As I mentioned last night, EU President Donald Tusk’s suggestion of a Brexit delay of a year or so seems to have been torn up - notably by France’s president Emmanuel Macron.
I was told by those involved in preparations for the emergency Brexit summit on Wednesday that the most likely outcome of the special summit is another kicking of the Brexit can down the road, but only till a bit after the elections for the European Parliament at the end of May.
The big problem with a long delay, for France and its President in particular, was that it would give the UK too much power - in their view - to vandalise the EU till EU leaders felt cowed into tearing up the Northern Ireland backstop (hated by Tory Brexiters and DUP).
EU leaders trust Theresa May to abide by the convention that all EU members, including Brexiting ones, should engage with each other in a spirit of “sincere cooperation” - but do not trust she will be PM much longer.
And they have little faith that a successor such as Johnson or Raab would not blow up their budget preparations, for example.
The widely mooted option of trying to strip the UK of voting rights during an extension is hard. Far easier to keep the postponement as short as possible.
What this means is that if the delay is agreed on Wednesday, the new Brexit day would probably be some time in June or July.
And for the first time it would probably be a genuine deadline, according to sources.
Some in the EU see it as that momentous date I have been presaging for months - a delayed date for a no-deal Brexit.
But no-deal would not be inevitable, even if it is close to impossible to see how a version of the prime minister’s deal could ever be approved by MPs.
There will always be the scope to delay Brexit by holding a referendum or even a general election. And the option of revoking Brexit will always be there.
The priority of the emergency EU council, according to a well-place official from a European capital, is “to keep responsibility [for what happens] in the UK”.
In the words of an intimate of those making historic decisions on both sides of the Channel: “It is the slow scenic route to a no-deal Brexit in late summer under a new PM.
As I mentioned last night, EU President Donald Tusk’s suggestion of a Brexit delay of a year or so seems to have been torn up - notably by France’s president Emmanuel Macron.
I was told by those involved in preparations for the emergency Brexit summit on Wednesday that the most likely outcome of the special summit is another kicking of the Brexit can down the road, but only till a bit after the elections for the European Parliament at the end of May.
The big problem with a long delay, for France and its President in particular, was that it would give the UK too much power - in their view - to vandalise the EU till EU leaders felt cowed into tearing up the Northern Ireland backstop (hated by Tory Brexiters and DUP).
EU leaders trust Theresa May to abide by the convention that all EU members, including Brexiting ones, should engage with each other in a spirit of “sincere cooperation” - but do not trust she will be PM much longer.
And they have little faith that a successor such as Johnson or Raab would not blow up their budget preparations, for example.
The widely mooted option of trying to strip the UK of voting rights during an extension is hard. Far easier to keep the postponement as short as possible.
What this means is that if the delay is agreed on Wednesday, the new Brexit day would probably be some time in June or July.
And for the first time it would probably be a genuine deadline, according to sources.
Some in the EU see it as that momentous date I have been presaging for months - a delayed date for a no-deal Brexit.
But no-deal would not be inevitable, even if it is close to impossible to see how a version of the prime minister’s deal could ever be approved by MPs.
There will always be the scope to delay Brexit by holding a referendum or even a general election. And the option of revoking Brexit will always be there.
The priority of the emergency EU council, according to a well-place official from a European capital, is “to keep responsibility [for what happens] in the UK”.
In the words of an intimate of those making historic decisions on both sides of the Channel: “It is the slow scenic route to a no-deal Brexit in late summer under a new PM.
Blame JRM ,and the ERG , amongst others , for not being prepared to back a bad deal ...oh ok .
Lord Snooty has been threatening them over the extension.
I'm sure his comments have very little bearing on their decisions on matters such as this .
Why would you say that?
Why would you think any differently?
Here we go, oh no he didn't...…………………………………………………..
Change the record man. You asked me a question , I asked you one back ..simple. I thought that's how it went with you , answer a question , with a question .....it's not a sales . pitch !
How much is this apartment going to cost me for the year ?
Well, how much would you expect to pay for a luxury apartment in a prime location like this ?
As I mentioned last night, EU President Donald Tusk’s suggestion of a Brexit delay of a year or so seems to have been torn up - notably by France’s president Emmanuel Macron.
I was told by those involved in preparations for the emergency Brexit summit on Wednesday that the most likely outcome of the special summit is another kicking of the Brexit can down the road, but only till a bit after the elections for the European Parliament at the end of May.
The big problem with a long delay, for France and its President in particular, was that it would give the UK too much power - in their view - to vandalise the EU till EU leaders felt cowed into tearing up the Northern Ireland backstop (hated by Tory Brexiters and DUP).
EU leaders trust Theresa May to abide by the convention that all EU members, including Brexiting ones, should engage with each other in a spirit of “sincere cooperation” - but do not trust she will be PM much longer.
And they have little faith that a successor such as Johnson or Raab would not blow up their budget preparations, for example.
The widely mooted option of trying to strip the UK of voting rights during an extension is hard. Far easier to keep the postponement as short as possible.
What this means is that if the delay is agreed on Wednesday, the new Brexit day would probably be some time in June or July.
And for the first time it would probably be a genuine deadline, according to sources.
Some in the EU see it as that momentous date I have been presaging for months - a delayed date for a no-deal Brexit.
But no-deal would not be inevitable, even if it is close to impossible to see how a version of the prime minister’s deal could ever be approved by MPs.
There will always be the scope to delay Brexit by holding a referendum or even a general election. And the option of revoking Brexit will always be there.
The priority of the emergency EU council, according to a well-place official from a European capital, is “to keep responsibility [for what happens] in the UK”.
In the words of an intimate of those making historic decisions on both sides of the Channel: “It is the slow scenic route to a no-deal Brexit in late summer under a new PM.
Blame JRM ,and the ERG , amongst others , for not being prepared to back a bad deal ...oh ok .
Lord Snooty has been threatening them over the extension.
I'm sure his comments have very little bearing on their decisions on matters such as this .
Why would you say that?
Why would you think any differently?
Here we go, oh no he didn't...…………………………………………………..
Change the record man. You asked me a question , I asked you one back ..simple. I thought that's how it went with you , answer a question , with a question .....it's not a sales . pitch !
How much is this apartment going to cost me for the year ?
Well, how much would you expect to pay for a luxury apartment in a prime location like this ?
The point is that you cant answer any questions, you only have to look back over the last few pages of this thread.
You seem to make a habit of effectively saying I am not answering a question, you answer one.
You made a statement in your post, I innocently asked what made you say that, and then you cant say why,
The other day you posted a letter. I wonder why you would post the view of one person rather than just post your own views. Nevertheless I commented at length on the contents. You cant say whether you agree with the views put forward in this letter or not, you cant comment on the contents in any way, and merely say that you posted it because it was a different view.
Why don't we all just post other peoples views off other forums?
Because it wouldn't be a debate, that why?
It would be a Blue Peter forum, heres one that somebody else made earlier.
So why in your opinion is it a bad deal, when it is not a deal it is a Withdrawal Agreement, why do you think it is bad?
Why do you think that the EU should ignore JRMs comments?
What do you think has happened since the last summit, where they offered us a long extension?
Why do you think the PM only took a short extension, when she could have had a long one, with the ability to opt out early if the WA got through?
An Article 50 extension would betray the referendum result and should be opposed; but if it is forced through we are still enormously better off than with Mrs May’s deal.
Here's another interesting article to get your teeth into , bit of a long read >>>>
An Article 50 extension would betray the referendum result and should be opposed; but if it is forced through we are still enormously better off than with Mrs May’s deal.
Here's another interesting article to get your teeth into , bit of a long read >>>>
An Article 50 extension would betray the referendum result and should be opposed; but if it is forced through we are still enormously better off than with Mrs May’s deal.
Here's another interesting article to get your teeth into , bit of a long read >>>>
I think the general public are just as bad as MPs when it comes to Brexit Solutions. They are quick to write off possible solutions without being able to suggest a feasible alternative. Inevitably a choice will have to be made at some point. Many people will point out that revoking Article 50, would cause havoc. Yet if we got to Friday with no extension agreed, then it would be my preferred choice, without a second thought. A second referendum has not been able to gain a majority in Parliament, although this may still be possible. If the EU would only allow a long extension if we agreed to a General Election or a referendum. Then the referendum would be my choice. I don't think a General Election would solve anything, it would be unlikely to change the numbers in Parliament, and a new PM is unlikely to make anything clearer. At least a referendum would clearly end the process providing the correct question was asked. Real Alternatives are scarce. Parliament voting on alternative deals is misleading, as the negotiations for the trading relationship are phase 2 and all options will require the passing of the Withdrawal Agreement. Parliament wont vote in favour of it and the EU wont change it. The other major worry is that if the WA was passed, the PM resigns. We would then be reliant on the new leader to stand by the Political Declaration. This document is not legal and binding, and it is difficult to see someone like Boris Johnson sticking to it. There is currently no guarantee that we end up with what we thought we were getting. Whatever happens the WA has to be passed. The options for future trading terms seem to be the PMs deal, although this seems unlikely. Maybe it could pass with Labour support and a Customs Union. Although this is debatable as some of those that have supported the WA thus far, may choose to vote against, subsequent to an addition of a Customs Union. Common Market 2.0, which is Norway plus a Customs Union. It is hard to see this getting a majority, because of Freedom of Movement, no independent trade policy, and an annual financial contribution. I was listening to Steven Kinnock pitching this the other day, and he lied to get over the Freedom of Movement objection. There is a provision for a 7 year break from FoM, but there are conditions attached which we wouldn't currently qualify for. If we did choose this option then there would be a huge argument for remaining, having a seat at the table, and a say on the rules going forward. So how are Parliament going to pass the WA?
Several of Wednesday's newspaper front pages lead with Brexit, ahead of an EU summit in Brussels later where Theresa May will make her case for a delay until 30 June. "Will we ever escape EU clutches?" is the despairing headline on the front page of the Daily Express - alongside a photograph of the French President Emmanuel Macron embracing Mrs May warmly in Paris.
The i newspaper says EU leaders are set to rebuff Mrs May and insist on a long delay to Brexit, while the Guardian says the prime minister's hopes of leaving soon have been "dashed". The Times hopes that EU leaders will take the risk of offering Britain a long delay - warning that the fallout from a chaotic no deal would be far worse that the destabilising effect of continued uncertainty. The Daily Mail blames "inept" MPs for the "humiliating" prospect of "another year in limbo". It says members of the political class have undermined Mrs May in her honest bid to secure an honourable Brexit and are guilty of hypocrisy and betrayal. Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph says many senior Tories believe a long Brexit extension will make Mrs May's tenure unsustainable. It says the party may change the rules to remove her if she doesn't resign. In its editorial comment, the paper says that "rather than wait to be toppled" the prime minister should set out the timetable for her departure so that a replacement leader can be chosen as soon as possible".
Meanwhile, 10 years after the expenses scandal, the Daily Mirror has been totting up how much MPs have made from selling homes that were partly-paid for by taxpayers. It estimates that 160 of them shared profits of £42m - with some making £1m each. Under parliamentary rules the MPs are allowed to keep the money, but the former chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Sir Alistair Graham, tells the paper they should repay any profit they made.
The Tories’ own research is telling them young people are not stupid enough to vote for them anymore ‘It’s all Tony Blair’s fault! He learned ’em how to read! He learned ’em how to read!’
For most political parties, when you commission a report asking why young people hate you and it comes back saying it’s because too many of them have been to university these days and so aren’t stupid enough to vote for you anymore, it might be time to panic. But, fortunately, this is the Conservative Party we’re talking about. And why panic, when you can just have a leadership contest instead? Seriously, I don’t write this stuff, I just type it out. There’s a new Conservative think tank in town, called “Onward”, for Tory MPs who self-identify as trendy but must – must – be over 40 and ideally be into parkour, karaoke and apps named after them themselves. They wanted to know more about their youth problem, so they commissioned the best young political analyst in town, James Kanagasooriam, to research it for them.
And his conclusion was that, unfortunately, thanks to Tony Blair, too many young people have been to university, and so have got nothing in common with the Conservative Party anymore. Kanagasooriam singles out particular problems, like the party’s proud history of consistently being on the wrong side of every social issue there’s ever been – gay rights, assisted dying, that kind of thing. Oh, and these vexatious young people also absolutely hate Brexit, what with it taking their rights away, limiting their life opportunities and making them poorer, with absolutely zero upside whatsoever for anyone. So Matt Hancock, he of app fame, Brexiteer Penny Mordaunt, last seen keeping a straight face and telling a room full of journalists that “Brexit was a noble act” (good luck selling that to the young’uns, Penny), and Tom Tugendhat, a sort of David Cameron-lite figure who imagines he can guide himself into 10 Downing Street through the force of self-love alone, gathered at a panel event to discuss it all.
MPs vote for June extension as May begs EU leaders for delay – live But rather than actually dealing with their massive existential crisis, surely it would just be easier to all audition, one by one, for the chance to be the sixth consecutive Conservative prime minister to be smashed to pieces by internal rows over Europe? Who can blame them? The voters being too educated to vote for you is a real thorny one, and probably best ignored. Education is one of the hardest things to strip away. Actively making people stupider is not easy, though credit to Mark Francois and his never ending media round, they are trying their very best (more on him shortly).
We can only see this terrible crisis through the prism of the climactic ending of Graham Swift’s Norfolk based novel Waterland. The lock-keeper’s somewhat limited eldest son, affectionately known as “the potato-head”, is usually to be found in fields having sex with his motorcycle, so imagine the lock-keeper’s shock on returning one day, to see the potato-head sitting by the canal side with a friend, being introduced to actual books. “Don’t educate him!” he screams. “Don’t learn ’im how to read!” But it’s too late, and is now merely a matter of time the potato-head learns, via his dead mother’s diaries, that his struggles in life may be down to the fact that mum and dad were secretly brother and sister, and promptly dives beneath the water and never comes up again. It’s Tony’s fault! It’s all Tony’s fault! He learned ’em how to read! He learned ’em how to read!
And so we turn at this opportune moment, from one potato-head to another. While Hancock and co were having their miniature preening contest, it is unfortunate timing that about 40 yards away, there was to be found the hitherto unknown and noisy Mark Francois, who appears to have been incubated inside Brexit itself and is now feasting upon it, like an especially rotund bluebottle and a giant dog ****.
Pro-Brexit MPs are starting to support a second referendum Again, I don’t script this, this is exactly how it happened. “The Tory party used to be something you thought about when you got your first pay cheque. Now it’s something you think about when you get your first winter fuel allowance,” said Matt Hancock. Not a bad one-liner, and at that precise moment, Francois, all of 40 yards away, was bellowing about D-Day to an audience of Brexit-loving Tory pensioners.
Speaking behind a lectern with a picture of Margaret Thatcher affixed directly at his groin, Francois had a message for the European Union. “If you try to hold us in against our will, you will be facing Perfidious Albion on speed!” he growled, his chins and midriff uniting in a brief tremolando of furious anger. That is the strategy now, to scare the European Union into kicking us out early, with threats of acting like tiny children, mucking up their budgets and their elections, vetoing their policies. A once great country, reduced to an international laughing stock by a political party that’s emerging into a world in which there’ll be no one left who’s stupid enough to vote for them anymore.
Pro-Brexit MPs are starting to support a second referendum – here’s why they’re right Up until now, the debate surrounding a second referendum has been dominated by Remainers, but a pro-Brexit case for a People’s Vote is emerging as the only way to get Theresa May’s deal over the line
Time for a little candour. Enthusiastic as I am about the Final Say campaign – because I genuinely feel that the people have the right to be asked their consent to whatever is about to happen to them – I cheerfully admit that most of the people in favour of a second referendum, particularly those running the various campaigns, were, and are, passionate Remainers. What is novel now is an emerging Leave case for a second vote. Now that Brexit seems to be “slipping through our fingers” as the prime minister puts it, it may be the Leavers’ last great hope – to win a popular vote again.
The Leavers who want a second referendum are still a relatively small group, at least in public – but they have spotted that the tide is turning badly against Brexit. The likes of Nigel Farage have hinted that it might take a second referendum to get the Brexit that they want. There is talk that the cabinet has discussed putting it to a free vote in the Commons. It is official Labour Party policy, and is being pursued in the cross-party talks led by David Lidington and Keir Starmer.
We launched Boris' leadership campaign for him – to show Corbyn how crucial a new referendum will be Our video might be tongue-in-cheek, but the message is clear: the Labour Party must insist on a Final Say to protect Britain from the buffoon-in-chief
I never thought, as a member of Momentum, that I would be helping to launch a Boris Johnson leadership campaign. But that’s what we’re doing at Our Future, Our Choice. Thankfully, we’re not really trying to get the former foreign secretary into the top job. Instead, it’s a big reminder to my party and its MPs: Boris Johnson cannot be trusted with the future of this country.
Britain’s biggest buffoon could stroll into No 10 within weeks. His plans are no secret: tear apart any agreement Theresa May makes with Jeremy Corbyn, including a customs union, chuck the backstop in the bin, and set alight any protection we have secured for workers.
Even if the prime minister accepts a few concessions from these talks, for example membership of a customs union, the Brexit deal on offer will still have a decidedly negative impact on our society. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) indicates that staying in a customs union leaves the nation £70bn worse off or £700 per person per year by 2030.
While the Tories may claim the end of austerity, Labour MPs know that the country is on its knees. For many families in deprived areas, such as Bolton, Crewe or Gateshead, £700 is the difference between heating and eating.
But more importantly, there’s no guarantee that Boris keeps to the deal. The Customs Union isn’t a good outcome, but it’s better for the people of this country than a last-minute scrapping of the deal in favour of fantasy. Boris Johnson either doesn’t know, or doesn’t care, that you can’t have an implementation period without a deal. He either doesn’t know, or doesn’t care, that he said leaving without a deal was “insane”, but now advocates for that outcome.
He does know, but doesn’t care (or admit), that he made false claims in 2016 about the likelihood of Turkey joining the EU. Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson has traded on his inability to manage his own hair, let alone a country. But in the beauty contest of a Tory leadership election, where a privileged few compete for the approval of a right-wing selectorate, he’s odds-on to win. Faced with 100,000 Tory members, the path to victory will be whoever can offer the boldest pledges for a hard Brexit. There will be every incentive for these budding leaders to distance themselves from Theresa May and her deal; and no incentive to signal a willingness to compromise.
His fans speak for themselves. Steve Bannon praises him in the same breath as Tommy Robinson. Donald Trump thinks he has the “right attitude” to be prime minister. Dominic Raab has called Johnson a “natural born winner”.
On the face of it, it’s good that Brexit is now being treated as an issue that requires compromise. For too long, the prime minister has played a losing game of "her way or the highway". But Labour shouldn’t forget that these are desperate times for the Tory party and it will do anything to survive.
Conference policy, as an expression of the wishes of Labour members like me, must remain a red line. If people opt to leave on a compromise deal after a confirmatory referendum, it would be an unwise politician who chooses to go against that mandate.
Even Boris Johnson will find it impossible, having spent years talking about the will of the people.
By supporting a final say on Brexit, Labour keeps the support of young people. It gives the British public the ability to choose their own future. It allows every person in the UK to have their say on the direction their country is going in. The country wants it. Nine out of ten Labour MPs have voted for it. Nine out of ten constituencies now back it. And 72% of the membership is in favour. Corbyn is the leader that brought democracy back to the party. He must now bring Brexit back to the people.
Figure 2 displays Remainers’ assessments of Leavers’ reasons for voting Leave. It shows that Remain voters overestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to both regaining control over EU immigration and teaching British politicians a lesson. 52% of Remain voters rank ‘Leavers wanted the UK to regain control over EU immigration’ first, whereas only 39% of Leave voters rank ‘to regain control over EU immigration’ first. And 12% of Remain voters rank ‘Leavers wanted to teach British politicians a lesson’ first, whereas only 3% of Leave voters rank ‘to teach British politicians a lesson’ first.
This is flawed in exactly the same way as Opinion Polls.
It does NOT give the reason that people vote in a particular way. It gives the reason that the voter SAYS was the reason they voted in a particular way. They are not the same thing.
When some Opinion Pollster asks someone whether they will vote for Corbyn, many who would (and do) say otherwise. Similarly, many people for whom Immigration was the most important factor will not say so, due to the negative implications some people put on such a statement.
The way people SAY they voted, and why, are not the same as why they DID, 3 years before. I am sure that would also be true for Remain voters.
The recent polls have shown that immigration is a less important factor. This is probably true, as it was such a hot topic during the referendum campaign. Some on the leave side attempted to scare people into voting their way, with threats of 17 million Turks invading us along with 15 million Bulgarians, and Romanians.
I am sure that many peoples concern about this has since subsided.
Screenshots from "Auschwitz: The **** and 'The Final Solution", six-part BBC documentary
Revoke Article 50: MPs are gradually moving towards cancelling Brexit
Even senior members of May's government are starting to talk about cancelling Brexit by revoking Article 50.
More than 6 million people have signed an official government petition calling for it to be revoked.
Senior MPs say there would be a House of Commons majority for doing it in order to avoid no-deal.
Once a fringe cause, the idea of revoking Article 50 - the legal process through which Britain is due to leave the EU - is quickly becoming mainstream, with a record six million people recently signing a petition in favour of it.
After two years of bitter negotiations with the EU and total legislative deadlock in the UK parliament, the thought of simply calling the whole thing off is now increasingly being raised, even by senior members of May's government.
On Tuesday the Chancellor, Philip Hammond, reportedly raised the prospect of MPs voting to revoke Article 50 rather than allow Britain to leave without a deal if May's request for a delay is rejected.
Another MP, who recently quit May's government, told Business Insider this week that while revoking Article 50 was "unpalatable" for many MPs and wasn't "the best way out of this situation," it would be supported by a majority of MPs if the country was hours away from leaving the EU without a deal, and left with no other alternative. "It's the ultimate backstop," they said.
If the Brexit impasse continues and MPs fail to agree on a Brexit plan, it might just become the only option left.
Britain and EU wrestle with Boris Johnson question
In London and Brussels, in talks that could determine Britain’s future, negotiators are homing in on a common goal: how to rein in the actions of a future pro-hard Brexit British government. The focus in discussions between the UK’s Conservative and Labour parties is on providing assurances that a new Tory prime minister does not rip up any cross-party accord on future relations with the EU. Diplomats in Brussels are concerned with a similar issue, as the EU’s 27 other member states consider Britain’s request to delay its departure from the bloc. A big preoccupation ahead of a crucial summit on Wednesday is how to prevent a more Eurosceptic UK government from disrupting the bloc’s affairs from within.
Meanwhile there is deep disdain for Mr Johnson among many European governments, which see him as the wayward leader of a Brexit campaign built on false promises. But that is offset by growing impatience with Mrs May’s government, which lacks the authority in Westminster to see through on agreements made in Brussels. “Give us anyone who has a majority,” said one senior EU diplomat, who hoped for a quick resolution to the Brexit saga, one way or another. The EU has moved to shield itself against a change of guard in London by making clear that the withdrawal agreement negotiated with Mrs May is now in effect untouchable, regardless of who is in Downing Street.
Fear over a “rogue” Brexiter government subverting EU business has played a big role in raising concerns about the costs to the EU of approving a long delay to Britain’s departure date. Eurosceptic MPs have already urged the UK to act as a wrecker from within, especially if restrictions are attached to a Brexit delay. At a meeting of Europe ministers on Tuesday, Greece noted that, while no deal might be damaging, it might be no worse than “being held hostage” to a war within the Tory party while Britain remained a member state. One EU diplomat suggested that the terms of an extension also needed to be “Bojo proof” — to allow the bloc to cut short UK membership if Mr Johnson “or anyone irresponsible is prime minister one day and threatens to wreak havoc within the EU”. Senior French officials have privately suggested review clauses — potentially at intervals of two or three months.
News of the latest delay to Brexit came too late for the first editions of this morning's papers - but the final and online editions make the most of the new date, 31 October. "May's Halloween horror" is the headline in the Daily Mail, while for the Mirror: "It's the nightmare before Brexit". The Daily Telegraph reflects on a "bruising night in Brussels" with French President Emmanuel Macron "haunting" EU leaders in "the Brexit witching hour" to force a shorter extension. The Guardian reports that Mr Macron "enraged" his fellow EU leaders, insisting on speaking last during their working dinner and to oppose the longer delay favoured by German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
The Mail says the UK has been "humiliated again" - being forced to sit back while a "vengeful" President Macron "turned the screw". The paper concludes that Theresa May's appeal to Brussels goes down as "one of the most demeaning episodes" in Britain's history. The Times agrees. In its editorial, the paper says Wednesday night's summit was a "historic humiliation" - and even the Suez crisis "barely compares". The paper calls on MPs to reflect on "how the country got here". It is hard to see any way forward, it argues, "so long as Mrs May remains prime minister". For the Sun, the new Brexit postponement is the "final confirmation" of Theresa May's failure - and she must now accept "the game is up". The Telegraph also looks to a change of leader. In its editorial, the paper says Mrs May's premiership has now descended to an "almost tragi-comic triumph of hope over expectation, missed deadlines and broken promises". The paper reports that Conservative rebels are now looking for a way to get round party regulations which protect the prime minister from another leadership challenge before the end of the year. It adds that a number of MPs have called on their association chairmen to gather signatures, in the hope that a petition signed by 10,000 Conservative members could force a rule change.
The Financial Times says Downing Street has been forced to abandon plans to bring its Brexit legislation before the Commons again this week - because of "slow progress" in its talks with the Labour Party. The paper adds Mrs May had been hoping to signal an imminent breakthrough in Parliament when she addressed EU leaders last night. But that approach was dropped, the paper says, amid "increasing scepticism" over whether the two parties will ever agree a compromise. Several papers report on the sacking of the government's housing advisor, Roger Scruton, for making allegedly anti-Islamic and anti-Semitic comments in a magazine interview. The Guardian says his comments came at an "especially awkward time" for the Conservatives - as the party has been coming under increasing scrutiny over its stance on Islamophobia while it continues to attack Labour for anti-Semitisim.
According to the Sun, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Liz Truss, has "given her strongest hint yet" that the government could scrap the HS2 rail line. She confirmed that the case for the multi-billion pound project would be examined as part of the next spending review, after suggesting in an interview that local transport matters more to business than high-speed rail links. The paper says her comments will be seen as evidence of her desire to be Tory leader - because of the project's unpopularity among Conservative MPs in the areas affected.
STEPHEN GLOVER: Uncontrolled immigration helped trigger Brexit - How ironic our self obsessed MPs have forgotten it
Almost three years after the EU referendum, it’s odd how little talk there is about immigration. Yet before the vote many politicians and much of the media were obsessed with the subject. Is it because, despite the Brexit process driving many of us bonkers, people assume immigration has been sorted out? After all, concern about its uncontrolled nature was a major factor — possibly the main one — behind the Leave vote. I’m afraid any thought that our marvellous Government is quietly attending to the challenges of reducing immigration, while tussling so hopelessly with all other aspects of Brexit, is wide of the mark. While it’s true that immigration from inside the EU is sharply down, this has nothing to do with the Government. Meanwhile, non-EU immigration is running at a 15-year high. The upshot is that overall numbers coming here are not far off record levels.
Comments
I thought that's how it went with you , answer a question , with a question .....it's not a sales .
pitch !
How much is this apartment going to cost me for the year ?
Well, how much would you expect to pay for a luxury apartment in a prime location like this ?
You seem to make a habit of effectively saying I am not answering a question, you answer one.
You made a statement in your post, I innocently asked what made you say that, and then you cant say why,
The other day you posted a letter. I wonder why you would post the view of one person rather than just post your own views. Nevertheless I commented at length on the contents. You cant say whether you agree with the views put forward in this letter or not, you cant comment on the contents in any way, and merely say that you posted it because it was a different view.
Why don't we all just post other peoples views off other forums?
Because it wouldn't be a debate, that why?
It would be a Blue Peter forum, heres one that somebody else made earlier.
So why in your opinion is it a bad deal, when it is not a deal it is a Withdrawal Agreement, why do you think it is bad?
Why do you think that the EU should ignore JRMs comments?
What do you think has happened since the last summit, where they offered us a long extension?
Why do you think the PM only took a short extension, when she could have had a long one, with the ability to opt out early if the WA got through?
Here's another interesting article to get your teeth into , bit of a long read >>>>
https://lawyersforbritain.org/risking-an-article-50-extension-is-miles-better-than-taking-theresa-mays-deal
Inevitably a choice will have to be made at some point.
Many people will point out that revoking Article 50, would cause havoc. Yet if we got to Friday with no extension agreed, then it would be my preferred choice, without a second thought.
A second referendum has not been able to gain a majority in Parliament, although this may still be possible. If the EU would only allow a long extension if we agreed to a General Election or a referendum. Then the referendum would be my choice. I don't think a General Election would solve anything, it would be unlikely to change the numbers in Parliament, and a new PM is unlikely to make anything clearer.
At least a referendum would clearly end the process providing the correct question was asked.
Real Alternatives are scarce.
Parliament voting on alternative deals is misleading, as the negotiations for the trading relationship are phase 2 and all options will require the passing of the Withdrawal Agreement.
Parliament wont vote in favour of it and the EU wont change it.
The other major worry is that if the WA was passed, the PM resigns. We would then be reliant on the new leader to stand by the Political Declaration. This document is not legal and binding, and it is difficult to see someone like Boris Johnson sticking to it. There is currently no guarantee that we end up with what we thought we were getting.
Whatever happens the WA has to be passed.
The options for future trading terms seem to be the PMs deal, although this seems unlikely. Maybe it could pass with Labour support and a Customs Union. Although this is debatable as some of those that have supported the WA thus far, may choose to vote against, subsequent to an addition of a Customs Union.
Common Market 2.0, which is Norway plus a Customs Union. It is hard to see this getting a majority, because of Freedom of Movement, no independent trade policy, and an annual financial contribution. I was listening to Steven Kinnock pitching this the other day, and he lied to get over the Freedom of Movement objection. There is a provision for a 7 year break from FoM, but there are conditions attached which we wouldn't currently qualify for.
If we did choose this option then there would be a huge argument for remaining, having a seat at the table, and a say on the rules going forward.
So how are Parliament going to pass the WA?
Anyone on the EU side must have been sorely tempted to say boll0ck5 to the extension, just to screw him over.
Captain Mainwaring fails again.
The extension saga is quite interesting.
There are a couple of deadlines involved.
April 12 was the last date to arrange for preparations.
The Elections are at the end of May.
The new MEPs take their seats on the first week of July.
So to be in the EU beyond 1st July would require us to have elected MEPs.
The PM had a choice which was to apply for a short extension, or a long one.
She chose to apply for a short one and was adamant that we wouldn't take part in the elections.
This would have put us in a position where if the WA had not been passed by the end of June we would be out with no deal.
If you consider what has happened over the last 3 years, this would have been given short odds by the bookies.
Why would she think another couple of months would make all the difference.
The alternative was the elections, long extension, and avoid no deal. This would have allowed for a further extension if necessary.
You just wonder why she would go for a short extension.
Was it because she was afraid to tell the cabinet she wanted a long extension?
Was she afraid to tell her party that we would be contesting the elections?
Was she hoping that the EU would force her into a long extension?
Was it to get her MPs backs to the wall and give them a proper view over the cliff edge, in the hope that they may support the WA?
Or was it because she is stupid?
It probably boils down to the latter.
We are at an impasse, to move forward someone has to move their position.
This doesn't seem likely anytime soon.
Perhaps she thinks she can keep extending Article 50 until everyone has forgotten that we ever had a referendum.
Several of Wednesday's newspaper front pages lead with Brexit, ahead of an EU summit in Brussels later where Theresa May will make her case for a delay until 30 June.
"Will we ever escape EU clutches?" is the despairing headline on the front page of the Daily Express - alongside a photograph of the French President Emmanuel Macron embracing Mrs May warmly in Paris.
The i newspaper says EU leaders are set to rebuff Mrs May and insist on a long delay to Brexit, while the Guardian says the prime minister's hopes of leaving soon have been "dashed".
The Times hopes that EU leaders will take the risk of offering Britain a long delay - warning that the fallout from a chaotic no deal would be far worse that the destabilising effect of continued uncertainty.
The Daily Mail blames "inept" MPs for the "humiliating" prospect of "another year in limbo".
It says members of the political class have undermined Mrs May in her honest bid to secure an honourable Brexit and are guilty of hypocrisy and betrayal.
Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph says many senior Tories believe a long Brexit extension will make Mrs May's tenure unsustainable. It says the party may change the rules to remove her if she doesn't resign.
In its editorial comment, the paper says that "rather than wait to be toppled" the prime minister should set out the timetable for her departure so that a replacement leader can be chosen as soon as possible".
Meanwhile, 10 years after the expenses scandal, the Daily Mirror has been totting up how much MPs have made from selling homes that were partly-paid for by taxpayers.
It estimates that 160 of them shared profits of £42m - with some making £1m each.
Under parliamentary rules the MPs are allowed to keep the money, but the former chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Sir Alistair Graham, tells the paper they should repay any profit they made.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-47875263
‘It’s all Tony Blair’s fault! He learned ’em how to read! He learned ’em how to read!’
For most political parties, when you commission a report asking why young people hate you and it comes back saying it’s because too many of them have been to university these days and so aren’t stupid enough to vote for you anymore, it might be time to panic.
But, fortunately, this is the Conservative Party we’re talking about. And why panic, when you can just have a leadership contest instead?
Seriously, I don’t write this stuff, I just type it out. There’s a new Conservative think tank in town, called “Onward”, for Tory MPs who self-identify as trendy but must – must – be over 40 and ideally be into parkour, karaoke and apps named after them themselves. They wanted to know more about their youth problem, so they commissioned the best young political analyst in town, James Kanagasooriam, to research it for them.
And his conclusion was that, unfortunately, thanks to Tony Blair, too many young people have been to university, and so have got nothing in common with the Conservative Party anymore. Kanagasooriam singles out particular problems, like the party’s proud history of consistently being on the wrong side of every social issue there’s ever been – gay rights, assisted dying, that kind of thing. Oh, and these vexatious young people also absolutely hate Brexit, what with it taking their rights away, limiting their life opportunities and making them poorer, with absolutely zero upside whatsoever for anyone.
So Matt Hancock, he of app fame, Brexiteer Penny Mordaunt, last seen keeping a straight face and telling a room full of journalists that “Brexit was a noble act” (good luck selling that to the young’uns, Penny), and Tom Tugendhat, a sort of David Cameron-lite figure who imagines he can guide himself into 10 Downing Street through the force of self-love alone, gathered at a panel event to discuss it all.
MPs vote for June extension as May begs EU leaders for delay – live
But rather than actually dealing with their massive existential crisis, surely it would just be easier to all audition, one by one, for the chance to be the sixth consecutive Conservative prime minister to be smashed to pieces by internal rows over Europe?
Who can blame them? The voters being too educated to vote for you is a real thorny one, and probably best ignored. Education is one of the hardest things to strip away. Actively making people stupider is not easy, though credit to Mark Francois and his never ending media round, they are trying their very best (more on him shortly).
We can only see this terrible crisis through the prism of the climactic ending of Graham Swift’s Norfolk based novel Waterland. The lock-keeper’s somewhat limited eldest son, affectionately known as “the potato-head”, is usually to be found in fields having sex with his motorcycle, so imagine the lock-keeper’s shock on returning one day, to see the potato-head sitting by the canal side with a friend, being introduced to actual books.
“Don’t educate him!” he screams. “Don’t learn ’im how to read!” But it’s too late, and is now merely a matter of time the potato-head learns, via his dead mother’s diaries, that his struggles in life may be down to the fact that mum and dad were secretly brother and sister, and promptly dives beneath the water and never comes up again.
It’s Tony’s fault! It’s all Tony’s fault! He learned ’em how to read! He learned ’em how to read!
And so we turn at this opportune moment, from one potato-head to another. While Hancock and co were having their miniature preening contest, it is unfortunate timing that about 40 yards away, there was to be found the hitherto unknown and noisy Mark Francois, who appears to have been incubated inside Brexit itself and is now feasting upon it, like an especially rotund bluebottle and a giant dog ****.
Pro-Brexit MPs are starting to support a second referendum
Again, I don’t script this, this is exactly how it happened. “The Tory party used to be something you thought about when you got your first pay cheque. Now it’s something you think about when you get your first winter fuel allowance,” said Matt Hancock. Not a bad one-liner, and at that precise moment, Francois, all of 40 yards away, was bellowing about D-Day to an audience of Brexit-loving Tory pensioners.
Speaking behind a lectern with a picture of Margaret Thatcher affixed directly at his groin, Francois had a message for the European Union. “If you try to hold us in against our will, you will be facing Perfidious Albion on speed!” he growled, his chins and midriff uniting in a brief tremolando of furious anger.
That is the strategy now, to scare the European Union into kicking us out early, with threats of acting like tiny children, mucking up their budgets and their elections, vetoing their policies.
A once great country, reduced to an international laughing stock by a political party that’s emerging into a world in which there’ll be no one left who’s stupid enough to vote for them anymore.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/tory-party-theresa-may-vote-election-mark-francois-young-people-conservative-a8862336.html
Up until now, the debate surrounding a second referendum has been dominated by Remainers, but a pro-Brexit case for a People’s Vote is emerging as the only way to get Theresa May’s deal over the line
Time for a little candour. Enthusiastic as I am about the Final Say campaign – because I genuinely feel that the people have the right to be asked their consent to whatever is about to happen to them – I cheerfully admit that most of the people in favour of a second referendum, particularly those running the various campaigns, were, and are, passionate Remainers.
What is novel now is an emerging Leave case for a second vote. Now that Brexit seems to be “slipping through our fingers” as the prime minister puts it, it may be the Leavers’ last great hope – to win a popular vote again.
The Leavers who want a second referendum are still a relatively small group, at least in public – but they have spotted that the tide is turning badly against Brexit. The likes of Nigel Farage have hinted that it might take a second referendum to get the Brexit that they want. There is talk that the cabinet has discussed putting it to a free vote in the Commons. It is official Labour Party policy, and is being pursued in the cross-party talks led by David Lidington and Keir Starmer.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/may-deal-pass-peoples-vote-leave-support-huw-merriman-a8861756.html
Our video might be tongue-in-cheek, but the message is clear: the Labour Party must insist on a Final Say to protect Britain from the buffoon-in-chief
I never thought, as a member of Momentum, that I would be helping to launch a Boris Johnson leadership campaign. But that’s what we’re doing at Our Future, Our Choice.
Thankfully, we’re not really trying to get the former foreign secretary into the top job. Instead, it’s a big reminder to my party and its MPs: Boris Johnson cannot be trusted with the future of this country.
Britain’s biggest buffoon could stroll into No 10 within weeks. His plans are no secret: tear apart any agreement Theresa May makes with Jeremy Corbyn, including a customs union, chuck the backstop in the bin, and set alight any protection we have secured for workers.
Even if the prime minister accepts a few concessions from these talks, for example membership of a customs union, the Brexit deal on offer will still have a decidedly negative impact on our society. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) indicates that staying in a customs union leaves the nation £70bn worse off or £700 per person per year by 2030.
While the Tories may claim the end of austerity, Labour MPs know that the country is on its knees. For many families in deprived areas, such as Bolton, Crewe or Gateshead, £700 is the difference between heating and eating.
But more importantly, there’s no guarantee that Boris keeps to the deal. The Customs Union isn’t a good outcome, but it’s better for the people of this country than a last-minute scrapping of the deal in favour of fantasy. Boris Johnson either doesn’t know, or doesn’t care, that you can’t have an implementation period without a deal. He either doesn’t know, or doesn’t care, that he said leaving without a deal was “insane”, but now advocates for that outcome.
He does know, but doesn’t care (or admit), that he made false claims in 2016 about the likelihood of Turkey joining the EU.
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson has traded on his inability to manage his own hair, let alone a country. But in the beauty contest of a Tory leadership election, where a privileged few compete for the approval of a right-wing selectorate, he’s odds-on to win. Faced with 100,000 Tory members, the path to victory will be whoever can offer the boldest pledges for a hard Brexit. There will be every incentive for these budding leaders to distance themselves from Theresa May and her deal; and no incentive to signal a willingness to compromise.
His fans speak for themselves. Steve Bannon praises him in the same breath as Tommy Robinson. Donald Trump thinks he has the “right attitude” to be prime minister. Dominic Raab has called Johnson a “natural born winner”.
On the face of it, it’s good that Brexit is now being treated as an issue that requires compromise. For too long, the prime minister has played a losing game of "her way or the highway". But Labour shouldn’t forget that these are desperate times for the Tory party and it will do anything to survive.
Conference policy, as an expression of the wishes of Labour members like me, must remain a red line. If people opt to leave on a compromise deal after a confirmatory referendum, it would be an unwise politician who chooses to go against that mandate.
Even Boris Johnson will find it impossible, having spent years talking about the will of the people.
By supporting a final say on Brexit, Labour keeps the support of young people. It gives the British public the ability to choose their own future. It allows every person in the UK to have their say on the direction their country is going in. The country wants it. Nine out of ten Labour MPs have voted for it. Nine out of ten constituencies now back it. And 72% of the membership is in favour.
Corbyn is the leader that brought democracy back to the party. He must now bring Brexit back to the people.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-boris-johnson-jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-momentum-referendum-final-say-a8861516.html
The recent polls have shown that immigration is a less important factor. This is probably true, as it was such a hot topic during the referendum campaign. Some on the leave side attempted to scare people into voting their way, with threats of 17 million Turks invading us along with 15 million Bulgarians, and Romanians.
I am sure that many peoples concern about this has since subsided.
Screenshots from "Auschwitz: The **** and 'The Final Solution", six-part BBC documentary
http://britishguardian.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-ukip-poster-that-won-brexit.html
Even senior members of May's government are starting to talk about cancelling Brexit by revoking Article 50.
More than 6 million people have signed an official government petition calling for it to be revoked.
Senior MPs say there would be a House of Commons majority for doing it in order to avoid no-deal.
Once a fringe cause, the idea of revoking Article 50 - the legal process through which Britain is due to leave the EU - is quickly becoming mainstream, with a record six million people recently signing a petition in favour of it.
After two years of bitter negotiations with the EU and total legislative deadlock in the UK parliament, the thought of simply calling the whole thing off is now increasingly being raised, even by senior members of May's government.
On Tuesday the Chancellor, Philip Hammond, reportedly raised the prospect of MPs voting to revoke Article 50 rather than allow Britain to leave without a deal if May's request for a delay is rejected.
Another MP, who recently quit May's government, told Business Insider this week that while revoking Article 50 was "unpalatable" for many MPs and wasn't "the best way out of this situation," it would be supported by a majority of MPs if the country was hours away from leaving the EU without a deal, and left with no other alternative.
"It's the ultimate backstop," they said.
If the Brexit impasse continues and MPs fail to agree on a Brexit plan, it might just become the only option left.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/revoke-article-50-mps-are-gradually-moving-towards-cancelling-brexit/ar-BBVN4S2?ocid=spartandhp
In London and Brussels, in talks that could determine Britain’s future, negotiators are homing in on a common goal: how to rein in the actions of a future pro-hard Brexit British government.
The focus in discussions between the UK’s Conservative and Labour parties is on providing assurances that a new Tory prime minister does not rip up any cross-party accord on future relations with the EU.
Diplomats in Brussels are concerned with a similar issue, as the EU’s 27 other member states consider Britain’s request to delay its departure from the bloc. A big preoccupation ahead of a crucial summit on Wednesday is how to prevent a more Eurosceptic UK government from disrupting the bloc’s affairs from within.
Meanwhile there is deep disdain for Mr Johnson among many European governments, which see him as the wayward leader of a Brexit campaign built on false promises.
But that is offset by growing impatience with Mrs May’s government, which lacks the authority in Westminster to see through on agreements made in Brussels. “Give us anyone who has a majority,” said one senior EU diplomat, who hoped for a quick resolution to the Brexit saga, one way or another.
The EU has moved to shield itself against a change of guard in London by making clear that the withdrawal agreement negotiated with Mrs May is now in effect untouchable, regardless of who is in Downing Street.
Fear over a “rogue” Brexiter government subverting EU business has played a big role in raising concerns about the costs to the EU of approving a long delay to Britain’s departure date.
Eurosceptic MPs have already urged the UK to act as a wrecker from within, especially if restrictions are attached to a Brexit delay.
At a meeting of Europe ministers on Tuesday, Greece noted that, while no deal might be damaging, it might be no worse than “being held hostage” to a war within the Tory party while Britain remained a member state.
One EU diplomat suggested that the terms of an extension also needed to be “Bojo proof” — to allow the bloc to cut short UK membership if Mr Johnson “or anyone irresponsible is prime minister one day and threatens to wreak havoc within the EU”.
Senior French officials have privately suggested review clauses — potentially at intervals of two or three months.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/britain-and-eu-wrestle-with-boris-johnson-question/ar-BBVMLmF?ocid=spartandhp
News of the latest delay to Brexit came too late for the first editions of this morning's papers - but the final and online editions make the most of the new date, 31 October.
"May's Halloween horror" is the headline in the Daily Mail, while for the Mirror: "It's the nightmare before Brexit".
The Daily Telegraph reflects on a "bruising night in Brussels" with French President Emmanuel Macron "haunting" EU leaders in "the Brexit witching hour" to force a shorter extension.
The Guardian reports that Mr Macron "enraged" his fellow EU leaders, insisting on speaking last during their working dinner and to oppose the longer delay favoured by German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
The Mail says the UK has been "humiliated again" - being forced to sit back while a "vengeful" President Macron "turned the screw".
The paper concludes that Theresa May's appeal to Brussels goes down as "one of the most demeaning episodes" in Britain's history.
The Times agrees. In its editorial, the paper says Wednesday night's summit was a "historic humiliation" - and even the Suez crisis "barely compares".
The paper calls on MPs to reflect on "how the country got here". It is hard to see any way forward, it argues, "so long as Mrs May remains prime minister".
For the Sun, the new Brexit postponement is the "final confirmation" of Theresa May's failure - and she must now accept "the game is up".
The Telegraph also looks to a change of leader. In its editorial, the paper says Mrs May's premiership has now descended to an "almost tragi-comic triumph of hope over expectation, missed deadlines and broken promises".
The paper reports that Conservative rebels are now looking for a way to get round party regulations which protect the prime minister from another leadership challenge before the end of the year.
It adds that a number of MPs have called on their association chairmen to gather signatures, in the hope that a petition signed by 10,000 Conservative members could force a rule change.
The Financial Times says Downing Street has been forced to abandon plans to bring its Brexit legislation before the Commons again this week - because of "slow progress" in its talks with the Labour Party.
The paper adds Mrs May had been hoping to signal an imminent breakthrough in Parliament when she addressed EU leaders last night. But that approach was dropped, the paper says, amid "increasing scepticism" over whether the two parties will ever agree a compromise.
Several papers report on the sacking of the government's housing advisor, Roger Scruton, for making allegedly anti-Islamic and anti-Semitic comments in a magazine interview.
The Guardian says his comments came at an "especially awkward time" for the Conservatives - as the party has been coming under increasing scrutiny over its stance on Islamophobia while it continues to attack Labour for anti-Semitisim.
According to the Sun, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Liz Truss, has "given her strongest hint yet" that the government could scrap the HS2 rail line.
She confirmed that the case for the multi-billion pound project would be examined as part of the next spending review, after suggesting in an interview that local transport matters more to business than high-speed rail links.
The paper says her comments will be seen as evidence of her desire to be Tory leader - because of the project's unpopularity among Conservative MPs in the areas affected.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-47888892
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6909309/As-UK-forced-seven-month-Brexit-extension-EU-likely-happen.html
Almost three years after the EU referendum, it’s odd how little talk there is about immigration. Yet before the vote many politicians and much of the media were obsessed with the subject.
Is it because, despite the Brexit process driving many of us bonkers, people assume immigration has been sorted out? After all, concern about its uncontrolled nature was a major factor — possibly the main one — behind the Leave vote.
I’m afraid any thought that our marvellous Government is quietly attending to the challenges of reducing immigration, while tussling so hopelessly with all other aspects of Brexit, is wide of the mark.
While it’s true that immigration from inside the EU is sharply down, this has nothing to do with the Government. Meanwhile, non-EU immigration is running at a 15-year high. The upshot is that overall numbers coming here are not far off record levels.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6909455/STEPHEN-GLOVER-Uncontrolled-immigration-helped-trigger-Brexit.html