But I do not think the EU has shown much in the way of flexibility, either. Maybe their negotiating team, especially Tusk and Barnier, should be included in that padded room, also.
The EU negotiators have been far more flexible than the UK had any right to deserve. They've bent the legal basis of the EU to manage to come up with a solution to maintaining the international treaty obligations of an open Irish border with the UK outside the customs union and single market, even if it still risks some elements of the EU (since there's no practical way to prevent smuggling across that border without the sort of infrastructure that the GFA removed, and even then there would be leaks).
But I do not think the EU has shown much in the way of flexibility, either. Maybe their negotiating team, especially Tusk and Barnier, should be included in that padded room, also.
The EU negotiators have been far more flexible than the UK had any right to deserve.
Not sure that's quite true. They have refused even to discuss trade until the terms of exit are settled, which involves payments of billions of sterling without specifying what we might expect in return. They want the 4 freedoms untrammelled (movement of people, goods, services and capital) and we just want control of our borders, laws and money. I do not think we are being unreasonable in that, but because of that desire, 'no deal' looms ahead of us.
I voted remain, but, to be honest, if there was a second 'people's vote' referendum, I would think very hard about my position, given the intransigence of the EU, and what it indicates for it's future development.
We're now in the Alice in Wonderland world where Treeza intends to propose legislation to delay the implementation of Article 50 while at the same time hoping it doesn't pass.
You couldn't make it up.
As an avid Lewis Carroll fan, I take offence at this. This isn't Alice. This is Iain Banks. This is Philip K Dick.
But I do not think the EU has shown much in the way of flexibility, either. Maybe their negotiating team, especially Tusk and Barnier, should be included in that padded room, also.
The EU negotiators have been far more flexible than the UK had any right to deserve.
Not sure that's quite true. They have refused even to discuss trade until the terms of exit are settled, which involves payments of billions of sterling without specifying what we might expect in return. They want the 4 freedoms untrammelled (movement of people, goods, services and capital) and we just want control of our borders, laws and money. I do not think we are being unreasonable in that, but because of that desire, 'no deal' looms ahead of us.
I voted remain, but, to be honest, if there was a second 'people's vote' referendum, I would think very hard about my position, given the intransigence of the EU, and what it indicates for it's future development.
Best wishes, 2RM.
You been at the bottle before posting again?
Of course the EU negotiators don't want the 4 freedoms trampled on. Why should a minority of people in the UK destroy the entire foundations of the EU? Standing firm on that was one of the most inevitable aspects of the EU negotiations. And, likewise the EU negotiators weren't going to let the UK walk out leaving the rest of the EU to pick up the tab for cost, that's as daft as someone walking out of a restaurant without paying and expecting the other diners to pay his bill.
The reason that we're approaching leaving the EU without a deal is a combination of domestic factors. A Conservative Party leader who thought an unprecedented referendum bypassing normal democratic processes would heal long held differences between groups within his party, a Parliament that decided that a line in a manifesto should be honoured at the start of a Parliament (rather than, say, convening a committee to actually put a question on the ballot - which of course would have lead to a stalemate since there'd be no agreement between those wanting to leave the EU as to what the question would be), an advisory no-question public vote taken as "the will of the people", triggering A50 before deciding what the government was seeking to gain, a lot of can kicking (a pointless election, constant changing of Brexit ministers, delays on votes) by the government. And, a bunch of idiots cheering on the mob wanting to leave, without even a sketch of a plan to achieve it.
But I do not think the EU has shown much in the way of flexibility, either. Maybe their negotiating team, especially Tusk and Barnier, should be included in that padded room, also.
They've bent the legal basis of the EU to manage to come up with a solution to maintaining the international treaty obligations of an open Irish border with the UK outside the customs union and single market, even if it still risks some elements of the EU (since there's no practical way to prevent smuggling across that border without the sort of infrastructure that the GFA removed, and even then there would be leaks).
Oh, and by the way. On the matter of the Irish border.
1) The Irish tail is wagging the British dog.
2) It does not seem to me to be a strong argument that because some delinquent Irish (on both sides of the sectarian divide) might start blowing each other up again, and shooting at each other, so we should pander to that blackmail. I do not see why it is that the rest of us law-abiding citizenry should have to make allowances for their criminality and hostile intent. I'm in favour of a hard border, between two sovereign nations with their own ideas about taxation, tariffs, legalities, etc. And if the Irish nationalists don't like that, then they have recourse to democratic means to propose a different. solution.
Of course the EU negotiators don't want the 4 freedoms trampled on. Why should a minority of people in the UK destroy the entire foundations of the EU?
Interesting that you think a sovereign nation, insisting on its sovereignty, should somehow destroy the entire foundations of the EU. That would seem to me to be a most telling comment.
Oh, and by the way. On the matter of the Irish border.
1) The Irish tail is wagging the British dog.
1) The British tail is trying to wag the EU dog, and frankly, the EU are having none of it.
The EU will have a border with the UK in Ireland. The UK and the RoI have previously signed a binding agreement about the nature of that border, which the UK is trying to renege on.
The fault is entirely with the UK. Perfidious Albion indeed.
Reasons why the UK should be seeking to maintain an unobstructed Irish border.
1. The GFA is an international treaty. It's a really good way to go into negotiations for trade deals by reneging on international treaties (similarly, walking out of the EU without paying our debts). People really like to negotiate with others who have shown themselves to be untrustworthy.
2. The GFA is supported by the vast majority of people in Ireland, the DUP being the only party which opposed it, a referendum with 71% in favour (94% for the Republic, if that's of interest to you). We wouldn't want to create the impression that the results of a referendum can be overturned at a whim, would we?
3. Because of the status of citizenship for people north and south of the border free movement across the border is desirable.
4. And, closing the border will nullify the GFA and may lead to an increase in terrorist activity.
Of course the EU negotiators don't want the 4 freedoms trampled on. Why should a minority of people in the UK destroy the entire foundations of the EU?
Interesting that you think a sovereign nation, insisting on its sovereignty, should somehow destroy the entire foundations of the EU. That would seem to me to be a most telling comment.
Best wishes, 2RM.
If the insistence on sovereignty (whatever that means) also insists that the law of other nations (or, pan-national entities such as the EU) needs to be ripped up then that's pushing sovereignty too far. What right does the UK government, acting on the wishes of a minority of people in a non-democratic vote, to push the EU into an arrangement that trammels over the 4 freedoms, or any other fundamental principles of the EU? The UK can opt out of those freedoms by leaving the EU, stupid though that would be, but shouldn't be able to drag the Irish or any other EU nations out of those freedoms. The EU negotiators have given way on that in trying to maintain the Irish border status to honour an international treaty (because they've behaved far more reasonably than the UK government), probably further than is wise. They've no more space to go to give yet more concessions.
It perhaps should be said again that we chose (stupidly in my opinion) to leave. If you leave an organisation all privileges granted to for being a member cease. The fact that the EU has negotiated with us at all is beyond what they needed to do. We took ourselves to the cliff edge.
It perhaps should be said again that we chose (stupidly in my opinion) to leave. If you leave an organisation all privileges granted to for being a member cease. The fact that the EU has negotiated with us at all is beyond what they needed to do. We took ourselves to the cliff edge.
Indeed we did. I voted remain because it seemed to me that the economy, broadly speaking, was working, and people, broadly speaking, were not too unhappy with the status quo. In other words, I thought, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
But it has become apparent to me that there are deep matters of principle at stake. The ideal solution would be to reconcile these matters of principle with the more pragmatic, expedient matters of economic well-being. If I were to rant about Treeza, as is the thread theme, it would be simply to point out that the public debate has not yet, and may well never, attempted to grapple with such a possible reconciliation.
If I were to rant about Treeza, as is the thread theme, it would be simply to point out that the public debate has not yet, and may well never, attempted to grapple with such a possible reconciliation.
The lack of public discussion on the issues of EU membership is one of the biggest problems we face. Though I'm going to be uncharacteristically fair to Treeza in saying that's not something she's at fault for. The time for that discussion was before putting the idea of a referendum to the people.
I'm going to annoy some people here for once again banging the comparison with the Scottish Independence referendum drum once again (but, it's Hell and I'm allowed to be annoying here). Before calling the 2014 referendum Scotland had been debating independence for decades, every election the SNP stood candidates on a manifesto that was little more than "independence for Scotland", with the details constantly being worked on to make the proposal progressively more realistic and acceptable to the people of Scotland, with regular success in those elections - for Westminster, local government and the European Parliament, and Holyrood post-devolution. That public discussion contributed to the UK government proposing devolution (though, the GFA bringing peace to NI was part of that as well), and continued through the devolution referendum campaign. Once the SNP got enough MSPs to form a government in Scotland they didn't immediately go for independence, instead they stepped up that discussion with a decade of public consultations and Parliamentary discussion, passing through several election cycles where the people could vote them out if they were dissatisfied, to produce the 670p White Paper that was the question that was put to the people in 2014.
There has not been an equivalent discussion in the UK regarding EU membership. There hasn't been a political party proposing leaving the EU to lead the discussion, and winning the discussion enough to repeatedly result in significant numbers of candidates elected to Westminster, local government or European Parliament. There was no pro-leave party that formed a government, or even a partner in a coalition, to lead that process of discussion through public consultation and Parliamentary processes, not even for a year or two let alone a decade. Most of the UK didn't start to talk about EU membership until the referendum campaign, by which time the time pressures of a short campaign created a hot-house atmosphere that did nothing to foster sensible discussion, rather the heat created a poor-quality shouting match.
Treeza isn't at fault over that lack of public discussion. The fault lies with the likes of Farage failing to make UKIP (or other pro-leave parties) a force in UK politics, to make those parties appear to be electable. The fault lies with the likes of Moggy hiding within the Tory Party where they had an easy route to being elected, but did so on a party manifesto that was pro-EU, saying it's better to be an MP under a manifesto they disagree with than stand on the principals they believe in.
But I do not think the EU has shown much in the way of flexibility, either.
Is a frankly barmy point of view - as the task was to come to a set of transitional arrangements (essentially a temporary trade deal in all but name) quickly it was always obvious that this would be a choice between various off the peg arrangements with slight adjustments (and don't forget the UK wide backstop was a concession - and a huge one - that May requested of the EU).
It's a truism - but nonetheless true - that Leave promised Unicorns, such as instant trade deals with everyone, having the cake and eating it, and oddles of free cash for the NHS; and a lot of people believed them.
But Unicorns don't exist, and wishing won't make them miraculously appear; so the only recourse now for Mogg and his manipulative and lying mates is to say that there really are Unicorns, but that the evil EU won't let us have them, and that Treeza is letting them get away with that.
But I do not think the EU has shown much in the way of flexibility, either.
Is a frankly barmy point of view - as the task was to come to a set of transitional arrangements (essentially a temporary trade deal in all but name) quickly it was always obvious that this would be a choice between various off the peg arrangements with slight adjustments (and don't forget the UK wide backstop was a concession - and a huge one - that May requested of the EU).
Yes. And this was the only smart move that Mrs May has made in the entire process. It being the only way within her red lines of protecting both the GFA and the status of NI within the UK.
I think it worth noting that this was indeed a big and risky concession by the EU. I haven't heard but I would understand if there was significant annoyance with Mrs May for trying to wriggle out of this for domestic reasons when they'd already given so much.
@Alan Cresswell and I disagree about some parts of the Scottish independence argument (see about 5 pages back) but he is undeniably correct on this point. The way the SNP handled the approach and debate before the referendum is textbook. To produce a detailed plan of what independence would look like before asking the people...
Compare that with Farage's cheap opportunism and Cameron's vain hubris...
But I do not think the EU has shown much in the way of flexibility, either.
Is a frankly barmy point of view - as the task was to come to a set of transitional arrangements (essentially a temporary trade deal in all but name) quickly it was always obvious that this would be a choice between various off the peg arrangements with slight adjustments (and don't forget the UK wide backstop was a concession - and a huge one - that May requested of the EU).
Yes. And this was the only smart move that Mrs May has made in the entire process. It being the only way within her red lines of protecting both the GFA and the status of NI within the UK.
I think it worth noting that this was indeed a big and risky concession by the EU. I haven't heard but I would understand if there was significant annoyance with Mrs May for trying to wriggle out of this for domestic reasons when they'd already given so much.
@Alan Cresswell and I disagree about some parts of the Scottish independence argument (see about 5 pages back) but he is undeniably correct on this point. The way the SNP handled the approach and debate before the referendum is textbook. To produce a detailed plan of what independence would look like before asking the people...
Compare that with Farage's cheap opportunism and Cameron's vain hubris...
AFZ
I agree with this too. The idea that the EU should want to assist the prosperity of a leaving country - at the expense of the whole of the rest of the market and the people and countries within it - is bonkers. There is absolutely no rational reason why the EU should offer any deal better than being a member. Or anything close to being a member.
I think most of the minor parties have played pretty well in the Brexit debates - largely because up to now they've looked irrelevant. So they've been able to sing to an idealised section of their electorate (remembering, of course, that a significant number of SNP voters wanted to leave the EU) with very little focus on things that they might say that are contradictory.
If course, the DUP were dealt a strong hand and have been ruthless in attempting to exploit it. But I think their influence is on the wane and that they might have pushed too hard and written themselves out of the political dialogue in the future. Not for the first time, they run the risk of losing good things because they refuse to compromise.
The Lib Dems have been regrouping. It'll be interesting to see if they are able to leverage support from the Independent Group into anything significant.
I'm actually more positive than I have been for a whole about this. I think Mrs May is wrong in her expressed belief that she can get support for her deal, and I have a strong feeling now that we will not be no-deal brexiting.
One can't count chickens, but I think it will be a straight fight between leaving unprepared in March or withdrawing A50 - and I think the latter might actually win out in the end.
Treeza was doing her usual thing last night, denying a 'direct correlation' between rising knife-crime and the fall in police numbers which she as Home Secretary was so proud of.
Typical Treeza: her words narrowly interpreted are probably an accurate reflection of the statistics; but she was using that narrow truth to tell what is really a lie. Again.
Treeza was doing her usual thing last night, denying a 'direct correlation' between rising knife-crime and the fall in police numbers which she as Home Secretary was so proud of.
The thing is that the rise in knife crime and 'gang violence' is over-determined - and its probable that other cuts (to provision of services to youths, cuts to the education budget, cuts in community services etc.) share a greater part of the blame than the cuts in police numbers itself.
Of course, she has been part of the cabinet during all of this - and so is still to blame.
On this question of police numbers (whilst everyone in governemnt is wasting so much time on Brexit): it is not simply the reduced numbers of officers. The consequence of this reduction is less (even no) bobbies on the beat. We very, very rarely see a policeman walking along any streets in our part of this city. Treeza's argument is flawed in so much that it is this absence of the visible officer that is allowing street/knifecrime to increase (or, at least) to stop any reduction).
(Of course, the cuts also are to blame).
Treeza was doing her usual thing last night, denying a 'direct correlation' between rising knife-crime and the fall in police numbers which she as Home Secretary was so proud of.
Typical Treeza: her words narrowly interpreted are probably an accurate reflection of the statistics; but she was using that narrow truth to tell what is really a lie. Again.
This sounds very like the climate change deniers "There is no definitive, 100% proof that human activity is causing climate change". Maybe true - becasue science does not deal in 100% proof. The evidence is very clear.
There may not be a clear and provable link between Mays actions as HS and the rise in knife crime. But her encouragement of hatred, racism, facism and her reduction in policing are the cause. That is obvious.
Treeza was doing her usual thing last night, denying a 'direct correlation' between rising knife-crime and the fall in police numbers which she as Home Secretary was so proud of.
Typical Treeza: her words narrowly interpreted are probably an accurate reflection of the statistics; but she was using that narrow truth to tell what is really a lie. Again.
This sounds very like the climate change deniers "There is no definitive, 100% proof that human activity is causing climate change". Maybe true - becasue science does not deal in 100% proof. The evidence is very clear.
There may not be a clear and provable link between Mays actions as HS and the rise in knife crime. But her encouragement of hatred, racism, facism and her reduction in policing are the cause. That is obvious.
IANAL but I'm sure the term "Beyond all reasonable doubt" covers the causes of climate change and the effects of Theresa May's policies as Home Secretary, such as reducing the number of police and the Windrush documentation fiasco.
Presumably she meant that there is no link of causation. After all, you can have correlation without causation. Famous example was HRT, which seemed to protect against heart disease, but further analysis showed this to be false, and women taking HRT are more affluent, have a better diet, etc. But as others have said, many things have been cut, e.g., youth services.
Sorry to double post but I missed the edit window. I did not mean to say her bath be. I meant to say something like she speaks the language of spin. Dammed autocorrect and dyslexia
The problem with "Beyond all reasonable doubt" is that it assumes the person is reasonable. Weeza is not. And BARD is not "100% proof". It is scientifically accepted, but, like all scientific principles, it is always open to disproof.
Like Evolution. I mean, I think maybe Weeza is not descended from monkeys at all, but a huge, steaming pile of rancid shit.
And yes there can be correlation without causation, but there is a lot of evidence - like, from the police theselves - that the cutting of police numbers has impacted street crime. Unfortunately, social policy like this does not work will with double blind trials.
This has been the government’s answer for years. The suicides due to benefit changes were hand waved away by saying we can’t know the whole reason. It is so stupid not to make a correlation.
The EU are warning - yet again - that there has been no progress on the Irish Backstop; and poor halfwitted Liam Fox is suggesting that Treeza will impose a three-line whip on ministers to vote against a no-deal situation if (when?) her proposals are turned down again next Tuesday.
Of course the fact is that unless something is done the UK will in any case drop out on March 29th with nothing in place at all. But at least Treeza's husband won't have to worry about the effect of EU legislation on money laundering and tax havens, so that's all right.
My suspicion, which I guess is shared by the EU, is that if any change was made to the backstop to allow the UK the power to leave unilaterally, then the headbangers would force it to at some point in the future.
The chances are that a trade negotiation with the EU would take years, so I suspect we'd all be in the backstop for a number of years.
As some point the headbangers would start stamping their feet and complaining that the implementation deal was preventing trade deals with other countries - and would very likely vote to abandon it.
I have no doubt that even if the draft magically passes Parliament in March, the path for the Brexiters will be to continue to push for a hard brexit.
But that seems unlikely right now. It still seems horribly likely that we will get dumped out with nothing. Wtf happens then is anyone's guess.
Another defeat looms on Tuesday. But no doubt Nothing will have changed afterwards.
I think Mrs May will lose.. and then I think she might finally quit.
And then I'm thinking there will be a massive scramble to try to get an extension from the EU. And I suspect it will turn out the only way to do this will be a GE.
My best guess, right now (and clearly I've been completely wrong before like everyone) is that there will be something like a 1 year extension and an elongated GE campaign to allow everyone to get themselves sorted out as to where they stand.
I still think there will be some party rejigging - I suspect with the main Tory party standing on a hard brexit platform, more joining the Independent Group from both sides and a split in the Labour party.
My guess is that the faces in the HoC will remain much the same albeit as MPs for different parties, and there will be no majority for Leave, with some kind of coalition in government and with a rabidly angry hard brexit opposition.
And today Jeremy rhyming-slang has insisted that not supporting the current Brexit deal will be bad for the Party. Clearly the Party is more important than the country. The sooner we get rid of the Party, the better. In my view.
And today Jeremy rhyming-slang has insisted that not supporting the current Brexit deal will be bad for the Party. Clearly the Party is more important than the country. The sooner we get rid of the Party, the better. In my view.
Or Jeremy Freudian Spoonerism thinks that what is bad for the Tory Party is inherently bad for the hountry (I think that there's mention of this particular delusion in Yes, Minister).
Which is odd, because as a rough rule of thumb I tend to assume the opposite.
Or Jeremy Freudian Spoonerism thinks that what is bad for the Tory Party is inherently bad for the hountry.
Which is odd, because as a rough rule of thumb I tend to assume the opposite.
Presumably what's good for the Tory Party is good for Tory Party donors and right-wing newspaper proprietors. Are you suggesting that there's any more to the country?
Or Jeremy Freudian Spoonerism thinks that what is bad for the Tory Party is inherently bad for the hountry.
Which is odd, because as a rough rule of thumb I tend to assume the opposite.
Presumably what's good for the Tory Party is good for Tory Party donors and right-wing newspaper proprietors. Are you suggesting that there's any more to the country?
Though a very long way from being a fan of Thatcher, in her first terms of office she did succeed in getting her programme through Parliament. There are lots of ways to describe her government; "callous", "evil", "vindictive" are some of them. "Utterly useless" isn't something that can really be applied to her government (at least until the last year or two of her government).
Comments
Not sure that's quite true. They have refused even to discuss trade until the terms of exit are settled, which involves payments of billions of sterling without specifying what we might expect in return. They want the 4 freedoms untrammelled (movement of people, goods, services and capital) and we just want control of our borders, laws and money. I do not think we are being unreasonable in that, but because of that desire, 'no deal' looms ahead of us.
I voted remain, but, to be honest, if there was a second 'people's vote' referendum, I would think very hard about my position, given the intransigence of the EU, and what it indicates for it's future development.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Edgar Allan Poe?
Of course the EU negotiators don't want the 4 freedoms trampled on. Why should a minority of people in the UK destroy the entire foundations of the EU? Standing firm on that was one of the most inevitable aspects of the EU negotiations. And, likewise the EU negotiators weren't going to let the UK walk out leaving the rest of the EU to pick up the tab for cost, that's as daft as someone walking out of a restaurant without paying and expecting the other diners to pay his bill.
The reason that we're approaching leaving the EU without a deal is a combination of domestic factors. A Conservative Party leader who thought an unprecedented referendum bypassing normal democratic processes would heal long held differences between groups within his party, a Parliament that decided that a line in a manifesto should be honoured at the start of a Parliament (rather than, say, convening a committee to actually put a question on the ballot - which of course would have lead to a stalemate since there'd be no agreement between those wanting to leave the EU as to what the question would be), an advisory no-question public vote taken as "the will of the people", triggering A50 before deciding what the government was seeking to gain, a lot of can kicking (a pointless election, constant changing of Brexit ministers, delays on votes) by the government. And, a bunch of idiots cheering on the mob wanting to leave, without even a sketch of a plan to achieve it.
Oh, and by the way. On the matter of the Irish border.
1) The Irish tail is wagging the British dog.
2) It does not seem to me to be a strong argument that because some delinquent Irish (on both sides of the sectarian divide) might start blowing each other up again, and shooting at each other, so we should pander to that blackmail. I do not see why it is that the rest of us law-abiding citizenry should have to make allowances for their criminality and hostile intent. I'm in favour of a hard border, between two sovereign nations with their own ideas about taxation, tariffs, legalities, etc. And if the Irish nationalists don't like that, then they have recourse to democratic means to propose a different. solution.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Interesting that you think a sovereign nation, insisting on its sovereignty, should somehow destroy the entire foundations of the EU. That would seem to me to be a most telling comment.
Best wishes, 2RM.
1) The British tail is trying to wag the EU dog, and frankly, the EU are having none of it.
The EU will have a border with the UK in Ireland. The UK and the RoI have previously signed a binding agreement about the nature of that border, which the UK is trying to renege on.
The fault is entirely with the UK. Perfidious Albion indeed.
1. The GFA is an international treaty. It's a really good way to go into negotiations for trade deals by reneging on international treaties (similarly, walking out of the EU without paying our debts). People really like to negotiate with others who have shown themselves to be untrustworthy.
2. The GFA is supported by the vast majority of people in Ireland, the DUP being the only party which opposed it, a referendum with 71% in favour (94% for the Republic, if that's of interest to you). We wouldn't want to create the impression that the results of a referendum can be overturned at a whim, would we?
3. Because of the status of citizenship for people north and south of the border free movement across the border is desirable.
4. And, closing the border will nullify the GFA and may lead to an increase in terrorist activity.
It's not all just #4.
Indeed we did. I voted remain because it seemed to me that the economy, broadly speaking, was working, and people, broadly speaking, were not too unhappy with the status quo. In other words, I thought, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
But it has become apparent to me that there are deep matters of principle at stake. The ideal solution would be to reconcile these matters of principle with the more pragmatic, expedient matters of economic well-being. If I were to rant about Treeza, as is the thread theme, it would be simply to point out that the public debate has not yet, and may well never, attempted to grapple with such a possible reconciliation.
Best wishes, 2RM.
I'm going to annoy some people here for once again banging the comparison with the Scottish Independence referendum drum once again (but, it's Hell and I'm allowed to be annoying here). Before calling the 2014 referendum Scotland had been debating independence for decades, every election the SNP stood candidates on a manifesto that was little more than "independence for Scotland", with the details constantly being worked on to make the proposal progressively more realistic and acceptable to the people of Scotland, with regular success in those elections - for Westminster, local government and the European Parliament, and Holyrood post-devolution. That public discussion contributed to the UK government proposing devolution (though, the GFA bringing peace to NI was part of that as well), and continued through the devolution referendum campaign. Once the SNP got enough MSPs to form a government in Scotland they didn't immediately go for independence, instead they stepped up that discussion with a decade of public consultations and Parliamentary discussion, passing through several election cycles where the people could vote them out if they were dissatisfied, to produce the 670p White Paper that was the question that was put to the people in 2014.
There has not been an equivalent discussion in the UK regarding EU membership. There hasn't been a political party proposing leaving the EU to lead the discussion, and winning the discussion enough to repeatedly result in significant numbers of candidates elected to Westminster, local government or European Parliament. There was no pro-leave party that formed a government, or even a partner in a coalition, to lead that process of discussion through public consultation and Parliamentary processes, not even for a year or two let alone a decade. Most of the UK didn't start to talk about EU membership until the referendum campaign, by which time the time pressures of a short campaign created a hot-house atmosphere that did nothing to foster sensible discussion, rather the heat created a poor-quality shouting match.
Treeza isn't at fault over that lack of public discussion. The fault lies with the likes of Farage failing to make UKIP (or other pro-leave parties) a force in UK politics, to make those parties appear to be electable. The fault lies with the likes of Moggy hiding within the Tory Party where they had an easy route to being elected, but did so on a party manifesto that was pro-EU, saying it's better to be an MP under a manifesto they disagree with than stand on the principals they believe in.
Is a frankly barmy point of view - as the task was to come to a set of transitional arrangements (essentially a temporary trade deal in all but name) quickly it was always obvious that this would be a choice between various off the peg arrangements with slight adjustments (and don't forget the UK wide backstop was a concession - and a huge one - that May requested of the EU).
But Unicorns don't exist, and wishing won't make them miraculously appear; so the only recourse now for Mogg and his manipulative and lying mates is to say that there really are Unicorns, but that the evil EU won't let us have them, and that Treeza is letting them get away with that.
Yes. And this was the only smart move that Mrs May has made in the entire process. It being the only way within her red lines of protecting both the GFA and the status of NI within the UK.
I think it worth noting that this was indeed a big and risky concession by the EU. I haven't heard but I would understand if there was significant annoyance with Mrs May for trying to wriggle out of this for domestic reasons when they'd already given so much.
@Alan Cresswell and I disagree about some parts of the Scottish independence argument (see about 5 pages back) but he is undeniably correct on this point. The way the SNP handled the approach and debate before the referendum is textbook. To produce a detailed plan of what independence would look like before asking the people...
Compare that with Farage's cheap opportunism and Cameron's vain hubris...
AFZ
Did Mr Grayling take adequate advice? There's a pistol in the library, you know the honourable way out, but I doubt you will use it.
The man's a walking disaster area, so Treeza will surely soon announce that she has full confidence in him.
She is a weak leader.
I agree with this too. The idea that the EU should want to assist the prosperity of a leaving country - at the expense of the whole of the rest of the market and the people and countries within it - is bonkers. There is absolutely no rational reason why the EU should offer any deal better than being a member. Or anything close to being a member.
I think most of the minor parties have played pretty well in the Brexit debates - largely because up to now they've looked irrelevant. So they've been able to sing to an idealised section of their electorate (remembering, of course, that a significant number of SNP voters wanted to leave the EU) with very little focus on things that they might say that are contradictory.
If course, the DUP were dealt a strong hand and have been ruthless in attempting to exploit it. But I think their influence is on the wane and that they might have pushed too hard and written themselves out of the political dialogue in the future. Not for the first time, they run the risk of losing good things because they refuse to compromise.
The Lib Dems have been regrouping. It'll be interesting to see if they are able to leverage support from the Independent Group into anything significant.
I'm actually more positive than I have been for a whole about this. I think Mrs May is wrong in her expressed belief that she can get support for her deal, and I have a strong feeling now that we will not be no-deal brexiting.
One can't count chickens, but I think it will be a straight fight between leaving unprepared in March or withdrawing A50 - and I think the latter might actually win out in the end.
Typical Treeza: her words narrowly interpreted are probably an accurate reflection of the statistics; but she was using that narrow truth to tell what is really a lie. Again.
The thing is that the rise in knife crime and 'gang violence' is over-determined - and its probable that other cuts (to provision of services to youths, cuts to the education budget, cuts in community services etc.) share a greater part of the blame than the cuts in police numbers itself.
Of course, she has been part of the cabinet during all of this - and so is still to blame.
(Of course, the cuts also are to blame).
Reducing warranted police numbers might be necessary to engage civilian staff and technology in smarter ways.
On the other hand, it seems fairly obvious that the best way to tackle gang crime, and presumably knife crime, is with careful community policing.
It's a combination, I think - if one reduces police funding and also redirects priorities, then expensive non-priorities are going to be neglected.
This sounds very like the climate change deniers "There is no definitive, 100% proof that human activity is causing climate change". Maybe true - becasue science does not deal in 100% proof. The evidence is very clear.
There may not be a clear and provable link between Mays actions as HS and the rise in knife crime. But her encouragement of hatred, racism, facism and her reduction in policing are the cause. That is obvious.
And do you think she's even capable of giving a straight answer to such a straight question? She's never done so yet.
IANAL but I'm sure the term "Beyond all reasonable doubt" covers the causes of climate change and the effects of Theresa May's policies as Home Secretary, such as reducing the number of police and the Windrush documentation fiasco.
Like Evolution. I mean, I think maybe Weeza is not descended from monkeys at all, but a huge, steaming pile of rancid shit.
And yes there can be correlation without causation, but there is a lot of evidence - like, from the police theselves - that the cutting of police numbers has impacted street crime. Unfortunately, social policy like this does not work will with double blind trials.
Of course the fact is that unless something is done the UK will in any case drop out on March 29th with nothing in place at all. But at least Treeza's husband won't have to worry about the effect of EU legislation on money laundering and tax havens, so that's all right.
Move along, nothing to see here.
The chances are that a trade negotiation with the EU would take years, so I suspect we'd all be in the backstop for a number of years.
As some point the headbangers would start stamping their feet and complaining that the implementation deal was preventing trade deals with other countries - and would very likely vote to abandon it.
I have no doubt that even if the draft magically passes Parliament in March, the path for the Brexiters will be to continue to push for a hard brexit.
But that seems unlikely right now. It still seems horribly likely that we will get dumped out with nothing. Wtf happens then is anyone's guess.
Stupid or dishonest? You decide!
It's Nadine Dorries: it's both.
Our current batch of politicians can multitask and be both at the same time. And smile while doing it.
<rolleyes>
I think Mrs May will lose.. and then I think she might finally quit.
And then I'm thinking there will be a massive scramble to try to get an extension from the EU. And I suspect it will turn out the only way to do this will be a GE.
My best guess, right now (and clearly I've been completely wrong before like everyone) is that there will be something like a 1 year extension and an elongated GE campaign to allow everyone to get themselves sorted out as to where they stand.
I still think there will be some party rejigging - I suspect with the main Tory party standing on a hard brexit platform, more joining the Independent Group from both sides and a split in the Labour party.
My guess is that the faces in the HoC will remain much the same albeit as MPs for different parties, and there will be no majority for Leave, with some kind of coalition in government and with a rabidly angry hard brexit opposition.
So basically more chaos for another year.
Or Jeremy Freudian Spoonerism thinks that what is bad for the Tory Party is inherently bad for the hountry (I think that there's mention of this particular delusion in Yes, Minister).
Which is odd, because as a rough rule of thumb I tend to assume the opposite.
Mmm. Erm.
Silly me. What was I thinking?
Cameron started badly and went downhill.
May started with an avalanche and has never really done anything to stop it.