Testing (and even thinking very hard) has rather gone out of fashion in the computer biz. Launch something that mostly works (minimum viable product) then fix it as the bug reports come in (or don't fix it because the team has moved on to something else). Move fast and break things, as Facebook used to say. Agile. There is no parallel with the government's approach to Brexit -- publish red lines then change them almost randomly as the EU rejects each one.
The real damage to Facebook is reputational. I hardly use it now, and log out when not using so that it stops tracing. Hypocritical of course as I use Twitter, Google etc
Why hypocritical?
As a consumer you are making a choice
It’s not like you are evangelising the use of Facebook while avoiding it yourself
I am sure other companies are just as cavalier with personal information. We live in the Panopticon nowadays.
As a user, I am the product, the consumer is the one who pays.
That just makes you selectively promiscuous, not hypocritical surely?
"honey, I didn't cheat on you, I was just selectively promiscuous"
Even if it does it wont win. There's a reason Brexiteers are terrified of a 2nd referendum.
They have been found out by enough people to tip the balance next time. It'll still be close, but the other way.
As we head to the endgame there will be essentially three possible options:
- Revoke Article 50 - Ratify the Withdrawal Agreement - No Deal
Over the next three months, my assumption is that those trashing Chequers and arguing for No Deal will drive public opinion not towards the third option but towards the first.
Testing (and even thinking very hard) has rather gone out of fashion in the computer biz. Launch something that mostly works (minimum viable product) then fix it as the bug reports come in (or don't fix it because the team has moved on to something else). Move fast and break things, as Facebook used to say. Agile. There is no parallel with the government's approach to Brexit -- publish red lines then change them almost randomly as the EU rejects each one.
The real damage to Facebook is reputational. I hardly use it now, and log out when not using so that it stops tracing. Hypocritical of course as I use Twitter, Google etc
Why hypocritical?
As a consumer you are making a choice
It’s not like you are evangelising the use of Facebook while avoiding it yourself
I am sure other companies are just as cavalier with personal information. We live in the Panopticon nowadays.
As a user, I am the product, the consumer is the one who pays.
That just makes you selectively promiscuous, not hypocritical surely?
"honey, I didn't cheat on you, I was just selectively promiscuous"
Even if it does it wont win. There's a reason Brexiteers are terrified of a 2nd referendum.
They have been found out by enough people to tip the balance next time. It'll still be close, but the other way.
As we head to the endgame there will be essentially three possible options:
- Revoke Article 50 - Ratify the Withdrawal Agreement - No Deal
Over the next three months, my assumption is that those trashing Chequers and arguing for No Deal will drive public opinion not towards the third option but towards the first.
- extend Article 50 by 2-5 years.
That certainly would be the most sensible thing to try and do as soon as possible, given the mess and the limited time.
Even if it does it wont win. There's a reason Brexiteers are terrified of a 2nd referendum.
They have been found out by enough people to tip the balance next time. It'll still be close, but the other way.
As we head to the endgame there will be essentially three possible options:
- Revoke Article 50 - Ratify the Withdrawal Agreement - No Deal
Over the next three months, my assumption is that those trashing Chequers and arguing for No Deal will drive public opinion not towards the third option but towards the first.
- extend Article 50 by 2-5 years.
True, but I think that option only comes into view if there is no agreement on the Withdrawal Agreement. Having formed a coherent UK position on the future relationship that only happens now if the EU refuses to fudge it sufficiently. I think May's done enough to avoid that.
Well, I don't know whether you noticed but a couple of years ago we had a referendum in which people voted to Leave. Parliament then also voted to leave.
So we are leaving and the question is on what terms. That would be what a second referendum would be about, and why it would be as pointless and potentially damaging as trying to explain the mechanics of good teaching to an OFSTED inspector.
We're talking about what it would take to get a vote through parliament, and that depends on what MPs think should happen, not what you think should happen.
Unfortunately I am not talking about what I think should happen, I am talking about what has happened and why that rules out certain courses of action. The mere fact that there are too many people, starting with the PM and the EUC, right down to the humble and traumatised William, who do not wish to face the reality we're in and deal with it is an issue but doesn't alter either the past or the facts.
Even if it does it wont win. There's a reason Brexiteers are terrified of a 2nd referendum.
They have been found out by enough people to tip the balance next time. It'll still be close, but the other way.
As we head to the endgame there will be essentially three possible options:
- Revoke Article 50 - Ratify the Withdrawal Agreement - No Deal
Over the next three months, my assumption is that those trashing Chequers and arguing for No Deal will drive public opinion not towards the third option but towards the first.
- extend Article 50 by 2-5 years.
That certainly would be the most sensible thing to try and do as soon as possible, given the mess and the limited time.
Well, I don't know whether you noticed but a couple of years ago we had a referendum in which people voted to Leave. Parliament then also voted to leave.
So we are leaving and the question is on what terms. That would be what a second referendum would be about, and why it would be as pointless and potentially damaging as trying to explain the mechanics of good teaching to an OFSTED inspector.
We're talking about what it would take to get a vote through parliament, and that depends on what MPs think should happen, not what you think should happen.
Unfortunately I am not talking about what I think should happen, I am talking about what has happened and why that rules out certain courses of action. The mere fact that there are too many people, starting with the PM and the EUC, right down to the humble and traumatised William, who do not wish to face the reality we're in and deal with it is an issue but doesn't alter either the past or the facts.
Brexit is not an unstoppable force of nature but a legal process that can be stopped - by mutual consent, certainly, and possibly unilaterally too but that theory probably wouldn't need to be tested.
Let’s assume we get to October on a river of Euro-fudge.
How is May going to win a “meaningful” vote in the Commons? She doesn’t have the numbers if the ERGers are determined to be bloody minded.
Threaten that if they don't give her the votes she needs, she'll have no option but to do a deal with LD+SNP+Remaniac-Lab, who will require a re-referendum as the price of their support.
Please don't throw me into the briar patch etc etc.
Knowing this, if May wants to look strong and in control she will preempt them and announce that she wants to put it to the people before they have chance to hold her to ransom.
True, but I wonder if it isn't actually easier for the opposition members, especially Remainiac Lab, if it looks like they're forcing the concession. It's not generally a great look for opposition MPs to be saving the government, so they're better off with a setup of "Tory disunity let us extract this concession" rather than "The government wanted to do this, and we threw them a lifeline when they were drowning".
Once May has announced it, I think the political pressure on Labour MPs to back it would be overwhelming. If Corbyn tried to block it to force a GE instead it would to seen to be such a cynical move it would destroy the Labour party.
I also wonder if there isn't a loophole hidden in the Henry VIII powers to allow the government to bypass parliament on this.
Re your last sentence - Do you want people rioting on the streets
If they riot, they should be treated as any other rioter.
Even if it does it wont win. There's a reason Brexiteers are terrified of a 2nd referendum.
They have been found out by enough people to tip the balance next time. It'll still be close, but the other way.
As we head to the endgame there will be essentially three possible options:
- Revoke Article 50 - Ratify the Withdrawal Agreement - No Deal
Over the next three months, my assumption is that those trashing Chequers and arguing for No Deal will drive public opinion not towards the third option but towards the first.
- extend Article 50 by 2-5 years.
True, but I think that option only comes into view if there is no agreement on the Withdrawal Agreement. Having formed a coherent UK position on the future relationship that only happens now if the EU refuses to fudge it sufficiently. I think May's done enough to avoid that.
I think it would suit the EU for several reasons even if they were minded to fudge.
Well, I don't know whether you noticed but a couple of years ago we had a referendum in which people voted to Leave. Parliament then also voted to leave.
So we are leaving and the question is on what terms. That would be what a second referendum would be about, and why it would be as pointless and potentially damaging as trying to explain the mechanics of good teaching to an OFSTED inspector.
We're talking about what it would take to get a vote through parliament, and that depends on what MPs think should happen, not what you think should happen.
Unfortunately I am not talking about what I think should happen, I am talking about what has happened and why that rules out certain courses of action. The mere fact that there are too many people, starting with the PM and the EUC, right down to the humble and traumatised William, who do not wish to face the reality we're in and deal with it is an issue but doesn't alter either the past or the facts.
It doesn't rule anything out, parliament can do what it likes. You may think it *should* rule things out, but that's not the same thing.
Let’s assume we get to October on a river of Euro-fudge.
How is May going to win a “meaningful” vote in the Commons? She doesn’t have the numbers if the ERGers are determined to be bloody minded.
Threaten that if they don't give her the votes she needs, she'll have no option but to do a deal with LD+SNP+Remaniac-Lab, who will require a re-referendum as the price of their support.
Please don't throw me into the briar patch etc etc.
Knowing this, if May wants to look strong and in control she will preempt them and announce that she wants to put it to the people before they have chance to hold her to ransom.
True, but I wonder if it isn't actually easier for the opposition members, especially Remainiac Lab, if it looks like they're forcing the concession. It's not generally a great look for opposition MPs to be saving the government, so they're better off with a setup of "Tory disunity let us extract this concession" rather than "The government wanted to do this, and we threw them a lifeline when they were drowning".
Once May has announced it, I think the political pressure on Labour MPs to back it would be overwhelming. If Corbyn tried to block it to force a GE instead it would to seen to be such a cynical move it would destroy the Labour party.
I also wonder if there isn't a loophole hidden in the Henry VIII powers to allow the government to bypass parliament on this.
Re your last sentence - Do you want people rioting on the streets
If they riot, they should be treated as any other rioter.
You mean, they will be left in peace to get on with it?
Let’s assume we get to October on a river of Euro-fudge.
How is May going to win a “meaningful” vote in the Commons? She doesn’t have the numbers if the ERGers are determined to be bloody minded.
Threaten that if they don't give her the votes she needs, she'll have no option but to do a deal with LD+SNP+Remaniac-Lab, who will require a re-referendum as the price of their support.
Please don't throw me into the briar patch etc etc.
Knowing this, if May wants to look strong and in control she will preempt them and announce that she wants to put it to the people before they have chance to hold her to ransom.
True, but I wonder if it isn't actually easier for the opposition members, especially Remainiac Lab, if it looks like they're forcing the concession. It's not generally a great look for opposition MPs to be saving the government, so they're better off with a setup of "Tory disunity let us extract this concession" rather than "The government wanted to do this, and we threw them a lifeline when they were drowning".
Once May has announced it, I think the political pressure on Labour MPs to back it would be overwhelming. If Corbyn tried to block it to force a GE instead it would to seen to be such a cynical move it would destroy the Labour party.
I also wonder if there isn't a loophole hidden in the Henry VIII powers to allow the government to bypass parliament on this.
Re your last sentence - Do you want people rioting on the streets
If they riot, they should be treated as any other rioter.
Of course but why would a goverment even consider by passing democracy as William has suggested
Well, I don't know whether you noticed but a couple of years ago we had a referendum in which people voted to Leave. Parliament then also voted to leave.
So we are leaving and the question is on what terms. That would be what a second referendum would be about, and why it would be as pointless and potentially damaging as trying to explain the mechanics of good teaching to an OFSTED inspector.
We're talking about what it would take to get a vote through parliament, and that depends on what MPs think should happen, not what you think should happen.
Unfortunately I am not talking about what I think should happen, I am talking about what has happened and why that rules out certain courses of action. The mere fact that there are too many people, starting with the PM and the EUC, right down to the humble and traumatised William, who do not wish to face the reality we're in and deal with it is an issue but doesn't alter either the past or the facts.
Brexit is not an unstoppable force of nature but a legal process that can be stopped - by mutual consent, certainly, and possibly unilaterally too but that theory probably wouldn't need to be tested.
Not really. It wouldn't describe the mess the Labour party is in, either. But it is an excellent guidebook for anyone clever who wants to create a con (not that I think Holmes wanted to create one at first), and some warning signs to look for in sick companies.
But as Charles said in a post the other week: the amazing thing is the way the great and good bought into the charade, for instance Kissinger and Murdoch (though Murdoch comes out generally well in the story). A bunch of old rich fools saying that as other old rich fools were involved, it must be legit. How can the plebs complaining be telling the truth when so many good, influential people were on the board ...
I can highly recommend the book: it's very well written, and fortunately is not too technical (perhaps because Theranos failed to develop anything particularly worth describing technically).
Let’s assume we get to October on a river of Euro-fudge.
How is May going to win a “meaningful” vote in the Commons? She doesn’t have the numbers if the ERGers are determined to be bloody minded.
Threaten that if they don't give her the votes she needs, she'll have no option but to do a deal with LD+SNP+Remaniac-Lab, who will require a re-referendum as the price of their support.
Please don't throw me into the briar patch etc etc.
Knowing this, if May wants to look strong and in control she will preempt them and announce that she wants to put it to the people before they have chance to hold her to ransom.
True, but I wonder if it isn't actually easier for the opposition members, especially Remainiac Lab, if it looks like they're forcing the concession. It's not generally a great look for opposition MPs to be saving the government, so they're better off with a setup of "Tory disunity let us extract this concession" rather than "The government wanted to do this, and we threw them a lifeline when they were drowning".
Once May has announced it, I think the political pressure on Labour MPs to back it would be overwhelming. If Corbyn tried to block it to force a GE instead it would to seen to be such a cynical move it would destroy the Labour party.
I also wonder if there isn't a loophole hidden in the Henry VIII powers to allow the government to bypass parliament on this.
Re your last sentence - Do you want people rioting on the streets
If they riot, they should be treated as any other rioter.
Of course but why would a goverment even consider by passing democracy as William has suggested
The people voted for an easy Brexit with more NHS cash (without extra tax), and free owls. Who's offering that?
Well, I don't know whether you noticed but a couple of years ago we had a referendum in which people voted to Leave. Parliament then also voted to leave.
So we are leaving and the question is on what terms. That would be what a second referendum would be about, and why it would be as pointless and potentially damaging as trying to explain the mechanics of good teaching to an OFSTED inspector.
We're talking about what it would take to get a vote through parliament, and that depends on what MPs think should happen, not what you think should happen.
Unfortunately I am not talking about what I think should happen, I am talking about what has happened and why that rules out certain courses of action. The mere fact that there are too many people, starting with the PM and the EUC, right down to the humble and traumatised William, who do not wish to face the reality we're in and deal with it is an issue but doesn't alter either the past or the facts.
It doesn't rule anything out, parliament can do what it likes. You may think it *should* rule things out, but that's not the same thing.
Parliament can do anything it likes. For example it could reintroduce slavery or pass a law banning ginger hair.
Does that mean it will? No.
Unfortunately recent events have rendered a 'Remain or soft Brexit' referendum almost as impossible as appointing a Nazi as Minister of Equalities (although I observe Labour hasn't noticed this). Leave with no deal would have to be on the ballot paper. There are too many MPs with Leave voting seats, quite apart from the head-bangers, who would be at risk otherwise.
Thanks all for answering my question. With Boris on manoeuvres, I cannot see the hard Brexiters supporting any deal May is able to put to Parliament.
She therefore needs support from the Opposition benches.
Since Corbyn above all wants to trigger an election, I do not think he can support the vote. The ERGers will give him cover, since there will continue to be an illusion of a “better Brexit”.
Therefore, May needs Labour rebels. The only thing she has to offer is another referendum.
I am inclined to agree with William Glen that there is perfect neatness to this which may appeal to May’s clear psychological need to clear up the mess left by the overgrown schoolboys (Cameron, Osborne, Johnson).
Let’s assume we get to October on a river of Euro-fudge.
How is May going to win a “meaningful” vote in the Commons? She doesn’t have the numbers if the ERGers are determined to be bloody minded.
Threaten that if they don't give her the votes she needs, she'll have no option but to do a deal with LD+SNP+Remaniac-Lab, who will require a re-referendum as the price of their support.
Please don't throw me into the briar patch etc etc.
Knowing this, if May wants to look strong and in control she will preempt them and announce that she wants to put it to the people before they have chance to hold her to ransom.
True, but I wonder if it isn't actually easier for the opposition members, especially Remainiac Lab, if it looks like they're forcing the concession. It's not generally a great look for opposition MPs to be saving the government, so they're better off with a setup of "Tory disunity let us extract this concession" rather than "The government wanted to do this, and we threw them a lifeline when they were drowning".
Once May has announced it, I think the political pressure on Labour MPs to back it would be overwhelming. If Corbyn tried to block it to force a GE instead it would to seen to be such a cynical move it would destroy the Labour party.
I also wonder if there isn't a loophole hidden in the Henry VIII powers to allow the government to bypass parliament on this.
Re your last sentence - Do you want people rioting on the streets
If they riot, they should be treated as any other rioter.
Of course but why would a goverment even consider by passing democracy as William has suggested
The people voted for an easy Brexit with more NHS cash (without extra tax), and free owls. Who's offering that?
Good to see the current extent of aspirations of Leavers: the supermarkets will probably have food on the shelves. Not that the past sturdy pronouncements of Leavers mean that much faith can be put in those assurances.
Now that you're moving to the country, you'll have plenty of game to live off.
Let’s assume we get to October on a river of Euro-fudge.
How is May going to win a “meaningful” vote in the Commons? She doesn’t have the numbers if the ERGers are determined to be bloody minded.
Threaten that if they don't give her the votes she needs, she'll have no option but to do a deal with LD+SNP+Remaniac-Lab, who will require a re-referendum as the price of their support.
Please don't throw me into the briar patch etc etc.
Knowing this, if May wants to look strong and in control she will preempt them and announce that she wants to put it to the people before they have chance to hold her to ransom.
True, but I wonder if it isn't actually easier for the opposition members, especially Remainiac Lab, if it looks like they're forcing the concession. It's not generally a great look for opposition MPs to be saving the government, so they're better off with a setup of "Tory disunity let us extract this concession" rather than "The government wanted to do this, and we threw them a lifeline when they were drowning".
Once May has announced it, I think the political pressure on Labour MPs to back it would be overwhelming. If Corbyn tried to block it to force a GE instead it would to seen to be such a cynical move it would destroy the Labour party.
I also wonder if there isn't a loophole hidden in the Henry VIII powers to allow the government to bypass parliament on this.
Re your last sentence - Do you want people rioting on the streets
If they riot, they should be treated as any other rioter.
Of course but why would a goverment even consider by passing democracy as William has suggested
The people voted for an easy Brexit with more NHS cash (without extra tax), and free owls. Who's offering that?
Well mays offering more money to the NHS, were heading for a soft Brexit and personally I already have owls in my garden
Let’s assume we get to October on a river of Euro-fudge.
How is May going to win a “meaningful” vote in the Commons? She doesn’t have the numbers if the ERGers are determined to be bloody minded.
Threaten that if they don't give her the votes she needs, she'll have no option but to do a deal with LD+SNP+Remaniac-Lab, who will require a re-referendum as the price of their support.
Please don't throw me into the briar patch etc etc.
Knowing this, if May wants to look strong and in control she will preempt them and announce that she wants to put it to the people before they have chance to hold her to ransom.
True, but I wonder if it isn't actually easier for the opposition members, especially Remainiac Lab, if it looks like they're forcing the concession. It's not generally a great look for opposition MPs to be saving the government, so they're better off with a setup of "Tory disunity let us extract this concession" rather than "The government wanted to do this, and we threw them a lifeline when they were drowning".
Once May has announced it, I think the political pressure on Labour MPs to back it would be overwhelming. If Corbyn tried to block it to force a GE instead it would to seen to be such a cynical move it would destroy the Labour party.
I also wonder if there isn't a loophole hidden in the Henry VIII powers to allow the government to bypass parliament on this.
Re your last sentence - Do you want people rioting on the streets
If they riot, they should be treated as any other rioter.
Of course but why would a goverment even consider by passing democracy as William has suggested
The people voted for an easy Brexit with more NHS cash (without extra tax), and free owls. Who's offering that?
Well mays offering more money to the NHS, were heading for a soft Brexit and personally I already have owls in my garden
She's offering more money for the NHS *with* extra tax to pay for it.
Labour going to the country having blocked an attempt at soft Brexit and therefore forcing us to WTO, maugre the wishes of the overwhelming majority of their voters?
It won't be Labour who blocked it, it will have been the ERG faction of the tories. Labour don't owe May any favours, pity or mercy and it's not up to them to deliver the government's program in the HoC.
That's right. In general, most members don't want to deselect their Labour MPs. however, breaking the whip in order to save a Tory Goernment and facilitate EU withdrawal would be a near-guaranteed path to deselection.
Even if it does it wont win. There's a reason Brexiteers are terrified of a 2nd referendum.
They have been found out by enough people to tip the balance next time. It'll still be close, but the other way.
As we head to the endgame there will be essentially three possible options:
- Revoke Article 50 - Ratify the Withdrawal Agreement - No Deal
Over the next three months, my assumption is that those trashing Chequers and arguing for No Deal will drive public opinion not towards the third option but towards the first.
Thanks all for answering my question. With Boris on manoeuvres, I cannot see the hard Brexiters supporting any deal May is able to put to Parliament.
She therefore needs support from the Opposition benches.
Since Corbyn above all wants to trigger an election, I do not think he can support the vote. The ERGers will give him cover, since there will continue to be an illusion of a “better Brexit”.
Therefore, May needs Labour rebels. The only thing she has to offer is another referendum.
I am inclined to agree with William Glen that there is perfect neatness to this which may appeal to May’s clear psychological need to clear up the mess left by the overgrown schoolboys (Cameron, Osborne, Johnson).
Yes but as I said before a second referendum could be a no deal disaster as the public want to rebel against the political elite. In my opinion TM's deal is the only chance of limiting the damage unless of course there is a backlash against the Brexiteers when the situation could change yet again.
At least Airbus and business welcomed the moves yesterday
Testing (and even thinking very hard) has rather gone out of fashion in the computer biz. Launch something that mostly works (minimum viable product) then fix it as the bug reports come in (or don't fix it because the team has moved on to something else). Move fast and break things, as Facebook used to say. Agile. There is no parallel with the government's approach to Brexit -- publish red lines then change them almost randomly as the EU rejects each one.
The real damage to Facebook is reputational. I hardly use it now, and log out when not using so that it stops tracing. Hypocritical of course as I use Twitter, Google etc
Why hypocritical?
As a consumer you are making a choice
It’s not like you are evangelising the use of Facebook while avoiding it yourself
I am sure other companies are just as cavalier with personal information. We live in the Panopticon nowadays.
As a user, I am the product, the consumer is the one who pays.
That just makes you selectively promiscuous, not hypocritical surely?
"honey, I didn't cheat on you, I was just selectively promiscuous"
Incidentally, someone here tipped Mbappe as Golden Ball (best player) of the Tournament. That was at around 5 or 4.7. Can be laid now at just over evens, for those interested.
I've also backed England to reach the final, just enough to cover my Croatia stake.
Parliament can do anything it likes. For example it could reintroduce slavery or pass a law banning ginger hair.
Does that mean it will? No.
Unfortunately recent events have rendered a 'Remain or soft Brexit' referendum almost as impossible as appointing a Nazi as Minister of Equalities (although I observe Labour hasn't noticed this). Leave with no deal would have to be on the ballot paper. There are too many MPs with Leave voting seats, quite apart from the head-bangers, who would be at risk otherwise.
It was only 52% Leave, and small proportion of those who get *really* upset at this are lost to the Tories if a deal goes through. Government + sundry opposition easily have the numbers.
But if the voters *really, really* wanted no-deal to be on the ballot paper then I suppose Mrs May could oblige.
What should Britain do? Vote only once by putting a cross [ X ] in the box next to your choice.
[ ] Leave the European Union without a deal [ ] Leave the European Union, accepting the deal negotiated by the government. [ ] Remain in the European Union
Well, I don't know whether you noticed but a couple of years ago we had a referendum in which people voted to Leave. Parliament then also voted to leave.
So we are leaving and the question is on what terms. That would be what a second referendum would be about, and why it would be as pointless and potentially damaging as trying to explain the mechanics of good teaching to an OFSTED inspector.
We're talking about what it would take to get a vote through parliament, and that depends on what MPs think should happen, not what you think should happen.
Unfortunately I am not talking about what I think should happen, I am talking about what has happened and why that rules out certain courses of action. The mere fact that there are too many people, starting with the PM and the EUC, right down to the humble and traumatised William, who do not wish to face the reality we're in and deal with it is an issue but doesn't alter either the past or the facts.
Brexit is not an unstoppable force of nature but a legal process that can be stopped - by mutual consent, certainly, and possibly unilaterally too but that theory probably wouldn't need to be tested.
Only with the consent of Parliament as Parliament and statute are supreme under pur constitution and legal system.
Plus 408 out of 650 House of Commons constituencies voted Leave
Good to see the current extent of aspirations of Leavers: the supermarkets will probably have food on the shelves. Not that the past sturdy pronouncements of Leavers mean that much faith can be put in those assurances.
Now that you're moving to the country, you'll have plenty of game to live off.
Labour going to the country having blocked an attempt at soft Brexit and therefore forcing us to WTO, maugre the wishes of the overwhelming majority of their voters?
It won't be Labour who blocked it, it will have been the ERG faction of the tories. Labour don't owe May any favours, pity or mercy and it's not up to them to deliver the government's program in the HoC.
Hmmm.
I am not sure their voters will quite see it that way.
Or to put it another way, they will see Labour siding with the ERG to deliver a hard Brexit.
Now that might suit Corbyn but I think there might be awkward conversations about it elsewhere with sane MPs and candidates.
I also do think there will be a number of Labour MPs sufficiently alarmed at this situation to wave through a deal. There are two groups who will support it:
1) Pragamatists. Their calculation will be otherwise the government splits, falls, they come in and the first thing they have to deal with is economic meltdown caused by no-deal for which they will get the blame.
2) Principled. They will vote because they believe if we can't stay in the EU we must stay as close as possible.
Let’s assume we get to October on a river of Euro-fudge.
How is May going to win a “meaningful” vote in the Commons? She doesn’t have the numbers if the ERGers are determined to be bloody minded.
She will if Labour supports the deal
Why would they? Corbyn could be PM if the Gov collapses and all he needs to do is spout some vague pablum about how he could have done better. They will want no responsibility for this.
Good to see the current extent of aspirations of Leavers: the supermarkets will probably have food on the shelves. Not that the past sturdy pronouncements of Leavers mean that much faith can be put in those assurances.
Considering that PB Remainers were claiming last summer that people would now be actually starving as the food banks emptied its easy to see who's been proved wrong.
Not to mention another PBer who thought there were no strawberries in the supermarkets last month.
Let’s assume we get to October on a river of Euro-fudge.
How is May going to win a “meaningful” vote in the Commons? She doesn’t have the numbers if the ERGers are determined to be bloody minded.
She will if Labour supports the deal
Why would they? Corbyn could be PM if the Gov collapses and all he needs to do is spout some vague pablum about how he could have done better.
If Corbyn is seen to put his narrow party interest against the National interest in an issue as huge as this is he could pay a very heavy price at the polls
Ha ha, the Trump haters are trying to get everyone to buy Green Day’s ‘American Idiot’, to get it to number one as Trump arrives in the U.K. on Friday.
Let’s assume we get to October on a river of Euro-fudge.
How is May going to win a “meaningful” vote in the Commons? She doesn’t have the numbers if the ERGers are determined to be bloody minded.
She will if Labour supports the deal
Why would they? Corbyn could be PM if the Gov collapses and all he needs to do is spout some vague pablum about how he could have done better. They will want no responsibility for this.
No Corbyn could not be PM if the Gov collapses without the DUP behind him and on current polls without the SNP and probably the LDs too.
Indeed any new election would likely see a revived UKIP under Farage added to the mix who could win a number of seats Labour and Tory with Leave votes over say 65%
Good to see the current extent of aspirations of Leavers: the supermarkets will probably have food on the shelves. Not that the past sturdy pronouncements of Leavers mean that much faith can be put in those assurances.
Considering that PB Remainers were claiming last summer that people would now be actually starving as the food banks emptied its easy to see who's been proved wrong.
Not to mention another PBer who thought there were no strawberries in the supermarkets last month.
Citation needed for either of those assertions.
PB Leavers have a long track record of making up claims about what their opponents said and then believing their own falsehoods.
Testing (and even thinking very hard) has rather gone out of fashion in the computer biz. Launch something that mostly works (minimum viable product) then fix it as the bug reports come in (or don't fix it because the team has moved on to something else). Move fast and break things, as Facebook used to say. Agile. There is no parallel with the government's approach to Brexit -- publish red lines then change them almost randomly as the EU rejects each one.
The real damage to Facebook is reputational. I hardly use it now, and log out when not using so that it stops tracing. Hypocritical of course as I use Twitter, Google etc
Why hypocritical?
As a consumer you are making a choice
It’s not like you are evangelising the use of Facebook while avoiding it yourself
I am sure other companies are just as cavalier with personal information. We live in the Panopticon nowadays.
As a user, I am the product, the consumer is the one who pays.
That just makes you selectively promiscuous, not hypocritical surely?
"honey, I didn't cheat on you, I was just selectively promiscuous"
Not sure that would work...
Upon careful consideration, I've decided not to test it.
Mr. Tokyo, a three option referendum would be... potentially terrible. If the 'winning' option has under 50%, as seems likely, it makes the mandate questionable at best. Plus, there are two leave options. If we stay in, it'll be argued, legitimately, that the ballot paper was designed to split the leave vote and unify the remain vote. If we go for the deal (the middle option) it could be argued that the ballot paper was designed to deliver to middle option as there's a bias, in odd-numbered multiple choice surveys, towards the middle (the not too hot, not too cold slant).
Good to see the current extent of aspirations of Leavers: the supermarkets will probably have food on the shelves. Not that the past sturdy pronouncements of Leavers mean that much faith can be put in those assurances.
Considering that PB Remainers were claiming last summer that people would now be actually starving as the food banks emptied its easy to see who's been proved wrong.
Not to mention another PBer who thought there were no strawberries in the supermarkets last month.
Citation needed for either of those assertions.
PB Leavers have a long track record of making up claims about what their opponents said and then believing their own falsehoods.
What should Britain do? Vote only once by putting a cross [ X ] in the box next to your choice.
[ ] Leave the European Union without a deal [ ] Leave the European Union, accepting the deal negotiated by the government. [ ] Remain in the European Union
The way out of this, for the majority of MP's who would prefer the UK to remain in the EU, but who want to respect that the final decision has to be made by the voters is to have those three options on the ballot paper, but to operate it by AV. there will be enough remainers to ensure that the Remain option gets to the final run-off and enough who will say that if we are going to be saddled with BINO, we might as well remain.
Thanks all for answering my question. With Boris on manoeuvres, I cannot see the hard Brexiters supporting any deal May is able to put to Parliament.
She therefore needs support from the Opposition benches.
Since Corbyn above all wants to trigger an election, I do not think he can support the vote. The ERGers will give him cover, since there will continue to be an illusion of a “better Brexit”.
Therefore, May needs Labour rebels. The only thing she has to offer is another referendum.
I am inclined to agree with William Glen that there is perfect neatness to this which may appeal to May’s clear psychological need to clear up the mess left by the overgrown schoolboys (Cameron, Osborne, Johnson).
Yes but as I said before a second referendum could be a no deal disaster as the public want to rebel against the political elite. In my opinion TM's deal is the only chance of limiting the damage unless of course there is a backlash against the Brexiteers when the situation could change yet again.
At least Airbus and business welcomed the moves yesterday
Except that the refefendum would be accept the deal or Remain.
No deal would be off the table, since the vote would be carried by the government, ie Parliament would vote to approve the Deal, subject to the consent of the public.
The no dealers, (implicitly, ERG + Corbynists + SNP) would be outvoted.
In the meantime, May will be indeed be stepping up prep for a no deal to show just fucking bonkers it is. Watch out for more powdered egg stories.
Mr. Tokyo, a three option referendum would be... potentially terrible. If the 'winning' option has under 50%, as seems likely, it makes the mandate questionable at best. Plus, there are two leave options. If we stay in, it'll be argued, legitimately, that the ballot paper was designed to split the leave vote and unify the remain vote. If we go for the deal (the middle option) it could be argued that the ballot paper was designed to deliver to middle option as there's a bias, in odd-numbered multiple choice surveys, towards the middle (the not too hot, not too cold slant).
Holding the vote under AV would solve all these problems.
Let’s assume we get to October on a river of Euro-fudge.
How is May going to win a “meaningful” vote in the Commons? She doesn’t have the numbers if the ERGers are determined to be bloody minded.
She will if Labour supports the deal
Why would they? Corbyn could be PM if the Gov collapses and all he needs to do is spout some vague pablum about how he could have done better.
If Corbyn is seen to put his narrow party interest against the National interest in an issue as huge as this is he could pay a very heavy price at the polls
I don't think that's how it woukd be seen by most, fairly or not. Governments take the biggest hit.
Mr. Tokyo, a three option referendum would be... potentially terrible. If the 'winning' option has under 50%, as seems likely, it makes the mandate questionable at best. Plus, there are two leave options. If we stay in, it'll be argued, legitimately, that the ballot paper was designed to split the leave vote and unify the remain vote. If we go for the deal (the middle option) it could be argued that the ballot paper was designed to deliver to middle option as there's a bias, in odd-numbered multiple choice surveys, towards the middle (the not too hot, not too cold slant).
I agree, objectively it's a terrible idea and smells of rat-fuckery. I only mentioned it because people up-thread were insisting the voters should get the chance to vote for no-deal.
I admire your constant references to superior intellect. As a point of interest do you think the people who needlessly called a referendum and lost it to people they call thickos are cleverer than the supposed thickos ?
I think May would win a no confidence vote next week about 65% to 35% which would be enough to secure her position for at least a year or two and focus on getting that transition deal. However the rebel vote would be big enough to come back again later.
In Australia for example former PM Julia Gillard, not too dissimilar to May, beat Rudd 70% to 30% in a February 2012 ALP leadership spill but lost 55% to 45% about a year and a half later in June 2013
Threatening to block other Government legislation would work in terms of making life impossible for Mrs May. Even the most anti-Corbyn and Europhile Opposition MP will not hesitate to vote against the Government on unrelated legislation, such as the Budget. I'm sceptical about the threat, though.
Let’s assume we get to October on a river of Euro-fudge.
How is May going to win a “meaningful” vote in the Commons? She doesn’t have the numbers if the ERGers are determined to be bloody minded.
Threaten that if they don't give her the votes she needs, she'll have no option but to do a deal with LD+SNP+Remaniac-Lab, who will require a re-referendum as the price of their support.
Please don't throw me into the briar patch etc etc.
Knowing this, if May wants to look strong and in control she will preempt them and announce that she wants to put it to the people before they have chance to hold her to ransom.
True, but I wonder if it isn't actually easier for the opposition members, especially Remainiac Lab, if it looks like they're forcing the concession. It's not generally a great look for opposition MPs to be saving the government, so they're better off with a setup of "Tory disunity let us extract this concession" rather than "The government wanted to do this, and we threw them a lifeline when they were drowning".
Once May has announced it, I think the political pressure on Labour MPs to back it would be overwhelming. If Corbyn tried to block it to force a GE instead it would to seen to be such a cynical move it would destroy the Labour party.
I also wonder if there isn't a loophole hidden in the Henry VIII powers to allow the government to bypass parliament on this.
Re your last senrtence - Do you want people rioting on the streets
The country can't be held to ransom by people who would riot on the streets.
Just challenge her already. She cannot fudge her already fudged deal, and she has the ostensible backing of those remaining in her cabinet. The unwillingness of May and her opponents to recognise they cannot find a compromise and need to Duke it out has been a major issue. They don't want to be blamed for provoking an internal spat, but it's past time they settle it.
Thanks all for answering my question. With Boris on manoeuvres, I cannot see the hard Brexiters supporting any deal May is able to put to Parliament.
She therefore needs support from the Opposition benches.
Since Corbyn above all wants to trigger an election, I do not think he can support the vote. The ERGers will give him cover, since there will continue to be an illusion of a “better Brexit”.
Therefore, May needs Labour rebels. The only thing she has to offer is another referendum.
I am inclined to agree with William Glen that there is perfect neatness to this which may appeal to May’s clear psychological need to clear up the mess left by the overgrown schoolboys (Cameron, Osborne, Johnson).
Yes but as I said before a second referendum could be a no deal disaster as the public want to rebel against the political elite. In my opinion TM's deal is the only chance of limiting the damage unless of course there is a backlash against the Brexiteers when the situation could change yet again.
At least Airbus and business welcomed the moves yesterday
Except that the refefendum would be accept the deal or Remain.
No deal would be off the table, since the vote would be carried by the government, ie Parliament would vote to approve the Deal, subject to the consent of the public.
The no dealers, (implicitly, ERG + Corbynists + SNP) would be outvoted.
In the meantime, May will be indeed be stepping up prep for a no deal to show just fucking bonkers it is. Watch out for more powdered egg stories.
what if you don't want to accept the deal but still Leave and accept the conseuences?
Good to see the current extent of aspirations of Leavers: the supermarkets will probably have food on the shelves. Not that the past sturdy pronouncements of Leavers mean that much faith can be put in those assurances.
Considering that PB Remainers were claiming last summer that people would now be actually starving as the food banks emptied its easy to see who's been proved wrong.
Not to mention another PBer who thought there were no strawberries in the supermarkets last month.
Citation needed for either of those assertions.
PB Leavers have a long track record of making up claims about what their opponents said and then believing their own falsehoods.
volcanopete 03/08/17:
' More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too. '
I don't have the time to track down any more right now but I'll let you have this as a bonus:
' In the meantime, Britain’s Standard & Poors credit rating has dropped two notches, the pound has suffered its biggest fall in one day against the dollar ever, markets around the world have crashed and recession is beckoning with a dark cloak, a skeletal finger and a voice that speaks in block capitals. '
Good to see the Remainers busy panicking today about which cunning scheme they can use to ignore the will of the people. What they are beginning to realise is that JRM's threat to vote down soft Brexit may very well work, because there is no reason why Labour would support the Government. Which is what I have been saying for months.
Of course, in all the scenarios they present (almost all of which involve the elite getting together and forcing their preferred option on the people) they miss the obvious one - that May or her replacement will have to go back to CETA as the solution.
As soon as May's plan has contact with the EU, they will demand more concessions and the events of the past few days show she cannot make them. So then we are looking at No Deal. And at that stage, hopefully wiser heads prevail and Boris and co will be busy pointing out that there is a perfectly obvious solution which would pass Parliament and not divide the people - CETA plus. With the added benefit that the useful idiot Varadkar will need to get thrown under the bus.
Threatening to block other Government legislation would work in terms of making life impossible for Mrs May. Even the most anti-Corbyn and Europhile Opposition MP will not hesitate to vote against the Government on unrelated legislation, such as the Budget. I'm sceptical about the threat, though.
Britain's all budgeted up until April, 2019, right? Aside from Brexit, is there anything else the government really, really needs to pass?
Hoping for the best tonight as Croatia are ranked only 20th compared to our 12=, but so far, we've only played one team ranked higher than us (Belgium) and they beat us.
France are ranked 7th.
On lesser matters, the EU may eventually make vaguely encouraging but patronising noises about the Chequers deal, which will confirm they want more. It doesn't matter as that deal was only to show who is being flexible here, and it's not the EU. The more fanatical Remainers will cheer the EU on, but the others will see them as being obdurate.
As long as FOM is sacrosanct, it's all politicking anyway.
Brexit wrangling affects everything, of course that means defence cannot be finalised yet . The many allies who are not even close to funding nato as they are supposed to are in no position to complain even if the usa is
Focus now turning to Trump at NATO as he rips into them over funding, and he is not joking. Lots of worried looks but on this I agree with him
So do I, but although there are worse offenders it is also true that the UKs capability has shrunk to an unacceptable level. If we had a real leader, we would be first out of the blocks agreeing with Trump and offering to up our game.
But Theresa the appeaser will no doubt be supporting the Europeans. Bad move.
Let’s assume we get to October on a river of Euro-fudge.
How is May going to win a “meaningful” vote in the Commons? She doesn’t have the numbers if the ERGers are determined to be bloody minded.
She will if Labour supports the deal
Why would they? Corbyn could be PM if the Gov collapses and all he needs to do is spout some vague pablum about how he could have done better.
If Corbyn is seen to put his narrow party interest against the National interest in an issue as huge as this is he could pay a very heavy price at the polls
I don't think that's how it woukd be seen by most, fairly or not. Governments take the biggest hit.
Exactly. Iraq (Tory supported) and the 2018 financial crisis (before which Tories wanted more deregulation) are two obvious examples. The Tories foisted this whole escapade on us, and are now responsible for implementing the outcome; they are tied to it and its consequences.
Good to see the current extent of aspirations of Leavers: the supermarkets will probably have food on the shelves. Not that the past sturdy pronouncements of Leavers mean that much faith can be put in those assurances.
Considering that PB Remainers were claiming last summer that people would now be actually starving as the food banks emptied its easy to see who's been proved wrong.
Not to mention another PBer who thought there were no strawberries in the supermarkets last month.
Citation needed for either of those assertions.
PB Leavers have a long track record of making up claims about what their opponents said and then believing their own falsehoods.
Good to see the current extent of aspirations of Leavers: the supermarkets will probably have food on the shelves. Not that the past sturdy pronouncements of Leavers mean that much faith can be put in those assurances.
Considering that PB Remainers were claiming last summer that people would now be actually starving as the food banks emptied its easy to see who's been proved wrong.
Not to mention another PBer who thought there were no strawberries in the supermarkets last month.
Citation needed for either of those assertions.
PB Leavers have a long track record of making up claims about what their opponents said and then believing their own falsehoods.
volcanopete 03/08/17:
' More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too. '
I don't have the time to track down any more right now but I'll let you have this as a bonus:
' In the meantime, Britain’s Standard & Poors credit rating has dropped two notches, the pound has suffered its biggest fall in one day against the dollar ever, markets around the world have crashed and recession is beckoning with a dark cloak, a skeletal finger and a voice that speaks in block capitals. '
Hoping for the best tonight as Croatia are ranked only 20th compared to our 12=, but so far, we've only played one team ranked higher than us (Belgium) and they beat us.
France are ranked 7th.
On lesser matters, the EU may eventually make vaguely encouraging but patronising noises about the Chequers deal, which will confirm they want more. It doesn't matter as that deal was only to show who is being flexible here, and it's not the EU. The more fanatical Remainers will cheer the EU on, but the others will see them as being obdurate.
As long as FOM is sacrosanct, it's all politicking anyway.
On rankings it should be England vs France final. But I think Croatia are going to be very hard to beat.
Happily, I'm all green. So my wallet at least can relax.
Thanks all for answering my question. With Boris on manoeuvres, I cannot see the hard Brexiters supporting any deal May is able to put to Parliament.
She therefore needs support from the Opposition benches.
Since Corbyn above all wants to trigger an election, I do not think he can support the vote. The ERGers will give him cover, since there will continue to be an illusion of a “better Brexit”.
Therefore, May needs Labour rebels. The only thing she has to offer is another referendum.
I am inclined to agree with William Glen that there is perfect neatness to this which may appeal to May’s clear psychological need to clear up the mess left by the overgrown schoolboys (Cameron, Osborne, Johnson).
Yes but as I said before a second referendum could be a no deal disaster as the public want to rebel against the political elite. In my opinion TM's deal is the only chance of limiting the damage unless of course there is a backlash against the Brexiteers when the situation could change yet again.
At least Airbus and business welcomed the moves yesterday
Except that the refefendum would be accept the deal or Remain.
No deal would be off the table, since the vote would be carried by the government, ie Parliament would vote to approve the Deal, subject to the consent of the public.
The no dealers, (implicitly, ERG + Corbynists + SNP) would be outvoted.
In the meantime, May will be indeed be stepping up prep for a no deal to show just fucking bonkers it is. Watch out for more powdered egg stories.
what if you don't want to accept the deal but still Leave and accept the conseuences?
don't you get a choice ?
No. Because there is no available majority in Parliament for it.
And because it’s also fucking demented.
I have some sympathy with Leavers in that there *was* (and I guess potentially still is) a non disastrous path to Leave. However it required: - Not exercising A50 straight away - Exiting via EEA for a period, which meant conceding FOM for quite a long time (eg 10 years) - Being honest with the British public about what Leaving entails, including trade offs.
All of the above were sadly beyond the Brexit leadership, who opted for a policy of cake-ism, egged on by the foam-speckled support of the Mail and the Telegraph.
Good to see the current extent of aspirations of Leavers: the supermarkets will probably have food on the shelves. Not that the past sturdy pronouncements of Leavers mean that much faith can be put in those assurances.
Considering that PB Remainers were claiming last summer that people would now be actually starving as the food banks emptied its easy to see who's been proved wrong.
Not to mention another PBer who thought there were no strawberries in the supermarkets last month.
Citation needed for either of those assertions.
PB Leavers have a long track record of making up claims about what their opponents said and then believing their own falsehoods.
volcanopete 03/08/17:
' More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too. '
I don't have the time to track down any more right now but I'll let you have this as a bonus:
' In the meantime, Britain’s Standard & Poors credit rating has dropped two notches, the pound has suffered its biggest fall in one day against the dollar ever, markets around the world have crashed and recession is beckoning with a dark cloak, a skeletal finger and a voice that speaks in block capitals. '
Just challenge her already. She cannot fudge her already fudged deal, and she has the ostensible backing of those remaining in her cabinet. The unwillingness of May and her opponents to recognise they cannot find a compromise and need to Duke it out has been a major issue. They don't want to be blamed for provoking an internal spat, but it's past time they settle it.
That sounds sensible, but from the rebels' point of view, the longer this goes on the less she can fudge, and that makes their position stronger.
OTOH, as it gets closer to the deadline MPs will get more nervous a leadership election crashing them into the deadline.
I'm not sure exactly where the curve peaks for the rebels but it might be a little bit longer.
I'm afraid that far too many people feel that it is acceptable to talk in such terms. There's a direct continuum from such claims to far right extremists who plot terrorist attacks. But far too many who claim to be mainstream have no interest in taking any responsibility for dousing down the fires of the extremists, preferring to stoke them up.
Comments
BORRRRRRRRL
But as Charles said in a post the other week: the amazing thing is the way the great and good bought into the charade, for instance Kissinger and Murdoch (though Murdoch comes out generally well in the story). A bunch of old rich fools saying that as other old rich fools were involved, it must be legit. How can the plebs complaining be telling the truth when so many good, influential people were on the board ...
I can highly recommend the book: it's very well written, and fortunately is not too technical (perhaps because Theranos failed to develop anything particularly worth describing technically).
Does that mean it will? No.
Unfortunately recent events have rendered a 'Remain or soft Brexit' referendum almost as impossible as appointing a Nazi as Minister of Equalities (although I observe Labour hasn't noticed this). Leave with no deal would have to be on the ballot paper. There are too many MPs with Leave voting seats, quite apart from the head-bangers, who would be at risk otherwise.
With Boris on manoeuvres, I cannot see the hard Brexiters supporting any deal May is able to put to Parliament.
She therefore needs support from the Opposition benches.
Since Corbyn above all wants to trigger an election, I do not think he can support the vote. The ERGers will give him cover, since there will continue to be an illusion of a “better Brexit”.
Therefore, May needs Labour rebels.
The only thing she has to offer is another referendum.
I am inclined to agree with William Glen that there is perfect neatness to this which may appeal to May’s clear psychological need to clear up the mess left by the overgrown schoolboys (Cameron, Osborne, Johnson).
I wish the company buenos dias.
At least Airbus and business welcomed the moves yesterday
When Brown took over as PM there was also no general election for 3 years and when Major took over no general election for almost 2 years.
I've also backed England to reach the final, just enough to cover my Croatia stake.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/11/central-europe-lesson-liberals-anti-nationalist-yugoslavia-poland-hungary
But if the voters *really, really* wanted no-deal to be on the ballot paper then I suppose Mrs May could oblige.
What should Britain do? Vote only once by putting a cross [ X ] in the box next to your choice.
[ ] Leave the European Union without a deal
[ ] Leave the European Union, accepting the deal negotiated by the government.
[ ] Remain in the European Union
Plus 408 out of 650 House of Commons constituencies voted Leave
Not to mention another PBer who thought there were no strawberries in the supermarkets last month.
https://twitter.com/gabyhinsliff/status/1016934085476970497
Its midweek chart position: 18.
Midweek number one? Three Lions!
Indeed any new election would likely see a revived UKIP under Farage added to the mix who could win a number of seats Labour and Tory with Leave votes over say 65%
PB Leavers have a long track record of making up claims about what their opponents said and then believing their own falsehoods.
https://twitter.com/TheHirstComment/status/1016940491022233600
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1016940813224464384
I take it there are no mirrors in your house ?
No deal would be off the table, since the vote would be carried by the government, ie Parliament would vote to approve the Deal, subject to the consent of the public.
The no dealers, (implicitly, ERG + Corbynists + SNP) would be outvoted.
In the meantime, May will be indeed be stepping up prep for a no deal to show just fucking bonkers it is. Watch out for more powdered egg stories.
I admire your constant references to superior intellect. As a point of interest do you think the people who needlessly called a referendum and lost it to people they call thickos are cleverer than the supposed thickos ?
In Australia for example former PM Julia Gillard, not too dissimilar to May, beat Rudd 70% to 30% in a February 2012 ALP leadership spill but lost 55% to 45% about a year and a half later in June 2013
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2018/07/11/theresa-may-guilty-treason-plenty-readers-think-politicians/
don't you get a choice ?
' More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too. '
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/08/03/leader-constitutional-expert-and-camerons-former-tutor-thinks-a-second-referendum-now-likely/#vanilla-comments
I don't have the time to track down any more right now but I'll let you have this as a bonus:
' In the meantime, Britain’s Standard & Poors credit rating has dropped two notches, the pound has suffered its biggest fall in one day against the dollar ever, markets around the world have crashed and recession is beckoning with a dark cloak, a skeletal finger and a voice that speaks in block capitals. '
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/29/alistair-meeks-on-the-political-and-economic-crises-of-breathtaking-proportions/
Of course, in all the scenarios they present (almost all of which involve the elite getting together and forcing their preferred option on the people) they miss the obvious one - that May or her replacement will have to go back to CETA as the solution.
As soon as May's plan has contact with the EU, they will demand more concessions and the events of the past few days show she cannot make them. So then we are looking at No Deal. And at that stage, hopefully wiser heads prevail and Boris and co will be busy pointing out that there is a perfectly obvious solution which would pass Parliament and not divide the people - CETA plus. With the added benefit that the useful idiot Varadkar will need to get thrown under the bus.
The prime quality needed to be a Brexiteer appears to be cowardice
France are ranked 7th.
On lesser matters, the EU may eventually make vaguely encouraging but patronising noises about the Chequers deal, which will confirm they want more. It doesn't matter as that deal was only to show who is being flexible here, and it's not the EU. The more fanatical Remainers will cheer the EU on, but the others will see them as being obdurate.
As long as FOM is sacrosanct, it's all politicking anyway.
But Theresa the appeaser will no doubt be supporting the Europeans. Bad move.
Happily, I'm all green. So my wallet at least can relax.
And because it’s also fucking demented.
I have some sympathy with Leavers in that there *was* (and I guess potentially still is) a non disastrous path to Leave. However it required:
- Not exercising A50 straight away
- Exiting via EEA for a period, which meant conceding FOM for quite a long time (eg 10 years)
- Being honest with the British public about what Leaving entails, including trade offs.
All of the above were sadly beyond the Brexit leadership, who opted for a policy of cake-ism,
egged on by the foam-speckled support of the Mail and the Telegraph.
You think the referendum was needless. You were quite happy with the status quo.
That seems at odds with many of your posts...
Let's try not to bring the government down whilst I'm busy.
I wouldn't want to miss it.
Have a good day AM.
OTOH, as it gets closer to the deadline MPs will get more nervous a leadership election crashing them into the deadline.
I'm not sure exactly where the curve peaks for the rebels but it might be a little bit longer.