Putin wins. He is richer, more powerful in his home territory, more alpha male
Is there anything else these two care about?
I dislike Putin intensely (or, more accurately, I dislike his methods), but he is undoubtedly a patriot who genuinely cares for, and wants the best for, his country. It's just that he sees the best for his country is for him to be leader.
Of course he doesn't want what's best for Russia. He's destroying it: politically, socially and economically. V.V.P. is just the gnomish henchman of the 110 people who own 35% of the Russian economy. Ironically, under his leadership Russia has become exactly the type of county that Soviet propaganda told its citizens the West was like; corrupt from top to bottom with wealth concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite.
Khordokovsky and other oligarchs Putin has jailed may disagree
On what grounds ?
The blatantly obvious grounds that if the President has put you in jail it hardly shows you have him under your control.
On most estimates Putin is the richest man in Russia anyway
Who claimed that the 'elite' had Putin under their control ? He is at the apex of the pyramid. Like any elite, there are factions within it, and Putin is adept at playing them off against each other.
And I made precisely the point about Putin's own wealth below (and by some estimates he is the world's wealthiest man).
Can anyone explain to me what is the point of the ERG, Jacob Rees Mogg and his pals arguing that Mays plan has given too much ground to the EU and that she should demaind more concessions from them. The reality is it is extremely unlikely that the EU will even accept Mays plan without radical changes to it, so the chances that they will accept a deal that Rees Mogg wants is just plain fantasy. I do not understand why they are not questionned more on this point.
The reality is that until you put the EUs feet to the fire, you will have no idea what concessions you can achieve from Brussels.
Your mindset is that of those civil servants who have been advising May - and Cameron before her. That nothing can be achieved. That nothing has been achieved is testament to that view having won out. Because the EU has never believed that the UK would go out with no £40 billion cheque on WTO terms, in the same way that the EU never believed Cameron would support Leave.
Both represent a fundamental failure to negotiate.
So you really think if May just walked away that the concessions would start flowing from the EU?
Let's find out, eh?
I think that will happen anyway as the EU will turn down May's plan and she knows there is no further that she can go.
It is looking by far the likeliest outcome. And is why the Brexiteers - bar the marker put down by Davis and Johnson - are waiting for the EU response. Given May has nowhere else to go other than capitulation or no deal exit, it is the strategy that most Brexiteers would have pursued themselves.
The Mirror polling suggests there is far less political downside to standing up to the EU than in rolling over and accepting Brussel's terms of unilateral surrender. Who knew?
Mr. rkrkrk, wasn't there a suggestion here that the result had leaked, with one chap (can't recall if it was Modric) having his odds fall significantly?
Not quite. I tipped up Luka Modric several times, as had others. At the end, Modric's price drifted out which I said was either good value or a sign that the result had leaked. Pogba was backed into 1.01. I added some 4/1 Modric on value grounds, but not as much as I should have done in case the layers already knew he'd lost.
Mr. rkrkrk, wasn't there a suggestion here that the result had leaked, with one chap (can't recall if it was Modric) having his odds fall significantly?
Yes - although I think it was the reverse... that his odds were quite generous, and that therefore perhaps that was because others already knew who had won. Even in the final, I thought Modric ran the midfield, but the commentariat didn't seem to notice this.
If Mbappe had taken his chances, then I suspect he would have gotten it anyway.
Except for hedging the Mbappe best player bet, I managed to get every single World Cup bet wrong. That's quite the statistical achievement.
I tipped Modric and de Bruyne for best player, but stupidly decided to cash out before realising much of a profit.
Amateur! That's not how you screw up your betting: this is. I'd taken 33/1 Anderson at Wimbledon but got the start time wrong by an hour so was too late to take a profit because by the time I fired up Betfair, Djokovic was home and hosed -- and was lucky to escape at the end with just a £5 loss after Anderson showed some sign of life in the final set.
Can anyone explain to me what is the point of the ERG, Jacob Rees Mogg and his pals arguing that Mays plan has given too much ground to the EU and that she should demaind more concessions from them. The reality is it is extremely unlikely that the EU will even accept Mays plan without radical changes to it, so the chances that they will accept a deal that Rees Mogg wants is just plain fantasy. I do not understand why they are not questionned more on this point.
The reality is that until you put the EUs feet to the fire, you will have no idea what concessions you can achieve from Brussels.
Your mindset is that of those civil servants who have been advising May - and Cameron before her. That nothing can be achieved. That nothing has been achieved is testament to that view having won out. Because the EU has never believed that the UK would go out with no £40 billion cheque on WTO terms, in the same way that the EU never believed Cameron would support Leave.
Both represent a fundamental failure to negotiate.
So you really think if May just walked away that the concessions would start flowing from the EU?
Let's find out, eh?
I think that will happen anyway as the EU will turn down May's plan and she knows there is no further that she can go.
Yes, probably. We've gone as far as we can for a deal, in fact it is likely without labour or some remainers the proposal is something we cannot deliver anyway. Even if the EU try saying it is 80% ok but the rest needs work May cannot do more. They surely know that now, so if they will not or cannot bend then must know it is no deal or remain.
If the hard leavers think no deal is more popular they should take the risk of a three way referendum. People don't like fudged deals even if they are good, and no one seems to think this one is, and right now no deal woukd probably win over re remain.
Tables aren't up yet - but more data from that Mirror/ComRes poll:
An exclusive ComRes survey shows 39% think the Prime Minister “should accept a no deal and the UK simply leave the EU”.
Just 20% believe she should press ahead with her Chequers plans for a soft Brexit.....
Some 51% of Tory voters want a no-deal Brexit, compared with 26% of Labour supporters.
A quarter of voters, rising to 36% of Labour supporters but just 16% of Tory voters, want her to ask for an extension to the March deadline for a deal.
Can anyone explain to me what is the point of the ERG, Jacob Rees Mogg and his pals arguing that Mays plan has given too much ground to the EU and that she should demaind more concessions from them. The reality is it is extremely unlikely that the EU will even accept Mays plan without radical changes to it, so the chances that they will accept a deal that Rees Mogg wants is just plain fantasy. I do not understand why they are not questionned more on this point.
The reality is that until you put the EUs feet to the fire, you will have no idea what concessions you can achieve from Brussels.
Your mindset is that of those civil servants who have been advising May - and Cameron before her. That nothing can be achieved. That nothing has been achieved is testament to that view having won out. Because the EU has never believed that the UK would go out with no £40 billion cheque on WTO terms, in the same way that the EU never believed Cameron would support Leave.
Both represent a fundamental failure to negotiate.
So you really think if May just walked away that the concessions would start flowing from the EU?
Let's find out, eh?
I think that will happen anyway as the EU will turn down May's plan and she knows there is no further that she can go.
Yes, probably. We've gone as far as we can for a deal, in fact it is likely without labour or some remainers the proposal is something we cannot deliver anyway. Even if the EU try saying it is 80% ok but the rest needs work May cannot do more. They surely know that now, so if they will not or cannot bend then must know it is no deal or remain.
If the hard leavers think no deal is more popular they should take the risk of a three way referendum....
This tends towards my view. Everyone is claiming that they know what the electorate wants; I'm not convinced anyone has much of a clue (I certainly don't). Parliament obviously doesn't have any settled view.
Why is Putin having Trump attend a meeting in this way when it risks so undermining him? Is it just because he can? It seems an extravagant demonstration of power.
For Trump it is hard to see any upsides on this. At a time when his team are facing indictments back in the US it borders on foolhardy. I am pretty sure he would not be doing it if he felt he had a choice.
Russia invited over a whole bunch of GOP Congress people for meetings on the 4th of July and then proceeded to humiliate them on Russia television.
This is a dog licking its bollocks situation. Becasue they can.
Ahem, some one or two moons ago I noted the reasoning behind a call for a second referendum and we appear to be here.
I don't like the loaded nature of the question, however; it is effectively asking: shall we award next year's Premiership to:
a) Arsenal with their old manager b) Arsenal with a new manager c) Chelsea
I don't see how, if there were a second referendum, about which I have mixed feelings, it could not just ask the in/out question again.
The justification for a second referendum (absent a huge shift in public opinion towards remain) is that Parliament cannot agree on how to implement it. Having another vote on in/out is hardly going to help is the result is still 52/48 for leave.
Years ago, I was betting on Strictly. It was early days for me so the bets were small. The last three (semi-final stage) were Lisa Snowdon, Rachel Stevens and Tom Chambers. I was very green on Snowdon, green on Stevens and red on Chambers.
Bit uncomfortable because Snowdon was the weakest dancer so I thought she was done for.
Then the scores came in from the judges and it was destined (because Snowdon and Stevens tied ahead of Chambers) that Chambers would be in the dance-off regardless of how the public voted, then would lose as his dance that night was clearly the weakest.
Huzzah, I thought.
And then the BBC decided to throw the rulebook out of the window and allowed all three to the final anyway. Impressed I was not. Chambers, BBC golden boy that he was, won.
Ahem, some one or two moons ago I noted the reasoning behind a call for a second referendum and we appear to be here.
I don't like the loaded nature of the question, however; it is effectively asking: shall we award next year's Premiership to:
a) Arsenal with their old manager b) Arsenal with a new manager c) Chelsea
I don't see how, if there were a second referendum, about which I have mixed feelings, it could not just ask the in/out question again.
The justification for a second referendum (absent a huge shift in public opinion towards remain) is that Parliament cannot agree on how to implement it. Having another vote on in/out is hardly going to help is the result is still 52/48 for leave.
I agree. A second referendum is hugely problematic. It is why I think that whatever transpires, hard, soft, chequers, no deal, would be legitimate, no matter how messy the process, or unfavourable the economic outcome.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), be fair. The electorate deserve another chance to get the answer right. It's like resitting an exam. You should be grateful for the patience the political class are showing the electorate.
Has anyone ever asked the British public what they believe a No Deal actually entails?
I should imagine a fair few would favour free sports cars for everyone and an end to speed limits if they were asked. Not sure it would make for a coherent budget or road safety policy, but it would make them feel good as they took back control of their roads.
Has anyone ever asked the British public what they believe a No Deal actually entails?
Indeed - I am becoming more and more convinced May should keep on pressing for her deal, and the Tories bite the bullet and accept some months or even years of bad polling, since it at least buys time. Ask people if they want to make concessions or not and what do you think they will say?
Tables aren't up yet - but more data from that Mirror/ComRes poll:
An exclusive ComRes survey shows 39% think the Prime Minister “should accept a no deal and the UK simply leave the EU”.
Just 20% believe she should press ahead with her Chequers plans for a soft Brexit.....
Some 51% of Tory voters want a no-deal Brexit, compared with 26% of Labour supporters.
A quarter of voters, rising to 36% of Labour supporters but just 16% of Tory voters, want her to ask for an extension to the March deadline for a deal.
As per my previous question, I do wonder how many people actually understand what just leaving the EU means in practice. It would be really good to get some polling on this.
I'm puzzled. Some of the more virulent Leavers seem to want to trash Theresa May's White Paper on the grounds that it's not what people voted for, and they'd rather go to WTO terms and 'no deal' (by which hopefully they mean no trade deal, not literally the chaos of no deal).
Yet on the Vote Leave website, I see that one of the selling points of a Leave vote was that "There is a free trade area from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border, and we will be part of it"
So it rather seems to me that one thing can say with complete certainty is that crashing out to WTO terms would not respect the referendum result, whereas Theresa May's proposals are close to what Vote Leave advocated.
The interesting thing about this is not so much who said it as that it offers an option that gives a chance BOTH to Remain and to hard Brexit, as an alternative to the "muddle through to the least bad fudge" approach which the Government is taking. As such, I can see it having attractions to Labour and thence to a majority in the Commons. I suspect that people might vote for the May plan as the middle option anyway, but possibly not - in an AV approach, the plan with fewest first-place choices loses.
It's a high risk gamble for both Leavers and Remainers who are opposed to the proposals. The former may get Remain, or the latter No Deal.
Yes, it is. But I know Remainers who think - liker Peter Mandelson and Chuka Umunna, apparently - that a fudged outcome as an EU satellite is worse than a soberly negotiated No Deal (i.e. WTO and practical arrangements like air traffic control). Their rationale is that it'd be better to give Hard Brexit a try and if it's horrible then the prospects for rejoining would be better than if we orbit indefinitely as a satellite. It's a bit like the view I get from some Tories that Britain needs to have one electoral cycle of Corbynism to make people remember the virtues of Conservativism.
In the same way, they concede in the abstract that if it actually works out well, fair enough.
The Mirror polling suggests there is far less political downside to standing up to the EU than in rolling over and accepting Brussel's terms of unilateral surrender. Who knew?
I think you're right in terms of how it plays for the Tories in the immediate months, and maybe that's as far ahead as they can afford to look right now. But as I've said a couple of times, some of their forward thinkers might be wondering how a victorious Tory govt in 2023 with a stonking patriotic majority and UKIP buried once again sells a tanking economy.
(And again.. yes, I appreciate views are split between Brexit's sunny uplands and 'despite Brexit' doom-mongers. But even some of Brexit's brightest minds are worried about the impact of a no-deal)
Mr. Palmer, do you think, on that basis, we could end up with a strange alliance between strong Remain and Leave types, both of whom prefer a chance of their perfect option over the generally condemned fudge that May is proposing, and that that might leave to Referendum 2: Refer Harder?
I'm puzzled. Some of the more virulent Leavers seem to want to trash Theresa May's White Paper on the grounds that it's not what people voted for, and they'd rather go to WTO terms and 'no deal' (by which hopefully they mean no trade deal, not literally the chaos of no deal).
Yet on the Vote Leave website, I see that one of the selling points of a Leave vote was that "There is a free trade area from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border, and we will be part of it"
So it rather seems to me that one thing can say with complete certainty is that crashing out to WTO terms would not respect the referendum result, whereas Theresa May's proposals are close to what Vote Leave advocated.
I'm puzzled. Some of the more virulent Leavers seem to want to trash Theresa May's White Paper on the grounds that it's not what people voted for, and they'd rather go to WTO terms and 'no deal' (by which hopefully they mean no trade deal, not literally the chaos of no deal).
Yet on the Vote Leave website, I see that one of the selling points of a Leave vote was that "There is a free trade area from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border, and we will be part of it"
So it rather seems to me that one thing can say with complete certainty is that crashing out to WTO terms would not respect the referendum result, whereas Theresa May's proposals are close to what Vote Leave advocated.
I'm puzzled. Some of the more virulent Leavers seem to want to trash Theresa May's White Paper on the grounds that it's not what people voted for, and they'd rather go to WTO terms and 'no deal' (by which hopefully they mean no trade deal, not literally the chaos of no deal).
Yet on the Vote Leave website, I see that one of the selling points of a Leave vote was that "There is a free trade area from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border, and we will be part of it"
So it rather seems to me that one thing can say with complete certainty is that crashing out to WTO terms would not respect the referendum result, whereas Theresa May's proposals are close to what Vote Leave advocated.
Yet on the Vote Leave website, I see that one of the selling points of a Leave vote was that "There is a free trade area from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border, and we will be part of it"
So it rather seems to me that one thing can say with complete certainty is that crashing out to WTO terms would not respect the referendum result, whereas Theresa May's proposals are close to what Vote Leave advocated.
I think what (they would say) we missed is that the EU quickly ruled out free trade without free movement/ECJ oversight, so given a choice they'd sooner lose all three.
Tables aren't up yet - but more data from that Mirror/ComRes poll:
An exclusive ComRes survey shows 39% think the Prime Minister “should accept a no deal and the UK simply leave the EU”.
Just 20% believe she should press ahead with her Chequers plans for a soft Brexit.....
Some 51% of Tory voters want a no-deal Brexit, compared with 26% of Labour supporters.
A quarter of voters, rising to 36% of Labour supporters but just 16% of Tory voters, want her to ask for an extension to the March deadline for a deal.
As per my previous question, I do wonder how many people actually understand what just leaving the EU means in practice. It would be really good to get some polling on this.
I rather suspect the Great British Public don't care that much or indeed stress about it like political anoraks do.
It's hot. Love Island is on TV and the schools break up this week, there are more important things to spend time on.
If there is a referendum there won't be an option of 'stay in the EU'. Either way the framework and public appetite isn't there for another referendum with the exception of some twitter users. I suspect a variation of the Chequers deal will be accepted and I'd be more than happy with that.
Mr. Brom, there is a clear majority of Remain MPs in the Commons. I'd be somewhat surprised if we had a referendum and the option of remaining were not on it.
I'm puzzled. Some of the more virulent Leavers seem to want to trash Theresa May's White Paper on the grounds that it's not what people voted for, and they'd rather go to WTO terms and 'no deal' (by which hopefully they mean no trade deal, not literally the chaos of no deal).
Yet on the Vote Leave website, I see that one of the selling points of a Leave vote was that "There is a free trade area from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border, and we will be part of it"
So it rather seems to me that one thing can say with complete certainty is that crashing out to WTO terms would not respect the referendum result, whereas Theresa May's proposals are close to what Vote Leave advocated.
The Mirror polling suggests there is far less political downside to standing up to the EU than in rolling over and accepting Brussel's terms of unilateral surrender. Who knew?
I think you're right in terms of how it plays for the Tories in the immediate months, and maybe that's as far ahead as they can afford to look right now. But as I've said a couple of times, some of their forward thinkers might be wondering how a victorious Tory govt in 2023 with a stonking patriotic majority and UKIP buried once again sells a tanking economy.
(And again.. yes, I appreciate views are split between Brexit's sunny uplands and 'despite Brexit' doom-mongers. But even some of Brexit's brightest minds are worried about the impact of a no-deal)
On WTO terms, the EU starts to pay tariffs on certain types of goods entering the UK and EU-wide supply chains come to an end, so making EU imports of whole products more important than they have been previously while causing large-scale loss of high-paid British manufacturing jobs. Meanwhile, UK providers of services lose their ability to operate in the single market. We have a surplus on services exports with the EU. A deficit on goods. I am struggling to see those sunny uplands, I have to say.
Who claimed that the 'elite' had Putin under their control ? He is at the apex of the pyramid. Like any elite, there are factions within it, and Putin is adept at playing them off against each other.
And I made precisely the point about Putin's own wealth below (and by some estimates he is the world's wealthiest man).
Because Putin doesn't really show off his wealth ostentatiously (luxury private planes, gold jewellery, etc.), I don't think Russians are that bothered (the same is true in Britain - people don't like Osborne and Mandy swanning about on millionaire yachts, but they're not that upset that some senior politicians are in private really very rich indeed). He's really about being seen as a tough, competent bloke who is putting Russia back as a world leader, and as long as he succeeds in putting that across, Russians will compare with the chaos of Yeltsin et al and think this is a pretty good bargain. Being mates with Trump fits nicely with that.
Tables aren't up yet - but more data from that Mirror/ComRes poll:
An exclusive ComRes survey shows 39% think the Prime Minister “should accept a no deal and the UK simply leave the EU”.
Just 20% believe she should press ahead with her Chequers plans for a soft Brexit.....
Some 51% of Tory voters want a no-deal Brexit, compared with 26% of Labour supporters.
A quarter of voters, rising to 36% of Labour supporters but just 16% of Tory voters, want her to ask for an extension to the March deadline for a deal.
As per my previous question, I do wonder how many people actually understand what just leaving the EU means in practice. It would be really good to get some polling on this.
As even the most well informed commentators seem unable to agree just what leaving the EU means in practice, I'd be astonished if the majority of the electorate have any understanding that they hold in common.
I'm puzzled. Some of the more virulent Leavers seem to want to trash Theresa May's White Paper on the grounds that it's not what people voted for, and they'd rather go to WTO terms and 'no deal' (by which hopefully they mean no trade deal, not literally the chaos of no deal).
Yet on the Vote Leave website, I see that one of the selling points of a Leave vote was that "There is a free trade area from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border, and we will be part of it"
So it rather seems to me that one thing can say with complete certainty is that crashing out to WTO terms would not respect the referendum result, whereas Theresa May's proposals are close to what Vote Leave advocated.
Essentially we should not have had a referendum previously as we are not a referenda democracy, and having another one will not create any more clarity. We can see that deluded headbangers such as JRM et al will always claim that it meant what they are uniquely able to interpret what the electorate wanted, even though there was no discussion of "hard" v "soft" brexit during the campaign. Indeed, Farage kept banging on about Norway - he seems quiet about that now. The choice now is almost certain large scale economic damage under WTO, or the Chequers plan which limits the damage, but is neither one thing or the other. What will we gain that is positive for this period of collective insanity? Absolutely nothing! Well done the Euroseptics. Right wing Tory nationalist irrational eurosceptism is as damaging to the national interest as socialism.
The Mirror polling suggests there is far less political downside to standing up to the EU than in rolling over and accepting Brussel's terms of unilateral surrender. Who knew?
I think you're right in terms of how it plays for the Tories in the immediate months, and maybe that's as far ahead as they can afford to look right now. But as I've said a couple of times, some of their forward thinkers might be wondering how a victorious Tory govt in 2023 with a stonking patriotic majority and UKIP buried once again sells a tanking economy.
(And again.. yes, I appreciate views are split between Brexit's sunny uplands and 'despite Brexit' doom-mongers. But even some of Brexit's brightest minds are worried about the impact of a no-deal)
I'm sure some of Brussel's brightest minds are also worried about the impact of a no-deal too. No deal reflects the complete failure of negotiations. That failure cannot be solely laid at the door of the UK, especially after the Chequers White Paper has been offered.
Has anyone ever asked the British public what they believe a No Deal actually entails?
Indeed - I am becoming more and more convinced May should keep on pressing for her deal, and the Tories bite the bullet and accept some months or even years of bad polling, since it at least buys time. Ask people if they want to make concessions or not and what do you think they will say?
The people have been asked - they said the EU is crap.
Now the govt should follow that guide and get us out.
If the public don't like the deal they will let the politicians know at the next election.
Now get on with it and leave the public alone to enjoy the summer - stop asking us to do your job.
"We will build a new European institutional architecture that enables all countries, whether in or out of the EU or euro, to trade freely and cooperate in a friendly way."
If there is a referendum there won't be an option of 'stay in the EU'. Either way the framework and public appetite isn't there for another referendum with the exception of some twitter users. I suspect a variation of the Chequers deal will be accepted and I'd be more than happy with that.
If that is true, why would the suggested referendum not be a good idea from the point of view of those happy with May's deal if parliament refuses to agree to it ?
Tables aren't up yet - but more data from that Mirror/ComRes poll:
An exclusive ComRes survey shows 39% think the Prime Minister “should accept a no deal and the UK simply leave the EU”.
Just 20% believe she should press ahead with her Chequers plans for a soft Brexit.....
Some 51% of Tory voters want a no-deal Brexit, compared with 26% of Labour supporters.
A quarter of voters, rising to 36% of Labour supporters but just 16% of Tory voters, want her to ask for an extension to the March deadline for a deal.
As per my previous question, I do wonder how many people actually understand what just leaving the EU means in practice. It would be really good to get some polling on this.
I rather suspect the Great British Public don't care that much or indeed stress about it like political anoraks do.
It's hot. Love Island is on TV and the schools break up this week, there are more important things to spend time on.
I rather suspect that you are absolutely right. They have absolutely no idea what it would entail in practice.
Tables aren't up yet - but more data from that Mirror/ComRes poll:
An exclusive ComRes survey shows 39% think the Prime Minister “should accept a no deal and the UK simply leave the EU”.
Just 20% believe she should press ahead with her Chequers plans for a soft Brexit.....
Some 51% of Tory voters want a no-deal Brexit, compared with 26% of Labour supporters.
A quarter of voters, rising to 36% of Labour supporters but just 16% of Tory voters, want her to ask for an extension to the March deadline for a deal.
As per my previous question, I do wonder how many people actually understand what just leaving the EU means in practice. It would be really good to get some polling on this.
I rather suspect the Great British Public don't care that much or indeed stress about it like political anoraks do.
It's hot. Love Island is on TV and the schools break up this week, there are more important things to spend time on.
I rather suspect that you are absolutely right. They have absolutely no idea what it would entail in practice.
given the politicians don't, why should Joe Public ?
Tables aren't up yet - but more data from that Mirror/ComRes poll:
An exclusive ComRes survey shows 39% think the Prime Minister “should accept a no deal and the UK simply leave the EU”.
Just 20% believe she should press ahead with her Chequers plans for a soft Brexit.....
Some 51% of Tory voters want a no-deal Brexit, compared with 26% of Labour supporters.
A quarter of voters, rising to 36% of Labour supporters but just 16% of Tory voters, want her to ask for an extension to the March deadline for a deal.
As per my previous question, I do wonder how many people actually understand what just leaving the EU means in practice. It would be really good to get some polling on this.
As even the most well informed commentators seem unable to agree just what leaving the EU means in practice, I'd be astonished if the majority of the electorate have any understanding that they hold in common.
A No Deal Brexit can be one of two things: a crash out or a negotiated exit to WTO terms. I think most commentators would agree on that. I wonder if voters understand the implications of each. I suspect not, but some polling might help us find out.
Essentially we should not have had a referendum previously as we are not a referenda democracy, and having another one will not create any more clarity. We can see that deluded headbangers such as JRM et al will always claim that it meant what they are uniquely able to interpret what the electorate wanted, even though there was no discussion of "hard" v "soft" brexit during the campaign. Indeed, Farage kept banging on about Norway - he seems quiet about that now. The choice now is almost certain large scale economic damage under WTO, or the Chequers plan which limits the damage, but is neither one thing or the other. What will we gain that is positive for this period of collective insanity? Absolutely nothing! Well done the Euroseptics. Right wing Tory nationalist irrational eurosceptism is as damaging to the national interest as socialism.
The country needs to act in the national interest ............. and that means doing as I say.
Amazed this mentions nowhere that Greening is a remainer. In fact, it quotes her saying what leavers think, and says irrelevantly that where she was born is 68% leave. It's almost like the Beeb want to make it look like she's a leaver who wants a second referendum. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44840154
It says in the article
‘Ms Greening, who supported Remain in the EU referendum, said there were other senior Conservatives who agreed with her stance, adding that people who supported Leave in the referendum would also feel the government's approach is "not what they voted for".’
That's been added in a later edit. There was no mention when I read it. They've also changed the wording around the 68% section.
They were very clear on reporting it on R4 this morning to be fair.
Time to abandon this Brexit nonsense once and for all. Even the Brexiteers can't remember why they voted for it.
I just heard Justine Greening asking for the referendum to be re-run but it soon became obvious that our experience has shown that there is no one word answer to any question that could be asked.
It's like setting the Sat Nav without putting in a destination. I think we owe Greening a vote of thanks for inadvertently showing us in the clearest possible terms that before you can seek an answer you have to be asked a meaningful question and there isn't one.
If there is a referendum there won't be an option of 'stay in the EU'. Either way the framework and public appetite isn't there for another referendum with the exception of some twitter users. I suspect a variation of the Chequers deal will be accepted and I'd be more than happy with that.
If that is true, why would the suggested referendum not be a good idea from the point of view of those happy with May's deal if parliament refuses to agree to it ?
Possibly because people pay more attention to the weather forecast than they do to major political decisions that could effect their homes, jobs and health. One is full of blue-sky possibilities that may or may not happen and the other is the weather....
If there is a referendum there won't be an option of 'stay in the EU'. Either way the framework and public appetite isn't there for another referendum with the exception of some twitter users. I suspect a variation of the Chequers deal will be accepted and I'd be more than happy with that.
If that is true, why would the suggested referendum not be a good idea from the point of view of those happy with May's deal if parliament refuses to agree to it ?
Possibly because people pay more attention to the weather forecast than they do to major political decisions that could effect their homes, jobs and health. One is full of blue-sky possibilities that may or may not happen and the other is the weather....
So ought we to ignore the referendum we've already held ?
Who claimed that the 'elite' had Putin under their control ? He is at the apex of the pyramid. Like any elite, there are factions within it, and Putin is adept at playing them off against each other.
And I made precisely the point about Putin's own wealth below (and by some estimates he is the world's wealthiest man).
Because Putin doesn't really show off his wealth ostentatiously (luxury private planes, gold jewellery, etc.), I don't think Russians are that bothered (the same is true in Britain - people don't like Osborne and Mandy swanning about on millionaire yachts, but they're not that upset that some senior politicians are in private really very rich indeed). He's really about being seen as a tough, competent bloke who is putting Russia back as a world leader, and as long as he succeeds in putting that across, Russians will compare with the chaos of Yeltsin et al and think this is a pretty good bargain. Being mates with Trump fits nicely with that.
".............some senior politicians are in private really very rich indeed"
If there is a referendum there won't be an option of 'stay in the EU'. Either way the framework and public appetite isn't there for another referendum with the exception of some twitter users. I suspect a variation of the Chequers deal will be accepted and I'd be more than happy with that.
If that is true, why would the suggested referendum not be a good idea from the point of view of those happy with May's deal if parliament refuses to agree to it ?
I'm saying parliament would be wise to agree the deal because if it isn't accepted the far more likely scenario is we leave with no deal than we have a second referendum.
Has anyone ever asked the British public what they believe a No Deal actually entails?
Indeed - I am becoming more and more convinced May should keep on pressing for her deal, and the Tories bite the bullet and accept some months or even years of bad polling, since it at least buys time. Ask people if they want to make concessions or not and what do you think they will say?
The people have been asked - they said the EU is crap.
Now the govt should follow that guide and get us out.
The 'government' is attempting to do just that. However it seems that it cannot command a majority in Parliament for any particular way of doing so.
If there is a referendum there won't be an option of 'stay in the EU'. Either way the framework and public appetite isn't there for another referendum with the exception of some twitter users. I suspect a variation of the Chequers deal will be accepted and I'd be more than happy with that.
If that is true, why would the suggested referendum not be a good idea from the point of view of those happy with May's deal if parliament refuses to agree to it ?
Possibly because people pay more attention to the weather forecast than they do to major political decisions that could effect their homes, jobs and health. One is full of blue-sky possibilities that may or may not happen and the other is the weather....
So ought we to ignore the referendum we've already held ?
I did not say that, but since you raise the point ...
We all know it was an advisory referendum and had no legal force. It was in the Tory manifesto but manifesto pledges are just pledges - they too have no legal force.
If the politicians are brave enough they can stop this any time they want to, but it would be a good idea to explain why and then take the hit "... for the good of the country ..."
If there is a referendum there won't be an option of 'stay in the EU'. Either way the framework and public appetite isn't there for another referendum with the exception of some twitter users. I suspect a variation of the Chequers deal will be accepted and I'd be more than happy with that.
If that is true, why would the suggested referendum not be a good idea from the point of view of those happy with May's deal if parliament refuses to agree to it ?
I'm saying parliament would be wise to agree the deal because if it isn't accepted the far more likely scenario is we leave with no deal than we have a second referendum.
I don't disagree with that. Sadly, I do not command Parliament - and neither does May (or anyone else, for that matter).
I'm puzzled. Some of the more virulent Leavers seem to want to trash Theresa May's White Paper on the grounds that it's not what people voted for, and they'd rather go to WTO terms and 'no deal' (by which hopefully they mean no trade deal, not literally the chaos of no deal).
Yet on the Vote Leave website, I see that one of the selling points of a Leave vote was that "There is a free trade area from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border, and we will be part of it"
So it rather seems to me that one thing can say with complete certainty is that crashing out to WTO terms would not respect the referendum result, whereas Theresa May's proposals are close to what Vote Leave advocated.
Yep - we are dealing with loons who are actively looking for a betrayal narrative to dig them out of a hole of their own making.
Just like we have nutcases on the other side like Greening and Umunna who are actively trying to trash any deal that isn't full EU membership. Theresa May has put forward a sensible, pragmatic deal that respects the vote and yet addresses worries about manufacturing, NI border etc. It is up to the EU to respond appropriately. My worry is they will be emboldened by the Europhile headbangers and refuse to compromise.
British cave diver considering legal action after 'pedo' attack by Elon Musk Vernon Unsworth ‘astonished and very angry’ after billionaire Tesla owner called him a ‘pedo’ in a baseless attack
Time to abandon this Brexit nonsense once and for all. Even the Brexiteers can't remember why they voted for it.
I just heard Justine Greening asking for the referendum to be re-run but it soon became obvious that our experience has shown that there is no one word answer to any question that could be asked.
It's like setting the Sat Nav without putting in a destination. I think we owe Greening a vote of thanks for inadvertently showing us in the clearest possible terms that before you can seek an answer you have to be asked a meaningful question and there isn't one.
I FULLY support a second referendum.
The trouble is I am 99% confident that LEAVE will win it by an even bigger margin.
Remainers are noisier but Leavers are bigger in number.
Tables aren't up yet - but more data from that Mirror/ComRes poll:
An exclusive ComRes survey shows 39% think the Prime Minister “should accept a no deal and the UK simply leave the EU”.
Just 20% believe she should press ahead with her Chequers plans for a soft Brexit.....
Some 51% of Tory voters want a no-deal Brexit, compared with 26% of Labour supporters.
A quarter of voters, rising to 36% of Labour supporters but just 16% of Tory voters, want her to ask for an extension to the March deadline for a deal.
As per my previous question, I do wonder how many people actually understand what just leaving the EU means in practice. It would be really good to get some polling on this.
I rather suspect the Great British Public don't care that much or indeed stress about it like political anoraks do.
It's hot. Love Island is on TV and the schools break up this week, there are more important things to spend time on.
I rather suspect that you are absolutely right. They have absolutely no idea what it would entail in practice.
given the politicians don't, why should Joe Public ?
The politicians should. I agree on Joe Public. And that's why they will blame the politicians who have handled Brexit so badly - and punish them - should things go tits up.
Time to abandon this Brexit nonsense once and for all. Even the Brexiteers can't remember why they voted for it.
I just heard Justine Greening asking for the referendum to be re-run but it soon became obvious that our experience has shown that there is no one word answer to any question that could be asked.
It's like setting the Sat Nav without putting in a destination. I think we owe Greening a vote of thanks for inadvertently showing us in the clearest possible terms that before you can seek an answer you have to be asked a meaningful question and there isn't one.
Time to abandon this Brexit nonsense once and for all. Even the Brexiteers can't remember why they voted for it.
I just heard Justine Greening asking for the referendum to be re-run but it soon became obvious that our experience has shown that there is no one word answer to any question that could be asked.
It's like setting the Sat Nav without putting in a destination. I think we owe Greening a vote of thanks for inadvertently showing us in the clearest possible terms that before you can seek an answer you have to be asked a meaningful question and there isn't one.
I FULLY support a second referendum.
The trouble is I am 99% confident that LEAVE will win it by an even bigger margin.
Remainers are noisier but Leavers are bigger in number.
What happens if that happens?
I agree. Leavers whose lives were shit were given the opportunity to make things better by kicking the dog and, brand spanking new Range Rover on the never never aside, I fail to see how their lives have got any better in these intervening two years, and hence I would expect them to vote to Leave again.
Who claimed that the 'elite' had Putin under their control ? He is at the apex of the pyramid. Like any elite, there are factions within it, and Putin is adept at playing them off against each other.
And I made precisely the point about Putin's own wealth below (and by some estimates he is the world's wealthiest man).
Because Putin doesn't really show off his wealth ostentatiously (luxury private planes, gold jewellery, etc.), I don't think Russians are that bothered (the same is true in Britain - people don't like Osborne and Mandy swanning about on millionaire yachts, but they're not that upset that some senior politicians are in private really very rich indeed). He's really about being seen as a tough, competent bloke who is putting Russia back as a world leader, and as long as he succeeds in putting that across, Russians will compare with the chaos of Yeltsin et al and think this is a pretty good bargain. Being mates with Trump fits nicely with that.
".............some senior politicians are in private really very rich indeed"
Name names.
Does it include Nick Palmer?
Lol. I own no property and live in a small rented flat, which is fine with me. I want an interesting life more than a wealthy one. I have a good income which I mostly pass on to others one way or another.
Like the public view I was claiming, I don't really know or care, but in passing I've noticed reports of a few people in or recently in politics who have accumulated substantial piles, not necessarily through politics. My point is that the public (in the UK or Russia) doesn't really mind if they don't flaunt it.
Time to abandon this Brexit nonsense once and for all. Even the Brexiteers can't remember why they voted for it.
I just heard Justine Greening asking for the referendum to be re-run but it soon became obvious that our experience has shown that there is no one word answer to any question that could be asked.
It's like setting the Sat Nav without putting in a destination. I think we owe Greening a vote of thanks for inadvertently showing us in the clearest possible terms that before you can seek an answer you have to be asked a meaningful question and there isn't one.
I FULLY support a second referendum.
The trouble is I am 99% confident that LEAVE will win it by an even bigger margin.
Remainers are noisier but Leavers are bigger in number.
What happens if that happens?
I agree. Leavers whose lives were shit were given the opportunity to make things better by kicking the dog and, brand spanking new Range Rover on the never never aside, I fail to see how their lives have got any better in these intervening two years, and hence I expect them to vote to Leave again.
I'm not being sarky. I genuinely think this will happen. WTF would the establishment do then?
This is why I think a stitch-up is most likely. A long-term, stealthy stitch-up which avoids opening things up to another vote.
Time to abandon this Brexit nonsense once and for all. Even the Brexiteers can't remember why they voted for it.
I just heard Justine Greening asking for the referendum to be re-run but it soon became obvious that our experience has shown that there is no one word answer to any question that could be asked.
It's like setting the Sat Nav without putting in a destination. I think we owe Greening a vote of thanks for inadvertently showing us in the clearest possible terms that before you can seek an answer you have to be asked a meaningful question and there isn't one.
I FULLY support a second referendum.
The trouble is I am 99% confident that LEAVE will win it by an even bigger margin.
Remainers are noisier but Leavers are bigger in number.
What happens if that happens?
I agree. Leavers whose lives were shit were given the opportunity to make things better by kicking the dog and, brand spanking new Range Rover on the never never aside, I fail to see how their lives have got any better in these intervening two years, and hence I expect them to vote to Leave again.
I'm not being sarky. I genuinely think this will happen. WTF would the establishment do then?
This is why I think a stitch-up is most likely. A long-term, stealthy stitch-up which avoids opening things up to another vote.
It'll be the Tory party that suffers the most.
And I agree. I was being sarky but I happen to believe that we would vote Leave again if asked. Dear god we are all talking about chequers, CETA +, CETA +++, Norway, EEA/EFTA. And most of us on here have no clue about the intricacies of each option and we're political geeks. The most amusing and heated exchanges on here are between PB Leavers arguing with each other about what each option entails.
What sort of an answer do you suppose would be given in your local Aldi if you asked about the relative merits of Chequers vs CETA+++?
A PPS is not a member of the Government and are effectively appointed by individual Ministers rather than the PM. I am surprised that their resignations lead them to write to her!
Time to abandon this Brexit nonsense once and for all. Even the Brexiteers can't remember why they voted for it.
I just heard Justine Greening asking for the referendum to be re-run but it soon became obvious that our experience has shown that there is no one word answer to any question that could be asked.
It's like setting the Sat Nav without putting in a destination. I think we owe Greening a vote of thanks for inadvertently showing us in the clearest possible terms that before you can seek an answer you have to be asked a meaningful question and there isn't one.
I FULLY support a second referendum.
The trouble is I am 99% confident that LEAVE will win it by an even bigger margin.
Remainers are noisier but Leavers are bigger in number.
What happens if that happens?
I agree. Leavers whose lives were shit were given the opportunity to make things better by kicking the dog and, brand spanking new Range Rover on the never never aside, I fail to see how their lives have got any better in these intervening two years, and hence I expect them to vote to Leave again.
I'm not being sarky. I genuinely think this will happen. WTF would the establishment do then?
This is why I think a stitch-up is most likely. A long-term, stealthy stitch-up which avoids opening things up to another vote.
It'll be the Tory party that suffers the most.
And I agree. I was being sarky but I happen to believe that we would vote Leave again if asked. Dear god we are all talking about chequers, CETA +, CETA +++, Norway, EEA/EFTA. And most of us on here have no clue about the intricacies of each option and we're political geeks. The most amusing and heated exchanges on here are between PB Leavers arguing with each other about what each option entails.
What sort of an answer do you suppose would be given in your local Aldi if you asked about the relative merits of Chequers vs CETA+++?
I agree. It's all too complicated, and instinct trumps political judgement on this issue.
Voters don't understand the various trade options but they do understand unlimited immigration, EU intransigence, rich business people threatening them, laws being made by people they can't vote for and seeing Juncker pissed as an arse on telly.
I've always maintained that the idea of the EU is a great one. But the optics of the EU are very poor indeed. It's a tough organisation to defend and enthuse people about.
The interesting thing about this is not so much who said it as that it offers an option that gives a chance BOTH to Remain and to hard Brexit, as an alternative to the "muddle through to the least bad fudge" approach which the Government is taking. As such, I can see it having attractions to Labour and thence to a majority in the Commons. I suspect that people might vote for the May plan as the middle option anyway, but possibly not - in an AV approach, the plan with fewest first-place choices loses.
It's a high risk gamble for both Leavers and Remainers who are opposed to the proposals. The former may get Remain, or the latter No Deal.
Yes, it is. But I know Remainers who think - liker Peter Mandelson and Chuka Umunna, apparently - that a fudged outcome as an EU satellite is worse than a soberly negotiated No Deal (i.e. WTO and practical arrangements like air traffic control). Their rationale is that it'd be better to give Hard Brexit a try and if it's horrible then the prospects for rejoining would be better than if we orbit indefinitely as a satellite. It's a bit like the view I get from some Tories that Britain needs to have one electoral cycle of Corbynism to make people remember the virtues of Conservativism.
In the same way, they concede in the abstract that if it actually works out well, fair enough.
I can see the argument, but it very rarely turns out to be the case that the Worst is Best.
A PPS is not a member of the Government and are effectively appointed by individual Ministers rather than the PM. I am surprised that their resignations lead them to write to her!
Even if they do not have to write to the PM, doing so allows them to score a political point
Time to abandon this Brexit nonsense once and for all. Even the Brexiteers can't remember why they voted for it.
I just heard Justine Greening asking for the referendum to be re-run but it soon became obvious that our experience has shown that there is no one word answer to any question that could be asked. .
I FULLY support a second referendum.
The trouble is I am 99% confident that LEAVE will win it by an even bigger margin.
Remainers are noisier but Leavers are bigger in number.
What happens if that happens?
I agree. Leavers whose lives were shit were given the opportunity to make things better by kicking the dog and, brand spanking new Range Rover on the never never aside, I fail to see how their lives have got any better in these intervening two years, and hence I expect them to vote to Leave again.
I'm not being sarky. I genuinely think this will happen. WTF would the establishment do then?
This is why I think a stitch-up is most likely. A long-term, stealthy stitch-up which avoids opening things up to another vote.
It'll be the Tory party that suffers the most.
And I agree. I was being sarky but I happen to believe that we would vote Leave again if asked. Dear god we are all talking about chequers, CETA +, CETA +++, Norway, EEA/EFTA. And most of us on here have no clue about the intricacies of each option and we're political geeks. The most amusing and heated exchanges on here are between PB Leavers arguing with each other about what each option entails.
What sort of an answer do you suppose would be given in your local Aldi if you asked about the relative merits of Chequers vs CETA+++?
I agree. It's all too complicated, and instinct trumps political judgement on this issue.
Voters don't understand the various trade options but they do understand unlimited immigration, EU intransigence, rich business people threatening them, laws being made by people they can't vote for and seeing Juncker pissed as an arse on telly.
I've always maintained that the idea of the EU is a great one. But the optics of the EU are very poor indeed. It's a tough organisation to defend and enthuse people about.
Actually, the evidence is that people can be pretty inconsistent in their choices even when they do understand the options:
Essentially we should not have had a referendum previously as we are not a referenda democracy, and having another one will not create any more clarity. We can see that deluded headbangers such as JRM et al will always claim that it meant what they are uniquely able to interpret what the electorate wanted, even though there was no discussion of "hard" v "soft" brexit during the campaign. Indeed, Farage kept banging on about Norway - he seems quiet about that now. The choice now is almost certain large scale economic damage under WTO, or the Chequers plan which limits the damage, but is neither one thing or the other. What will we gain that is positive for this period of collective insanity? Absolutely nothing! Well done the Euroseptics. Right wing Tory nationalist irrational eurosceptism is as damaging to the national interest as socialism.
We've had dozens of referenda since 1973.
Public opinion has been shifting against the EU since 1992. Either the Conservatives needed to take account of this, or someone else would have done.
Mr. B, I've referred to it before here but it's quite interesting so I'll mention it again.
A psych study in the early 90s(ish), when gay relationships were legal but prior to full equal rights (marriage, next of kin etc), found that homophobes valued disagreeing with gay people more than gay rights.
When told most gay people didn't want the right to marry, homophobes supported gay marriage.
The thinking process people use can sometimes lead to very counter-intuitive results.
British cave diver considering legal action after 'pedo' attack by Elon Musk Vernon Unsworth ‘astonished and very angry’ after billionaire Tesla owner called him a ‘pedo’ in a baseless attack
He deserves a big cheque IMO. In the future, whenever he applies for a job or anything else, he will be googled and the controversy around Musk's tweets will be the first thing seen. It doesn't matter what good he's done in the past; the stain will be there. And as a fair few people see Musk as being some sort of hero-genius-God personality, what he writes carries weight.
Fortunately, most of the responses have been criticising Musk (with a few sad exceptions) - if not backing the diver.
If you have as many followers as Musk has, then you have to take great care with your words.
Yet again, Cameron's adage about twitter has been proved correct.
Time to abandon this Brexit nonsense once and for all. Even the Brexiteers can't remember why they voted for it.
I just heard Justine Greening asking for the referendum to be re-run but it soon became obvious that our experience has shown that there is no one word answer to any question that could be asked.
It's like setting the Sat Nav without putting in a destination. I think we owe Greening a vote of thanks for inadvertently showing us in the clearest possible terms that before you can seek an answer you have to be asked a meaningful question and there isn't one.
What happens if that happens?
Best of Five.....
When did I miss the other referenda on the Chequers deal?
Essentially we should not have had a referendum previously as we are not a referenda democracy, and having another one will not create any more clarity. We can see that deluded headbangers such as JRM et al will always claim that it meant what they are uniquely able to interpret what the electorate wanted, even though there was no discussion of "hard" v "soft" brexit during the campaign. Indeed, Farage kept banging on about Norway - he seems quiet about that now. The choice now is almost certain large scale economic damage under WTO, or the Chequers plan which limits the damage, but is neither one thing or the other. What will we gain that is positive for this period of collective insanity? Absolutely nothing! Well done the Euroseptics. Right wing Tory nationalist irrational eurosceptism is as damaging to the national interest as socialism.
We've had dozens of referenda since 1973.
Public opinion has been shifting against the EU since 1992. Either the Conservatives needed to take account of this, or someone else would have done.
However polling shows that opinion was moving back in favour of the EU until the referendum campaign arrived.
Why is Putin having Trump attend a meeting in this way when it risks so undermining him? Is it just because he can? It seems an extravagant demonstration of power.
For Trump it is hard to see any upsides on this. At a time when his team are facing indictments back in the US it borders on foolhardy. I am pretty sure he would not be doing it if he felt he had a choice.
Exactly right.
The meeting is a big win for Putin even if there is no policy outcome. The President of the United States is meeting Putin, despite blatant agression on Russia's part, and Trump will barely even concede that Russia has done anything wrong.
In fact Trump regularly states that the Department of Justice, as well as the DNI, and heads of the CIA, NSA, and FBI are all wrong, and that the whole investigation into Russian hacking, illegal influence, election interference and more is a phony witch-hunt.
Who is the most powerful of the two leaders? Putin without question, as Trump clearly serves him.
What is the point in another referendum - in both recent referendums the losers have simply ignored the results and nothing has been "settled".
Justine Greening tried this morning to explain how a second referendum would settle the issue, but I was not even slightly convinced by her argument. I've no doubt we'd be just as divided again.
British cave diver considering legal action after 'pedo' attack by Elon Musk Vernon Unsworth ‘astonished and very angry’ after billionaire Tesla owner called him a ‘pedo’ in a baseless attack
He deserves a big cheque IMO. In the future, whenever he applies for a job or anything else, he will be googled and the controversy around Musk's tweets will be the first thing seen. It doesn't matter what good he's done in the past; the stain will be there. And as a fair few people see Musk as being some sort of hero-genius-God personality, what he writes carries weight.
Fortunately, most of the responses have been criticising Musk (with a few sad exceptions) - if not backing the diver.
If you have as many followers as Musk has, then you have to take great care with your words.
Yet again, Cameron's adage about twitter has been proved correct.
Musk is only the latest example of how it's possible to be at once very clever and successful in your field and in all other respects a complete idiot.
Because Putin doesn't really show off his wealth ostentatiously (luxury private planes, gold jewellery, etc.),
He was wearing a 70,000 euro Patek Philippe at the WC.
That's nothing, a few years ago Putin's press secretary was photographed wearing a £400,000 Richard Mille, which was several times his official salary.
Time to abandon this Brexit nonsense once and for all. Even the Brexiteers can't remember why they voted for it.
I just heard Justine Greening asking for the referendum to be re-run but it soon became obvious that our experience has shown that there is no one word answer to any question that could be asked.
It's like setting the Sat Nav without putting in a destination. I think we owe Greening a vote of thanks for inadvertently showing us in the clearest possible terms that before you can seek an answer you have to be asked a meaningful question and there isn't one.
What happens if that happens?
Best of Five.....
When did I miss the other referenda on the Chequers deal?
On the basis that Remain loses the second referendum and accepts the result with as much good grace as they accepted the first loss....hence 'best of five' - though if they win one they'll declare the matter settled for eternity.....
These are fair points (and I noted below that there were practical difficulties).
However, it is true to say that the EU 27 have already agreed (in principle) that an extension to the A50 period is possible, and moreover that the UK could participate in the forthcoming EU parliamentary elections were it to happen.
I still don't think a second referendum is a possibility rather than a likelihood, but it is a real possibility if Parliament cannot get its act together.
Comments
He is at the apex of the pyramid.
Like any elite, there are factions within it, and Putin is adept at playing them off against each other.
And I made precisely the point about Putin's own wealth below (and by some estimates he is the world's wealthiest man).
The Mirror polling suggests there is far less political downside to standing up to the EU than in rolling over and accepting Brussel's terms of unilateral surrender. Who knew?
Interesting on Pogba's odds. Next time, if I remember, could be worth paying attention and maybe putting 50p on a lay at those odds.
If Mbappe had taken his chances, then I suspect he would have gotten it anyway.
If the hard leavers think no deal is more popular they should take the risk of a three way referendum. People don't like fudged deals even if they are good, and no one seems to think this one is, and right now no deal woukd probably win over re remain.
An exclusive ComRes survey shows 39% think the Prime Minister “should accept a no deal and the UK simply leave the EU”.
Just 20% believe she should press ahead with her Chequers plans for a soft Brexit.....
Some 51% of Tory voters want a no-deal Brexit, compared with 26% of Labour supporters.
A quarter of voters, rising to 36% of Labour supporters but just 16% of Tory voters, want her to ask for an extension to the March deadline for a deal.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-voting-brits-would-quit-12925014
I don't like the loaded nature of the question, however; it is effectively asking: shall we award next year's Premiership to:
a) Arsenal with their old manager
b) Arsenal with a new manager
c) Chelsea
I don't see how, if there were a second referendum, about which I have mixed feelings, it could not just ask the in/out question again.
Everyone is claiming that they know what the electorate wants; I'm not convinced anyone has much of a clue (I certainly don't). Parliament obviously doesn't have any settled view.
This is a dog licking its bollocks situation. Becasue they can.
Years ago, I was betting on Strictly. It was early days for me so the bets were small. The last three (semi-final stage) were Lisa Snowdon, Rachel Stevens and Tom Chambers. I was very green on Snowdon, green on Stevens and red on Chambers.
Bit uncomfortable because Snowdon was the weakest dancer so I thought she was done for.
Then the scores came in from the judges and it was destined (because Snowdon and Stevens tied ahead of Chambers) that Chambers would be in the dance-off regardless of how the public voted, then would lose as his dance that night was clearly the weakest.
Huzzah, I thought.
And then the BBC decided to throw the rulebook out of the window and allowed all three to the final anyway. Impressed I was not. Chambers, BBC golden boy that he was, won.
Yet on the Vote Leave website, I see that one of the selling points of a Leave vote was that "There is a free trade area from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border, and we will be part of it"
So it rather seems to me that one thing can say with complete certainty is that crashing out to WTO terms would not respect the referendum result, whereas Theresa May's proposals are close to what Vote Leave advocated.
Have I missed something?
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/our_case.html
In the same way, they concede in the abstract that if it actually works out well, fair enough.
(And again.. yes, I appreciate views are split between Brexit's sunny uplands and 'despite Brexit' doom-mongers. But even some of Brexit's brightest minds are worried about the impact of a no-deal)
I think what (they would say) we missed is that the EU quickly ruled out free trade without free movement/ECJ oversight, so given a choice they'd sooner lose all three.
It's hot. Love Island is on TV and the schools break up this week, there are more important things to spend time on.
But the hard Brexiteers are not ruled by logic any more than are the irreconcilable Remainers.
Now the govt should follow that guide and get us out.
If the public don't like the deal they will let the politicians know at the next election.
Now get on with it and leave the public alone to enjoy the summer - stop asking us to do your job.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html
"We will build a new European institutional architecture that enables all countries, whether in or out of the EU or euro, to trade freely and cooperate in a friendly way."
The country needs to act in the national interest ............. and that means doing as I say.
Is what the PM is saying.
They were very clear on reporting it on R4 this morning to be fair.
I just heard Justine Greening asking for the referendum to be re-run but it soon became obvious that our experience has shown that there is no one word answer to any question that could be asked.
It's like setting the Sat Nav without putting in a destination. I think we owe Greening a vote of thanks for inadvertently showing us in the clearest possible terms that before you can seek an answer you have to be asked a meaningful question and there isn't one.
https://twitter.com/scottmann4NC/status/1018788839098408961
".............some senior politicians are in private really very rich indeed"
Name names.
Does it include Nick Palmer?
We all know it was an advisory referendum and had no legal force. It was in the Tory manifesto but manifesto pledges are just pledges - they too have no legal force.
If the politicians are brave enough they can stop this any time they want to, but it would be a good idea to explain why and then take the hit "... for the good of the country ..."
Sadly, I do not command Parliament - and neither does May (or anyone else, for that matter).
Vernon Unsworth ‘astonished and very angry’ after billionaire Tesla owner called him a ‘pedo’ in a baseless attack
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/16/british-diver-in-thai-cave-rescue-stunned-after-attack-by-elon-musk
The trouble is I am 99% confident that LEAVE will win it by an even bigger margin.
Remainers are noisier but Leavers are bigger in number.
What happens if that happens?
How will Labour use their votes? Abstain?
•Steve Baker
•Ben Bradley
•Maria Caulfield
•Boris Johnson
•Chris Green
•Conor Burns
•Andrew Griffiths
•Robert Courts
•Scott Mann
Like the public view I was claiming, I don't really know or care, but in passing I've noticed reports of a few people in or recently in politics who have accumulated substantial piles, not necessarily through politics. My point is that the public (in the UK or Russia) doesn't really mind if they don't flaunt it.
This is why I think a stitch-up is most likely. A long-term, stealthy stitch-up which avoids opening things up to another vote.
It'll be the Tory party that suffers the most.
What sort of an answer do you suppose would be given in your local Aldi if you asked about the relative merits of Chequers vs CETA+++?
Voters don't understand the various trade options but they do understand unlimited immigration, EU intransigence, rich business people threatening them, laws being made by people they can't vote for and seeing Juncker pissed as an arse on telly.
I've always maintained that the idea of the EU is a great one. But the optics of the EU are very poor indeed. It's a tough organisation to defend and enthuse people about.
On Preferring A to B, while also preferring B to A
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/07/preferring-b-also-preferring-b.html
Public opinion has been shifting against the EU since 1992. Either the Conservatives needed to take account of this, or someone else would have done.
A psych study in the early 90s(ish), when gay relationships were legal but prior to full equal rights (marriage, next of kin etc), found that homophobes valued disagreeing with gay people more than gay rights.
When told most gay people didn't want the right to marry, homophobes supported gay marriage.
The thinking process people use can sometimes lead to very counter-intuitive results.
Fortunately, most of the responses have been criticising Musk (with a few sad exceptions) - if not backing the diver.
If you have as many followers as Musk has, then you have to take great care with your words.
Yet again, Cameron's adage about twitter has been proved correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#/media/File:UK_EU_referendum_polling.svg
The meeting is a big win for Putin even if there is no policy outcome. The President of the United States is meeting Putin, despite blatant agression on Russia's part, and Trump will barely even concede that Russia has done anything wrong.
In fact Trump regularly states that the Department of Justice, as well as the DNI, and heads of the CIA, NSA, and FBI are all wrong, and that the whole investigation into Russian hacking, illegal influence, election interference and more is a phony witch-hunt.
Who is the most powerful of the two leaders? Putin without question, as Trump clearly serves him.
Yes I know that deep down I’m very shallow.
However, it is true to say that the EU 27 have already agreed (in principle) that an extension to the A50 period is possible, and moreover that the UK could participate in the forthcoming EU parliamentary elections were it to happen.
I still don't think a second referendum is a possibility rather than a likelihood, but it is a real possibility if Parliament cannot get its act together.