History is going to absolutely crucify May and Cameron. Probably whatever poor bugger succeeds May, as well.
People shouldn't forget her time as Home Secretary. She was awful there too.
"Theresa May's career as a cabinet minister has produced some of the pettiest shortsighted and downright incompetent decisions around."
Theresa May: "Hold my beer."
Honestly when I take a step back and look at it, I can't help but wonder why we aren't talking about May's resignation and the impending general election. The government has just lost 3 major votes in one day (is that a record?). One of those votes has found the government to be the first ever government in contempt of parliament. How that doesn't automatically get them thrown out (in the same manner as a straight up confidence vote) I have no idea. It also means May completes the double of being in contempt of court (second home secretary ever) and contempt of parliament (first government ever). Her lack of respect for the rules in place makes it clear she's just a tyrant at heart and simply too incompetent to pull it off effectively. Keep in mind that her reported plan at this point is to willingly let the markets crash to provide pressure for her deal.
Because there are no alternatives and no one expects anything about parliament to really change with an election.
+1
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
the single most powerful pro corbyn political force right now is the erg
The name itself is largely responsible for my European Research Group Habit of sighing heavily in a 'Kif-eque' sign of frustration whenever they're brought into any kind of panel discussion.
Though don't most of the right-wing think tanks have similarly paradoxical names? Sure it's not just the ERG that reflexively bring on an Ergh...
The name itself is largely responsible for my European Research Group Habit of sighing heavily in a 'Kif-eque' sign of frustration whenever they're brought into any kind of panel discussion.
Though don't most of the right-wing think tanks have similarly paradoxical names? Sure it's not just the ERG that reflexively bring on an Ergh...
Maybe in the UK?
In the US and Canada they tend to be either bland nothings or use right-wing buzzwords that if you know anything about right-wing politics you will instantly spot (eg - freedom, federalist, etc).
Think-tanks seem to pay pretty well. I never see them in the "help wanted" ads, though. I could do that, think about shit all day. You guys would be good at that too.
Think-tanks seem to pay pretty well. I never see them in the "help wanted" ads, though. I could do that, think about shit all day. You guys would be good at that too.
Maybe we need to start a GoFundMe or something.
I imagine they're the places were Parties put their smart arseholes. Politics is fundamentally a people game, but if you're bright, committed but with the people skills of a three day old badger corpse - we need to get you away from the hypersocial Organisers as soon as possible whilst making sure there's no chance you end up a Councillor, let alone an MP or there will be blood.
Think-tanks seem to pay pretty well. I never see them in the "help wanted" ads, though. I could do that, think about shit all day. You guys would be good at that too.
Maybe we need to start a GoFundMe or something.
I imagine they're the places were Parties put their smart arseholes. Politics is fundamentally a people game, but if you're bright, committed but with the people skills of a three day old badger corpse - we need to get you away from the hypersocial Organisers as soon as possible whilst making sure there's no chance you end up a Councillor, let alone an MP or there will be blood.
They also tend to be stocking grounds for the government in exile when elections go the other way, for all those third tier posts you don't think of but somebody needs to fill. Of course, when elections go your way all the talent gets pulled out of them and it's a bit lean on the thinking or the tanking.
Think-tanks seem to pay pretty well. I never see them in the "help wanted" ads, though. I could do that, think about shit all day. You guys would be good at that too.
Maybe we need to start a GoFundMe or something.
Some of them do openly advertise
I follow IPPR and the IFS on twitter and they've both put out calls for applications in the past
Well, Oliver Letwin has been on the Todsy program this morning, banging the drum for a Norway Plus option. If, of course, the Governments deal fails.
He suggests:
1. There’s a majority in the house for it (probably true)
2. The EU have said they’d accept it in short order (I hadn’t heard that, but no reason it couldn’t be true)
3. It satisfies enough red lines to matter (Out of direct budget contributions, direct ECJ et al...I assume this is true, if practically irrelevant)
Never thought I’d be agreeing with Letwin, novel start to the day!
Also from the Today Programme: I'm detecting a slightly worrying undercurrent, from Leadsom in particular, that this government intends to press ahead with its own plans in circumstances where parliament has directed it to do otherwise.
If that happens and the government gets pushed out in a confidence vote I have no idea what that means re: an article 50 extension. The EU may be willing to grant it, but there may not be a competent authority in the UK to request it.
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Also from the Today Programme: I'm detecting a slightly worrying undercurrent, from Leadsom in particular, that this government intends to press ahead with its own plans in circumstances where parliament has directed it to do otherwise.
If that happens and the government gets pushed out in a confidence vote I have no idea what that means re: an article 50 extension. The EU may be willing to grant it, but there may not be a competent authority in the UK to request it.
The UK seems to be in short supply of competent authorities at the moment.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Well, Oliver Letwin has been on the Todsy program this morning, banging the drum for a Norway Plus option. If, of course, the Governments deal fails.
He suggests:
1. There’s a majority in the house for it (probably true)
2. The EU have said they’d accept it in short order (I hadn’t heard that, but no reason it couldn’t be true)
3. It satisfies enough red lines to matter (Out of direct budget contributions, direct ECJ et al...I assume this is true, if practically irrelevant)
Never thought I’d be agreeing with Letwin, novel start to the day!
Well, Oliver Letwin has been on the Todsy program this morning, banging the drum for a Norway Plus option. If, of course, the Governments deal fails.
He suggests:
1. There’s a majority in the house for it (probably true)
2. The EU have said they’d accept it in short order (I hadn’t heard that, but no reason it couldn’t be true)
3. It satisfies enough red lines to matter (Out of direct budget contributions, direct ECJ et al...I assume this is true, if practically irrelevant)
Never thought I’d be agreeing with Letwin, novel start to the day!
ELI5 Norway plus please.
Because it sounds nice purely based off the name.
Basically EFTA (keeps Freedom of Movement, keeps Single Market access, pays a bit for that), with a bolt on Customs Union.
Loses all rights to be part of decision making but influences it, and gets to get out of a few things we don't apparently want (CAP etc.) as a result.
It's not as good as EU membership, but it's basically the softest of soft Brexits.
There is a risk MPs could "steal Brexit from the British people" if Theresa May's proposed deal is rejected, a senior cabinet minister has warned.
Former disgraced former MP Liam Fox said there was "natural Remain majority" in Parliament and any attempt to overturn the 2016 referendum vote would be a "democratic affront".
It came after MPs voted to exert more influence should the PM's deal fall.
Ministers will again battle to win over MPs to Theresa May's withdrawal deal after three government defeats.
Senior Brexiteers in the cabinet have warned that the UK may not leave the EU if Mrs May's deal is voted down.
God, this really is starting to feel like briar patching.
"Please god, whatever you do, don't overrule us and drag us all out of the hole we dug for ourselves."
Well, Oliver Letwin has been on the Todsy program this morning, banging the drum for a Norway Plus option. If, of course, the Governments deal fails.
He suggests:
1. There’s a majority in the house for it (probably true)
2. The EU have said they’d accept it in short order (I hadn’t heard that, but no reason it couldn’t be true)
3. It satisfies enough red lines to matter (Out of direct budget contributions, direct ECJ et al...I assume this is true, if practically irrelevant)
Never thought I’d be agreeing with Letwin, novel start to the day!
ELI5 Norway plus please.
Because it sounds nice purely based off the name.
Basically EFTA (keeps Freedom of Movement, keeps Single Market access, pays a bit for that), with a bolt on Customs Union.
Loses all rights to be part of decision making but influences it, and gets to get out of a few things we don't apparently want (CAP etc.) as a result.
It's not as good as EU membership, but it's basically the softest of soft Brexits.
Does it allow us to create our own trade deals though?
There is a risk MPs could "steal Brexit from the British people" if Theresa May's proposed deal is rejected, a senior cabinet minister has warned.
Former disgraced former MP Liam Fox said there was "natural Remain majority" in Parliament and any attempt to overturn the 2016 referendum vote would be a "democratic affront".
It came after MPs voted to exert more influence should the PM's deal fall.
Ministers will again battle to win over MPs to Theresa May's withdrawal deal after three government defeats.
Senior Brexiteers in the cabinet have warned that the UK may not leave the EU if Mrs May's deal is voted down.
God, this really is starting to feel like briar patching.
"Please god, whatever you do, don't overrule us and drag us all out of the hole we dug for ourselves."
Grimly amused at the number of people who demanded that the UK leave the EU so that parliament could take back control who are now having a canary because parliament has taken control.
There was never actually any real policy behind leaving the EU. It was rhetoric, and nothing else. The policy put together to actually leave the EU is May's deal, and everyone hates it.
The issue with the backstop is that it's a "put up or shut up" agreement.
In principle it isn't necessary, provided the UK government can come up with an acceptable means of maintaining an invisible border between the UK and ROI. Which the UK government have failed to do for over two years.
The government has to stick with the backstop or (finally) acknowledge that their red lines are irreconcilable. They aren't going to do that, so they're trapped.
0
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
Well, Oliver Letwin has been on the Todsy program this morning, banging the drum for a Norway Plus option. If, of course, the Governments deal fails.
He suggests:
1. There’s a majority in the house for it (probably true)
2. The EU have said they’d accept it in short order (I hadn’t heard that, but no reason it couldn’t be true)
3. It satisfies enough red lines to matter (Out of direct budget contributions, direct ECJ et al...I assume this is true, if practically irrelevant)
Never thought I’d be agreeing with Letwin, novel start to the day!
It seems unlikely to me that they'd give a deal as favorable as Norway's since they want to discourage leaving.
It also seems unlikely anything with freedom of movement has support. That's the main reason for Brexit
Well, Oliver Letwin has been on the Todsy program this morning, banging the drum for a Norway Plus option. If, of course, the Governments deal fails.
He suggests:
1. There’s a majority in the house for it (probably true)
2. The EU have said they’d accept it in short order (I hadn’t heard that, but no reason it couldn’t be true)
3. It satisfies enough red lines to matter (Out of direct budget contributions, direct ECJ et al...I assume this is true, if practically irrelevant)
Never thought I’d be agreeing with Letwin, novel start to the day!
It seems unlikely to me that they'd give a deal as favorable as Norway's since they want to discourage leaving.
It also seems unlikely anything with freedom of movement has support. That's the main reason for Brexit
they explicitly cant give something as loose as norway due to them now understanding the failings of the original treaty, but norway-style arrangements arent that favourable for the uk in any case. the controls you get are minor, loss of control major and like you say free movement
us going to norway would not be a huge loss for the eu. we would still be paying something like 2/3 of our current contributions etc
going to norway is literally just a damage control exercise. it accomplishes nothing.
surrealitycheck on
+3
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
something that is kind of vaguely astonishing about the discussion in the uk is that people dont realise we basically wrote the eu financial regs.
+9
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Well, Oliver Letwin has been on the Todsy program this morning, banging the drum for a Norway Plus option. If, of course, the Governments deal fails.
He suggests:
1. There’s a majority in the house for it (probably true)
2. The EU have said they’d accept it in short order (I hadn’t heard that, but no reason it couldn’t be true)
3. It satisfies enough red lines to matter (Out of direct budget contributions, direct ECJ et al...I assume this is true, if practically irrelevant)
Never thought I’d be agreeing with Letwin, novel start to the day!
It seems unlikely to me that they'd give a deal as favorable as Norway's since they want to discourage leaving.
It also seems unlikely anything with freedom of movement has support. That's the main reason for Brexit
Two points:
I believe the court ruling is that the UK can walk back the Article 50 without needing the rest of the member states to agree. That gives the UK an out (even if they seem determined not to use it) and reduces the EU's leverage. Given that the UK has a sweetheart deal with the EU right now and the positives about a situation where the UK is no longer in a position to limit EU integration efforts, a Norway type deal is a possibility.
In regards to Freedom of Movement, I'm not entirely sure that's an absolute deal breaker. For some Leaver types, it still is, obviously; but I think that there are a fair amount of MP types who are finally grasping the idea that the Good Friday situation and restricting Freedom of Movement is a non-starter without basically going no-deal, and that a no-deal Brexit is actually a bad thing.
The hard core Leaver types will be angry and possibly vote people out of office over this, but there might be enough people thinking they'd be out of office either way, and avoiding a no-deal means that being thrown out of office will less literal.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
+1
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited December 2018
"if we go to a norway model we leave the ecj" - quoth the letwin
"if only he had heard of the efta court" - quoth the grieve
out of the frying pan into the extremely small pointless fire
The EEA is based in a two pillar structure, the EU constituting one pillar and the three participating EFTA States the other. In substance, the EEA Agreement has extended the EU single market to the participating EFTA States. EEA law is therefore largely identical to EU law. In order to secure a level playing field for individuals and economic operators in both pillars, special homogeneity provisions have been laid down in the EEA Agreement and in the Surveillance and Court Agreement. Under these rules, the EFTA Court shall follow the relevant case law of the ECJ on provisions of Union law that are identical in substance to provisions of EEA law rendered prior to the date of signature of the EEA Agreement (2 May 1992) and shall pay due account to the principles laid down by the European Court of Justice's relevant case law rendered after that date. The EFTA Court's jurisprudence is in fact based on the case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The politically important distinction between old and new ECJ case law has largely been qualified in practice. The EFTA Court also refers to the case law of the General Court of the European Union (EGC). All three EEA courts (ECJ, EGC, EFTA Court) have not only emphasized the need for a uniform interpretation of EU and EEA law, but have actively seen to it that homogeneity is preserved.
Well, Oliver Letwin has been on the Todsy program this morning, banging the drum for a Norway Plus option. If, of course, the Governments deal fails.
He suggests:
1. There’s a majority in the house for it (probably true)
2. The EU have said they’d accept it in short order (I hadn’t heard that, but no reason it couldn’t be true)
3. It satisfies enough red lines to matter (Out of direct budget contributions, direct ECJ et al...I assume this is true, if practically irrelevant)
Never thought I’d be agreeing with Letwin, novel start to the day!
It seems unlikely to me that they'd give a deal as favorable as Norway's since they want to discourage leaving.
It also seems unlikely anything with freedom of movement has support. That's the main reason for Brexit
They probably will just to avoid having to deal with the shitshow that is no deal Brexit. Sure, the UK will burn, but the smoke will stink up the entire continent. So lets go Norway Plus and let them pretend they left the EU.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
The article 50 revocation thing that's doing the rounds is the Advocate General's opinion on the case. It's a recommendation to the court that they are not obliged to follow (but usually do).
The actual ruling is sometime in December, I think.
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
The article 50 revocation thing that's doing the rounds is the Advocate General's opinion on the case. It's a recommendation to the court that they are not obliged to follow (but usually do).
The actual ruling is sometime in December, I think.
broadly it would be astonishing if they said anything other than what he said simply because the drafter has made clear his intention (kerr), and the only real reason they could come up with to stop unilateral revocation is that it would render article 50 a procedural nonsense because it could be abused by a bad faith actor. the latter is already covered by the ags opinion; the court itself has no real reason to go much further i would have thought, not least because that would involve agreeing with the uk gov which would be fairly ridiculous for them to do...
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
good tom kibasi article taking aim at a lot of lexit claims. this is quite amusing because his fellow ippr friend grace blakeley has been making the opposite arguments publicly - perhaps they should hash it out?
The article 50 revocation thing that's doing the rounds is the Advocate General's opinion on the case. It's a recommendation to the court that they are not obliged to follow (but usually do).
The actual ruling is sometime in December, I think.
broadly it would be astonishing if they said anything other than what he said simply because the drafter has made clear his intention (kerr), and the only real reason they could come up with to stop unilateral revocation is that it would render article 50 a procedural nonsense because it could be abused by a bad faith actor. the latter is already covered by the ags opinion; the court itself has no real reason to go much further i would have thought, not least because that would involve agreeing with the uk gov which would be fairly ridiculous for them to do...
I think it matters in a tactical sense because it means that revocation won't be a definitively available option at the time of the "meaningful vote".
Though it is interesting that the government hasn't made the argument that it isn't a sure thing (yet), instead choosing to argue that they simply refuse to acknowledge it as an option.
Posts
"Theresa May's career as a cabinet minister has produced some of the pettiest shortsighted and downright incompetent decisions around."
Theresa May: "Hold my beer."
Because there are no alternatives and no one expects anything about parliament to really change with an election.
its beautiful
Though don't most of the right-wing think tanks have similarly paradoxical names? Sure it's not just the ERG that reflexively bring on an Ergh...
Maybe in the UK?
In the US and Canada they tend to be either bland nothings or use right-wing buzzwords that if you know anything about right-wing politics you will instantly spot (eg - freedom, federalist, etc).
Maybe we need to start a GoFundMe or something.
Steam | XBL
I imagine they're the places were Parties put their smart arseholes. Politics is fundamentally a people game, but if you're bright, committed but with the people skills of a three day old badger corpse - we need to get you away from the hypersocial Organisers as soon as possible whilst making sure there's no chance you end up a Councillor, let alone an MP or there will be blood.
They also tend to be stocking grounds for the government in exile when elections go the other way, for all those third tier posts you don't think of but somebody needs to fill. Of course, when elections go your way all the talent gets pulled out of them and it's a bit lean on the thinking or the tanking.
Some of them do openly advertise
I follow IPPR and the IFS on twitter and they've both put out calls for applications in the past
He suggests:
1. There’s a majority in the house for it (probably true)
2. The EU have said they’d accept it in short order (I hadn’t heard that, but no reason it couldn’t be true)
3. It satisfies enough red lines to matter (Out of direct budget contributions, direct ECJ et al...I assume this is true, if practically irrelevant)
Never thought I’d be agreeing with Letwin, novel start to the day!
Goodreads
SF&F Reviews blog
If that happens and the government gets pushed out in a confidence vote I have no idea what that means re: an article 50 extension. The EU may be willing to grant it, but there may not be a competent authority in the UK to request it.
The UK seems to be in short supply of competent authorities at the moment.
ELI5 Norway plus please.
Because it sounds nice purely based off the name.
Basically EFTA (keeps Freedom of Movement, keeps Single Market access, pays a bit for that), with a bolt on Customs Union.
Loses all rights to be part of decision making but influences it, and gets to get out of a few things we don't apparently want (CAP etc.) as a result.
It's not as good as EU membership, but it's basically the softest of soft Brexits.
Goodreads
SF&F Reviews blog
It is but no one wants to admit it.
"Please god, whatever you do, don't overrule us and drag us all out of the hole we dug for ourselves."
Does it allow us to create our own trade deals though?
Grimly amused at the number of people who demanded that the UK leave the EU so that parliament could take back control who are now having a canary because parliament has taken control.
There was never actually any real policy behind leaving the EU. It was rhetoric, and nothing else. The policy put together to actually leave the EU is May's deal, and everyone hates it.
In principle it isn't necessary, provided the UK government can come up with an acceptable means of maintaining an invisible border between the UK and ROI. Which the UK government have failed to do for over two years.
The government has to stick with the backstop or (finally) acknowledge that their red lines are irreconcilable. They aren't going to do that, so they're trapped.
It seems unlikely to me that they'd give a deal as favorable as Norway's since they want to discourage leaving.
It also seems unlikely anything with freedom of movement has support. That's the main reason for Brexit
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
they explicitly cant give something as loose as norway due to them now understanding the failings of the original treaty, but norway-style arrangements arent that favourable for the uk in any case. the controls you get are minor, loss of control major and like you say free movement
us going to norway would not be a huge loss for the eu. we would still be paying something like 2/3 of our current contributions etc
going to norway is literally just a damage control exercise. it accomplishes nothing.
Two points:
- I believe the court ruling is that the UK can walk back the Article 50 without needing the rest of the member states to agree. That gives the UK an out (even if they seem determined not to use it) and reduces the EU's leverage. Given that the UK has a sweetheart deal with the EU right now and the positives about a situation where the UK is no longer in a position to limit EU integration efforts, a Norway type deal is a possibility.
- In regards to Freedom of Movement, I'm not entirely sure that's an absolute deal breaker. For some Leaver types, it still is, obviously; but I think that there are a fair amount of MP types who are finally grasping the idea that the Good Friday situation and restricting Freedom of Movement is a non-starter without basically going no-deal, and that a no-deal Brexit is actually a bad thing.
The hard core Leaver types will be angry and possibly vote people out of office over this, but there might be enough people thinking they'd be out of office either way, and avoiding a no-deal means that being thrown out of office will less literal."if only he had heard of the efta court" - quoth the grieve
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFTA_Court
out of the frying pan into the extremely small pointless fire
They probably will just to avoid having to deal with the shitshow that is no deal Brexit. Sure, the UK will burn, but the smoke will stink up the entire continent. So lets go Norway Plus and let them pretend they left the EU.
The actual ruling is sometime in December, I think.
broadly it would be astonishing if they said anything other than what he said simply because the drafter has made clear his intention (kerr), and the only real reason they could come up with to stop unilateral revocation is that it would render article 50 a procedural nonsense because it could be abused by a bad faith actor. the latter is already covered by the ags opinion; the court itself has no real reason to go much further i would have thought, not least because that would involve agreeing with the uk gov which would be fairly ridiculous for them to do...
good tom kibasi article taking aim at a lot of lexit claims. this is quite amusing because his fellow ippr friend grace blakeley has been making the opposite arguments publicly - perhaps they should hash it out?
still good stuff
I think it matters in a tactical sense because it means that revocation won't be a definitively available option at the time of the "meaningful vote".
Though it is interesting that the government hasn't made the argument that it isn't a sure thing (yet), instead choosing to argue that they simply refuse to acknowledge it as an option.