He couldn’t even save himself from getting dumped by his own party! Plus he is advocating WTO arrangements as the answer despite the suggestions that up to 20 countries aren’t going to make that option straightforward!
I've certainly met quite a lot of EU citizens who have left or are thinking about leaving the UK either because of the uncertainty or through feeling unwelcome there now, particularly teachers. I'm sure many people will be happy there are fewer foreign people in the UK but these are tax paying, contributing members of society in jobs where there is a real recruitment shortfall like teaching or the NHS.
In 5 years time there will be a lot of Brexit voters lying in their care home beds covered in their own shit as a direct result of their vote to leave the EU but they won't mind because in their grubby filthy hands they will be clasping a blue passport!
I've certainly met quite a lot of EU citizens who have left or are thinking about leaving the UK either because of the uncertainty or through feeling unwelcome there now, particularly teachers. I'm sure many people will be happy there are fewer foreign people in the UK but these are tax paying, contributing members of society in jobs where there is a real recruitment shortfall like teaching or the NHS.
In 5 years time there will be a lot of Brexit voters lying in their care home beds covered in their own shit as a direct result of their vote to leave the EU but they won't mind because in their grubby filthy hands they will be clasping a blue passport!
I've certainly met quite a lot of EU citizens who have left or are thinking about leaving the UK either because of the uncertainty or through feeling unwelcome there now, particularly teachers. I'm sure many people will be happy there are fewer foreign people in the UK but these are tax paying, contributing members of society in jobs where there is a real recruitment shortfall like teaching or the NHS.
In 5 years time there will be a lot of Brexit voters lying in their care home beds covered in their own shit as a direct result of their vote to leave the EU but they won't mind because in their grubby filthy hands they will be clasping a blue passport!
I've certainly met quite a lot of EU citizens who have left or are thinking about leaving the UK either because of the uncertainty or through feeling unwelcome there now, particularly teachers. I'm sure many people will be happy there are fewer foreign people in the UK but these are tax paying, contributing members of society in jobs where there is a real recruitment shortfall like teaching or the NHS.
In 5 years time there will be a lot of Brexit voters lying in their care home beds covered in their own shit as a direct result of their vote to leave the EU but they won't mind because in their grubby filthy hands they will be clasping a blue passport!
If we drop out of the EU with no deal and there is chaos I'm curious who is going to get the blame for it all.
If Macron decides to block imports from France then could someone explain how we'll get round this.
We seem to be in the midst of a slow motion car crash yet none of our useless politicians want to do anything about it.
Who to blame? You want all 17.4 million names?!
I would suggest the remain campaign for offering diddly squat credible alternative to the leave campaign.
You know what, I completely agree with you. All leave had to offer was more of the same, plus the few crumbs that Cameron "negotiated". Other than that, the whole campaign was, if not "project fear" certainly negative based on the consequences of leaving. They had a great opportunity to actually address the crap about the EU and say what was good about it, but perhaps they didn't believe it. It was a poor campaign. Leave were able to offer rainbows and unicorns, and won. Shame it was a total crock of shit.
The whole campaign was awful. Lies took on complacency. However leave won, I wish it hadn't but it did. We have to come to terms with the resulting nightmare with no upsides whatsoever. Leave won. However that victory and the subsequent dreadful country that the UK will rapidly become, can't be implemented without breaking the UK international treaty the Belfast Agreement. Brexit means the UK breaking it's word, this is the raw consequence of the vote. Yesterday evening I went to my MP's surgery in Catford. I said that the Labour position on brexit had no credibility and the choice was either no brexit or no more GFA, the six tests thing was a nonsense red herring. My MP and her assistant actually agreed with me, and she also responded with agreement when I suggested that her and her colleagues in this so called precious sovereign Parliament that brexiters love so much, should sort the mess without any need for a people's vote.
I've certainly met quite a lot of EU citizens who have left or are thinking about leaving the UK either because of the uncertainty or through feeling unwelcome there now, particularly teachers. I'm sure many people will be happy there are fewer foreign people in the UK but these are tax paying, contributing members of society in jobs where there is a real recruitment shortfall like teaching or the NHS.
In 5 years time there will be a lot of Brexit voters lying in their care home beds covered in their own shit as a direct result of their vote to leave the EU but they won't mind because in their grubby filthy hands they will be clasping a blue passport!
I've certainly met quite a lot of EU citizens who have left or are thinking about leaving the UK either because of the uncertainty or through feeling unwelcome there now, particularly teachers. I'm sure many people will be happy there are fewer foreign people in the UK but these are tax paying, contributing members of society in jobs where there is a real recruitment shortfall like teaching or the NHS.
In 5 years time there will be a lot of Brexit voters lying in their care home beds covered in their own shit as a direct result of their vote to leave the EU but they won't mind because in their grubby filthy hands they will be clasping a blue passport!
If we drop out of the EU with no deal and there is chaos I'm curious who is going to get the blame for it all.
If Macron decides to block imports from France then could someone explain how we'll get round this.
We seem to be in the midst of a slow motion car crash yet none of our useless politicians want to do anything about it.
Who to blame? You want all 17.4 million names?!
I would suggest the remain campaign for offering diddly squat credible alternative to the leave campaign.
I would suggest they did mate. In a leaflet delivered to every house, that millions of people refused to even read because the same newspapers that had been drip feeding them negative (mostly) bollocks about the Common Market/EEC/EU for over 40 years, told them was "remainer propaganda". A precis of which I have linked to below. The countering of the old bollocks was not up to snuff, I grant you - but it was quite hard when the shelves of every newsagent were laden with anti-EU propaganda, in the shape of headlines from the same newspapers.
Plenty of us on here countered, and re-countered leaver arguments, and were met with a chorus of "scaremongering" and "what do experts know" by people who had made up their mind long before any arguments were being put forward.
I've certainly met quite a lot of EU citizens who have left or are thinking about leaving the UK either because of the uncertainty or through feeling unwelcome there now, particularly teachers. I'm sure many people will be happy there are fewer foreign people in the UK but these are tax paying, contributing members of society in jobs where there is a real recruitment shortfall like teaching or the NHS.
In 5 years time there will be a lot of Brexit voters lying in their care home beds covered in their own shit as a direct result of their vote to leave the EU but they won't mind because in their grubby filthy hands they will be clasping a blue passport!
I've certainly met quite a lot of EU citizens who have left or are thinking about leaving the UK either because of the uncertainty or through feeling unwelcome there now, particularly teachers. I'm sure many people will be happy there are fewer foreign people in the UK but these are tax paying, contributing members of society in jobs where there is a real recruitment shortfall like teaching or the NHS.
In 5 years time there will be a lot of Brexit voters lying in their care home beds covered in their own shit as a direct result of their vote to leave the EU but they won't mind because in their grubby filthy hands they will be clasping a blue passport!
If we drop out of the EU with no deal and there is chaos I'm curious who is going to get the blame for it all.
If Macron decides to block imports from France then could someone explain how we'll get round this.
We seem to be in the midst of a slow motion car crash yet none of our useless politicians want to do anything about it.
Who to blame? You want all 17.4 million names?!
I would suggest the remain campaign for offering diddly squat credible alternative to the leave campaign.
You know what, I completely agree with you. All leave had to offer was more of the same, plus the few crumbs that Cameron "negotiated". Other than that, the whole campaign was, if not "project fear" certainly negative based on the consequences of leaving. They had a great opportunity to actually address the crap about the EU and say what was good about it, but perhaps they didn't believe it. It was a poor campaign. Leave were able to offer rainbows and unicorns, and won. Shame it was a total crock of shit.
Not that I am letting all other political parties of the hook but Cameron was desperate not to have any "Blue on Blue" attacks and arguments, which would have exposed the divisions within Tory party. That 'may' have worked had the Brexiteer side not engaged in this, he was however so certain/complacent of victory that he held off pointing out the errors in the (Tory) leavers arguments.
He then lost the referendum and buggered off (having said he wouldn't) all in the name of party unity. So he gambled with the best interests of the nation with Tory party unity and appears too have lost them both.
I fully agree with The Organiser and others that the stay campaign was ineffective. Though, I do think that they were at a massive disadvantage from the off. The very fact that they were defending the status quo isn't exactly a very exciting proposition - it was all a bit meh. In contrast there was (at the time at least, if not now) genuine excitement amongst the Brexiteers that was comparatively easy to harness. This is one of the fundamental flaws of referenda in that certain outcomes appeal on an emotional level even though they do not stack up in a logical or intellectual manner. Ideas that appeal to peoples' emotions have a massive advantage in comparison to those that work but appear a bit dull. Do you want to do something new and exciting or do you want to carry on with more of the same? It's no wonder that it was so easy to persuade people. None of that excuses poor personal performances by the likes of Cameron, and especially Corbyn who I will never believe wanted anything other than Brexit no matter how he voted.
In terms of who do I 'blame for it all', the remain campaign comes a long way down the list. They may have had prominent members who were ineffectual, they may not have found many arguments that tapped into the zeitgeist but as an organisation they did, as Algarve has said, try to warn people against the sheer folly of Brexit. For me the following come far further up the blame list:
David Cameron: His dereliction of duty in cavalierly calling a referendum to suit his own party's ends rather than for the good of the nation, is to me borderline criminal and is second only to Blair's illegal war in being the most despicable act I can remember from a British Prime Minister.
Redwood, Rees Mogg et al: Disgusting economic mercenaries, standing to make personal gains whilst encouraging the electorate to vote against their own interests.
Johnson: Disgusting political mercenary who jumped on a bandwagon and who despite repeated mistakes and buffoonery still manages to appeal the the lumpen petit-bourgeoisie.
Gove and his advisor Dominic Cummings: For all the spin and the lies. £350 million - that's their fault. Take control - as unbelievable as it may seems with hindsight, that's what they were saying. Turkey joining the EU - was never going to happen other than in Cummings' fertile imagination.
Farage: Sadly one of the most charismatic politicians of a generation could think of nothing better to do than build a personal empire out of anti-European nonsense.
May: So desperate she was to make a name for herself that she triggered Article 50 with obscene haste. We were committed to leaving before anyone had even understood the issues. Her pathetic 'Brexit means Brexit' mantra (the clearest possible indicator of anyones' lack of understanding) was still ringing loud and clear when we were signed up to it. Then add in the completely ridiculous general election and the buying off of the DUP. Quite stunning incompetence.
Davis, Raab, Fox, Hunt... Chocolate tea pots, the lot of them.
Her Maj's Gutter Press: For years of selective reporting, hyperbole and downright lies. For decades the EU was their convenient bête noire, nothing was too far from the truth for sections of the press. Over time this became a part o the nation's psyche.
Tim Martin: We're coming a long way down the blame list now, but the Wetherspoon boss' monthly diatribes fitted perfectly with clientele of his pubs. There may well have been other business leaders who were equally outspoken on either side of the Brexit debate, but none had a perfect echo-chamber for insular old-agers to have their eurosceptic ideas reinforced like Tim did. I don't think he did anything wrong, and in a way I think good luck to him - but it certainly caused in imbalance in peoples' perceptions of what was happening.
All of these people are more to blame for the Current mess than the remain campaign.
I fully agree with The Organiser and others that the stay campaign was ineffective. Though, I do think that they were at a massive disadvantage from the off. The very fact that they were defending the status quo isn't exactly a very exciting proposition - it was all a bit meh. In contrast there was (at the time at least, if not now) genuine excitement amongst the Brexiteers that was comparatively easy to harness. This is one of the fundamental flaws of referenda in that certain outcomes appeal on an emotional level even though they do not stack up in a logical or intellectual manner. Ideas that appeal to peoples' emotions have a massive advantage in comparison to those that work but appear a bit dull. Do you want to do something new and exciting or do you want to carry on with more of the same? It's no wonder that it was so easy to persuade people. None of that excuses poor personal performances by the likes of Cameron, and especially Corbyn who I will never believe wanted anything other than Brexit no matter how he voted.
In terms of who do I 'blame for it all', the remain campaign comes a long way down the list. They may have had prominent members who were ineffectual, they may not have found many arguments that tapped into the zeitgeist but as an organisation they did, as Algarve has said, try to warn people against the sheer folly of Brexit. For me the following come far further up the blame list:
David Cameron: His dereliction of duty in cavalierly calling a referendum to suit his own party's ends rather than for the good of the nation, is to me borderline criminal and is second only to Blair's illegal war in being the most despicable act I can remember from a British Prime Minister.
Redwood, Rees Mogg et al: Disgusting economic mercenaries, standing to make personal gains whilst encouraging the electorate to vote against their own interests.
Johnson: Disgusting political mercenary who jumped on a bandwagon and who despite repeated mistakes and buffoonery still manages to appeal the the lumpen petit-bourgeoisie.
Gove and his advisor Dominic Cummings: For all the spin and the lies. £350 million - that's their fault. Take control - as unbelievable as it may seems with hindsight, that's what they were saying. Turkey joining the EU - was never going to happen other than in Cummings' fertile imagination.
Farage: Sadly one of the most charismatic politicians of a generation could think of nothing better to do than build a personal empire out of anti-European nonsense.
May: So desperate she was to make a name for herself that she triggered Article 50 with obscene haste. We were committed to leaving before anyone had even understood the issues. Her pathetic 'Brexit means Brexit' mantra (the clearest possible indicator of anyones' lack of understanding) was still ringing loud and clear when we were signed up to it. Then add in the completely ridiculous general election and the buying off of the DUP. Quite stunning incompetence.
Davis, Raab, Fox, Hunt... Chocolate tea pots, the lot of them.
Her Maj's Gutter Press: For years of selective reporting, hyperbole and downright lies. For decades the EU was their convenient bête noire, nothing was too far from the truth for sections of the press. Over time this became a part o the nation's psyche.
Tim Martin: We're coming a long way down the blame list now, but the Wetherspoon boss' monthly diatribes fitted perfectly with clientele of his pubs. There may well have been other business leaders who were equally outspoken on either side of the Brexit debate, but none had a perfect echo-chamber for insular old-agers to have their eurosceptic ideas reinforced like Tim did. I don't think he did anything wrong, and in a way I think good luck to him - but it certainly caused in imbalance in peoples' perceptions of what was happening.
All of these people are more to blame for the Current mess than the remain campaign.
The leave campaign was indeed ineffective for it was a carbon copy of the campaign to stop Scottish independence with project fear at the heart. What they failed to calculate was the sheer volume of protest against austerity and the status quo together with the whole immigration discussion which was mangled beyond belief as you mention. This is what led to a near uniform 58:42 lead for Leave throughout the regions outside of the wealthy metropolitan areas such as London, Brighton and Manchester.
However, we are here now and the new People's Vote campaign is firing on all cylinders. Not only was there an estimated 6-700,000 on the People's Vote demonstration but their petition has now hit one million signatures. They are not questioning the 2016 referendum but insisting that the people be given a chance to vote between an agreed deal and aborting the process, i.e., Remain.
And today it has been revealed that four doctor MPs are preparing to table a "killer" amendment to whatever deal May puts in front of Parliament. This to absolutely insist that any deal is placed in front of the people BEFORE we leave. Reports suggest that this cross bench campaign already has support of 100 MPs and are as such bigger than the ERG plus DUP. And they are now lobbying for Labour leadership support given that the vast majority of Labour members and voters support this campaign.
This is perhaps the perfect antidote to 2016 and is actually the only chance. The ERG, Daily Express and others are running scared just as those you mention dismiss this attempt as anti-democratic! For the avoidance of doubt, how can placing an actual deal in front of the people for a vote be anti democratic?
Naturally, Leave means Leave and the rest will attempt to leverage outrage to get their vote out should we go to the ballot box. But if the musings of various academics are correct and much of the Leave vote was indeed a protest against austerity, then those arguing to abort the process can target both the deal which will inevitably be bad for the economy AND the Tory austerity policies.
The angles are incredibly complex but the simplest summary is that we didn't need austerity for this long and that leaving the EU solves nothing, especially when it's estimated to slow GDP growth, thus costing serious money for people, companies and the government. In other words Brexit is bad for the NHS and that's what the four doctors are really concerned about.
On a separate but connected note, some are still talking of an extension to Article 50 to facilitate the process. But this appears redundant since there is time for a snap People's Vote with the urgency perhaps adding to the campaign. As above the angles are complex and it probably needs a separate thread to explore why the Labour leadership prefer a snap election and yet another to explore why remaining in the Single Market is not as simple as people make out.
A year ago the campaign for another vote was nowhere. Today it appears to be one amendment away from becoming law! And that will clearly give a Remain campaign to highlight the lies, distortions and sheer hypocrisy that was Leave. On the other hand, expect Leave to double down in Trumpesque fashion talking of fake news, the enemies of the People and all the rest. If the vote happens it will probably be far more vicious than the last since the Nationalists face the prospect of defeat for a generation. But that is no reason to shirk the challenge when polls consistently show that May is not handling this well... plus 55% want to Remain.
If the vote happens it will probably be far more vicious than the last since the Nationalists face the prospect of defeat for a generation. But that is no reason to shirk the challenge when polls consistently show that May is not handling this well... plus 55% want to Remain.
Well, I seem to recall that about a year ago, you were giving people who suggested a referendum on the terms of a deal a hard time on here. But the unfolding saga of this historic political disaster certainly throws up plenty of reasons for people to change their opinions, as they discover what the implications are.
I don't wish to score points however, because I am now not sure that demanding a second vote now is realistic. You talk about a "snap" People's Vote, however consider what needs to happen for this to be feasible:
- firstly the terms of any deal are nowhere in sight. Still. Will we have it by the end of November? How much support will it garner? No agreement, nothing to vote on. - That takes you into December. That interferes with the political classes skiing trips. I am serious here. Nothing big in British politics ever gets actioned in the three weeks around Christmas. - in January then, you need to see a significant number of Government ministers backing a vote. That is two months for them to decide to utter the words that none of them have so far. And they have to win the argument. - what an argument that will be, as this time it is really important to get the questions right. Think about the various players here and how they will twist and turn single words in a potential question - that takes you to February. Two months before Brexit. I have read that according to civil servants you need two months minimum to run a national election. so that takes you right to Brexit day. - it is assumed that if a referendum were called, the EU would gladly agree to pushing back Article 50 day. I think that's broadly true, but in the current environment of "the will of the people" being to be led by total twats, it's worth countering that a twat like Salvini might delay signing the necessary declaration as a bargaining chip to win his own dispute with the rest of the EU.
I thought this already before I became one of the 700,000 last week. Unfortunately the dramatic success of the march has not changed my mind because -probably due to having worked on projects with tight deadlines most of my working life,which has turned me into a neurotic about timelines - I can see the logistical pitfalls, per the above.
I'd be happy to be proved wrong. But every passing day makes that more unlikely.
If the vote happens it will probably be far more vicious than the last since the Nationalists face the prospect of defeat for a generation. But that is no reason to shirk the challenge when polls consistently show that May is not handling this well... plus 55% want to Remain.
Well, I seem to recall that about a year ago, you were giving people who suggested a referendum on the terms of a deal a hard time on here. But the unfolding saga of this historic political disaster certainly throws up plenty of reasons for people to change their opinions, as they discover what the implications are.
I don't wish to score points however, because I am now not sure that demanding a second vote now is realistic. You talk about a "snap" People's Vote, however consider what needs to happen for this to be feasible:
- firstly the terms of any deal are nowhere in sight. Still. Will we have it by the end of November? How much support will it garner? No agreement, nothing to vote on. - That takes you into December. That interferes with the political classes skiing trips. I am serious here. Nothing big in British politics ever gets actioned in the three weeks around Christmas. - in January then, you need to see a significant number of Government ministers backing a vote. That is two months for them to decide to utter the words that none of them have so far. And they have to win the argument. - what an argument that will be, as this time it is really important to get the questions right. Think about the various players here and how they will twist and turn single words in a potential question - that takes you to February. Two months before Brexit. I have read that according to civil servants you need two months minimum to run a national election. so that takes you right to Brexit day. - it is assumed that if a referendum were called, the EU would gladly agree to pushing back Article 50 day. I think that's broadly true, but in the current environment of "the will of the people" being to be led by total twats, it's worth countering that a twat like Salvini might delay signing the necessary declaration as a bargaining chip to win his own dispute with the rest of the EU.
I thought this already before I became one of the 700,000 last week. Unfortunately the dramatic success of the march has not changed my mind because -probably due to having worked on projects with tight deadlines most of my working life,which has turned me into a neurotic about timelines - I can see the logistical pitfalls, per the above.
I'd be happy to be proved wrong. But every passing day makes that more unlikely.
I broadly agree with this except that the 'running average' of polls compiled by 'WhatUKThinks-EU' - 'Non-partisan information on UK attitudes to the EU before and since the EU Referendum' shows (as I've posted before) that opinion is very volatile and that the 'Latest average of six polls from 07-09-18 to 26-10-18' (below) shows 52% Remain 48% Leave - about what is was just before the 2016 vote when most commentators were confident of a 'Remain' win. And a lot can happen during the campaigning period (as Theresa May found to her cost in 2017) - plus would it really solve the divisions to simply reverse the 2016 52%-48% split?
It would also be difficult to agree a 'binary' choice for a 2nd referendum (necessary for a clear outcome) when as well as 'Remaining' there are now a number of flavours of 'Brexit' - 'Canada+, Norway+, Labour's '6 points' in addition to a possible 'May Deal'.
For all the reasons you give plus the above I think a General Election focusing on the parties' policies for future UK-EU relations (in addition to all the other issues) is probably the only constitutional way to get out of May's mess:
What is completely mad about that chart is that it’s still seemingly very close. I think though it’s a very mute point as I don’t see a second referendum or people’s vote ever happening. I would say under May it’s a complete no possibility and should she be replaced then it’s even less likely if that’s possible. Conservatives won’t call an election and regardless of what’s happening with Brexit they will fudge something together to cling onto power. In any case. Corbyn is no way going to give anyone other than himself the chance of a say.
For all the reasons you give plus the above I think a General Election focusing on the parties' policies for future UK-EU relations (in addition to all the other issues) is probably the only constitutional way to get out of May's mess:
I agree in principle. But can you see this happening, in the next five months? and most pertinently, in such an election, which party will represent the views of the 50% plus who think Brexit is, in various shades, a bad idea?
If those voting brexit are serious about national sovereignty, and the ignorant regularly say they have no solutions to the brexit problems, that challenge is for their elected politicians, then they should be OK about those elected politicians charge. A general election with brexit as the central issue is a possible way out of this nightmare.
If those voting brexit are serious about national sovereignty, and the ignorant regularly say they have no solutions to the brexit problems, that challenge is for their elected politicians, then they should be OK about those elected politicians charge. A general election with brexit as the central issue is a possible way out of this nightmare.
That would require all parties to have a united and decisive view of what they would do if they won the election (a view that would need to be either acceptable to the EU, or a back up plan in case it isn't). Good luck with that
For all the reasons you give plus the above I think a General Election focusing on the parties' policies for future UK-EU relations (in addition to all the other issues) is probably the only constitutional way to get out of May's mess:
I agree in principle. But can you see this happening, in the next five months? and most pertinently, in such an election, which party will represent the views of the 50% plus who think Brexit is, in various shades, a bad idea?
I think a General Election is far more likely and more 'practical' than a 2nd referendum.
According to the Daily Mail's report of Civil Servants 'game playing' a 2nd referendum:
"Quitting the EU would probably have to be delayed to hold a new referendum on Brexit as the process would take a bare minimum of six months to pass the necessary laws and run a campaign".
Whereas the possible 'path' to a General Election seems simpler.
Within the next (at most?) one to two months May will have to present her 'deal' (or 'no deal') to parliament. If it's rejected that opens the way for a possible (arguably necessary) General Election (which could also involve replacing her as Tory leader).
Even if her 'deal' got a parliamentary majority that would probably be without the support of a sizeable part of her party; which could again trigger her replacement and create a clamour for a General Election to give authority to a different Prime Minister's approach to Brexit.
A six week General Election (longer than the legally minimum 3 weeks to allow full debate of the issues) could be held before March 29th and the EU would almost certainly accommodate it.
None of this is certain of course - but I think it's easier and simpler than a 2nd referendum.
For all the reasons you give plus the above I think a General Election focusing on the parties' policies for future UK-EU relations (in addition to all the other issues) is probably the only constitutional way to get out of May's mess:
I agree in principle. But can you see this happening, in the next five months? and most pertinently, in such an election, which party will represent the views of the 50% plus who think Brexit is, in various shades, a bad idea?
I think a General Election is far more likely and more 'practical' than a 2nd referendum.
According to the Daily Mail's report of Civil Servants 'game playing' a 2nd referendum:
"Quitting the EU would probably have to be delayed to hold a new referendum on Brexit as the process would take a bare minimum of six months to pass the necessary laws and run a campaign".
Whereas the possible 'path' to a General Election seems simpler.
Within the next (at most?) one to two months May will have to present her 'deal' (or 'no deal') to parliament. If it's rejected that opens the way for a possible (arguably necessary) General Election (which could also involve replacing her as Tory leader).
Even if her 'deal' got a parliamentary majority that would probably be without the support of a sizeable part of her party; which could again trigger her replacement and create a clamour for a General Election to give authority to a different Prime Minister's approach to Brexit.
A six week General Election (longer than the legally minimum 3 weeks to allow full debate of the issues) could be held before March 29th and the EU would almost certainly accommodate it.
None of this is certain of course - but I think it's easier and simpler than a 2nd referendum.
The problem as I see it with this plausible scenario is that May won’t give any ground on calling a second referendum. Any likely replacement leader is without doubt going to come from the brexiteers camp which of course means no referendum. In the event of a General Election neither of the two main parties are going to campaign for a second vote. With the country as seemingly 50/50 split neither Conservatives or Labour will not want to alienate 50% of their supporters. The other parties are an irrelevance.
We must accept the likelihood of stumbling ahead with whatever May can bring back which will satisfy nobody. It’s a mess of unimaginable proportions.
If the vote happens it will probably be far more vicious than the last since the Nationalists face the prospect of defeat for a generation. But that is no reason to shirk the challenge when polls consistently show that May is not handling this well... plus 55% want to Remain.
Well, I seem to recall that about a year ago, you were giving people who suggested a referendum on the terms of a deal a hard time on here. But the unfolding saga of this historic political disaster certainly throws up plenty of reasons for people to change their opinions, as they discover what the implications are.
I don't wish to score points however, because I am now not sure that demanding a second vote now is realistic. You talk about a "snap" People's Vote, however consider what needs to happen for this to be feasible:
- firstly the terms of any deal are nowhere in sight. Still. Will we have it by the end of November? How much support will it garner? No agreement, nothing to vote on. - That takes you into December. That interferes with the political classes skiing trips. I am serious here. Nothing big in British politics ever gets actioned in the three weeks around Christmas. - in January then, you need to see a significant number of Government ministers backing a vote. That is two months for them to decide to utter the words that none of them have so far. And they have to win the argument. - what an argument that will be, as this time it is really important to get the questions right. Think about the various players here and how they will twist and turn single words in a potential question - that takes you to February. Two months before Brexit. I have read that according to civil servants you need two months minimum to run a national election. so that takes you right to Brexit day. - it is assumed that if a referendum were called, the EU would gladly agree to pushing back Article 50 day. I think that's broadly true, but in the current environment of "the will of the people" being to be led by total twats, it's worth countering that a twat like Salvini might delay signing the necessary declaration as a bargaining chip to win his own dispute with the rest of the EU.
I thought this already before I became one of the 700,000 last week. Unfortunately the dramatic success of the march has not changed my mind because -probably due to having worked on projects with tight deadlines most of my working life,which has turned me into a neurotic about timelines - I can see the logistical pitfalls, per the above.
I'd be happy to be proved wrong. But every passing day makes that more unlikely.
Let us be very clear about what has changed over 12 months and what has not. The possible outcomes are still "No Deal", Abort (Remain) and an agreed deal. And the timetable is still to get a deal agreed around now and then ratify in the UK and EU before March - probably Jan/February. So what has changed?
The emergence of the Chequers deal has crystalised what Brexit might look like - it's horrible and this in turn has galvanised the People's Vote campaign as well as leading to a gentle shift in Labour policy. So subtle as to appear immaterial but sends a message to both the EU and to those raising support for a second referendum both within and without Parliament.
In other words, a second vote is not a re-run of 2016 but a vote to validate (or not) any deal agreed between May and Barnier. And this article explains how such a vote might come about. The latest we have heard is that May thinks we are 95% there on a deal and that there is no November booking but a summit arranged for December. And the article suggests that a simple amendment to a vote on the May Barnier deal could lead to a referendum?
I won't get into either timelines or the Parliamentary arithmetic as there will surely be experts in the media who will explain as events unfold. All that really matters is that we avoid a "no deal" Brexit and that there is actually a clear opportunity to force an election which has been Labour's clear goal all along. As an aside this is probably why May and Hammond are finally declaring an end to austerity and throwing a 3.5% increase at the NHS tomorrow - so Brexit will lead to more money for the NHS!!!
Before we rush headlong into pursuing any one strand of this complex puzzle, let us be clear that there appears no Brexit deal which can be supported by Barnier, the DUP, the ERG and Tory remainers. Brexiteers are complaining that the Northern Irish tail is wagging the dog but the reality is that the real dispute is about whether we stay in the Customs Union or not. Many remainers were happy with the 2016 outcome as long as we stayed close to the EU - it's only the extremes who are prattling on about the upside of no deal and throwing away access to both the EU and the plethora of treaties and arrangements agreed over the last 50 years.
In short, challenging the 2016 result outright was always a fools errand - how has that worked for the Lib Dems? Time is short but this may act as a catalyst to force either a vote, a deal or an election - time will tell but at least, in some strange way, we have a democratic process at work. The People's Vote campaign might not deliver a second referendum but will it have failed? For what this country needed was a response to 2016 as well as a way forwards after ten years of austerity. The agenda is shifting even if we are entirely unclear as to who will be PM in 12 months time.
A spokesperson for GoCompare says that insurance taken out before any disruption is known about will most likely protect travellers: “Providing that the issues were unforeseen, you should be covered by a good comprehensive travel insurance policy. That said, if you were to take out cover after a specific incident, say a strike for instance, became public knowledge you wouldn’t be able to claim against this. It’s the same principle as taking out insurance after you’re already ill.”
That’s a message repeated by Malcolm Tarling, spokesman for the Association of British Insurers, who recommends anyone booking their break now carefully checks the clauses of their insurance policy and also considers what other protections they may have.
“In terms of cancellation cover, it’s normally quite specific anyway,” he explains. “The policy will list eventualities when the insurer would pay out. You’re probably more looking in terms of delay and also the cover and compensation provided by air companies. There may also be Abta protection or Atol cover for your booking.
“Travel insurance will cover you on the basis of terms and conditions in the policy, for example, strikes, adverse weather, mechanical breakdown. In terms of whether Brexit causes large-scale travel disruption, cover will depend on the clauses in the policy.”
However it is different with EHIC ...
“With the UK set to leave the EU on 29th March, Compare Cover warns that the precarious future of the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) will leave UK travellers without the reciprocal healthcare safety net that the scheme offers to UK holidaymakers.”
Anyone know if the EHIC will still be valid for travel to different EU countries for residents of other EU countries who are UK citizens? Or if UK nationals living in the EU will have to have travel insurance when returning to visit the UK, in the absence of the EHIC? Grateful for any suggestions - it's all such a mess.
Anyone know if the EHIC will still be valid for travel to different EU countries for residents of other EU countries who are UK citizens? Or if UK nationals living in the EU will have to have travel insurance when returning to visit the UK, in the absence of the EHIC? Grateful for any suggestions - it's all such a mess.
I believe it is the "nationality" of the card you have that is the important thing when travelling from one EU country to another, not your own nationality.
If the vote happens it will probably be far more vicious than the last since the Nationalists face the prospect of defeat for a generation. But that is no reason to shirk the challenge when polls consistently show that May is not handling this well... plus 55% want to Remain.
Well, I seem to recall that about a year ago, you were giving people who suggested a referendum on the terms of a deal a hard time on here. But the unfolding saga of this historic political disaster certainly throws up plenty of reasons for people to change their opinions, as they discover what the implications are.
I don't wish to score points however, because I am now not sure that demanding a second vote now is realistic. You talk about a "snap" People's Vote, however consider what needs to happen for this to be feasible:
- firstly the terms of any deal are nowhere in sight. Still. Will we have it by the end of November? How much support will it garner? No agreement, nothing to vote on. - That takes you into December. That interferes with the political classes skiing trips. I am serious here. Nothing big in British politics ever gets actioned in the three weeks around Christmas. - in January then, you need to see a significant number of Government ministers backing a vote. That is two months for them to decide to utter the words that none of them have so far. And they have to win the argument. - what an argument that will be, as this time it is really important to get the questions right. Think about the various players here and how they will twist and turn single words in a potential question - that takes you to February. Two months before Brexit. I have read that according to civil servants you need two months minimum to run a national election. so that takes you right to Brexit day. - it is assumed that if a referendum were called, the EU would gladly agree to pushing back Article 50 day. I think that's broadly true, but in the current environment of "the will of the people" being to be led by total twats, it's worth countering that a twat like Salvini might delay signing the necessary declaration as a bargaining chip to win his own dispute with the rest of the EU.
I thought this already before I became one of the 700,000 last week. Unfortunately the dramatic success of the march has not changed my mind because -probably due to having worked on projects with tight deadlines most of my working life,which has turned me into a neurotic about timelines - I can see the logistical pitfalls, per the above.
I'd be happy to be proved wrong. But every passing day makes that more unlikely.
Let us be very clear about what has changed over 12 months and what has not. The possible outcomes are still "No Deal", Abort (Remain) and an agreed deal. And the timetable is still to get a deal agreed around now and then ratify in the UK and EU before March - probably Jan/February. So what has changed?
The emergence of the Chequers deal has crystalised what Brexit might look like - it's horrible and this in turn has galvanised the People's Vote campaign as well as leading to a gentle shift in Labour policy. So subtle as to appear immaterial but sends a message to both the EU and to those raising support for a second referendum both within and without Parliament.
In other words, a second vote is not a re-run of 2016 but a vote to validate (or not) any deal agreed between May and Barnier. And this article explains how such a vote might come about. The latest we have heard is that May thinks we are 95% there on a deal and that there is no November booking but a summit arranged for December. And the article suggests that a simple amendment to a vote on the May Barnier deal could lead to a referendum?
I won't get into either timelines or the Parliamentary arithmetic as there will surely be experts in the media who will explain as events unfold. All that really matters is that we avoid a "no deal" Brexit and that there is actually a clear opportunity to force an election which has been Labour's clear goal all along. As an aside this is probably why May and Hammond are finally declaring an end to austerity and throwing a 3.5% increase at the NHS tomorrow - so Brexit will lead to more money for the NHS!!!
Before we rush headlong into pursuing any one strand of this complex puzzle, let us be clear that there appears no Brexit deal which can be supported by Barnier, the DUP, the ERG and Tory remainers. Brexiteers are complaining that the Northern Irish tail is wagging the dog but the reality is that the real dispute is about whether we stay in the Customs Union or not. Many remainers were happy with the 2016 outcome as long as we stayed close to the EU - it's only the extremes who are prattling on about the upside of no deal and throwing away access to both the EU and the plethora of treaties and arrangements agreed over the last 50 years.
In short, challenging the 2016 result outright was always a fools errand - how has that worked for the Lib Dems? Time is short but this may act as a catalyst to force either a vote, a deal or an election - time will tell but at least, in some strange way, we have a democratic process at work. The People's Vote campaign might not deliver a second referendum but will it have failed? For what this country needed was a response to 2016 as well as a way forwards after ten years of austerity. The agenda is shifting even if we are entirely unclear as to who will be PM in 12 months time.
It really isn't. The future relationship is something that can be negotiated (with a following wind) on the basis of a political statement after Brexit itself.
Theresa May states that 95% of the Brexit deal has been agreed, but leads a Government apparently determined to renegotiate what has been agreed already (so that it appears that the UK is determined to unilaterally reduce that percentage). From an EU27 perspective the UK Government's continued efforts to blur the lines between Brexit and future trade negotiations, and also to undermine what has been agreed, to say nothing of attempting to go behind the back of the EU27's agreed negotiating team, looks awfully like duplicity .
Without an exit agreement - and the EU27 are clear about what they require for such an agreement to be made (albeit that they may be willing to allow a separate, nay distinct, agreement for the UK as a whole to remain within the Customs Union), which are the three strands: Citizens' Rights, the Divorce Settlement and the Border in Ireland - there cannot be any likelihood of any (good faith) negotiations towards a close future relationship any time soon.
It's not so much as the tail wagging the dog as the dog owner (because the EU owns Article 50, as part of TFEU) refusing to dock the tail of its dog, to suit someone else's preferences.
Anyone know if the EHIC will still be valid for travel to different EU countries for residents of other EU countries who are UK citizens? Or if UK nationals living in the EU will have to have travel insurance when returning to visit the UK, in the absence of the EHIC? Grateful for any suggestions - it's all such a mess.
I believe it is the "nationality" of the card you have that is the important thing when travelling from one EU country to another, not your own nationality.
So you need to know what colour passport your EHIC card has?
Anyone know if the EHIC will still be valid for travel to different EU countries for residents of other EU countries who are UK citizens? Or if UK nationals living in the EU will have to have travel insurance when returning to visit the UK, in the absence of the EHIC? Grateful for any suggestions - it's all such a mess.
I believe it is the "nationality" of the card you have that is the important thing when travelling from one EU country to another, not your own nationality.
So you need to know what colour passport your EHIC card has?
I have an Austrian EHIC card, so I'm covered by the Austrian equivalent of the NHS for any problems I might have in, say, Madrid. I asume CharltonMadrid has a Spanish card, so he would be covered by the Spanish equivalent in, say, Vienna.
Assuming we can travel after Brexit, and are not booted out of our respective countries, I don't think that the fact that we have British passports, whatever the colour, is relevant.
Comments
Article by ex Prime Minister of Australia
Lies took on complacency.
However leave won, I wish it hadn't but it did.
We have to come to terms with the resulting nightmare with no upsides whatsoever.
Leave won.
However that victory and the subsequent dreadful country that the UK will rapidly become, can't be implemented without breaking the UK international treaty the Belfast Agreement.
Brexit means the UK breaking it's word, this is the raw consequence of the vote.
Yesterday evening I went to my MP's surgery in Catford. I said that the Labour position on brexit had no credibility and the choice was either no brexit or no more GFA, the six tests thing was a nonsense red herring. My MP and her assistant actually agreed with me, and she also responded with agreement when I suggested that her and her colleagues in this so called precious sovereign Parliament that brexiters love so much, should sort the mess without any need for a people's vote.
Plenty of us on here countered, and re-countered leaver arguments, and were met with a chorus of "scaremongering" and "what do experts know" by people who had made up their mind long before any arguments were being put forward.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/525022/20160523_Leaflet_EASY_READ_FINAL_VERSION.pdf
He then lost the referendum and buggered off (having said he wouldn't) all in the name of party unity. So he gambled with the best interests of the nation with Tory party unity and appears too have lost them both.
In terms of who do I 'blame for it all', the remain campaign comes a long way down the list. They may have had prominent members who were ineffectual, they may not have found many arguments that tapped into the zeitgeist but as an organisation they did, as Algarve has said, try to warn people against the sheer folly of Brexit. For me the following come far further up the blame list:
David Cameron: His dereliction of duty in cavalierly calling a referendum to suit his own party's ends rather than for the good of the nation, is to me borderline criminal and is second only to Blair's illegal war in being the most despicable act I can remember from a British Prime Minister.
Redwood, Rees Mogg et al: Disgusting economic mercenaries, standing to make personal gains whilst encouraging the electorate to vote against their own interests.
Johnson: Disgusting political mercenary who jumped on a bandwagon and who despite repeated mistakes and buffoonery still manages to appeal the the lumpen petit-bourgeoisie.
Gove and his advisor Dominic Cummings: For all the spin and the lies. £350 million - that's their fault. Take control - as unbelievable as it may seems with hindsight, that's what they were saying. Turkey joining the EU - was never going to happen other than in Cummings' fertile imagination.
Farage: Sadly one of the most charismatic politicians of a generation could think of nothing better to do than build a personal empire out of anti-European nonsense.
May: So desperate she was to make a name for herself that she triggered Article 50 with obscene haste. We were committed to leaving before anyone had even understood the issues. Her pathetic 'Brexit means Brexit' mantra (the clearest possible indicator of anyones' lack of understanding) was still ringing loud and clear when we were signed up to it. Then add in the completely ridiculous general election and the buying off of the DUP. Quite stunning incompetence.
Davis, Raab, Fox, Hunt... Chocolate tea pots, the lot of them.
Her Maj's Gutter Press: For years of selective reporting, hyperbole and downright lies. For decades the EU was their convenient bête noire, nothing was too far from the truth for sections of the press. Over time this became a part o the nation's psyche.
Tim Martin: We're coming a long way down the blame list now, but the Wetherspoon boss' monthly diatribes fitted perfectly with clientele of his pubs. There may well have been other business leaders who were equally outspoken on either side of the Brexit debate, but none had a perfect echo-chamber for insular old-agers to have their eurosceptic ideas reinforced like Tim did. I don't think he did anything wrong, and in a way I think good luck to him - but it certainly caused in imbalance in peoples' perceptions of what was happening.
All of these people are more to blame for the Current mess than the remain campaign.
Genius!
''Brexit may hit Strictly'
Made my decision to change my allegiance!
However, we are here now and the new People's Vote campaign is firing on all cylinders. Not only was there an estimated 6-700,000 on the People's Vote demonstration but their petition has now hit one million signatures. They are not questioning the 2016 referendum but insisting that the people be given a chance to vote between an agreed deal and aborting the process, i.e., Remain.
And today it has been revealed that four doctor MPs are preparing to table a "killer" amendment to whatever deal May puts in front of Parliament. This to absolutely insist that any deal is placed in front of the people BEFORE we leave. Reports suggest that this cross bench campaign already has support of 100 MPs and are as such bigger than the ERG plus DUP. And they are now lobbying for Labour leadership support given that the vast majority of Labour members and voters support this campaign.
This is perhaps the perfect antidote to 2016 and is actually the only chance. The ERG, Daily Express and others are running scared just as those you mention dismiss this attempt as anti-democratic! For the avoidance of doubt, how can placing an actual deal in front of the people for a vote be anti democratic?
Naturally, Leave means Leave and the rest will attempt to leverage outrage to get their vote out should we go to the ballot box. But if the musings of various academics are correct and much of the Leave vote was indeed a protest against austerity, then those arguing to abort the process can target both the deal which will inevitably be bad for the economy AND the Tory austerity policies.
The angles are incredibly complex but the simplest summary is that we didn't need austerity for this long and that leaving the EU solves nothing, especially when it's estimated to slow GDP growth, thus costing serious money for people, companies and the government. In other words Brexit is bad for the NHS and that's what the four doctors are really concerned about.
On a separate but connected note, some are still talking of an extension to Article 50 to facilitate the process. But this appears redundant since there is time for a snap People's Vote with the urgency perhaps adding to the campaign. As above the angles are complex and it probably needs a separate thread to explore why the Labour leadership prefer a snap election and yet another to explore why remaining in the Single Market is not as simple as people make out.
A year ago the campaign for another vote was nowhere. Today it appears to be one amendment away from becoming law! And that will clearly give a Remain campaign to highlight the lies, distortions and sheer hypocrisy that was Leave. On the other hand, expect Leave to double down in Trumpesque fashion talking of fake news, the enemies of the People and all the rest. If the vote happens it will probably be far more vicious than the last since the Nationalists face the prospect of defeat for a generation. But that is no reason to shirk the challenge when polls consistently show that May is not handling this well... plus 55% want to Remain.
If the vote happens it will probably be far more vicious than the last since the Nationalists face the prospect of defeat for a generation. But that is no reason to shirk the challenge when polls consistently show that May is not handling this well... plus 55% want to Remain.
Well, I seem to recall that about a year ago, you were giving people who suggested a referendum on the terms of a deal a hard time on here. But the unfolding saga of this historic political disaster certainly throws up plenty of reasons for people to change their opinions, as they discover what the implications are.
I don't wish to score points however, because I am now not sure that demanding a second vote now is realistic. You talk about a "snap" People's Vote, however consider what needs to happen for this to be feasible:
- firstly the terms of any deal are nowhere in sight. Still. Will we have it by the end of November? How much support will it garner? No agreement, nothing to vote on.
- That takes you into December. That interferes with the political classes skiing trips. I am serious here. Nothing big in British politics ever gets actioned in the three weeks around Christmas.
- in January then, you need to see a significant number of Government ministers backing a vote. That is two months for them to decide to utter the words that none of them have so far. And they have to win the argument.
- what an argument that will be, as this time it is really important to get the questions right. Think about the various players here and how they will twist and turn single words in a potential question
- that takes you to February. Two months before Brexit. I have read that according to civil servants you need two months minimum to run a national election. so that takes you right to Brexit day.
- it is assumed that if a referendum were called, the EU would gladly agree to pushing back Article 50 day. I think that's broadly true, but in the current environment of "the will of the people" being to be led by total twats, it's worth countering that a twat like Salvini might delay signing the necessary declaration as a bargaining chip to win his own dispute with the rest of the EU.
I thought this already before I became one of the 700,000 last week. Unfortunately the dramatic success of the march has not changed my mind because -probably due to having worked on projects with tight deadlines most of my working life,which has turned me into a neurotic about timelines - I can see the logistical pitfalls, per the above.
I'd be happy to be proved wrong. But every passing day makes that more unlikely.
It would also be difficult to agree a 'binary' choice for a 2nd referendum (necessary for a clear outcome) when as well as 'Remaining' there are now a number of flavours of 'Brexit' - 'Canada+, Norway+, Labour's '6 points' in addition to a possible 'May Deal'.
For all the reasons you give plus the above I think a General Election focusing on the parties' policies for future UK-EU relations (in addition to all the other issues) is probably the only constitutional way to get out of May's mess:
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referendum-were-held-today-how-would-you-vote/
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/euref2-poll-of-polls/#
For all the reasons you give plus the above I think a General Election focusing on the parties' policies for future UK-EU relations (in addition to all the other issues) is probably the only constitutional way to get out of May's mess:
I agree in principle. But can you see this happening, in the next five months? and most pertinently, in such an election, which party will represent the views of the 50% plus who think Brexit is, in various shades, a bad idea?
A general election with brexit as the central issue is a possible way out of this nightmare.
According to the Daily Mail's report of Civil Servants 'game playing' a 2nd referendum:
"Quitting the EU would probably have to be delayed to hold a new referendum on Brexit as the process would take a bare minimum of six months to pass the necessary laws and run a campaign".
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6299707/Officials-play-war-games-call-run-second-referendum-Brexit.html
Whereas the possible 'path' to a General Election seems simpler.
Within the next (at most?) one to two months May will have to present her 'deal' (or 'no deal') to parliament. If it's rejected that opens the way for a possible (arguably necessary) General Election (which could also involve replacing her as Tory leader).
Even if her 'deal' got a parliamentary majority that would probably be without the support of a sizeable part of her party; which could again trigger her replacement and create a clamour for a General Election to give authority to a different Prime Minister's approach to Brexit.
A six week General Election (longer than the legally minimum 3 weeks to allow full debate of the issues) could be held before March 29th and the EU would almost certainly accommodate it.
None of this is certain of course - but I think it's easier and simpler than a 2nd referendum.
We must accept the likelihood of stumbling ahead with whatever May can bring back which will satisfy nobody. It’s a mess of unimaginable proportions.
The emergence of the Chequers deal has crystalised what Brexit might look like - it's horrible and this in turn has galvanised the People's Vote campaign as well as leading to a gentle shift in Labour policy. So subtle as to appear immaterial but sends a message to both the EU and to those raising support for a second referendum both within and without Parliament.
In other words, a second vote is not a re-run of 2016 but a vote to validate (or not) any deal agreed between May and Barnier. And this article explains how such a vote might come about. The latest we have heard is that May thinks we are 95% there on a deal and that there is no November booking but a summit arranged for December. And the article suggests that a simple amendment to a vote on the May Barnier deal could lead to a referendum?
I won't get into either timelines or the Parliamentary arithmetic as there will surely be experts in the media who will explain as events unfold. All that really matters is that we avoid a "no deal" Brexit and that there is actually a clear opportunity to force an election which has been Labour's clear goal all along. As an aside this is probably why May and Hammond are finally declaring an end to austerity and throwing a 3.5% increase at the NHS tomorrow - so Brexit will lead to more money for the NHS!!!
Before we rush headlong into pursuing any one strand of this complex puzzle, let us be clear that there appears no Brexit deal which can be supported by Barnier, the DUP, the ERG and Tory remainers. Brexiteers are complaining that the Northern Irish tail is wagging the dog but the reality is that the real dispute is about whether we stay in the Customs Union or not. Many remainers were happy with the 2016 outcome as long as we stayed close to the EU - it's only the extremes who are prattling on about the upside of no deal and throwing away access to both the EU and the plethora of treaties and arrangements agreed over the last 50 years.
In short, challenging the 2016 result outright was always a fools errand - how has that worked for the Lib Dems? Time is short but this may act as a catalyst to force either a vote, a deal or an election - time will tell but at least, in some strange way, we have a democratic process at work. The People's Vote campaign might not deliver a second referendum but will it have failed? For what this country needed was a response to 2016 as well as a way forwards after ten years of austerity. The agenda is shifting even if we are entirely unclear as to who will be PM in 12 months time.
That’s a message repeated by Malcolm Tarling, spokesman for the Association of British Insurers, who recommends anyone booking their break now carefully checks the clauses of their insurance policy and also considers what other protections they may have.
“In terms of cancellation cover, it’s normally quite specific anyway,” he explains. “The policy will list eventualities when the insurer would pay out. You’re probably more looking in terms of delay and also the cover and compensation provided by air companies. There may also be Abta protection or Atol cover for your booking.
“Travel insurance will cover you on the basis of terms and conditions in the policy, for example, strikes, adverse weather, mechanical breakdown. In terms of whether Brexit causes large-scale travel disruption, cover will depend on the clauses in the policy.”
However it is different with EHIC ...
“With the UK set to leave the EU on 29th March, Compare Cover warns that the precarious future of the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) will leave UK travellers without the reciprocal healthcare safety net that the scheme offers to UK holidaymakers.”
Theresa May states that 95% of the Brexit deal has been agreed, but leads a Government apparently determined to renegotiate what has been agreed already (so that it appears that the UK is determined to unilaterally reduce that percentage). From an EU27 perspective the UK Government's continued efforts to blur the lines between Brexit and future trade negotiations, and also to undermine what has been agreed, to say nothing of attempting to go behind the back of the EU27's agreed negotiating team, looks awfully like duplicity .
Without an exit agreement - and the EU27 are clear about what they require for such an agreement to be made (albeit that they may be willing to allow a separate, nay distinct, agreement for the UK as a whole to remain within the Customs Union), which are the three strands: Citizens' Rights, the Divorce Settlement and the Border in Ireland - there cannot be any likelihood of any (good faith) negotiations towards a close future relationship any time soon.
It's not so much as the tail wagging the dog as the dog owner (because the EU owns Article 50, as part of TFEU) refusing to dock the tail of its dog, to suit someone else's preferences.
Assuming we can travel after Brexit, and are not booted out of our respective countries, I don't think that the fact that we have British passports, whatever the colour, is relevant.