• limpid

      Just visiting?   27/12/16

      Please click "Sign Up" and login to use the full functionality of the site.


Full Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

696 Excellent

About ml1dch

  • Rank
    First Team

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Nice and optimistic, and definitely not impossible but I would wager it's unlikely. There is still too much chaos that can be conjured up. There are enough hard-line nutcases to bring everything crashing down if the wind moves in the direction you outline. 48 MPs are needed to trigger a leadership challenge, and they easily have the numbers to make that happen. They've got this close, they're not going to let it all go without one last throw of the dice. Then you're into whittling down candidates, and there wouldn't be the numbers to get the final two to be from the same faction. So it wouldn't be Hammond Vs Rudd that is put to the members. Johnson doesn't seem to have any support within the party, so it would probably be Hammond against either Davies or somebody from the backbenches (with Rees-Mogg the obvious), and the members won't vote for Hammond in a million years. Once they have the lunatic candidate in number ten, all they have to do is suspend the talks. Say that we're not doing anything until they do. Then the clock ticks down with nothing to vote on. Your scenario relies on the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory party being happy with how you see it playing out.
  2. Odd, I don't remember many people on that side of the fence saying so last June. Or many in the current Government saying it over the last year.
  3. I have no issues with differing opinions. It's when they are ignorant of the facts that I start to have a problem. If someone were to say "I think we should crash out of the EU because we have become politically infantilised and over-reliant on other people for both our democracy and our national sustainability, so although we will become poorer and more insular it will benefit the UK in the long-run" then I would disagree with them but at least they've given thought to what they want and are being intellectually honest. If they say "everything will be better because we will carry on as we are due to our regulatory equivalence and at the same time we can then go and get loads of new trade deals" then it's just factually wrong. There isn't an opinion to disrespect, it's just a jumble of things that they don't understand.
  4. Posturing or not, they've still given themselves that option if they want to take it. As I've said, it we changed our mind it's in their interest to go along with it (in the short term at least), so I wouldn't think it would be a problem. But the further we keep eroding the small amount of remaining goodwill, the more likely it becomes that they decide to join us in deciding what to do emotionally rather than rationally. I can't see any scenario where this current Government wants to make a U-turn on this anyway, so unless that changes it's probably academic.
  5. The EU Council disagree though. And they will be the ones making the decision if we go back with our tail between our legs, not Lord Kerr.
  6. We can say we want to knock the whole thing on the head, and everyone else will probably (but not definitely) be happy to go along with that. We can't unilaterally say we are. We need their agreement. The EU papers on the matter were posted a page or so back by (I think) Darren.
  7. I think you're right. The gullibility of people who buy into this prevailing "it's the nasty old EU wanting to punish the UK's love of democracy" nonsense is only going to be nipped in the bud by them seeing what happens if they are cut loose. Which they are (pretty much without exception) completely oblivious of. We'll have to have the disaster at some point - otherwise nobbers like Farage and Johnson will just say that it's because it wasn't done patriotically enough. Any pulling back from the brink and it'll just keep festering.
  8. There are some of the finer points which are certainly debatable, but I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that there are plenty of people on both sides being forced by political expediency to say stuff that they don't believe in a million years.
  9. You not understanding how laws work won't prevent them from being implemented.
  10. Go on then. You want all this to change, what are you proposing to change it to? Let's hear your terms Ideally with a bit more detail than just "something mutually advantageous that benefits both etc..."
  11. Which would have embarrassed a GCSE Politics student. Your suggestion that aviation was fine was because easyJet has opened a European headquarters. And it's laughable. You didn't know that it's so that easyJet can continue to operate flights in mainland Europe. And has nothing to do with UK aviation, apart from how much money easyJet can make from their current EU cabotage routes. Given you made such a massive booboo there, it doesn't concern you at all that all those other things you're so pleased about might also be wrong?
  12. Odd. As yesterday you managed to go from "that would never happen" to agreeing that yes, everything is indeed royally screwed if an agreement isn't reached. It took about an hour and a couple of dozen posts on the internet. And when it was pointed out that the reason you were so confident is that you'd misunderstood something, you quietly moved on and ignored it. Given the above, have you considered a cabinet post?
  13. I'd say far more relevant than those is what they were asked to provide such a meaningless headline. (A) Do you want economic isolation, gridlock around the ports, no flights out of the country, food shortages and huge job losses? (B) Is no deal better than a bad deal (sotto voce even though you have no idea what either of those things actually entail or the consequences of what you just blandly answered)? Those identical scenarios yield pretty different results depending on what you ask.
  14. Yup, business as usual as you say. With the slight difference that this is the last one before the EU Council meeting next week. With the assumption that they agree with Barnier, it'll make the Government response an interesting one.