ml1dch

Now the preamble is over it's the big debate - the future of Blaydon quarry landfill site.

So, realistically something now needs to be legislated by Friday to take to Council for the start of next week for what we need an extension for. Anybody got anything?

https://www.postoffice.co.uk/personal-loans For a long time it was the agent of the National Savings Bank (now NS&I), which is why there's the feeling that Post Office financial products are different to and "safer" than other banks. Because back in the day they were Government-backed That ended a few years back - and you can now get pretty much any financial services products with a Post Office logo on it. The finance behind any Post Office product now (maybe ironically) is provided by the Bank of Ireland.

Pretty much. It's basically the Single Market with a bolt-on customs union (and a shit name). Those supporting it but are against freedom of movement (or trying to convince others who are) can make an argument that there is a freedom of movement brake, as Article 112 of the EEA Agreement allows it to be suspended "if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial (sic) or regional nature liable to persist are arising". There's a similar emergency brake to stop the movement of capital as well (Tory MPs seem less ranty about that for some reason though). But given that a) the economy can't really function without cheap migrant labour anyway and b) pink-faced men not wanting to hear polish in a supermarket queue doesn't really meet the threshold above, nothing would actually change. But it doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to imagine Boris on the steps on Number Ten farting on about how through our unilateral emergency brake we have now taken back control of our borders, but this was never about closing our borders, blah blah blah.

I don't think that it as a plan is particularly viable in the long-term, but I think it's sensible politicking from Labour to back something different from last time. At least they can (just about) claim that they are looking to compromise on their original position. Although I guess it helps to be able to move to a position that the majority of their supporters would probably see as preferable to their current stance.

"Britain, Europe, Syria and the rougher parts of Detroit"

It's a mess precisely because it wasn't planned from the start. It wasn't planned at all. Never ascribe to malice that which can easily be explained by incompetence.

I would advise a quick glance at the date on that Peter!

11pm, champagne glasses out everyone. Everyone got their badge on? *clink-clink* Free at last, free at last, thank God almight we are free at last. The morons.

I can't imagine any trouble in the current social climate picking a name that abbreviates to the CUKs. No wannabe alt-right bell-ends are going to want to jump all over that.

The only surprising thing about that is how depressingly unsurprising it is.

To be clear - forced to learn Spanish via an EU directive. Preferably to be announced by a gay, muslim commissioner.

To be fair though, when the people he is being compared to are other Conservative MPs, it's not all that difficult to swim to the top of that particular puddle.

Numbers as declared should mean a defeat by 50 or so. But I've just got this unpleasant feeling that more are going to cave than are letting on.

The negotiated withdrawal agreement was voted on in January and February, defeated both times and half of it will be voted on again this afternoon, where it is expected to lose again albeit not as heavily after before. If it (and eventually the other half of the negotiated option) pass, we will leave on May 22nd, with our future position outside the Single Market and Customs Union, therefore a "hard" Brexit. On Wednesday, 400 or so MPs indicated that that they would be against leaving without a ratified withdrawal agreement

The currently negotiated position is a "hard" Brexit and that will get over 250 votes this afternoon.

I'd say there is nothing that either main party can do right now that isn't a dangerous gamble.

I heard a suggestion earlier that tomorrow serves no other purpose than providing Conservative election leaflets with the ammunition to report that "Labour are trying to thwart Brexit" when they vote against it.

Hmm. That's not quite right. Even allowing for dramatic license on the "all" bit. Starmer has said as the dispatch box that Labour don't have a problem with the withdrawal agreement. Sensibly, as a Labour negotiated version would be basically the same document but just carving out Northern Ireland rather than placating the DUP with the UK backstop. Yes, the DUP and the Broadmoor wing of the Conservative party have a problem with it, but for anyone living in the real world it's the inevitable consequence of the decision that the country has made.

Looks like they are splitting it, which if it passes tomorrow would mean the extension until May 22nd would apply and then they hope and pray they can somehow get the votes for the political declaration and all subsequent legislation passed in the next eight weeks. Good luck with that.

I’m pretty sure that splitting them would be pointless anyway, since according to the Withdrawal Act 13(1)(b), the House needs to approve both parts – if the future declaration isn't passed as acceptable then the Withdrawal Act cannot become law. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/

The point of the votes was to establish the outcomes that were acceptable and unacceptable to MPs. That's why they were able to vote for as many, or as few of the options as they wanted. As for the whole "maybe the people in the party know a bit better than you do" shtick, perhaps they do. Or perhaps their strategy has them still lagging in popularity behind the worst Government in living memory and their leader enjoying the worst satisfaction ratings for a leader of the opposition since 1982.

Have you even read the amendment? The above suggests not. It's not an amendment for revocation. It's an amendment that says that in the event of an imminent (48 hour) exit with no other alternative or potential extension available, a vote is held on whether the House is happy to leave on those terms. And if not, revocation occurs. Which is Labour's current stated position. Unless it's changed since Corbyn said on January 13th "We will do everything we can to prevent a no-deal exit". Unless I have it wrong, and he's changed position since January, and in the specific circumstances described in the amendment, Labour wouldn't back revocation? Or unless the policy has changed since you said "In a situation where it is a choice between no deal and revoke, they would revoke", this amendment does literally nothing more than what you claim they would want to do. It's literally an amendment doing what you've said they would want to do. Hence my original question.

That's really because they were the only side that thought that was actually a game that both sides were playing in.

It's not moving to any position. It votes for what they claim is their current position. "In a situation where it is a choice between no deal and revoke, they would revoke". Well that's exactly what this motion says. It doesn't stop them being in favour of their fantasy Brexit if they want to keep supporting that. It just supports something that they claim to currently support.