Politics, politics, politics

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Agree with that. But if no-deal isn't an option for Parliament (and it's by far the most unpopular choice amongst MPs) then one sh1t sandwich might be more palatable to MPs and the public than another. The only deal that the majority of the house seem interested in is one along the lines of Norway. The only things that break the impasse is another General Election (and even then, the makeup of Parliament might not change significantly enough) or putting the options to a 2nd public vote. I'd prefer they just went for a Norway-esque arrangement and then get on with governing the country, I don't particularly want another referendum though I can appreciate the case for one.

Bingo. Theres your mandate, theres your "respecting democracy", theres your get out of jail free card.

Spin to the tune of "We respected the first referendum, agreed to leave, agreed a deal, now you choose what that looks like...." and make sure remain stays on the ballot to make sure its all inclusive and voila! It all goes away, everyone is just, lets pretend it never happened...

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

May's statement just sounds to me like she's doubling down on her deal. There must be a backstop she says. This is the best deal she says.

IMO, she's trying to say to the Brexiters "this is all you are going to get, so you might as well vote for it." I don't think that will work, but we will see.

She thinks the backstop is the issue, presumably she is going to try and renegotiate something palatable around it, therefore meaning she'll get it through parliament.

I wonder what concession she will have to make to get the EU to budge?

And, of course, I wonder if she can do better than she has - considering "this is the deal" and that...

Its a fudging mess. Her great and glorious deal was so good it has been defeated before its even been put to vote.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Can i ask: Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece - have their economies got better or worse since joining the EU?

A lot better. Especially the southern European nations. Spain used to have horse and carts in the 70s. Greece too. The problem with Greece is it was such an underdeveloped economy it was adventurous for it to be in the Euro. But its undoubtably in its interests.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Mrs May says the treaty "is now clear" that the backstop "can only ever be temporary".

She says she is "clear" that these elements "do not offer a sufficient number of colleagues the assurances they need".

She says she will now go back again to EU leaders to discuss her next options.

She adds that she is in "absolutely no doubt that this deal is the right one".

This is the "best deal that is actually negotiable with the EU," she says.

She states that the backstop will be her focus in the days ahead.




Theresa May says it is clear that if MPs want to deliver Brexit - which is met by shouts of "no!" from the SNP - they need to ask whether they want to do this by reaching an agreement with the EU.

If the answer is yes, she says, then no "enduring and successful" Brexit deal can be reached without some compromise on both sides.

Those who continue to disagree need to "shoulder the responsibility" of advocating an alternative, she says, and do so "without ducking the responsibilities".

MPs need to be honest that a second referendum risks dividing the country again, she says, "when as a House we should be striving to bring it together".

She says those calling for the UK to leave the EU without a deal, need to be up front that this would cause significant disruption for ordinary people.

None of the alternatives to a Brexit deal would win a majority in the House of Commons, she says.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Disaster from dropping out of treaties is what happens when a no-deal Brexit happens AND there is no infrastructure or plan to exist in a world outside of the EU.
It will be a hit, but not the biggest disaster that it it painted to be imo, certainly when given the choice of remain in a 'one-size-fits-all' club that long-term is not workable across 29-odd diverse countries.

Staying in simply because "we will have no treaties" is a short-term fix

We have an infranstructure, but what is the plan to exist out the EU? Where will we generate new trade from, and why are we not getting this trade now? Bear in mind Italy and Germany export huge amounts to non-EU nations now, far more than the UK, and they do it from within the EU. Where will we magically come up with new trade from? I would love to know what the plan is, its one of the issues I have with Brexit; there is no logical plan.

 

[SpurMeUp]

In what way? And how are they doing now compared to 20 years and over the last 10 years?

(I know plenty who say they are now the 'sick men' of Europe..)

They were an agricultural economy. So compared to 20 years ago, even with all the debt stuff that hit the whole world and Greece particularly hard as it borrow silly amounts, Greece is far far better off now than it was.

 

[Rorschach]

Disaster from dropping out of treaties is what happens when a no-deal Brexit happens AND there is no infrastructure or plan to exist in a world outside of the EU.
It will be a hit, but not the biggest disaster that it it painted to be imo, certainly when given the choice of remain in a 'one-size-fits-all' club that long-term is not workable across 29-odd diverse countries.

Staying in simply because "we will have no treaties" is a short-term fix

WTO terms are what exist for the UK outside of the EU. EU one size works far better than WTO one size. I could debate with you how bad that will be but I think I might be wasting my virtual breath.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Theresa May says "the vast majority accept the referendum result and want to leave with a deal, and we have a responsibility to discharge."

"If we will the ends, we must always will the means," she says.

The prime minister says she is "grateful to those who have backed the deal" and that she has "listened" and "heard the concerns" and "will do everything I can to secure further assurance" on the backstop.

She tells MPs who want to stay in the single market or want to leave with no deal to be “upfront” about consequences.

Theresa May says from the moment of the referendum two and a half years ago, even though she voted to remain "I knew the moment I took up the responsibility as prime minister that my duty was to honour the vote."

"I am determined to do everything I can to get the reassurances this deal requires and to deliver for the British people," she concludes.


Leader of the Opposition Jeremy Corbyn says "we are in an extremely serious and unprecedented situation" and accuses the government of being in "complete disarray".

He says it has been apparent "for weeks" that the deal would not be satisfactory to the Commons, yet the vote was pulled at the last minute.

He says the Irish Taoiseach has said there can be no changes made to the backstop. He asks if the deal in "front of this House" is not "off the table" but is instead being brought back later on.

"This is a bad deal for Britain, a bad deal for our economy, and a bad deal for our democracy," Mr Corbyn states.

He says that if the prime minister cannot negotiate an acceptable deal then "she must make way". He adds that the PM must work on building consensus in the Commons.



The government is in disarray, Mr Corbyn says, with uncertainty rising for businesses and ordinary people panicked and concerned.

The fault of this lies at the door of "this shambolic government", he says.

If she doesn't take on board the fundamental changes required, he calls for the PM to make way for those that can. (I do love that he thinks this would be him )


Theresa May says Jeremy Corbyn appears to argue that it is not possible to change the deal as the EU says this is the only deal on the table "and on the other hand that the only thing he would accept was the deal being negotiated".

"The fundamental question that members of the House have to ask themselves is whether they wish to deliver Brexit and honour the result of the referendum," she says, "and if they want to deliver Brexit, all the analysis shows that the deal that does this best is the deal on the table."

She says Jeremy Corbyn wants to be in the single market "which would mean free movement would have to be accepted", and that he wants foreign trade deals "but being inside the customs union would not enable us to negotiate trade deals."

"The biggest uncertainty for British businesses lie not in this deal, but on the front bench of the Labour party," she concludes.

 

[glorygloryeze]

That EU ruling negatively effected you? That was the best you could find? A. The uk government will tell the commission it wants to keep state aid and subside dirty fuel if it wishes to B. This kind of practice is the sort of thing we should be flagged up on. It’s costly to the uk tax payer and creates pollution. C. The challenge was made from the UK, by a UK citizen and UK company! Not an external force at all.

Truth be told, this EU ruling didn’t really effect you. Or me. Or anyone on this board. The real project fear is making the EU out to be something it ain’t. Here’s some of the article with more detail:


Tom Glover, UK country chair of RWE, which owns the biggest fleet of gas power plants in the UK, said he was “deeply disappointed” and his company was facing a “significant negative hit” to its earnings.

Bernstein Research said the suspension of payments would hit earnings at British Gas owner Centrica, plus RWE, Uniper and SSE.

Sara Bell, founder and CEO of Tempus Energy, which started the challenge in 2014, said: “This ruling should ultimately force the UK government to design an energy system that reduces bills by incentivising and empowering customers to use electricity in the most cost-effective way – while maximising the use of climate-friendly renewables.”

The company believes that the capacity market favours fossil fuel generation at the expense of alternative ways of securing electricity supplies, such as “demand side reduction”, where companies reduce electricity demand at times of need.

The winter of 2017/18 was the first year the capacity market was in effect, with companies due to receive £990m for 2018/19.

The scheme works by energy companies bidding years in advance for billpayer-funded subsidies to provide backup power at crunch times during winter.

Labour said the ruling meant that the government would have to rethink the market.

Alan Whitehead, shadow energy minister, said: “This judgment effectively annuls previous state aid permission to provide subsidies for existing fossil fuel power plants. I have long criticised this bizarre arrangement, which simply throws money at old dirty power stations.”

Richard Black, director of the ECIU thinktank, said the ruling should be seen as an opportunity for the government to reshape the market away from fossil fuels and towards battery storage and cleaner technologies.

Clark said the government was already in contact with the European commission and seeking state aid approval, so the capacity market could be reinstated. The business secretary used his speech to celebrate the rise of renewables. “Cheap power is now green power,” he said.



Don’t let complex truth get in the way of simple lies.



Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

My point is there should be no EU ruling; it is not the EU's business what our energy policy is. What next will the EU rule about?
If any government ruled that, say, all those with x disability shouldn't be able to vote, that may not effect you or me. Would that simply make it unimportant or would you perhaps fight it/not like/vote against it on principle, even if it may not 'directly affect you'?

Do you only vote on/care about things 'that directly affect you'?

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Speaker John Bercow says that although the intention to halt the debate has been "widely leaked in advance", he thought it appropriate to hear what was said by the PM before giving his opinion.

Halting the Brexit debate "after no fewer than 164 colleagues" have already spoken would be considered "deeply discourteous", he says, something many have expressed to him "in the most forceful terms".

Having taken procedural advice, he says there are two options:

• The first, which he says would be preferable, would be that a minister move at the beginning of the debate that it be adjourned. This would give MPs the opportunity to vote and give its view. He says he would accept that motion.
• The alternative would be for the government to "decline to move" the day's business, which would "deprive" MPs the opportunity to give a view.

"In any courteous, respectful and mature environment" he says letting MPs have a say "would be the right and obvious court to take".

He points out that ministers have assured the public over and over again that the vote will take place on Tuesday, adding that they may "wish to rise to the occasion".

 

[glorygloryeze]

A lot better. Especially the southern European nations. Spain used to have horse and carts in the 70s. Greece too. The problem with Greece is it was such an underdeveloped economy it was adventurous for it to be in the Euro. But its undoubtably in its interests.

Oh Really? They have youth unemployment far FAR worse than ours. Many have been leaving their countries to go and find work in droves across Europe, especuially Germany and the UK.
This idea that they are 'doing a lot better' is a myth. Many Italians and Greeks would love to leave the Euro, get back their old currencies, devalue them and trade their way out of their predicament, but alas one-size-fits-all is the way and it's not working for them...

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

She says that her deal gives the UK further uncertainty, she asks why it has taken the PM "so long" to "face up to reality".

She adds that it is "clear" that the prime minister is "incapable of making decisions about the future".

"She knows that she's lost but she is still wasting precious time," she states. She says the only way to fix the problem is to "put it to the people".

Mrs May says the deal is "good for the whole of the United Kingdom" and she states that she is "deferring the vote" and will be holding further discussions with the EU.

"It is important to honour the result of the referendum," she says, adding that it is the "duty of members of this House" to do so, too.



Shes nailed her there...

 

[the dza]

Oh Really? They have youth unemployment far FAR worse than ours. Many have been leaving their countries to go and find work in droves across Europe, especuially Germany and the UK.
This idea that they are 'doing a lot better' is a myth. Many Italians and Greeks would love to leave the Euro, get back their old currencies, devalue them and trade their way out of their predicament, but alas one-size-fits-all is the way and it's not working for them...

That's arguably why our current deal in the EU is a good one. We aren't in the Euro and neither should we join it. But the Euro being sh1te doesn't mean we should bin our current arrangement with the EU if we can't come to a better arrangement.

 

[glorygloryeze]

WTO terms are what exist for the UK outside of the EU. EU one size works far better than WTO one size. I could debate with you how bad that will be but I think I might be wasting my virtual breath.

I'd love to know how 'EU one size' has worked for Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece, all of whom have very bad economies right now and youth unemployment that is far worse than the UK...but yeah perhaps you would be wasting your virtual breath

 

[glorygloryeze]

That's arguably why our current deal in the EU is a good one. We aren't in the Euro and neither should we join it. But the Euro being sh1te doesn't mean we should bin our current arrangement with the EU if we can't come to a better arrangement.

We tried 'coming to a better arrangement' via Cameron remember?
That worked well...if we had, we might not even have had Brexit (ok perhaps less likely, but still..)

Edit: the direction of travel in the EU is clear: one-size-fits-all economic, political and now military policies...

 

[SpurMeUp]

My point is there should be no EU ruling; it is not the EU's business what our energy policy is. What next will the EU rule about?
If any government ruled that, say, all those with x disability shouldn't be able to vote, that may not effect you or me. Would that simply make it unimportant or would you perhaps fight it/not like/vote against it on principle, even kit it may not 'directly affect you'?

If any government said that it would be condemned, whether EU or UK! But that is hypothetical. In the real world, the UK and EU have a harmonised view on disability and rights. Wikipedia:

"The Equality Act 2010[1] is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and has the same goals as the four major EU Equal Treatment Directives, whose provisions it mirrors and implements.[2]"

It seems to me that you fear the EU as an outside other, and that is the core of your mistrust. I don't controll it. It controls me. That in itself is at best an exageration as we do control the EU, we have a veto, we have representation and the EU has limited remits. But we get a whole lot back from the EU - access to the worlds largest customs union, investement into satellite programs much of which is made in the UK as we have the expertise, freedom to travel, live and work anywhere in Europe, reduced pollution, controls on exploitation, phone roaming etc. There is a lot we take away from the EU. It's not really them telling us what to do. The best you could find as a illustration of EU control, was a UK citizen using EU law to get our government to improve the way we subsidise dirty fuel. That was it. I'd take the billions we make in free trade, the cooperation, the seat at the top table, the input we have into global trading practices...over telling some do gooder to do one and not try to use EU law to improve the UK.

 

[glorygloryeze]

If any government said that it would be condemned, whether EU or UK! But that is hypothetical. In the real world, the UK and EU have a harmonised view on disability and rights. Wikipedia:

"The Equality Act 2010[1] is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and has the same goals as the four major EU Equal Treatment Directives, whose provisions it mirrors and implements.[2]"

It seems to me that you fear the EU as an outside other, and that is the core of your mistrust. I don't controll it. It controls me. That in itself is at best an exageration as we do control the EU, we have a veto, we have representation and the EU has limited remits. But we get a whole lot back from the EU - the worlds largest customs union, investement into satellite programs much of which is made in the UK as we have the expertise, freedom to travel, live and work anywhere in Europe, reduced pollution, controls on exploitation, phone roaming etc. There is a lot we take away from the EU. It's not really them telling us what to do. The best you could find as a illustration of EU control, was a UK citizen using EU law to get our government to improve the way we subsidise dirty fuel. That was it. I'd take the billions we make in free trade, the cooperation, the seat at the top table, the input we have into global trading practices over telling some do gooder to do one and not try to use EU law to improve the UK.

We are one of the biggest net contributors to the EU so of course we 'get back some things'.
My point has always been that the EU has become a centralising juggernaught working towards a Superstate. i don't want the UK being par of that non-democratic process and i don't think the benefits outweigh the democratic risks, particularly as life can exist outside the EU.
You think life will be hell outside it. I don't.

 

[the dza]

We tried 'coming to a better arrangement' via Cameron remember?
That worked well...if we had, we might not even have had Brexit (ok perhaps less likely, but still..)

Edit: the direction of travel in the EU is clear: one-size-fits-all economic, political and now military policies...

We aren't a powerless little nation inside the EU though. We have a veto, we don't have the Euro, we aren't in Schenghen. Militarily, we are the most powerful nation in the EU. It was the British government that made the single-market, it was the British government that pushed the EU to expand eastwards and include ever more nations from the east. As a nation, we dictated much of the direction of travel for the EU. And we have opted out of much we didn't want to be a part of, such as the Euro.

 

[glorygloryeze]

We aren't a powerless little nation inside the EU though. We have a veto, we don't have the Euro, we aren't in Schenghen. Militarily, we are the most powerful nation in the EU. It was the British government that made the single-market, it was the British government that pushed the EU to expand eastwards and include ever more nations from the east. As a nation, we dictated much of the direction of travel for the EU. And we have opted out of much we didn't want to be a part of, such as the Euro.

...and we have opted to leave it based on it's current direction...(or at least the electorate have...)

 

[scaramanga]

Agree with that. But if no-deal isn't an option for Parliament (and it's by far the most unpopular choice amongst MPs) then one sh1t sandwich might be more palatable to MPs and the public than another. The only deal that the majority of the house seem interested in is one along the lines of Norway. The only things that break the impasse is another General Election (and even then, the makeup of Parliament might not change significantly enough) or putting the options to a 2nd public vote. I'd prefer they just went for a Norway-esque arrangement and then get on with governing the country, I don't particularly want another referendum though I can appreciate the case for one.

I'd like to think they would go ahead with a Norway-style agreement, but I think that there would be a lot of MPs representing lots of backward "They've taken all our jobs" yokels that would struggle to align that with the vote we had.