ml1dch

"Getting" ugly? We reached that point years ago. We're a gnarly, decrepit portrait in somebody's attic at this point.

I'm not even sure it makes a general election that much more likely. Are these eleven going to be thrilled by having to re-fight their seats as independent candidates that quickly? The eight former Labour MPs, are they going to want to bring about the possible Corbyn Government that they decided that they couldn't stomach, or even an increased Conservative working majority? I'm not saying the eleven definitely wouldn't back a no-confidence motion, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that they would.

This has been broadly covered since, but to clarify - if I were directly trying to argue with something that either of you had said, I'd have quoted what I was rebutting. To be honest, I was simply plagiarising something that I heard John Crace say yesterday which amused me.

It's certainly rotten luck for the Government that lots of things that people said would happen because of Brexit are happening at the precise time that they are grossly mismanaging Brexit, but for reasons that are nothing to do with Brexit. I mean, what are the chances?

At least we know his position on whether any by-elections are needed. I assume the choice of language is due to the more restrictive character limits of its day.

"I wonder, does the editor have any other pictures of Mr. Neil encouraging his companion for the evening to squirm?"

Seven becomes eight...

If anybody has a couple of minutes spare to waste the time of a bunch of c****.

Was carrying on as before particularly helpful?

Rise up? (sorry, I spent ten minutes trying to think of a witty and appropriate lyric and had to settle for something pretty mediocre)

He is. If you choose to believe the Westminster gossip, the Government only didn't alter today's motion to satisfy the ERG nutcases because he said he'd resign over it. Although a) I can't imagine he's big enough that they'd worry about it and b) he's clearly going to resign sooner or later anyway. Anyhow, he's very much taking the Thelma and Louise attitude to being in Government.

Business Minister Richard Harrington looks like he's going to further demolish the idea of collective responsibility. Calling fellow Conservative MPs traitors, suggesting they join Nigel Farage's new party and then slagging off your boss's current policy as "fanciful nonsense" isn't going to win you many friends. Not that he's wrong on any of it of course.

Yup. Then the speaker invited the Brexit secretary to respond in her stead. He declined. Then he asked the Chief Whip. He also declined. What a humiliation these people have foisted on the country.

Bear in mind though that this wasn't a vote on the withdrawal agreement - this was a vote which basically said "we're happy with the Government carrying on doing that thing that passed with those amendments a couple of weeks ago" That narrowly passed, so she's actually going backwards.

Government lose heavily again. Not on something that has any legal clout, but makes it very tricky for her to claim the EU27 just need to budge a little bit and everything will be fine.

Aw, remember those happy, inclusive, considerate days back when Theresa May was Home Secretary?

News just in - 83% of Conservative voters and 84% of Leavers demonstrably are naive simpletons.

That's pretty much what Japanese Wagyu beef is anyway isn't it?

We're presumably in that phase of people saying "we should compromise by doing what I want". So all that Malthouse nonsense was basically Mogg and his nutters magically discovering that the way to break the impasse was just to do all the things that said they wanted. And this will no doubt be backed by Soubrey et al, who have now magically discovered that the way to break the impasse is to just do the thing that they want. Next up, Corbyn - "we should compromise by having a General Election" Sturgeon - "we should compromise by announcing Scottish independence". Farage - "we should compromise by mortar-bombing Strasbourg and having show trials for Tusk and Juncker"

And so, if you'll humour me for a moment - what's the point of their position? What's the win for the country from it? I appreciate that you're not a spokesman for the Labour party, but I'm struggling to see what the benefit is in what they say they want. We're told that they couldn't possibly advocate scrapping the whole idea because of all those Labour voters who voted to leave and how they can't win an election with Mansfield / Stoke / Boston et cetera. So when they are doorstepping in those places in 2022, which bit of their position as laid out in that letter from Corbyn to May are they pointing at and saying "this is why we think leaving was a good idea, and how your life is now going to be better because of it".

I don't think he was either praising nor criticising. Simply stating what the current arrangements are, and how they differ to a bog standard FTA, as described by whoever he was correcting. And while flawed as you rightly say, they are still more stringent and regulated than they are pretty much anywhere else on the planet, whether or not those regulations are occasionally breached.

If the argument that he is making is "this is why a tariff of 3% or 5% really doesn't make any difference", it's an excellent example. Your example amplifies rather than diminishes his point. The fact that there are huge flaws in a system as (supposedly) watertight as the Single Market is precisely the reason this is going to be an absolute minefield in juggling all the country's future arrangements.

National embarrassment comes to its inevitable conclusion. https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-firm-with-no-ships-has-ferries-contract-cancelled-11632176 Reckon it was clear to everyone that wasn't the Government back at the end of December.