Im curious about trade.
Financial services from the largest center in the world and high value goods like gemstones and aircraft parts, are not so easily disregarded as sources.
Auto parts (admittedly the largest goods by %) could be moved to lower cost sectors of EU, but factories take financing.
Other factors, l have less knowledge base. Except trade Scotland property for N Ireland. Just cousins swapping out properties anyway… hard border issue solved 
Hah! If only it were so easy.
Chart making will suffer an immediate recession once Brexit is settled.
I don’t understand your political system, other than it was based on the same ambiguity as the former monetary system or peerage.
But it appears Johnson went all in with a pair of 9s and got called.
Not quite. It’s a less formal system, so you’re seeing how our exec and legislature joust.
Boris has some executive tools that he can use:
That’s just a few tools he has yet to play.
There are others, but those are the most potent.
Thanks for the clarification.
As we are going through some similar jousting amongst our branches here.
A judge here has ruled that Trump must give the Playboy reporter back his rescinded WH press pass. One would question how Judicial has the authority to determine whom Executive allows in press conferences.
Iirc, same judge involved in FISA controversy.
Sorry for derail.
Judges have no, per se, constitutional authority here. They step out of line, and the commons usually delivers a whack.
Hence, lawfare politics is usually less successful here (with some exceptions)
Doing “the Lambeth Walk!”
I think he cited 1a with it.
Not that it matters much. Trump has known since Acosta that he was going to end up losing these press pass fights.
Looks like the speaker read my t-nation post, blast him.
Edit: Never took him for a lifter, maybe he’s rocking 18 inch pipes on that hobbit-esque body.
Just texted a friend of mine who’s pretty high positioned in the European Commission and he described the general atmosphere in the EU nomenklatura:
Everyone is desperate for the UK to leave on the 31st of October, deal or no deal.
Today’s voting in the UK Parliament was met with dread as it means that there is a small possibility for another extension request. My friend summed it up as “the psycho ex-girlfriend started texting us again”
I never thought I’d agree with a commissioner… maybe we should stay longer?
Oh my God, they voted in the Kinnock amendment, which means a further vote on May’s deal.
Apparently the parliamentarians were misled by the government.
Best have another parliamentary vote, they didn’t know what they were voting for!
https://media1.tenor.com/images/ea65b8f19c0c7e3d2c476aa87c9b91b6/tenor.gif?itemid=8007605
Top comedy from the parliamentary brain trust here.
TOP QUALITY.
Well, it seems that greater minds than mine have also noticed the revolutionary undertones of Brexit:
Brexiteers, in contrast, began to show a strong revolutionary streak as the referendum progressed. Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings have been compared to Maoists, intent on revolution within government, while in their historical references Leavers are far more likely to identify with Parliamentarians than the more obviously conservative royalists (and no, I’m not going to get drawn into Civil War analogies).
Likewise, as the battle went on we began to hear more talk of ‘the people’, a phrase used once again this week by Andrea Leadsom:
The highest authority in the UK is the People. They voted to leave the EU. Parliament must obey that instruction.
— Andrea Leadsom MP (@andrealeadsom) September 2, 2019
As a conservative, I’d say that pretty much everything in history with ‘the people’ in its title has been complete excrement, from the People’s Crusade of the 11th century to the various People’s Republics of the 20th century. Invoking ‘The People’ is generally the sort of rhetoric associated with charlatans and fanatics like Jean-Paul Marat, idealists who inevitably leave a pile of bodies when their unachievable goals fail to materialise.
That’s not the language of conservatism. In contrast, whether one agrees with them or not, Nicholas Soames and Rory Stewart are very much conservatives and Tories, which makes their position all the more poignant.
Where do they go from here?
Wow…
I REALLY wish I had a much better “feel” for what all of this means (by the way…all of the very insightful post have really helped!).
What does this last “no Deal Exit” (or something like) mean?
(I really could use a brief, “to-the-point” summary.
Thank you, everyone!
I think he’s begun playing this one. That’s how his “big girl’s blouse” comments seemed to me anyway. As always, time will tell.
That’s my read on it anyway. No reason for a climb down in the Lords otherwise.
Et tu Jo?
I have to refer to @Legalsteel and @yorkshireiron on that, but Britain has to choose between a bunch of anti-Semites led by an unrepentant Stalinist and a frothing at the mouth Maoist revolutionaries that yesterday called Winston Churchill’s grandson, arch-conservative Sir Nicholas Soames, a “leftie”.
Until the issue is settled, they can no longer tolerate breaches of 3 line whips. This is a civil war the Tories should have had in opposition, they didn’t. Cameron punted it and then his side lost.
I have little sympathy for Mp’s who are elected on false pretenses, and all 21 of these people did so.
Do I think Brexit is conservative? Yep. Above all the institution that needs defended are British ones. I simply cannot countenance remain as conservative simply because it removes options from a labour government interventionista or because it isn’t upholding an institution we have never been fond of anyway.
He’s acting the maggot, to be sure. But Guido Fawkes isn’t in the government. The FBPE judophobes are THE official opposition.
This battle isn’t between the equally bad. It’s the incompetent vs the wicked.
As for the author’s contention that ‘things can always get worse’ this is true, and the remain rebels handed a victory to ‘worse’s’ apotheosis to avoid leaving the EU. If enabling a Marxist is conservative, count me out.
As always, happy to spar with you on the above.
Edit: to be clear, I think the author makes some very valid points on the overall ideological assessment of the ‘Athenians’ but their ‘no-deal rule out’ is remain by another name. Parties don’t have to tolerate dissenters on flagship policies, and there’s a long history of them not doing so, especially in the Tory party.
