get on with it. Labour had a plan for when May came back to parliament with a deal in December but May has torpedoed that plan. That plan is now sunk. Labour no longer have a plan.

So, an indication that Starmer is at odds with the leadership on their strategy now everything has changed is significant, surely? And it has little to do with what was said at conference as I see little chance of there being time for either a General Election or a referendum now. Not unless May plays ball and asks for an article 50 extension and the EU grant it and that's far from certain. I have no time for such high stakes gambles, it's grossly irresponsible. The WA needs to be approved by February to secure transition. It's time the opposition, by which I mean all the opposition, grow up and tell May what they want in return for helping her get her deal through.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Where's that from, Paul?

From his speech to the last party conference that I mentioned above.

[Lost Soul]

Not very proud of my generation at the moment - but impressed by the newest one , they are losing patience. Lara Spirit :

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

[citizenJA]

I still don't really follow. It doesn't matter which you favour - a General Election or a referendum - both will take time, time we're not going to have come the end of January. If parliament wants to do something other than choose between May's deal and no deal they've got to get on with it. Labour had a plan for when May came back to parliament with a deal in December but May has torpedoed that plan. That plan is now sunk. Labour no longer have a plan.

So, an indication that Starmer is at odds with the leadership on their strategy now everything has changed is significant, surely? And it has little to do with what was said at conference as I see little chance of there being time for either a General Election or a referendum now. Not unless May plays ball and asks for an article 50 extension and the EU grant it and that's far from certain. I have no time for such high stakes gambles, it's grossly irresponsible. The WA needs to be approved by February to secure transition. It's time the opposition, by which I mean all the opposition, grow up and tell May what they want in return for helping her get her deal through.

I can not agree with you
The Tory party are threatening the country with their blind Brexit withdrawal agreement or no deal
Those are not the only choices available to any UK government
Theresa May will not parley with Labour
She will not
Understand the profoundly dysfunction person the UK has as PM right now
She is out of bounds entirely and hopes like hell Labour will do just what you are telling them to do
Theresa May's strategy is transparent and repugnant
May will not negotiate and is entirely capable of crashing the UK to get what she wants

[Willow904]

Not very proud of my generation at the moment - but impressed by the newest one , they are losing patience. Lara Spirit :

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

I agree with a lot of the sentiments in the article, but the decision to leave the EU has already been taken with the triggering of article 50. We can revoke article 50, but I just can't see how there would be time to hold a referendum first and I'm not sure either leader would be prepared to revoke article 50 first and then hold a referendum. After all the rhetoric about "blocking Brexit" and both main parties desperately courting their leave voters to the exclusion of the opinion of their remain voters it's just really hard to envisage such a turnaround. Good on them for trying, though.

[RogerOThornhill]

They could - but with much embarrassment - say "Look we have to revoke Article 50 because we're simply not ready to leave. mainly because we've spent the last two years + sitting on our hands thinking it was going to be easy"

[Willow904]

I still don't really follow. It doesn't matter which you favour - a General Election or a referendum - both will take time, time we're not going to have come the end of January. If parliament wants to do something other than choose between May's deal and no deal they've got to get on with it. Labour had a plan for when May came back to parliament with a deal in December but May has torpedoed that plan. That plan is now sunk. Labour no longer have a plan.

So, an indication that Starmer is at odds with the leadership on their strategy now everything has changed is significant, surely? And it has little to do with what was said at conference as I see little chance of there being time for either a General Election or a referendum now. Not unless May plays ball and asks for an article 50 extension and the EU grant it and that's far from certain. I have no time for such high stakes gambles, it's grossly irresponsible. The WA needs to be approved by February to secure transition. It's time the opposition, by which I mean all the opposition, grow up and tell May what they want in return for helping her get her deal through.

I can not agree with you
The Tory party are threatening the country with their blind Brexit withdrawal agreement or no deal
Those are not the only choices available to any UK government
Theresa May will not parley with Labour
She will not
Understand the profoundly dysfunction person the UK has as PM right now
She is out of bounds entirely and hopes like hell Labour will do just what you are telling them to do
Theresa May's strategy is transparent and repugnant
May will not negotiate and is entirely capable of crashing the UK to get what she wants

I agree May is holding the country to ransom and I agree it's wrong, but it's also effective, unfortunately, and because the future relationship will only be legally agreed at the end of transition any withdrawal agreement will be blind, it's the nature of the beast. Labour failed to win the last election so May got to do the negotiation. She has been pretty poor, I'm not denying that, but the last election gave her the right to pursue this agreement and it's not a bad deal as such, it's more that she's a bad PM, with an impossible ambition for the future relationship. This, however, was also true prior to her triggering article 50, yet the opposition supported her then because they said they were committed to Brexit. Nothing has actually changed, yet Labour are now refusing to support Brexit, refusing to support no deal and refusing to support a further referendum because they want another election first. It's quite an impasse.

[Willow904]

They could - but with much embarrassment - say "Look we have to revoke Article 50 because we're simply not ready to leave. mainly because we've spent the last two years + sitting on our hands thinking it was going to be easy"

May agreed this deal a year ago and then wasted a year pretending she hadn't. Such maturity is beyond her.

[citizenJA]

---
I agree May is holding the country to ransom and I agree it's wrong, but it's also effective, unfortunately, and because the future relationship will only be legally agreed at the end of transition any withdrawal agreement will be blind, it's the nature of the beast. Labour failed to win the last election so May got to do the negotiation. She has been pretty poor, I'm not denying that, but the last election gave her the right to pursue this agreement and it's not a bad deal as such, it's more that she's a bad PM, with an impossible ambition for the future relationship. This, however, was also true prior to her triggering article 50, yet the opposition supported her then because they said they were committed to Brexit. Nothing has actually changed, yet Labour are now refusing to support Brexit, refusing to support no deal and refusing to support a further referendum because they want another election first. It's quite an impasse.

(cJA edit)
A lot has changed since Article 50 was triggered. The ramifications of Brexit are more clear. The Tories failed to win the 2017 GE. There's a great deal wrong with May's withdrawal agreement and if it passes binds future Parliaments. May's willingness to proceed with her disastrous plan born out of her red lines with the EU when realistic alternatives beneficial for nation exist means we're dealing with a kook. They're tricky. I'm not aware of constitutional mechanisms getting this nation out of one hell of a tough spot right now.

It doesn't matter how you look at it.
---
From every angle, on every basis, Theresa May's deal is horrific.

It is intolerable on a democratic, political, economic and logical basis. It takes one of the world's leading powers and puts it in a diplomatic and trading stranglehold. It undermines Britain's economic status, demolishes its political status, severs its territorial integrity and imposes a dangerous and unacceptable governance structure on Northern Ireland.
- Ian Dunt
23 November 2018

[Lost Soul]

Not very proud of my generation at the moment - but impressed by the newest one , they are losing patience. Lara Spirit :

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

I agree with a lot of the sentiments in the article, but the decision to leave the EU has already been taken with the triggering of article 50. We can revoke article 50, but I just can't see how there would be time to hold a referendum first and I'm not sure either leader would be prepared to revoke article 50 first and then hold a referendum. After all the rhetoric about "blocking Brexit" and both main parties desperately courting their leave voters to the exclusion of the opinion of their remain voters it's just really hard to envisage such a turnaround. Good on them for trying, though.

Well, yes...

Which is why, after 40 years, I don't feel that I have any representation. No-one is getting my vote without representation. So I find some measure of comfort in the fact that they do have passion and are trying.

I've had two years of being told it's a waiting game and Labour are biding their time. That doesn't take into account that the Tory government are stubborn as mules and masters at letting things ride 'til it's too late to change course. That's how they've got their own way all the way through this.

[RogerOThornhill]

Angela Merkel
‏

@Queen_Europe
11m11 minutes ago
More
Apart from attention seeking, wasting everyone’s money, pissing off foreigners and generally droning, @BorisJohnson and the Drone have very little in common.

[citizenJA]

Not very proud of my generation at the moment - but impressed by the newest one , they are losing patience. Lara Spirit :

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

I agree with a lot of the sentiments in the article, but the decision to leave the EU has already been taken with the triggering of article 50. We can revoke article 50, but I just can't see how there would be time to hold a referendum first and I'm not sure either leader would be prepared to revoke article 50 first and then hold a referendum. After all the rhetoric about "blocking Brexit" and both main parties desperately courting their leave voters to the exclusion of the opinion of their remain voters it's just really hard to envisage such a turnaround. Good on them for trying, though.

I think you're applying logic to proceedings that aren't.

[citizenJA]

The principal method by which the public gets to hold a government to account is the ballot box. If a party disappoints, voters can expel it from office. But between elections voters often rely on politicians’ conscience and sense of shame to police their behaviour. Those informal forces appear to have diminishing potency.

Earlier this month, the government was held in contempt of parliament – a censure without historical precedent that passed without formal apology. The idea that ministers should be responsible for what happens in the country is treated by some members of the cabinet as an obsolete convention.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... melessness" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes.

[Willow904]

@citizenJA

I think Ian Dunt is being a little disingenuous in that quote. A lot of what he is complaining about aren't consequences of May's deal specifically, they are the inevitable consequences of leaving the EU and the single market more generally whilst honouring the GFA. As Labour under Corbyn have a Brexit policy that seeks the same things as May's backstop - a customs union but outside the single market - the only way for his deal to be markedly different would be by him not being honest about leaving the single market or by him accepting a much more substantial border between Britain and NI in the Irish Sea.

That few MPs advocating leave gave any thought to how leaving the single market would affect the GFA is clear. What's disappointing is that now the issue has been brought to their attention they are in complete denial of how it limits our Brexit options. May's deal has gone as far as it can with the constraints of the GFA and they don't like it but are unwilling to accept that this really is the best deal outside the single market we can get.

So although I agree May's deal isn't desirable, I feel that's mainly because leaving the EU isn't desirable. Yet our politicians persuaded the public to vote to leave and then triggered article 50 before there was time to reconsider. And now we seem stuck with it unless our MPs grow some very big balls indeed and risk electoral annihilation by doing the right thing and stopping it dead. There was a time I thoughtbTheresa May could do the right thing and revoke article 50 at the eleventh hour rather than take us over a cliff. Having seen her in action over the last year, though, I'm rather less inclined to think she's got it in her, which is why the only way to be sure to avoid no deal could well be to vote her deal through, ideally with a change to the future declaration to a softer Brexit.

[Lost Soul]

A lot of people feel that leaving the EU isn't desirable - more now than previously...

'For most of this year, polls have shown remain ahead of leave, typically by four to six points. But in a referendum between staying in the EU and leaving on the terms that the government has negotiated, staying enjoys an 18-point lead: 59-41%.

Of the more than 17 million who voted leave in 2016, just 10 million people say they would vote for the government’s deal – 2 million would vote to stay, while 3 million are not sure or would not vote. In contrast, of the 16 million who voted remain in 2016, 13.5 million would still vote to stay in the EU. Only 1.4 million would vote for May’s deal, and 1 million are not sure or would not vote.

And pro-Europeans are significantly more enthusiastic than Brexiters. Counting only those who say they are certain to vote in a “no Brexit” v “May’s deal” referendum, staying in the EU currently leads by 63-37%. An 18-point lead among all voters therefore widens eight points, to 26%, among those certain to vote.'

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... oples-vote" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


We'll probably still leave though - because our Parliament has cut a deep channel for itself and is unable to change course ( any of them ).

It was David Cameron who opened Pandora's Box with his bluddy stupid 'english votes for english people - kicking mud in the face of the Scottish people who'd just voted to stay in the Union.

edit - capital S

[AnatolyKasparov]

Three local council byelections yesterday:

South Lakeland DC/Cumbria CC - a "double header" vacancy saw two LibDem hold both seats in which, curiously, the two divisions have identical boundaries despite different names (even more confusingly, the DC boundaries only "came into line" at the all out elections this year) and in actual fact the same four candidates stood in each and there were almost identical turnouts in both but slightly differing results. The district contest saw a LibDem win with just under 60% of the vote, a modest swing to them from the Tories since earlier this year, whilst the Greens more than halved to less than 6% and Labour also dipped slightly to 3%. The county vacancy saw a slightly higher LibDem score - 62% - whilst the Tories dipped to just under 30%, this was a swing of about 8% to the LibDems since last year but actually a small move to the Tories since the previous elections in 2013 and 2009, underlining the long term strength of the LibDems in this area. Greens a bit lower on 5% (though that is only a small drop on 2017) and Labour on an almost identical score to the other election (little changed on a year ago)

Charnwood DC - a Tory gain from the LibDems who did not contest the seat, given that this had been the only LibDem seat in 2015 this council joins the ranks of LibDem free zones. All the more surprising given that the LibDems won both seats here back in 2003 and shared them with the Tories in the following three elections, but their absence actually most benefited not the Tories (even though they won the seat and had a double figure increase in doing so) but in a straight fight with Labour - who had finished 4th behind UKIP three years ago - the red team took over 49% and almost pulled off what would have been a real shock. They were doubtless also helped by the absence of the Greens, who polled a respectable 9% last time.

That concludes the election news for 2018, things start again on 10 January with another "double header".

[citizenJA]

THE WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT AND POLITICAL DECLARATION ON OUR FUTURE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE EU
Withdrawal Agreement
This will be an international treaty between the UK and the EU setting out the terms of the UK’s withdrawal.
---
The WA has been agreed on behalf of the whole of the UK – the Devolved Administrations, the Crown Dependencies and the Overseas Territories.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... the_EU.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't think it matters to May what the agreement includes within it. Her eyes are on, "the WA has been agreed on behalf of the whole of the UK".
The link above is to the explanatory notes for the withdrawal agreement & political declaration. The whole thing is linked below. It was published two days after Ian Dunt's article.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... munity.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[citizenJA]

May red lines have created May's deal with the EU

[citizenJA]

Goodnight, everyone
love,
cJA

[HindleA]

Labour will repeal the Vagrancy Act.

[HindleA]

https://inews.co.uk/news/amputee-injure ... aken-away/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


NB bespoke necessary extra cost allowance which may be used to access the scheme ie far more pernicious and general

[HindleA]

Any participation may very well be used against you,how dare the non sufficiently pathetic dare do better than us when on a more level playing field.

[HindleA]

Time

[HindleA]

To

[HindleA]

Wait

[HindleA]

For it.....

[HindleA]

PTO