• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

Brexit Phase Two - Trade

wouldn't have a problem with that.

including negligence such as not planning for both outcomes or one sided propaganda leaflets costing £6 million, was it? Blatant les perhaps too?
Nobody could plan for it. Look at the current train crash - they've had how long?
 
Chequers Light, Heavy, I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Chequers or whatever flavour of Chequers you're having yourself isn't happening.

And the Canada Option with a clever fudge on the Irish border question really isn't an option because the DUP won't have it.
Everyone knows Chequers isn't happening, except possibly Robbins and May. As for the Irish border, there'll have to be a fudge because the idiots on our side allowed it to become an issue, but it will be a fudge acceptable to the DUP, so it won't involve the Irish Sea but will probably involve a great deal of noise and enthusiasm from all quarters for a system that is essentially smoke and mirrors, which will be quietly abandoned or at least massively diluted over time, and which will allow everyone to claim victory before moving rapidly on.
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
Mrs May should sack Olly R now, and be banned by the Tory Party from employing or giving unfettered access to any more spads!
May only seems to employ SPADs who agree with her thinking. And I guess you keep May's ear by telling her what she wants to hear.

Were I a senior minister, I'd employ a SPAD purely as a devil's advocate: "tell me what can go wrong with our present plan"? And then I'd think carefully how each of the prospective banana skins could be prevented. May doesn't seem to want to hear bad news. As such, minor problems become big ones that bite her in the backside.

Wordsmith
 
In short brexit would have been fantastic if those foreigners had rolled over.

Remainers told you all that you were indulging in fantasy and now you seek to blame everyone else for things being as difficult as was foreseen
Clearly, in your haste to add nothing of substance, you didn't read my post.
 
If, God forbid, the government becomes even weaker and a second vote is pushed through, then in my view this should be a double election. A referendum with a final vote and a GE on the same day so the Party that wins must implement the referendum decision.
I'm checking outside for flying pigs at the moment, I actually agree with you on this point!
 
May only seems to employ SPADs who agree with her thinking. And I guess you keep May's ear by telling her what she wants to hear.

Were I a senior minister, I'd employ a SPAD purely as a devil's advocate: "tell me what can go wrong with our present plan"? And then I'd think carefully how each of the prospective banana skins could be prevented. May doesn't seem to want to hear bad news. As such, minor problems become big ones that bite her in the backside.

Wordsmith
It takes a considerable amount of character and intellectual horsepower to incorporate dissent into a decision-making process, and we are talking about Theresa May. :)
 
Labour leadership don't want another referendum as it will keep them out of office. If a second referendum were to be held and the result is the same sort of split then Labour, having pushed for it, will be seen as bad guys. The only way they can get in to No10 is through a GE and another referendum would deflect from that.

If, God forbid, the government becomes even weaker and a second vote is pushed through, then in my view this should be a double election. A referendum with a final vote and a GE on the same day so the Party that wins must implement the referendum decision.
Be careful what you wish for.

A second referendum would do enormous damage, not least by convincing significant swathes of the country that our democracy was irretrievably broken, thus opening them up emotionally to be receptive to some form of extreme nutterage. It is a well-travelled path to extreme government, though not generally in the UK.

However it goes, one half of the country is not going to be happy with the result and, if we have a second referendum, why not a third or a fourth? Why would any subsequent referendum have more authority? Why should it be respected more than the 2016 result? Where does it all stop and on what basis?

Finally, combine a referendum and a GE and you'll have a government defined by the subject of the referendum with all the other issues pushed to the back. I doubt we would get much joy from the outcome and it would define the mixture of the next Parliament - so we'd be living with a Westminster defined by Brexit/Remain for the next five years when the need is for unity and to move on after March.

As I wrote in an earlier post, it's up to everyone involved to understand that there are profound, possibly even existential, issues now in play with serious implications for civic peace. Even the British constitution, with all its famed flexibility and robustness, cannot put up indefinitely with the degree of anger, intolerance, ignorance and vehemence that is now such a feature of British political life. People need to understand that they're playing with fire because the referendum is deeply visceral and has now become more than simply a question of whether we leave or remain.
 
Mrs May should sack Olly R now, and be banned by the Tory Party from employing or giving unfettered access to any more spads!
Isn't he from the CS?
 
Be careful what you wish for.

A second referendum would do enormous damage, not least by convincing significant swathes of the country that our democracy was irretrievably broken, thus opening them up emotionally to be receptive to some form of extreme nutterage. It is a well-travelled path to extreme government, though not generally in the UK.

However it goes, one half of the country is not going to be happy with the result and, if we have a second referendum, why not a third or a fourth? Why would any subsequent referendum have more authority? Why should it be respected more than the 2016 result? Where does it all stop and on what basis?

Finally, combine a referendum and a GE and you'll have a government defined by the subject of the referendum with all the other issues pushed to the back. I doubt we would get much joy from the outcome and it would define the mixture of the next Parliament - so we'd be living with a Westminster defined by Brexit/Remain for the next five years when the need is for unity and to move on after March.

As I wrote in an earlier post, it's up to everyone involved to understand that there are profound, possibly even existential, issues now in play with serious implications for civic peace. Even the British constitution, with all its famed flexibility and robustness, cannot put up indefinitely with the degree of anger, intolerance, ignorance and vehemence that is now such a feature of British political life. People need to understand that they're playing with fire because the referendum is deeply visceral and has now become more than simply a question of whether we leave or remain.
Maybe a National Government for the 20 (?) month implementation phase in order to steer the UK through?
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
However it goes, one half of the country is not going to be happy with the result and, if we have a second referendum, why not a third or a fourth? Why would any subsequent referendum have more authority? Why should it be respected more than the 2016 result? Where does it all stop and on what basis?
The process has been made even more divisive by May's incompetence in negotiations and by her adopting a policy (Chequers) that - in its original form - would have left us leaving the EU in name only.

A more competent prime minister would have cracked on faster, not had a divided party behind her, had more success in the negotiations and not offered up hope to the Remain camp that the Brexit process could derailed, leaving us still members of the EU.

The Tories are now paying in full measure for electing someone as leader with a known tendency to run away from problems while choosing the easy option. Had they selected a more competent PM, we would be well on the way to having a Brexit agreement signed and Corbyn would be lagging by double digit figures in the polls.

Caveat emptor.

Wordsmith
 
May only seems to employ SPADs who agree with her thinking. And I guess you keep May's ear by telling her what she wants to hear.

Were I a senior minister, I'd employ a SPAD purely as a devil's advocate: "tell me what can go wrong with our present plan"? And then I'd think carefully how each of the prospective banana skins could be prevented. May doesn't seem to want to hear bad news. As such, minor problems become big ones that bite her in the backside.

Wordsmith
Because you handle criticism so well in here.
 
Yes, what's your point?
None really. Its just that my understanding of a SPAD is someone brought in from outside the CS; I may of course be talking bollox! :)
 
Every argument i hear for a second referendum doesn't make sense.

they're talking about hear voices that aren't being heard, conveniently forgetting about voices that were cheerfully ignored until the holders have the status quo a little shake.

then they usually turn a tangent and go on about isolation and trading with the world...
It makes sense if the lie detectors are turned on.
"We have said we'll accept the will of the electorate" Lie
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top