Friday 18th January 2019

A home from home
Forum rules
Welcome to FTN. New posters are welcome to join the conversation. You can follow us on Twitter @FlythenestHaven You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Site admin and Moderators are volunteers who will respond as quickly as they are able to when made aware of any complaints. Please do not post copyrighted material without the original authors permission.
gilsey
Prime Minister
Posts: 6173
Joined: Thu 28 Aug, 2014 10:51 am

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by gilsey »

Norway isn't in a CU with the EU.



edit PTO
Last edited by gilsey on Fri 18 Jan, 2019 5:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
One world, like it or not - John Martyn
gilsey
Prime Minister
Posts: 6173
Joined: Thu 28 Aug, 2014 10:51 am

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by gilsey »

PaulfromYorkshire wrote: But if the red lines shift enough, there will be no need for a backstop and one of the big problems will fall away.
I don't agree with that at all, the backstop would stay in the WA as a legal necessity even if the PD changes direction.
One world, like it or not - John Martyn
gilsey
Prime Minister
Posts: 6173
Joined: Thu 28 Aug, 2014 10:51 am

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by gilsey »

Speaking of things I don't agree with, much as I love PorFavor I can't go along with that assessment of Rory Stewart.
He doesn't have an independent thought in his head imo. Waste of space.
One world, like it or not - John Martyn
howsillyofme1
First Secretary of State
Posts: 3374
Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 11:34 am

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by howsillyofme1 »

gilsey wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote: But if the red lines shift enough, there will be no need for a backstop and one of the big problems will fall away.
I don't agree with that at all, the backstop would stay in the WA as a legal necessity even if the PD changes direction.
PfY is right the backstop is a problem because of her red lines

The backstop as defined in the WA is written so that it meets the red lines of no ECJ, no CU and no relationship with the SM. The reality is that the backstop will come into place at some time with those red lines as there is nothing to prevent it as the EU/UK relationship will never be able to eliminate the border between NI/RoI

If the red lines were removed a type of guarantee would still be required in the case of no deal being made but it could be something else such as status quo - this is also undesirable but the absence of red lines means the likelihood of finding a deal is much more likely and the guarantee far less important

The big lie is that Labour and the Tories in Government makes no difference to the outcome - this is complete nonsense and it is critical that the Tories are out of power as soon as possible as they are the ones who are going to cause the chaos. Imagine the mess they will make of the difficult part of the trade deal when they cannot even get the WA right.

One thing that could help the Government avoid no deal is to call a GE for April so that the Government negotiating the trade deal has a mandate to do so and also make some of the problems less likely to come to pass, assuming of course Labour win. If not then the Tories have the mandate to destroy the country from the electorate
PaulfromYorkshire
Site Admin
Posts: 8329
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by PaulfromYorkshire »

gilsey wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote: But if the red lines shift enough, there will be no need for a backstop and one of the big problems will fall away.
I don't agree with that at all, the backstop would stay in the WA as a legal necessity even if the PD changes direction.
Not if we come up with a solution that doesn't require a hard border. Surely?
howsillyofme1
First Secretary of State
Posts: 3374
Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 11:34 am

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by howsillyofme1 »

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
gilsey wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote: But if the red lines shift enough, there will be no need for a backstop and one of the big problems will fall away.
I don't agree with that at all, the backstop would stay in the WA as a legal necessity even if the PD changes direction.
Not if we come up with a solution that doesn't require a hard border. Surely?
There will always need to be some sort of guarantee that would define what happens in the case of no deal but the nature of it could be very different and the likelihood of it coming to pass is much less likely, as long as we have a competent person such as Starmer in charge of negotiations and a much more competent Government in general

The key is, as always, get rid of this shitstorm of a Government and that is the big issue
PaulfromYorkshire
Site Admin
Posts: 8329
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by PaulfromYorkshire »

howsillyofme1 wrote:The key is, as always, get rid of this shitstorm of a Government and that is the big issue
Rumours in the Standard that an election may be coming :-o
gilsey
Prime Minister
Posts: 6173
Joined: Thu 28 Aug, 2014 10:51 am

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by gilsey »

The backstop will be much less important if the future relationship is such that a hard border between NI and the Republic isn't needed, but I don't see how you can get from here to there without a legally binding backstop in the WA.

I agree that without May's red lines it's unlikely that it would ever come into force, but it's the principle of it that people seem to object to.

Apart from anything else, many knowledgeable people think it could take up to 10 years to negotiate an Association Agreement, we could change our govt 2 or 3 times in that period.
One world, like it or not - John Martyn
User avatar
Willow904
Prime Minister
Posts: 7220
Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 2:40 pm

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by Willow904 »

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
gilsey wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote: But if the red lines shift enough, there will be no need for a backstop and one of the big problems will fall away.
I don't agree with that at all, the backstop would stay in the WA as a legal necessity even if the PD changes direction.
Not if we come up with a solution that doesn't require a hard border. Surely?
There is only one solution that prevents a hard border and that is NI remaining in the customs union and the single market. This is what Theresa May agreed to in December 2017 as there was no other way to honour the GFA.

From this starting point, it then logically follows that unless the rest of the UK remains in both a customs union and the single market, there will be some kind of border between NI and the rest of the UK in the Irish sea. Keeping all of the UK in a customs union (as May's renegotiated backstop does) reduces the significance of that border somewhat, but NI will still diverge from the rest of the UK. It's easy to see why the DUP and many other MPs are uncomfortable with this and it's hard to see how anything Labour have yet proposed would alter this fact short of keeping the whole of the UK in the single market, something they have repeatedly ruled out.

I'm happy to agree that Labour are more likely to be persuaded to staying in the single market than the Tories. I'm also happy to agree that a Labour government is always far preferable to a Tory one, as howsillyofme1 suggests. I don't agree, however, that Labour would negotiate such a different WA that it's worth them going back and starting again. They can get where they want to go from this one, if they ever manage to get the Tories out. As such, at this juncture, the logical position would be to prioritise preventing "no deal".

Again, I fully understand that voting with the government is politically difficult, I'm not really expecting Labour to do this (although wondering if it will become unavoidable in the end). I'm mostly just unhappy with the misrepresentation of the withdrawal agreement as a cynical excuse to oppose it because it's just more of the obfuscation and lies for party political advantage that has poisoned our relationship with the EU.
"Fall seven times, get up eight" - Japanese proverb
howsillyofme1
First Secretary of State
Posts: 3374
Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 11:34 am

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by howsillyofme1 »

There will be some sort of legally required guarantee but it would not be subject to the red lines so will not be the same. 'A' backstop is required but 'the' backstop May has proposed is not necessarily the only way to do it.

There is also the political dimension - I do not believe the Tories are that bothered about there being a border in Ireland - their attitude has been dismissive the say the least. I do not think the same accusation can be levelled at Labour and I am absolutely sure a WA proposed by them would avoid a hard border and also be more logical in how it looks as well.

There are a number of things she could do to avoid a 'No Deal' scenario but she won't do it because it is not politically expedient for her. Just as Labour could take it off the table by voting for her deal. The difference is Labour has said No Deal is unacceptable for them and she is now using that to play chicken and push them to vote for her deal rather than explore more sensible alternatives that actually command a true majority

Her behaviour is despicable and amounts to misconduct in public office

She must be really regretting compromising on her hard Brexit Lancaster House speech now because this tactic of 'any deal I can come up with' vs 'no deal' being pushed to the 29th March may have worked

Any PM worth the name would have said clearly from the beginning No Deal is and would never be an option. I don't think anyone would have believed 2 years ago a PM would be so reckless as to do this but she has and she seems still to be tolerated by a lot of people who now are happy to blame the Opposition Leader. There are still those calling him a hard Brexiteer despite all the evidence
User avatar
citizenJA
Prime Minister
Posts: 20648
Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 12:22 pm

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by citizenJA »

Willow904 wrote:---
Again, I fully understand that voting with the government is politically difficult, I'm not really expecting Labour to do this (although wondering if it will become unavoidable in the end). I'm mostly just unhappy with the misrepresentation of the withdrawal agreement as a cynical excuse to oppose it because it's just more of the obfuscation and lies for party political advantage that has poisoned our relationship with the EU.
(cJA edit)
I think Labour are trying to save country and people from a sick Tory leader and government. I don't think this is about party political advantage.
HindleA
Prime Minister
Posts: 27400
Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 12:40 am
Location: Three quarters way to hell

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by HindleA »

Some people unhappy about being dropped to 4 days a week (48hours)because of lack of need (pre Christmas was extraordinarily quiet) I'll remain the same,largely because they haven't discovered who I am yet and in effect barring occasional sightings,my own boss.
Last edited by HindleA on Fri 18 Jan, 2019 6:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
AFinch
Backbencher
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue 16 May, 2017 9:58 pm

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by AFinch »

Hello again.

“A Fight for the Soul of Britain”: Theresa May’s Brexit Deal Goes Down in Historic Defeat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFIlYq5fByE

Paul Mason, interviewed by Amy Goodman (with some clips of parliament - one of Corbyn during the No Confidence Debate).
howsillyofme1
First Secretary of State
Posts: 3374
Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 11:34 am

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by howsillyofme1 »

The red lines will change though and Barnier says the WA would be able to be changed to take that into account. It is not a renegotiation as the bulk would stay the same. Probably need something to change the guarantee of no border but it would not be the mess the current one is and also the Tories are guaranteed to deliver this mess because of the red lines. There is no other solution unless you believe the technological solution!

In the end though the WA is a minor part compared to the future state negotiations and it is this where the focus should be, and Starmer has already alluded to it

To get a deal she has to have one that is acceptable to the HoC - firstly, she can declare politically that No Deal is not an option for our country and she will work with the opposition parties to ensure that there is a roadmap that will allow them to support a vote. It may be she promises a GE so that the Government post March has a mandate to negotiate, it may be she holds a referendum and we either pass her deal or remain.

There are things she could do politically to make sure it doesn't happen

She, though, does not want to take it off the table. It is not about negotiating with the EU, it is about forcing MPs to take her deal and that is what is disgraceful and dishonest

I am sure the EU would react favourably to a clear commitment of no deal being taken off the table as long as there is a roadmap to a deal that passes in the HoC

The problem of No Deal does not go away with the WA signing - it is just delayed until next time there is a substantive vote
HindleA
Prime Minister
Posts: 27400
Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 12:40 am
Location: Three quarters way to hell

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by HindleA »

The jumping from bin to bin relay to make more room though good fun,rather smelly.
HindleA
Prime Minister
Posts: 27400
Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 12:40 am
Location: Three quarters way to hell

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by HindleA »

Maybe a reason why I am.left do it.
User avatar
citizenJA
Prime Minister
Posts: 20648
Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 12:22 pm

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by citizenJA »

HindleA wrote:The jumping from bin to bin relay to make more room though good fun,rather smelly.
I've always enjoyed it.
User avatar
citizenJA
Prime Minister
Posts: 20648
Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 12:22 pm

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by citizenJA »

early night for me
goodnight, everyone
love,
cJA
HindleA
Prime Minister
Posts: 27400
Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 12:40 am
Location: Three quarters way to hell

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by HindleA »

Life is to be enjoyed,it is far too short as it is,the harder it is to create humour the more the reward.
HindleA
Prime Minister
Posts: 27400
Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 12:40 am
Location: Three quarters way to hell

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by HindleA »

"Fucking Tories",repeating always helpful.
User avatar
Willow904
Prime Minister
Posts: 7220
Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 2:40 pm

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by Willow904 »

howsillyofme1 wrote:The red lines will change though and Barnier says the WA would be able to be changed to take that into account. It is not a renegotiation as the bulk would stay the same. Probably need something to change the guarantee of no border but it would not be the mess the current one is and also the Tories are guaranteed to deliver this mess because of the red lines. There is no other solution unless you believe the technological solution!

In the end though the WA is a minor part compared to the future state negotiations and it is this where the focus should be, and Starmer has already alluded to it

To get a deal she has to have one that is acceptable to the HoC - firstly, she can declare politically that No Deal is not an option for our country and she will work with the opposition parties to ensure that there is a roadmap that will allow them to support a vote. It may be she promises a GE so that the Government post March has a mandate to negotiate, it may be she holds a referendum and we either pass her deal or remain.

There are things she could do politically to make sure it doesn't happen

She, though, does not want to take it off the table. It is not about negotiating with the EU, it is about forcing MPs to take her deal and that is what is disgraceful and dishonest

I am sure the EU would react favourably to a clear commitment of no deal being taken off the table as long as there is a roadmap to a deal that passes in the HoC

The problem of No Deal does not go away with the WA signing - it is just delayed until next time there is a substantive vote

If we sign the WA it means that we will get a deal or we will get the backstop, so "no deal" does appear to go away if it's ratified, as far as I can see.

There will be other cliff edges, no doubt, but none as major as this one.

Everything you talk about is based on Labour winning power but that's highly hypothetical. If a GE isn't forthcoming and May persists with "my deal or no deal", what do you think Labour should do? Try to stop Brexit (revocation/extension for referendum), or vote for May's deal (with or without changes to the future declaration, which aren't binding anyway)?
"Fall seven times, get up eight" - Japanese proverb
HindleA
Prime Minister
Posts: 27400
Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 12:40 am
Location: Three quarters way to hell

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by HindleA »

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/ ... r-day-week" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wellcome Trust could become first big employer to launch four-day week
howsillyofme1
First Secretary of State
Posts: 3374
Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 11:34 am

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by howsillyofme1 »

Willow904 wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:The red lines will change though and Barnier says the WA would be able to be changed to take that into account. It is not a renegotiation as the bulk would stay the same. Probably need something to change the guarantee of no border but it would not be the mess the current one is and also the Tories are guaranteed to deliver this mess because of the red lines. There is no other solution unless you believe the technological solution!

In the end though the WA is a minor part compared to the future state negotiations and it is this where the focus should be, and Starmer has already alluded to it

To get a deal she has to have one that is acceptable to the HoC - firstly, she can declare politically that No Deal is not an option for our country and she will work with the opposition parties to ensure that there is a roadmap that will allow them to support a vote. It may be she promises a GE so that the Government post March has a mandate to negotiate, it may be she holds a referendum and we either pass her deal or remain.

There are things she could do politically to make sure it doesn't happen

She, though, does not want to take it off the table. It is not about negotiating with the EU, it is about forcing MPs to take her deal and that is what is disgraceful and dishonest

I am sure the EU would react favourably to a clear commitment of no deal being taken off the table as long as there is a roadmap to a deal that passes in the HoC

The problem of No Deal does not go away with the WA signing - it is just delayed until next time there is a substantive vote

If we sign the WA it means that we will get a deal or we will get the backstop, so "no deal" does appear to go away if it's ratified, as far as I can see.

There will be other cliff edges, no doubt, but none as major as this one.

Everything you talk about is based on Labour winning power but that's highly hypothetical. If a GE isn't forthcoming and May persists with "my deal or no deal", what do you think Labour should do? Try to stop Brexit (revocation/extension for referendum), or vote for May's deal (with or without changes to the future declaration, which aren't binding anyway)?
The WA only covers a tiny part of the necessary agreement - it doesn't cover any thing apart from pay, border and rights. All the rest is dependent on having a future trade deal. This is supposed to be set out in the future declaration but isn't so there are still possibilities for long queues at Dover, lack of access to EU institutions etc in the years to come. How does the WA prevent the 'lorry park' in Dover or many other things in Dec 2019? This is all about her red lines affecting the future agreement

My comments were not all based on Labour winning power just setting out what could happen to get the WA agreement signed before March 29th - the easiest way is to find something for which there is a majority in the HoC. I have seen nothing that she is attempting to do that at all.
PaulfromYorkshire
Site Admin
Posts: 8329
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by PaulfromYorkshire »

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/s ... m-movement" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

there-better-brexit-deal-out-there-it-means-accepting-freedom-movement
PaulfromYorkshire
Site Admin
Posts: 8329
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by PaulfromYorkshire »

Sorry that Portes piece is from yesterday, but seemed relevant to our debate ;-)
User avatar
Willow904
Prime Minister
Posts: 7220
Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 2:40 pm

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by Willow904 »

If the backstop doesn't keep the UK effectively in the EU customs union if no deal is agreed, as everyone has been complaining about, I'm kind of wondering why the hard Brexiteers in the Tory party are so against it....

As for the WA not covering the future relationship, that's precisely why objections about May's aims for the future relationship are a reason to oppose May but are not reasons why it's a "bad deal".
"Fall seven times, get up eight" - Japanese proverb
PaulfromYorkshire
Site Admin
Posts: 8329
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by PaulfromYorkshire »

Theresa May has left European diplomats in a state of “disbelief” following a series of phone calls to EU leaders in which she made no change to her demands despite her Brexit plan being voted down by a 230-vote margin this week.

Senior EU diplomatic sources said that Mrs May’s unchanged stance was “greeted with incredulity” following a call with the German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Thursday night.

“It was the same old story - the same set of demands - all unchanged despite the defeat,” said the source with knowledge of the calls.
Telegraph
PaulfromYorkshire
Site Admin
Posts: 8329
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by PaulfromYorkshire »

Willow904 wrote:If the backstop doesn't keep the UK effectively in the EU customs union if no deal is agreed, as everyone has been complaining about, I'm kind of wondering why the hard Brexiteers in the Tory party are so against it....

As for the WA not covering the future relationship, that's precisely why objections about May's aims for the future relationship are a reason to oppose May but are not reasons why it's a "bad deal".
OK I think I'm going to leave this now.

To quote Captain Rum, "opinion is divided on the subject".
howsillyofme1
First Secretary of State
Posts: 3374
Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 11:34 am

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by howsillyofme1 »

Willow904 wrote:If the backstop doesn't keep the UK effectively in the EU customs union if no deal is agreed, as everyone has been complaining about, I'm kind of wondering why the hard Brexiteers in the Tory party are so against it....

As for the WA not covering the future relationship, that's precisely why objections about May's aims for the future relationship are a reason to oppose May but are not reasons why it's a "bad deal".
The WA agreement is a bad deal because of the impact of the red lines but I get your point and I would tend to agree with you which is why I think that it is the basis for something that could get through the HoC without a big renegotiation.

It does not keep us all in the CU post the transition period and do not ask me to explain the ERG reasoning behind things as they are not rational people. I would think they would support May because as long as she is in power and with the current Government they have a lot of sway and can influence the future deal which is what really matters. As Gove pointed out - the future deal can be changed in any way they want

Labour could, of course, do the same and change the future deal to their liking but they have the disadvantage of not being in power so need to get that power and force a GE. All their approach is about that which is why Corbyn is so loathe to damage his chances because it is not good being a martyr. A lot of the suggestions being made to him actually would not move this forward but would damage him electorally

It is like the A50 vote - he could have abstained or voted against but at that time it would have been futile and damaged him electorally. We saw the benefit of that decision in June 2017. I think he feels the same about another referendum as well.

You can call this 'playing politics' but he is a politician and it is his job.

His main issue is how does he avoid No Deal (which he seems to be passionately against) without having to support May's deal with no concessions. He knows that if she runs down the clock the only way to avoid No Deal is to vote with her or abstain and that would damage him so that is why he asks her to take No Deal off the table as it will put her in a difficult position and he can go on opposing her deal.

One thing you can say about Corbyn is that he seems to be far more astute politically than many of his detractors, commentators and other politicians - this is shown by where we are now compared to June 2016. His relative success in that period buys him some leeway in my view and I am prepared to go with his instinct.

This is all going to get worse for us as the EU do not want a disorderly Brexit most of all - they are actually playing nice with us at the moment and we do have some wriggle room as long as it is done in good faith with a credible road map and no threats of 'no deal' being made all the time.

Once the WA is signed then we will see them really put the heat on us and squeeze us into the ground. The difference in power will be clear to see and any Government is going to find it very difficult, but May's minority one will find it almost impossible to deliver a trade deal. I feel strongly there should be a GE after the agreement is signed so a new Government with a fresh mandate is chosen
User avatar
AFinch
Backbencher
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue 16 May, 2017 9:58 pm

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by AFinch »

PaulfromYorkshire
Site Admin
Posts: 8329
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by PaulfromYorkshire »

Ouch! Accompanying photo of Boris....

Keir Starmer
@Keir_Starmer
31 minutes ago
Enough of this man. Not fit for any office.
PaulfromYorkshire
Site Admin
Posts: 8329
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by PaulfromYorkshire »

On Question Time

https://evolvepolitics.com/bbc-question ... e-filming/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

bbc-question-time-staff-accused-of-whipping-up-audience-against-diane-abbott-before-filming
PaulfromYorkshire
Site Admin
Posts: 8329
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by PaulfromYorkshire »

Larry the Cat
‏@Number10cat
13 hours ago

I’ve been asked a few times if I support a people’s vote. It was people that got us into this mess - I propose a cats’ vote...
Likely result: being allowed to leave and return whenever we damn well want.
User avatar
Willow904
Prime Minister
Posts: 7220
Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 2:40 pm

Re: Friday 18th January 2019

Post by Willow904 »

howsillyofme1 wrote:
It does not keep us all in the CU post the transition period and do not ask me to explain the ERG reasoning behind things as they are not rational people. I would think they would support May because as long as she is in power and with the current Government they have a lot of sway and can influence the future deal
I'm pretty certain May asked the EU for the whole of the UK to be included in the CU if the backstop were applied and they agreed.

So we do have something more than "no deal" to fall back on as the default in two years time, if we can't agree a new trade deal. Which is why I was confused by the idea we would be back at this same point, as I don't believe that would be the case.

As you say, the rhetoric of the Tory leave supporters merely confuses the issues still further, but I believe their objection is based on an inability to accept that to respect the GFA and be able to make independent trade deals would necessitate a border of some degree in the Irish Sea. They would presumably prefer not to respect the GFA by having the border in Ireland and "no deal" would achieve that.

Although there is a majority opposed to that in the Commons it's currently hard to see what there would be a majority for in order to prevent it.
"Fall seven times, get up eight" - Japanese proverb
Locked