ml1dch

While I obviously get that it's posted in a remember-the-bad-bits-as-well way, I think that given they're currently being directed by Gavin Williamson I'd sooner take my chances with the technocrats.

Quite possibly. My vague recollection is that they both (and pretty much every other bugger who called themselves a philosopher around that time) had a theory on it. But I'd be sitting with Robbie Savage in the stupid corner on that one.

Quite right. If the whole reason for this is "let's have this clever person make this stupid person look stupid" (itself a pretty objectionable idea), what's the point of sending a "fertility expert" for this particular discussion. Unless that's the point and they're lining up things like Robbie Savage and Brian Cox discuss Heidegger's theory of self, while at the next table Olly Murs and David Attenborough analyse the Riemann hypothesis.

One thing's for sure - Disney's new live-action Snow White looks rubbish.

I completely agree. Our decision has been the same from day one, and is unchanged now. Do we want to sacrifice some of our control to the benefit of our economy, or do we want to sacrifice the economic benefits of closer trade relationships to maintain a greater level of autonomy. Not being honest about that from the days before the referendum and promising all things to all people is what has made the bed that we are about to be made to lie in. Although, it's still pretty impressive that May has settled on probably the only version which sacrifices both control AND economics.

Matt Chorley in The Times Red Box email pretty much sums up where Labour stand:

https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2018/11/david-davis-there-has-long-been-an-alternative-to-this-discredited-draft-deal-its-the-canada-style-plan-that-tusk-and-barnier-offered-us.html The man responsible for the negotiations for nearly 18 months, STILL doesn't understand how the process works.

As you suggest, it's a bit of a risky strategy, if it's all about keeping the option in public consciousness, and not to do with caring all that much about the actual legal process. At the moment, I don't think there's really any doubt in the public consciousness about whether we could just stay if the political will were there. 700,000 people weren't marching through London just because they fancied a walk in the sunshine. Everybody who gets a big say in whether we can stay if we asked to, has said we can. This ruling won't change the Realpolitik of that. The one thing that would probably shut down the idea that we could, amongst the people who don't follow this subject as closely as the people reading and writing this thread? Newspaper headlines saying things along the lines of "Brussels (sic) Courts Say UK Has To Leave EU"

I'm sure I've asked this before, but I'm still unclear of the answer. What is this court case supposed to change? We're currently in a position where both main parties say they have no intention of rescinding the request to leave. We have pretty much everyone at all levels of the other 27 and the Commission saying that if we change our mind then we are welcome to stay. So... CJEU says we can rescind it unilaterally. Cool, if we change our mind then we stay. CJEU say we can't rescind it unilaterally. Cool, if we change our mind they we stay. I'm sure I must be missing something, I'm just not sure what.

Hmm. Not sure I agree. What is "no deal" being defined as in this situation? No arrangements of any kind? So no visa reciprocity, no aviation treaties, no broadcasting licenses, no mutual recognition of driving licences, no food export authorisations? Because all of those things require "a deal". As soon as any of the cretins who ever espouse leaving without a withdrawal agreement is questioned on it, it quickly turns that what they mean is not "no deal" but "lots of little side deals on our terms so we don't have to answer those difficult questions we didn't think about earlier". Side deals which they wouldn't be making if a referendum had just told them that they couldn't. So it'll never appear as an option for people to vote upon.

I'd half-composed a similar post earlier, but thought that if one wanted to be more pedantic she convincingly won two rounds of voting before Leadsom withdrew. So "the Conservative Party have already had a vote for a leader when they elected May" would comfortably stand up to cross-examination.

I distinctly remember a different version of those words being parroted by various members of the Government over the last couple of years.

There will be loads of them. Raab, Hunt, Javid, Mourdant, I'd guess Leadsom again, Gove...

You've lost me.

Eh? What you said has been the position of the majority of posters on this thread for as long as I can remember.

I'm sure I said this the last time it was mooted, but what the hell. How would it help? Ditch a third of the current cabinet and replace them with Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott, Thornberry, Cable, Robertson, Williams, Dodds and Starmer. Has a path through the woods opened up? Is there now consensus on what we need to do? Unity Governments are pretty sensible if you have a common goal with a defined purpose, like "we must defeat the French" or "we must drag ourselves out of the Great Depression", but when you have the country and parliament split and wanting two diametrically opposed things, it's not really going to help matters.

This thread is worth five minutes of your time.

I get the point you're making and for most cases I think your logic is absolutely sound. But in this case I don't think you can't separate the process, because it's a process that has been specifically designed to prevent the very thing happening that we're talking about. Edit: by which I mean the victory of a candidate who doesn't have broad consensus with both MPs and members. Not a system to screw over Michael Gove. Obvs.

Bit different though, innit. If the Labour leader were elected using the Tory party process he wouldn't have got past the first round. Likewise if the Tories used the system Labour use, Rees-Mogg would be at 1/4, Johnson at 9/2 and nobody else shorter than 20/1.

Yes, that was a lie - but Boris Johnson wasn't a part of the remain campaign.

You are indeed correct. I still can't work out why she didn't just engineer a confidence vote via her allies three months ago, win it easily and buy herself a year. But then it does seem that planning isn't really her strong suit.

No MP is resigning. Various members of the Government are resigning from the Government.

So, if you read his letter it turns out that bag-carrier from the Ministry of Justice has resigned just because he didn't realise that article 89 is talking about the transition period. It all gets sillier and sillier.

Well...apart from the thousands of people that are. https://www.remainernow.com

I think that ship left port a while back.