"In other words, our model may be telling us something we’ve been wary of believing so far: It’s more likely that the House will be won in affluent suburbia than in white blue-collar zones. Only three districts on our list are whiter than, poorer than and less educated than (or at least no more educated than) the U.S. as a whole: Kentucky’s 6th, New York’s 22nd and Virginia’s 5th."
The third time I have posted the same thing more or less, so I apologise in advance....
At the time of the referendum, UKIP were polling 18-19%. They are now not even quoted by the pollsters. If there were another referendum they would become prominent again. It is up to the reader to decide whether that would make a difference or not, but it is worth bearing in mind when reading polls such as the one in the header.
Beyond Farage, who hasn't gone anywhere, who are 'they'?
I guess the same people who they were before.
When scientists make experiments, they try everything in their power to falsify their hypothesis. A strange phenomenon in political analysis seems to be that people do everything they can to ignore any problem with their hypothesis, while claiming academic rigour.. very odd
Your hypothesis is that if there were another referendum, UKIP would become more prominent. Suppose it's true. It's possible that it will have a negative effect, as people look at them and think, "You told us leaving the EU was a good idea and look what a mess it turned into."
Anything is possible. Don't factor it in if you don't want to, just listen to yourself.
Not a week ago you were rubbishing DeltaPoll, and ridiculing their main man Martin Boon when a poll of theirs didn't fit your narrative. A couple of days later you were citing their polling to back up an argument you wanted to make. That is bordering on intellectual dishonesty. Now you are defensive when someone points out a possible flaw in a poll you like. You should welcome the input if what you are interested in is the truth, rather than winning an argument or pushing a narrative
The fact that UKIP have collapsed (in every respect) is not a flaw in the polling. In any case it's central to the scenario I outlined below that the likes of Farage would be beneficial to the Remain campaign by rubbishing the actual Brexit deal that's on the table, so I don't see him or UKIP as an asset to any future Leave campaign where Leave means a long and tedious process.
You can't construct a hypothetical about the future by winding back the clock and replaying it.
I imagine that the change to online polling is producing massive sample problems for the pollsters. The sample itself could be fair for a whole bunch of demographics, yet be severely compromised for the question being asked, because people who favour leaving the EU are less likely to register with a polling company
I don't know if that's true. The advantage of an online panel is that you can record the changes for each individual over time, and you can have larger sample sizes and a better response rate.
As for the question of representation, post-2015 the pollsters realised they had a problem with unrepresentative panels and adopted two approaches: some (eg YouGov) made their panels more representative, some (eg Populus?) tweaked their turnout model to compensate. The former succeeded, the latter failed.
As for your assertion that "people who favour leaving the EU are less likely to register", may I ask for a link please? I know that younger people and the more politically engaged are more likely to join a panel (which indirectly supports your point), but is that true of Leavers per se?
The third time I have posted the same thing more or less, so I apologise in advance....
At the time of the referendum, UKIP were polling 18-19%. They are now not even quoted by the pollsters. If there were another referendum they would become prominent again. It is up to the reader to decide whether that would make a difference or not, but it is worth bearing in mind when reading polls such as the one in the header.
Beyond Farage, who hasn't gone anywhere, who are 'they'?
I guess the same people who they were before.
When scientists make experiments, they try everything in their power to falsify their hypothesis. A strange phenomenon in political analysis seems to be that people do everything they can to ignore any problem with their hypothesis, while claiming academic rigour.. very odd
Your hypothesis is that if there were another referendum, UKIP would become more prominent. Suppose it's true. It's possible that it will have a negative effect, as people look at them and think, "You told us leaving the EU was a good idea and look what a mess it turned into."
Anything is possible. Don't factor it in if you don't want to, just listen to yourself.
Not a week ago you were rubbishing DeltaPoll, and ridiculing their main man Martin Boon when a poll of theirs didn't fit your narrative. A couple of days later you were citing their polling to back up an argument you wanted to make. That is bordering on intellectual dishonesty. Now you are defensive when someone points out a possible flaw in a poll you like. You should welcome the input if what you are interested in is the truth, rather than winning an argument or pushing a narrative
The fact that UKIP have collapsed (in every respect) is not a flaw in the polling. In any case it's central to the scenario I outlined below that the likes of Farage would be beneficial to the Remain campaign by rubbishing the actual Brexit deal that's on the table, so I don't see him or UKIP as an asset to any future Leave campaign where Leave means a long and tedious process.
You can't construct a hypothetical about the future by winding back the clock and replaying it.
Sorry, it's not necessarily a flaw of the polling, more a poor conclusion to draw from it by people who interpret every poll as either good for their side or flawed, for example the case of yourself and DeltaPoll
The third time I have posted the same thing more or less, so I apologise in advance....
At the time of the referendum, UKIP were polling 18-19%. They are now not even quoted by the pollsters. If there were another referendum they would become prominent again. It is up to the reader to decide whether that would make a difference or not, but it is worth bearing in mind when reading polls such as the one in the header.
Beyond Farage, who hasn't gone anywhere, who are 'they'?
I guess the same people who they were before.
When scientists make experiments, they try everything in their power to falsify their hypothesis. A strange phenomenon in political analysis seems to be that people do everything they can to ignore any problem with their hypothesis, while claiming academic rigour.. very odd
Your hypothesis is that if there were another referendum, UKIP would become more prominent. Suppose it's true. It's possible that it will have a negative effect, as people look at them and think, "You told us leaving the EU was a good idea and look what a mess it turned into."
Anything is possible. Don't factor it in if you don't want to, just listen to yourself.
Not a week ago you were rubbishing DeltaPoll, and ridiculing their main man Martin Boon when a poll of theirs didn't fit your narrative. A couple of days later you were citing their polling to back up an argument you wanted to make. That is bordering on intellectual dishonesty. Now you are defensive when someone points out a possible flaw in a poll you like. You should welcome the input if what you are interested in is the truth, rather than winning an argument or pushing a narrative
The fact that UKIP have collapsed (in every respect) is not a flaw in the polling. In any case it's central to the scenario I outlined below that the likes of Farage would be beneficial to the Remain campaign by rubbishing the actual Brexit deal that's on the table, so I don't see him or UKIP as an asset to any future Leave campaign where Leave means a long and tedious process.
You can't construct a hypothetical about the future by winding back the clock and replaying it.
IMO they would not fight on the proposed deal, they would fight the campaign on lying politicians. Videos of T May saying "Brexit means Brexit" and "We will control our borders, our laws, our etc" would be played non-stop. The videos would end with "LIARS."
EDIT: This is why May will never go for a second ref or peoples thingy, her political career would end.
The third time I have posted the same thing more or less, so I apologise in advance....
At the time of the referendum, UKIP were polling 18-19%. They are now not even quoted by the pollsters. If there were another referendum they would become prominent again. It is up to the reader to decide whether that would make a difference or not, but it is worth bearing in mind when reading polls such as the one in the header.
Beyond Farage, who hasn't gone anywhere, who are 'they'?
I guess the same people who they were before.
When scientists make experiments, they try everything in their power to falsify their hypothesis. A strange phenomenon in political analysis seems to be that people do everything they can to ignore any problem with their hypothesis, while claiming academic rigour.. very odd
Your hypothesis is that if there were another referendum, UKIP would become more prominent. Suppose it's true. It's possible that it will have a negative effect, as people look at them and think, "You told us leaving the EU was a good idea and look what a mess it turned into."
Anything is possible. Don't factor it in if you don't want to, just listen to yourself.
Not a week ago you were rubbishing DeltaPoll, and ridiculing their main man Martin Boon when a poll of theirs didn't fit your narrative. A couple of days later you were citing their polling to back up an argument you wanted to make. That is bordering on intellectual dishonesty. Now you are defensive when someone points out a possible flaw in a poll you like. You should welcome the input if what you are interested in is the truth, rather than winning an argument or pushing a narrative
The fact that UKIP have collapsed (in every respect) is not a flaw in the polling. In any case it's central to the scenario I outlined below that the likes of Farage would be beneficial to the Remain campaign by rubbishing the actual Brexit deal that's on the table, so I don't see him or UKIP as an asset to any future Leave campaign where Leave means a long and tedious process.
You can't construct a hypothetical about the future by winding back the clock and replaying it.
Sorry, it's not necessarily a flaw of the polling, more a poor conclusion to draw from it by people who interpret every poll as either good for their side or flawed ie the example of yourself and DeltaPoll
Your premise, as I understand it, seems to be wrong. You are implying UKIP were polling highly because we were having a referendum which gave them prominence, but you have the cause and effect backwards.
There are two reasons. Firstly, it's a matter of timing. Barring an extension of article 50 (which is not solely within the UK's remit), there's not enough time left for us to complete the procedural steps necessary for a second referendum.
Secondly, we'd need the agreement of our EU counterparties that we could return to the status quo ante. If they were agreeable (and I mean on an official basis, rather than warm noises from people like Tusk), then that would dramatically increase the likelihood. However, if you look at the Commission's position, they're using Brexit as an opportunity to look at removing all rebates for both simplification and fairness purposes.
Unless you assume that a second referendum would be decisive (e.g. 70:30 either way), the UK would be a dubious asset for the EU27. From a EZ point of view, Brexit means that non-EZ countries can no longer even theoretically summon a blocking minority under QMV, and it removes the anomaly of a non-EZ net contributor. We tend to have an incredibly insular view of Brexit; it's been our Achilles heel all along. If I were Macron, I'd be cheering to the rooftops at the prospect of removing perfidious Albion.
Hopefully not too partisan for your taste.
The only purpose of a second referendum is where Leavers realise their Brexit vote was a mistake and are looking for an out. That context changes things because the debate is no longer driven by Remainers versus Leavers but by Leave voters telling people that Brexit just won't work. There is no sign of Leavers actually changing their minds in great numbers so I basically agree with you.
I am certain however that Brexit will be a total clusterfuck. The only semi workable Brexit outcome is participation in the EU system on a do as you are told basis. i just don't see the UK accepting instruction from a body that it has rejected in a vote with effectively no influence or say over things that matter to it.
Brexit is undeliverable, yet SOMETHING has to be delivered. You don't get vacuums. Which is what makes the topic interesting, despite everything.
IMO they would not fight on the proposed deal, they would fight the campaign on lying politicians. Videos of T May saying "Brexit means Brexit" and "We will control our borders, our laws, our etc" would be played non-stop. The videos would end with "LIARS."
EDIT: This is why May will never go for a second ref or peoples thingy, her political career would end.
May will take a back seat and not campaign for either option. It will be the likes of Gove who will have to sell the Brexit plan. If others want to trash it they are welcome to but they will only suppress the Leave vote or tip more people to Remain.
The third time I have posted the same thing more or less, so I apologise in advance....
At the time of the referendum, UKIP were polling 18-19%. They are now not even quoted by the pollsters. If there were another referendum they would become prominent again. It is up to the reader to decide whether that would make a difference or not, but it is worth bearing in mind when reading polls such as the one in the header.
Beyond Farage, who hasn't gone anywhere, who are 'they'?
When scientists make experiments, they try everything in their power to falsify their hypothesis. A strange phenomenon in political analysis seems to be that people do everything they can to ignore any problem with their hypothesis, while claiming academic rigour.. very odd
Your hypothesis is that if there were another referendum, UKIP would become more prominent. Suppose it's true. It's possible that it will have a negative effect, as people look at them and think, "You told us leaving the EU was a good idea and look what a mess it turned into."
Not a week ago you were rubbishing DeltaPoll, and ridiculing their main man Martin Boon when a poll of theirs didn't fit your narrative. A couple of days later you were citing their polling to back up an argument you wanted to make. That is bordering on intellectual dishonesty. Now you are defensive when someone points out a possible flaw in a poll you like. You should welcome the input if what you are interested in is the truth, rather than winning an argument or pushing a narrative
The fact that UKIP have collapsed (in every respect) is not a flaw in the polling. In any case it's central to the scenario I outlined below that the likes of Farage would be beneficial to the Remain campaign by rubbishing the actual Brexit deal that's on the table, so I don't see him or UKIP as an asset to any future Leave campaign where Leave means a long and tedious process.
You can't construct a hypothetical about the future by winding back the clock and replaying it.
Sorry, it's not necessarily a flaw of the polling, more a poor conclusion to draw from it by people who interpret every poll as either good for their side or flawed ie the example of yourself and DeltaPoll
Your premise, as I understand it, seems to be wrong. You are implying UKIP were polling highly because we were having a referendum which gave them prominence, but you have the cause and effect backwards.
IMO they would not fight on the proposed deal, they would fight the campaign on lying politicians. Videos of T May saying "Brexit means Brexit" and "We will control our borders, our laws, our etc" would be played non-stop. The videos would end with "LIARS."
EDIT: This is why May will never go for a second ref or peoples thingy, her political career would end.
May will take a back seat and not campaign for either option. It will be the likes of Gove who will have to sell the Brexit plan. If others want to trash it they are welcome to but they will only suppress the Leave vote or tip more people to Remain.
Come on think, May can not take a back seat she has made it "her" deal, Brexit Sec has resigned over it. If she does not fight, the video will end with coward. No senior politician in power will take on Cummings in a ref over the EU. It is as simple as that.
The third time I have posted the same thing more or less, so I apologise in advance....
At the time of the referendum, UKIP were polling 18-19%. They are now not even quoted by the pollsters. If there were another referendum they would become prominent again. It is up to the reader to decide whether that would make a difference or not, but it is worth bearing in mind when reading polls such as the one in the header.
Beyond Farage, who hasn't gone anywhere, who are 'they'?
When scientists make experiments, they try everything in their power to falsify their hypothesis. A strange phenomenon in political analysis seems to be that people do everything they can to ignore any problem with their hypothesis, while claiming academic rigour.. very odd
Your hypothesis is that if there were another referendum, UKIP would become more prominent. Suppose it's true. It's possible that it will have a negative effect, as people look at them and think, "You told us leaving the EU was a good idea and look what a mess it turned into."
The fact that UKIP have collapsed (in every respect) is not a flaw in the polling. In any case it's central to the scenario I outlined below that the likes of Farage would be beneficial to the Remain campaign by rubbishing the actual Brexit deal that's on the table, so I don't see him or UKIP as an asset to any future Leave campaign where Leave means a long and tedious process.
You can't construct a hypothetical about the future by winding back the clock and replaying it.
Sorry, it's not necessarily a flaw of the polling, more a poor conclusion to draw from it by people who interpret every poll as either good for their side or flawed ie the example of yourself and DeltaPoll
Your premise, as I understand it, seems to be wrong. You are implying UKIP were polling highly because we were having a referendum which gave them prominence, but you have the cause and effect backwards.
Sorry I spoke, hope the blinkers are comfortable.
William has faith and faith does not admit reason.
IMO they would not fight on the proposed deal, they would fight the campaign on lying politicians. Videos of T May saying "Brexit means Brexit" and "We will control our borders, our laws, our etc" would be played non-stop. The videos would end with "LIARS."
EDIT: This is why May will never go for a second ref or peoples thingy, her political career would end.
May will take a back seat and not campaign for either option. It will be the likes of Gove who will have to sell the Brexit plan. If others want to trash it they are welcome to but they will only suppress the Leave vote or tip more people to Remain.
Come on think, May can not take a back seat she has made it "her" deal, Brexit Sec has resigned over it. If she does not fight, the video will end with coward. No senior politician in power will take on Cummings in a ref over the EU. It is as simple as that.
May has been publicly ambivalent about Brexit all along, despite committing herself to delivering it. She just needs to be able to justify why it is "the Brexit people voted for" and why "it's the right thing to do" to let people have the final decision.
If the choices are Remain and May's deal, why does it matter which side Cummings is on? May can't lose.
"In other words, our model may be telling us something we’ve been wary of believing so far: It’s more likely that the House will be won in affluent suburbia than in white blue-collar zones. Only three districts on our list are whiter than, poorer than and less educated than (or at least no more educated than) the U.S. as a whole: Kentucky’s 6th, New York’s 22nd and Virginia’s 5th."
Given that Hillary lost the election in suburbia it seems pretty obvious if the Dems are going to take the House then it will be done by flipping suburbia.
IMO they would not fight on the proposed deal, they would fight the campaign on lying politicians. Videos of T May saying "Brexit means Brexit" and "We will control our borders, our laws, our etc" would be played non-stop. The videos would end with "LIARS."
EDIT: This is why May will never go for a second ref or peoples thingy, her political career would end.
May will take a back seat and not campaign for either option. It will be the likes of Gove who will have to sell the Brexit plan. If others want to trash it they are welcome to but they will only suppress the Leave vote or tip more people to Remain.
Come on think, May can not take a back seat she has made it "her" deal, Brexit Sec has resigned over it. If she does not fight, the video will end with coward. No senior politician in power will take on Cummings in a ref over the EU. It is as simple as that.
May has been publicly ambivalent about Brexit all along, despite committing herself to delivering it. She just needs to be able to justify why it is "the Brexit people voted for" and why "it's the right thing to do" to let people have the final decision.
If the choices are Remain and May's deal, why does it matter which side Cummings is on? May can't lose.
Because it will not be Remain vs Mays deal. If May proposed that to the Tory party it would be all out warfare.
There are two reasons. Firstly, it's a matter of timing. Barring an extension of article 50 (which is not solely within the UK's remit), there's not enough time left for us to complete the procedural steps necessary for a second referendum.
Secondly, we'd need the agreement of our EU counterparties that we could return to the status quo ante. If they were agreeable (and I mean on an official basis, rather than warm noises from people like Tusk), then that would dramatically increase the likelihood. However, if you look at the Commission's position, they're using Brexit as an opportunity to look at removing all rebates for both simplification and fairness purposes.
Unless you assume that a second referendum would be decisive (e.g. 70:30 either way), the UK would be a dubious asset for the EU27. From a EZ point of view, Brexit means that non-EZ countries can no longer even theoretically summon a blocking minority under QMV, and it removes the anomaly of a non-EZ net contributor. We tend to have an incredibly insular view of Brexit; it's been our Achilles heel all along. If I were Macron, I'd be cheering to the rooftops at the prospect of removing perfidious Albion.
Hopefully not too partisan for your taste.
The only purpose of a second referendum is where Leavers realise their Brexit vote was a mistake and are looking for an out. That context changes things because the debate is no longer driven by Remainers versus Leavers but by Leave voters telling people that Brexit just won't work. There is no sign of Leavers actually changing their minds in great numbers so I basically agree with you.
I am certain however that Brexit will be a total clusterfuck. The only semi workable Brexit outcome is participation in the EU system on a do as you are told basis. i just don't see the UK accepting instruction from a body that it has rejected in a vote with effectively no influence or say over things that matter to it.
Brexit is undeliverable, yet SOMETHING has to be delivered. You don't get vacuums. Which is what makes the topic interesting, despite everything.
Transition to Limbo Brexitis the can kicking option.
The likes of Nick Griffin overtly supporting Corbyn on antisemitism could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back among moderate Labour MPs.
Don’t be silly. The problem is what is left of the moderate MPs, most of the leading ones are totally wets. If chuka umunna was leading you into battle I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to find just as everybody charges forward, he instantly turned about face and ran away.
The only one with some guts is mrs cooper balls.
What evidence of her having some guts has there been over, say, the last three years? She’s been largely invisible.
They’re almost all risible. In the recent well-informed piece by Stephen Bush on a possible breakaway, one line stood out: the concern of some MPs that they might not earn as much elsewhere if it failed. What kind of political ethos does that show?
There are two reasons. Firstly, it's a matter of timing. Barring an extension of article 50 (which is not solely within the UK's remit), there's not enough time left for us to complete the procedural steps necessary for a second referendum.
Secondly, we'd need the agreement of our EU counterparties that we could return to the status quo ante. If they were agreeable (and I mean on an official basis, rather than warm noises from people like Tusk), then that would dramatically increase the likelihood. However, if you look at the Commission's position, they're using Brexit as an opportunity to look at removing all rebates for both simplification and fairness purposes.
Unless you assume that a second referendum would be decisive (e.g. 70:30 either way), the UK would be a dubious asset for the EU27. From a EZ point of view, Brexit means that non-EZ countries can no longer even theoretically summon a blocking minority under QMV, and it removes the anomaly of a non-EZ net contributor. We tend to have an incredibly insular view of Brexit; it's been our Achilles heel all along. If I were Macron, I'd be cheering to the rooftops at the prospect of removing perfidious Albion.
Hopefully not too partisan for your taste.
The only purpose of a second referendum is where Leavers realise their Brexit vote was a mistake and are looking for an out. That context changes things because the debate is no longer driven by Remainers versus Leavers but by Leave voters telling people that Brexit just won't work. There is no sign of Leavers actually changing their minds in great numbers so I basically agree with you.
I am certain however that Brexit will be a total clusterfuck. The only semi workable Brexit outcome is participation in the EU system on a do as you are told basis. i just don't see the UK accepting instruction from a body that it has rejected in a vote with effectively no influence or say over things that matter to it.
Brexit is undeliverable, yet SOMETHING has to be delivered. You don't get vacuums. Which is what makes the topic interesting, despite everything.
No Brexit and free movement remaining the same as before the EU referendum is undeliverable too without a far right party surge
So there’s a huge amount of context to his comments, as expected. What he’s talking about is an electronic border with random spot checks by local police and customs away from the actual border. Something that’s fine by everyone except the remainers.
Something that’s ruled out by the EU Withdrawal Act and not “fine” by anyone who’s thought about it.
Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
The NI border is exclusively an EU problem, because they have their own fixed view of what a border looks like. Mr Raab was quite clear the other day that the UK has no intention of doing anything about a border, if there’s no deal it’s going to be a great conversation between Junker and Varakdar as to who should resign first, because we all know that there’s no chance of a border actually being constructed.
The Irish Times has an article stating that the UK has told Ireland we will not build a hard border i.e physical not electronic under any circumstance. It also states that the EU and Ireland are currently trying to devise a solution that is acceptable to the UK. Classic among them no border in Ireland, border between UK and RoI, no border NI to UK but a border only in the UK for UK to NI trade. Then if the border guards and customs do not wear EU uniforms and work for a private contractor then it can not be classed as an EU border and the Brits will not notice. Seems to me the Irish and the EU have dug a massive hole they can not get off.
Nope, it is the UK doing something stupid like organising a referendum, not thinking it through and then trying to enforce the result against all common sense. The EU27 the Commission and the EU parliament have no idea what we want, because quite simply we don't know what we want either,
IMO they would not fight on the proposed deal, they would fight the campaign on lying politicians. Videos of T May saying "Brexit means Brexit" and "We will control our borders, our laws, our etc" would be played non-stop. The videos would end with "LIARS."
EDIT: This is why May will never go for a second ref or peoples thingy, her political career would end.
May will take a back seat and not campaign for either option. It will be the likes of Gove who will have to sell the Brexit plan. If others want to trash it they are welcome to but they will only suppress the Leave vote or tip more people to Remain.
Come on think, May can not take a back seat she has made it "her" deal, Brexit Sec has resigned over it. If she does not fight, the video will end with coward. No senior politician in power will take on Cummings in a ref over the EU. It is as simple as that.
May has been publicly ambivalent about Brexit all along, despite committing herself to delivering it. She just needs to be able to justify why it is "the Brexit people voted for" and why "it's the right thing to do" to let people have the final decision.
If the choices are Remain and May's deal, why does it matter which side Cummings is on? May can't lose.
Because it will not be Remain vs Mays deal. If May proposed that to the Tory party it would be all out warfare.
Perhaps "May's deal" is the wrong characterisation as the final relationship won't have been negotiated, but it will be an orderly Brexit with the ratification of the WA.
So there’s a huge amount of context to his comments, as expected. What he’s talking about is an electronic border with random spot checks by local police and customs away from the actual border. Something that’s fine by everyone except the remainers.
Something that’s ruled out by the EU Withdrawal Act and not “fine” by anyone who’s thought about it.
Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
The NI border is exclusively an EU problem, because they have their own fixed view of what a border looks like. Mr Raab was quite clear the other day that the UK has no intention of doing anything about a border, if there’s no deal it’s going to be a great conversation between Junker and Varakdar as to who should resign first, because we all know that there’s no chance of a border actually being constructed.
The Irish Times has an article stating that the UK has told Ireland we will not build a hard border i.e physical not electronic under any circumstance. It also states that the EU and Ireland are currently trying to devise a solution that is acceptable to the UK. Classic among them no border in Ireland, border between UK and RoI, no border NI to UK but a border only in the UK for UK to NI trade. Then if the border guards and customs do not wear EU uniforms and work for a private contractor then it can not be classed as an EU border and the Brits will not notice. Seems to me the Irish and the EU have dug a massive hole they can not get off.
But would it not be against WTO rules ? For example, if WTO rules say that the duty on widgets is 10%, then the UK cannot charge 10% on imports from the rest of the EU [ and the rest of the world ] but not from Ireland.
Also, would it not be a great smuggling route into the UK ?
There are two reasons. Firstly, it's a matter of timing. Barring an extension of article 50 (which is not solely within the UK's remit), there's not enough time left for us to complete the procedural steps necessary for a second referendum.
Secondly, we'd need the agreement of our EU counterparties that we could return to the status quo ante. If they were agreeable (and I mean on an official basis, rather than warm noises from people like Tusk), then that would dramatically increase the likelihood. However, if you look at the Commission's position, they're using Brexit as an opportunity to look at removing all rebates for both simplification and fairness purposes.
Unless you assume that a second referendum would be decisive (e.g. 70:30 either way), the UK would be a dubious asset for the EU27. From a EZ point of view, Brexit means that non-EZ countries can no longer even theoretically summon a blocking minority under QMV, and it removes the anomaly of a non-EZ net contributor. We tend to have an incredibly insular view of Brexit; it's been our Achilles heel all along. If I were Macron, I'd be cheering to the rooftops at the prospect of removing perfidious Albion.
Hopefully not too partisan for your taste.
The only purpose of a second referendum is where Leavers realise their Brexit vote was a mistake and are looking for an out. That context changes things because the debate is no longer driven by Remainers versus Leavers but by Leave voters telling people that Brexit just won't work. There is no sign of Leavers actually changing their minds in great numbers so I basically agree with you.
I am certain however that Brexit will be a total clusterfuck. The only semi workable Brexit outcome is participation in the EU system on a do as you are told basis. i just don't see the UK accepting instruction from a body that it has rejected in a vote with effectively no influence or say over things that matter to it.
Brexit is undeliverable, yet SOMETHING has to be delivered. You don't get vacuums. Which is what makes the topic interesting, despite everything.
Transition to Limbo Brexitis the can kicking option.
I'm not sure even that's possible. You're either a member of the EU or you're not.
So there’s a huge amount of context to his comments, as expected. What he’s talking about is an electronic border with random spot checks by local police and customs away from the actual border. Something that’s fine by everyone except the remainers.
Something that’s ruled out by the EU Withdrawal Act and not “fine” by anyone who’s thought about it.
Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
The NI border is exclusively an EU problem, because they have their own fixed view of what a border looks like. Mr Raab was quite clear the other day that the UK has no intention of doing anything about a border, if there’s no deal it’s going to be a great conversation between Junker and Varakdar as to who should resign first, because we all know that there’s no chance of a border actually being constructed.
The Irish Times has an article stating that the UK has told Ireland we will not build a hard border i.e physical not electronic under any circumstance. It also states that the EU and Ireland are currently trying to devise a solution that is acceptable to the UK. Classic among them no border in Ireland, border between UK and RoI, no border NI to UK but a border only in the UK for UK to NI trade. Then if the border guards and customs do not wear EU uniforms and work for a private contractor then it can not be classed as an EU border and the Brits will not notice. Seems to me the Irish and the EU have dug a massive hole they can not get off.
But would it not be against WTO rules ? For example, if WTO rules say that the duty on widgets is 10%, then the UK cannot charge 10% on imports from the rest of the EU [ and the rest of the world ] but not from Ireland.
Also, would it not be a great smuggling route into the UK ?
In theory, could be smuggling route, but shipping into Ireland will be expensive & anything done at any volume will be easy to spot.
There are two reasons. Firstly, it's a matter of timing. Barring an extension of article 50 (which is not solely within the UK's remit), there's not enough time left for us to complete the procedural steps necessary for a second referendum.
Secondly, we'd need the agreement of our EU counterparties that we could return to the status quo ante. If they were agreeable (and I mean on an official basis, rather than warm noises from people like Tusk), then that would dramatically increase the likelihood. However, if you look at the Commission's position, they're using Brexit as an opportunity to look at removing all rebates for both simplification and fairness purposes.
Unless you assume that a second referendum would be decisive (e.g. 70:30 either way), the UK would be a dubious asset for the EU27. From a EZ point of view, Brexit means that non-EZ countries can no longer even theoretically summon a blocking minority under QMV, and it removes the anomaly of a non-EZ net contributor. We tend to have an incredibly insular view of Brexit; it's been our Achilles heel all along. If I were Macron, I'd be cheering to the rooftops at the prospect of removing perfidious Albion.
Hopefully not too partisan for your taste.
The only purpose of a second referendum is where Leavers realise their Brexit vote was a mistake and are looking for an out. That context changes things because the debate is no longer driven by Remainers versus Leavers but by Leave voters telling people that Brexit just won't work. There is no sign of Leavers actually changing their minds in great numbers so I basically agree with you.
I am certain however that Brexit will be a total clusterfuck. The only semi workable Brexit outcome is participation in the EU system on a do as you are told basis. i just don't see the UK accepting instruction from a body that it has rejected in a vote with effectively no influence or say over things that matter to it.
Brexit is undeliverable, yet SOMETHING has to be delivered. You don't get vacuums. Which is what makes the topic interesting, despite everything.
No Brexit and free movement remaining the same as before the EU referendum is undeliverable too without a far right party surge
Maybe but that doesn't help make any particular outcome more deliverable.
There are two reasons. Firstly, it's a matter of timing. Barring an extension of article 50 (which is not solely within the UK's remit), there's not enough time left for us to complete the procedural steps necessary for a second referendum.
Secondly, we'd need the agreement of our EU counterparties that we could return to the status quo ante. If they were agreeable (and I mean on an official basis, rather than warm noises from people like Tusk), then that would dramatically increase the likelihood. However, if you look at the Commission's position, they're using Brexit as an opportunity to look at removing all rebates for both simplification and fairness purposes.
Unless you assume that a second referendum would be decisive (e.g. 70:30 either way), the UK would be a dubious asset for the EU27. From a EZ point of view, Brexit means that non-EZ countries can no longer even theoretically summon a blocking minority under QMV, and it removes the anomaly of a non-EZ net contributor. We tend to have an incredibly insular view of Brexit; it's been our Achilles heel all along. If I were Macron, I'd be cheering to the rooftops at the prospect of removing perfidious Albion.
Hopefully not too partisan for your taste.
The only purpose of a second referendum is where Leavers realise their Brexit vote was a mistake and are looking for an out. That context changes things because the debate is no longer driven by Remainers versus Leavers but by Leave voters telling people that Brexit just won't work. There is no sign of Leavers actually changing their minds in great numbers so I basically agree with you.
I am certain however that Brexit will be a total clusterfuck. The only semi workable Brexit outcome is participation in the EU system on a do as you are told basis. i just don't see the UK accepting instruction from a body that it has rejected in a vote with effectively no influence or say over things that matter to it.
Brexit is undeliverable, yet SOMETHING has to be delivered. You don't get vacuums. Which is what makes the topic interesting, despite everything.
No Brexit and free movement remaining the same as before the EU referendum is undeliverable too without a far right party surge
Maybe but that doesn't help make any particular outcome more deliverable.
It does confirm the Chequers Deal or a variant of it remains the best outcome
So there’s a huge amount of context to his comments, as expected. What he’s talking about is an electronic border with random spot checks by local police and customs away from the actual border. Something that’s fine by everyone except the remainers.
Something that’s ruled out by the EU Withdrawal Act and not “fine” by anyone who’s thought about it.
Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
The NI border is exclusively an EU problem, because they have their own fixed view of what a border looks like. Mr Raab was quite clear the other day that the UK has no intention of doing anything about a border, if there’s no deal it’s going to be a great conversation between Junker and Varakdar as to who should resign first, because we all know that there’s no chance of a border actually being constructed.
The Irish Times has an article stating that the UK has told Ireland we will not build a hard border i.e physical not electronic under any circumstance. It also states that the EU and Ireland are currently trying to devise a solution that is acceptable to the UK. Classic among them no border in Ireland, border between UK and RoI, no border NI to UK but a border only in the UK for UK to NI trade. Then if the border guards and customs do not wear EU uniforms and work for a private contractor then it can not be classed as an EU border and the Brits will not notice. Seems to me the Irish and the EU have dug a massive hole they can not get off.
But would it not be against WTO rules ? For example, if WTO rules say that the duty on widgets is 10%, then the UK cannot charge 10% on imports from the rest of the EU [ and the rest of the world ] but not from Ireland.
Also, would it not be a great smuggling route into the UK ?
Yes but the real point is that for the last 18 months it has been the UK making proposals to solver the issue and Mr Varadkar has been saying "no." Now it has changed 180 Deg. The Irish and the EU making proposals and the UK saying "No."
Given the shit they get heaped on them by the Remainers, is it surprising that plenty of Leavers just keep ther heads down and say nothing to no-one on Brexit? Even on here, you need the hide of a rhino to admit to voting Brexit.
But shy Brexiteers stalk the land. Try taking it away from them to see how many there are.....
Yes and as I have said before the refusal to listen to the message sent by the 2016 referendum result could I am afraid to say unleash some very nasty forces indeed if Remain scrapes a win in a second EU referendum
If Remain lost again, do you think they would finally STFU?
I have severe doubts.
Any narrow margin of victory was going to lead to multiple calls for reruns.
"In other words, our model may be telling us something we’ve been wary of believing so far: It’s more likely that the House will be won in affluent suburbia than in white blue-collar zones. Only three districts on our list are whiter than, poorer than and less educated than (or at least no more educated than) the U.S. as a whole: Kentucky’s 6th, New York’s 22nd and Virginia’s 5th."
Given that Hillary lost the election in suburbia it seems pretty obvious if the Dems are going to take the House then it will be done by flipping suburbia.
The similarity with the UK is uncanny. Labour could win the election here not necessarily winning a huge number of working class seats but some seats in the suburbs [ and, alos flipping 15 or so seats in Scotland ]
So there’s a huge amount of context to his comments, as expected. What he’s talking about is an electronic border with random spot checks by local police and customs away from the actual border. Something that’s fine by everyone except the remainers.
Something that’s ruled out by the EU Withdrawal Act and not “fine” by anyone who’s thought about it.
Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
The NI border is exclusively an EU problem, because they have their own fixed view of what a border looks like. Mr Raab was quite clear the other day that the UK has no intention of doing anything about a border, if there’s no deal it’s going to be a great conversation between Junker and Varakdar as to who should resign first, because we all know that there’s no chance of a border actually being constructed.
The Irish Times has an article stating that the UK has told Ireland we will not build a hard border i.e physical not electronic under any circumstance. It also states that the EU and Ireland are currently trying to devise a solution that is acceptable to the UK. Classic among them no border in Ireland, border between UK and RoI, no border NI to UK but a border only in the UK for UK to NI trade. Then if the border guards and customs do not wear EU uniforms and work for a private contractor then it can not be classed as an EU border and the Brits will not notice. Seems to me the Irish and the EU have dug a massive hole they can not get off.
But would it not be against WTO rules ? For example, if WTO rules say that the duty on widgets is 10%, then the UK cannot charge 10% on imports from the rest of the EU [ and the rest of the world ] but not from Ireland.
Also, would it not be a great smuggling route into the UK ?
Yes but the real point is that for the last 18 months it has been the UK making proposals to solver the issue and Mr Varadkar has been saying "no." Now it has changed 180 Deg. The Irish and the EU making proposals and the UK saying "No."
The likes of Nick Griffin overtly supporting Corbyn on antisemitism could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back among moderate Labour MPs.
Don’t be silly. The problem is what is left of the moderate MPs, most of the leading ones are totally wets. If chuka umunna was leading you into battle I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to find just as everybody charges forward, he instantly turned about face and ran away.
The only one with some guts is mrs cooper balls.
What evidence of her having some guts has there been over, say, the last three years? She’s been largely invisible.
They’re almost all risible. In the recent well-informed piece by Stephen Bush on a possible breakaway, one line stood out: the concern of some MPs that they might not earn as much elsewhere if it failed. What kind of political ethos does that show?
Isn't that clear proof they are Tories in all but name?
So there’s a huge amount of context to his comments, as expected. What he’s talking about is an electronic border with random spot checks by local police and customs away from the actual border. Something that’s fine by everyone except the remainers.
Something that’s ruled out by the EU Withdrawal Act and not “fine” by anyone who’s thought about it.
Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
The NI border is exclusively an EU problem, because they have their own fixed view of what a border looks like. Mr Raab was quite clear the other day that the UK has no intention of doing anything about a border, if there’s no deal it’s going to be a great conversation between Junker and Varakdar as to who should resign first, because we all know that there’s no chance of a border actually being constructed.
The Irish Times has an article stating that the UK has told Ireland we will not build a hard border i.e physical not electronic under any circumstance. It also states that the EU and Ireland are currently trying to devise a solution that is acceptable to the UK. Classic among them no border in Ireland, border between UK and RoI, no border NI to UK but a border only in the UK for UK to NI trade. Then if the border guards and customs do not wear EU uniforms and work for a private contractor then it can not be classed as an EU border and the Brits will not notice. Seems to me the Irish and the EU have dug a massive hole they can not get off.
But would it not be against WTO rules ? For example, if WTO rules say that the duty on widgets is 10%, then the UK cannot charge 10% on imports from the rest of the EU [ and the rest of the world ] but not from Ireland.
Also, would it not be a great smuggling route into the UK ?
In theory, could be smuggling route, but shipping into Ireland will be expensive & anything done at any volume will be easy to spot.
I was thinking of high value items - not iron ore !!!!!!
It shouldn’t be overlooked that any backing down by the EU on the Irish border would leave Michel Barnier swinging in the wind. That makes it considerably less likely.
It shouldn’t be overlooked that any backing down by the EU on the Irish border would leave Michel Barnier swinging in the wind. That makes it considerably less likely.
So there’s a huge amount of context to his comments, as expected. What he’s talking about is an electronic border with random spot checks by local police and customs away from the actual border. Something that’s fine by everyone except the remainers.
Something that’s ruled out by the EU Withdrawal Act and not “fine” by anyone who’s thought about it.
Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
The NI border is exclusively an EU problem, because they have their own fixed view of what a border looks like. Mr Raab was quite clear the other day that the UK has no intention of doing anything about a border, if there’s no deal it’s going to be a great conversation between Junker and Varakdar as to who should resign first, because we all know that there’s no chance of a border actually being constructed.
The Irish Times has an article stating that the UK has told Ireland we will not build a hard border i.e physical not electronic under any circumstance. It also states that the EU and Ireland are currently trying to devise a solution that is acceptable to the UK. Classic among them no border in Ireland, border between UK and RoI, no border NI to UK but a border only in the UK for UK to NI trade. Then if the border guards and customs do not wear EU uniforms and work for a private contractor then it can not be classed as an EU border and the Brits will not notice. Seems to me the Irish and the EU have dug a massive hole they can not get off.
But would it not be against WTO rules ? For example, if WTO rules say that the duty on widgets is 10%, then the UK cannot charge 10% on imports from the rest of the EU [ and the rest of the world ] but not from Ireland.
Also, would it not be a great smuggling route into the UK ?
We're not talking about tariff rates - you are right, under WTO they all need to be the same - but about the mechanism of implementation.
We could say, for example, that all land borders that the UK has with third countries will be managed in this way, and that airports and ports will have a different procedure. So long as all countries are treated the same (AIUI) then we are compliant with WTO rules.
As for smuggling, yes, in theory. But it already happens because of the differential in taxes on easily transportable, high value items, such as cigarettes, that exist between the UK and RoI. The likelihood of significant other smuggling into the UK via RoI and NI is minimal.
There are two reasons. Firstly, it's a matter of timing. Barring an extension of article 50 (which is not solely within the UK's remit), there's not enough time left for us to complete the procedural steps necessary for a second referendum.
Secondly, we'd need the agreement of our EU counterparties that we could return to the status quo ante. If they were agreeable (and I mean on an official basis, rather than warm noises from people like Tusk), then that would dramatically increase the likelihood. However, if you look at the Commission's position, they're using Brexit as an opportunity to look at removing all rebates for both simplification and fairness purposes.
Unless you assume that a second referendum would be decisive (e.g. 70:30 either way), the UK would be a dubious asset for the EU27. From a EZ point of view, Brexit means that non-EZ countries can no longer even theoretically summon a blocking minority under QMV, and it removes the anomaly of a non-EZ net contributor. We tend to have an incredibly insular view of Brexit; it's been our Achilles heel all along. If I were Macron, I'd be cheering to the rooftops at the prospect of removing perfidious Albion.
Hopefully not too partisan for your taste.
The only purpose of a second referendum is where Leavers realise their Brexit vote was a mistake and are looking for an out. That context changes things because the debate is no longer driven by Remainers versus Leavers but by Leave voters telling people that Brexit just won't work. There is no sign of Leavers actually changing their minds in great numbers so I basically agree with you.
I am certain however that Brexit will be a total clusterfuck. The only semi workable Brexit outcome is participation in the EU system on a do as you are told basis. i just don't see the UK accepting instruction from a body that it has rejected in a vote with effectively no influence or say over things that matter to it.
Brexit is undeliverable, yet SOMETHING has to be delivered. You don't get vacuums. Which is what makes the topic interesting, despite everything.
No Brexit and free movement remaining the same as before the EU referendum is undeliverable too without a far right party surge
Maybe but that doesn't help make any particular outcome more deliverable.
It does confirm the Chequers Deal or a variant of it remains the best outcome
The variant of Chequers that MIGHT be acceptable to the EU is SM for goods + CU + EU VAT area + ECJ oversight + agreed preferential treatment of EU nationals. Even that's not certain. Why not go the whole hog?
The likes of Nick Griffin overtly supporting Corbyn on antisemitism could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back among moderate Labour MPs.
Don’t be silly. The problem is what is left of the moderate MPs, most of the leading ones are totally wets. If chuka umunna was leading you into battle I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to find just as everybody charges forward, he instantly turned about face and ran away.
The only one with some guts is mrs cooper balls.
What evidence of her having some guts has there been over, say, the last three years? She’s been largely invisible.
They’re almost all risible. In the recent well-informed piece by Stephen Bush on a possible breakaway, one line stood out: the concern of some MPs that they might not earn as much elsewhere if it failed. What kind of political ethos does that show?
Isn't that clear proof they are Tories in all but name?
Whilst it may not be the most noble of reasons, it may, for some of them, be a practical consideration. People develop a lifestyle that matches their income. And yes, being an MP is not always a guaranteed long term career - but for many it is (particularly in 'safe seats')
And so if you take on a mortgage and other financial commitments in the expectation of a certain level of income for you and your family, that will play a part in your thinking about the future.
I don't think wanting to maintain your family's lifestyle is something that necessarily makes you a Tory.
Under current circumstances, I would have hoped morality was a more important factor. But it would appear not.
The likes of Nick Griffin overtly supporting Corbyn on antisemitism could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back among moderate Labour MPs.
Don’t be silly. The problem is what is left of the moderate MPs, most of the leading ones are totally wets. If chuka umunna was leading you into battle I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to find just as everybody charges forward, he instantly turned about face and ran away.
The only one with some guts is mrs cooper balls.
What evidence of her having some guts has there been over, say, the last three years? She’s been largely invisible.
They’re almost all risible. In the recent well-informed piece by Stephen Bush on a possible breakaway, one line stood out: the concern of some MPs that they might not earn as much elsewhere if it failed. What kind of political ethos does that show?
Isn't that clear proof they are Tories in all but name?
Not quite. They aren’t nutty enough to back Brexit.
Won't give the full list but the two late additions were in the Betting Without Hamilton and Vettel market, in which I backed Ricciardo and Bottas each way (fifth the odds top 3) at 7.5 and 9. That's to be, presuming no top DNFs, top 5.
Some interesting ideas.
A nitpick ... Instead, he came into the pits (unsure if that was a bad strategy call of a reliability failing)
It was a simple strategy call which didn’t pay off (but might well have). Note that when everyone pitted for tyres, Red Bull and Raikonnen fitted new boots and went immediately back out - which if the track had simply kept on getting wetter, would have given Raikkonen pole, and Red Bull a scent result. The downside, of course, is that no one has sufficient fuel onboard to run all the way through Q3 (SOP on a dry track, as carrying too much fuel costs too much time). Ferrari (sensibly) split their strategy, and wheeled Vettel into the garage to top up his fuel (you can’t refuel in the pit lane), as did Mercedes with Hamilton, and pretty well everyone else. The rain then stopped, and the low fuelled Bulls and Raikonnen were stuffed.
There are two reasons. Firstly, it's a matter of timing. Barring an extension of article 50 (which is not solely within the UK's remit), there's not enough time left for us to complete the procedural steps necessary for a second referendum.
Secondly, we'd need the agreement of our EU counterparties that we could return to the status quo ante. If they were agreeable (and I mean on an official basis, rather than warm noises from people like Tusk), then that would dramatically increase the likelihood. However, if you look at the Commission's position, they're using Brexit as an opportunity to look at removing all rebates for both simplification and fairness purposes.
Unless you assume that a second referendum would be decisive (e.g. 70:30 either way), the UK would be a dubious asset for the EU27. From a EZ point of view, Brexit means that non-EZ countries can no longer even theoretically summon a blocking minority under QMV, and it removes the anomaly of a non-EZ net contributor. We tend to have an incredibly insular view of Brexit; it's been our Achilles heel all along. If I were Macron, I'd be cheering to the rooftops at the prospect of removing perfidious Albion.
Hopefully not too partisan for your taste.
The only purpose of a second referendum is where Leavers realise their Brexit vote was a mistake and are looking for an out. That context changes things because the debate is no longer driven by Remainers versus Leavers but by Leave voters telling people that Brexit just won't work. There is no sign of Leavers actually changing their minds in great numbers so I basically agree with you.
I am certain however that Brexit will be a total clusterfuck. The only semi workable Brexit outcome is participation in the EU system on a do as you are told basis. i just don't see the UK accepting instruction from a body that it has rejected in a vote with effectively no influence or say over things that matter to it.
Brexit is undeliverable, yet SOMETHING has to be delivered. You don't get vacuums. Which is what makes the topic interesting, despite everything.
Transition to Limbo Brexitis the can kicking option.
I'm not sure even that's possible. You're either a member of the EU or you're not.
I am now reasonably sure that the last minute "deal" will be a different "no deal" - a "to be announced" deadline extension of Art.50. Only the ERG loons will oppose it.
Then the EU and the UK can negotiate forever. After some years, people will even forget what the referendum was about.
The likes of Nick Griffin overtly supporting Corbyn on antisemitism could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back among moderate Labour MPs.
Don’t be silly. The problem is what is left of the moderate MPs, most of the leading ones are totally wets. If chuka umunna was leading you into battle I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to find just as everybody charges forward, he instantly turned about face and ran away.
The only one with some guts is mrs cooper balls.
What evidence of her having some guts has there been over, say, the last three years? She’s been largely invisible.
They’re almost all risible. In the recent well-informed piece by Stephen Bush on a possible breakaway, one line stood out: the concern of some MPs that they might not earn as much elsewhere if it failed. What kind of political ethos does that show?
Isn't that clear proof they are Tories in all but name?
Whilst it may not be the most noble of reasons, it may, for some of them, be a practical consideration. People develop a lifestyle that matches their income. And yes, being an MP is not always a guaranteed long term career - but for many it is (particularly in 'safe seats')
And so if you take on a mortgage and other financial commitments in the expectation of a certain level of income for you and your family, that will play a part in your thinking about the future.
I don't think wanting to maintain your family's lifestyle is something that necessarily makes you a Tory.
Under current circumstances, I would have hoped morality was a more important factor. But it would appear not.
I was being mischievous... it wasn't a serious point...
There are two reasons. Firstly, it's a matter of timing. Barring an extension of
Unless you assume that a second referendum would be decisive (e.g. 70:30 either way), the UK would be a dubious asset for the EU27. From a EZ point of view, Brexit means that non-EZ countries can no longer even theoretically summon a blocking minority under QMV, and it removes the anomaly of a non-EZ net contributor. We tend to have an incredibly insular view of Brexit; it's been our Achilles heel all along. If I were Macron, I'd be cheering to the rooftops at the prospect of removing perfidious Albion.
Hopefully not too partisan for your taste.
The only purpose of a second referendum is where Leavers realise their Brexit vote was a mistake and are looking for an out. That context changes things because the debate is no longer driven by Remainers versus Leavers but by Leave voters telling people that Brexit just won't work. There is no sign of Leavers actually changing their minds in great numbers so I basically agree with you.
I am certain however that Brexit will be a total clusterfuck. The only semi workable Brexit outcome is participation in the EU system on a do as you are told basis. i just don't see the UK accepting instruction from a body that it has rejected in a vote with effectively no influence or say over things that matter to it.
Brexit is undeliverable, yet SOMETHING has to be delivered. You don't get vacuums. Which is what makes the topic interesting, despite everything.
Transition to Limbo Brexitis the can kicking option.
I'm not sure even that's possible. You're either a member of the EU or you're not.
I am now reasonably sure that the last minute "deal" will be a different "no deal" - a "to be announced" deadline extension of Art.50. Only the ERG loons will oppose it.
Then the EU and the UK can negotiate forever. After some years, people will even forget what the referendum was about.
I think that is very optimistic
Also the EU 27 want to move on as they are facing huge problems over immigration and the rise of the hard left and right within the EU and their own elections just 9 months away
It shouldn’t be overlooked that any backing down by the EU on the Irish border would leave Michel Barnier swinging in the wind. That makes it considerably less likely.
Why? Barnier is a creature of the Commission and the EP. The Council have accepted him but they have no especial reason to dance to his tune. Indeed, arguably they have been indulging him for a long time already.
If - as is rumoured - he is Selmayr's preferred candidate to replace Juncker the temptation to throw him under a bus to remind Brussels who really runs the EU must actually be very considerable.
When scientists make experiments, they try everything in their power to falsify their hypothesis. A strange phenomenon in political analysis seems to be that people do everything they can to ignore any problem with their hypothesis, while claiming academic rigour.. very odd
Your hypothesis is that if there were another referendum, UKIP would become more prominent. Suppose it's true. It's possible that it will have a negative effect, as people look at them and think, "You told us leaving the EU was a good idea and look what a mess it turned into."
Anything is possible. Don't factor it in if you don't want to, just listen to yourself.
Not a week ago you were rubbishing DeltaPoll, and ridiculing their main man Martin Boon when a poll of theirs didn't fit your narrative. A couple of days later you were citing their polling to back up an argument you wanted to make. That is bordering on intellectual dishonesty. Now you are defensive when someone points out a possible flaw in a poll you like. You should welcome the input if what you are interested in is the truth, rather than winning an argument or pushing a narrative
The fact that UKIP have collapsed (in every respect) is not a flaw in the polling. In any case it's central to the scenario I outlined below that the likes of Farage would be beneficial to the Remain campaign by rubbishing the actual Brexit deal that's on the table, so I don't see him or UKIP as an asset to any future Leave campaign where Leave means a long and tedious process.
You can't construct a hypothetical about the future by winding back the clock and replaying it.
IMO they would not fight on the proposed deal, they would fight the campaign on lying politicians. Videos of T May saying "Brexit means Brexit" and "We will control our borders, our laws, our etc" would be played non-stop. The videos would end with "LIARS."
EDIT: This is why May will never go for a second ref or peoples thingy, her political career would end.
Yes, any second referendum Leave campaign would start with videos of Cameron and May saying that they’ll implement the result and that Brexit means Brexit. It’ll be the original Leave campaign on steroids, while from the current evidence the Remain campaign will be based on the fact the that EU is Hotel California that we can never leave, and that Leave voters are a Basket of Deplorables.
It shouldn’t be overlooked that any backing down by the EU on the Irish border would leave Michel Barnier swinging in the wind. That makes it considerably less likely.
Why? Barnier is a creature of the Commission and the EP. The Council have accepted him but they have no especial reason to dance to his tune. Indeed, arguably they have been indulging him for a long time already.
If - as is rumoured - he is Selmayr's preferred candidate to replace Juncker the temptation to throw him under a bus to remind Brussels who really runs the EU must actually be very considerable.
They haven’t been indulging him (generally). He’s constrained by his remit and has been getting minimal guidance from his supposed principals. Senior negotiators in weak organisations - and the EU is currently a weak organisation - have a lot of practical influence.
When scientists make experiments, they try everything in their power to falsify their hypothesis. A strange phenomenon in political analysis seems to be that people do everything they can to ignore any problem with their hypothesis, while claiming academic rigour.. very odd
Your hypothesis is that if there were another referendum, UKIP would become more prominent. Suppose it's true. It's possible that it will have a negative effect, as people look at them and think, "You told us leaving the EU was a good idea and look what a mess it turned into."
Anything is possible. Don't factor it in if you don't want to, just listen to yourself.
Not a week ago you were rubbishing DeltaPoll, and ridiculing their main man Martin Boon when a poll of theirs didn't fit your narrative. A couple of days later you were citing their polling to back up an argument you wanted to make. That is bordering on intellectual dishonesty. Now you are defensive when someone points out a possible flaw in a poll you like. You should welcome the input if what you are interested in is the truth, rather than winning an argument or pushing a narrative
The fact that UKIP have collapsed (in every respect) is not a flaw in the polling. In any case it's central to the scenario I outlined below that the likes of Farage would be beneficial to the Remain campaign by rubbishing the actual Brexit deal that's on the table, so I don't see him or UKIP as an asset to any future Leave campaign where Leave means a long and tedious process.
You can't construct a hypothetical about the future by winding back the clock and replaying it.
IMO they would not fight on the proposed deal, they would fight the campaign on lying politicians. Videos of T May saying "Brexit means Brexit" and "We will control our borders, our laws, our etc" would be played non-stop. The videos would end with "LIARS."
EDIT: This is why May will never go for a second ref or peoples thingy, her political career would end.
Yes, any second referendum Leave campaign would start with videos of Cameron and May saying that they’ll implement the result and that Brexit means Brexit. It’ll be the original Leave campaign on steroids, while from the current evidence the Remain campaign will be based on the fact the that EU is Hotel California that we can never leave, and that Leave voters are a Basket of Deplorables.
Sod the working classes, they shat the bed and must live with their choices.
The fact that a no deal Brexit will negatively impact them disproportionately is delicious
They can't say they weren't warned by the Forces of Good and Light Remain campaign about the dangers of No Deal.
The discord in the country will only be resolved once we've experienced a few years outside the EU and people will be able to determine if it was worth it.
Your hypothesis is that if there were another referendum, UKIP would become more prominent. Suppose it's true. It's possible that it will have a negative effect, as people look at them and think, "You told us leaving the EU was a good idea and look what a mess it turned into."
Anything is possible. Don't factor it in if you don't want to, just listen to yourself.
Not a week ago you were rubbishing DeltaPoll, and ridiculing their main man Martin Boon when a poll of theirs didn't fit your narrative. A couple of days later you were citing their polling to back up an argument you wanted to make. That is bordering on intellectual dishonesty. Now you are defensive when someone points out a possible flaw in a poll you like. You should welcome the input if what you are interested in is the truth, rather than winning an argument or pushing a narrative
The fact that UKIP have collapsed (in every respect) is not a flaw in the polling. In any case it's central to the scenario I outlined below that the likes of Farage would be beneficial to the Remain campaign by rubbishing the actual Brexit deal that's on the table, so I don't see him or UKIP as an asset to any future Leave campaign where Leave means a long and tedious process.
You can't construct a hypothetical about the future by winding back the clock and replaying it.
IMO they would not fight on the proposed deal, they would fight the campaign on lying politicians. Videos of T May saying "Brexit means Brexit" and "We will control our borders, our laws, our etc" would be played non-stop. The videos would end with "LIARS."
EDIT: This is why May will never go for a second ref or peoples thingy, her political career would end.
Yes, any second referendum Leave campaign would start with videos of Cameron and May saying that they’ll implement the result and that Brexit means Brexit. It’ll be the original Leave campaign on steroids, while from the current evidence the Remain campaign will be based on the fact the that EU is Hotel California that we can never leave, and that Leave voters are a Basket of Deplorables.
In a hypothetical referendum campaign I would have thought the thrust of the Remain campaign would be to ask voters: “do you think the country has been going in a better direction since the last vote?”, illustrated with Mail headlines and the utterances of Leavers.
Your hypothesis is that if there were another referendum, UKIP would become more prominent. Suppose it's true. It's possible that it will have a negative effect, as people look at them and think, "You told us leaving the EU was a good idea and look what a mess it turned into."
Anything is possible. Don't factor it in if you don't want to, just listen to yourself.
Not a week ago you were rubbishing DeltaPoll, and ridiculing their main man Martin Boon when a poll of theirs didn't fit your narrative. A couple of days later you were citing their polling to back up an argument you wanted to make. That is bordering on intellectual dishonesty. Now you are defensive when someone points out a possible flaw in a poll you like. You should welcome the input if what you are interested in is the truth, rather than winning an argument or pushing a narrative
The fact that UKIP have collapsed (in every respect) is not a flaw in the polling. In any case it's central to the scenario I outlined below that the likes of Farage would be beneficial to the Remain campaign by rubbishing the actual Brexit deal that's on the table, so I don't see him or UKIP as an asset to any future Leave campaign where Leave means a long and tedious process.
You can't construct a hypothetical about the future by winding back the clock and replaying it.
IMO they would not fight on the proposed deal, they would fight the campaign on lying politicians. Videos of T May saying "Brexit means Brexit" and "We will control our borders, our laws, our etc" would be played non-stop. The videos would end with "LIARS."
EDIT: This is why May will never go for a second ref or peoples thingy, her political career would end.
Yes, any second referendum Leave campaign would start with videos of Cameron and May saying that they’ll implement the result and that Brexit means Brexit. It’ll be the original Leave campaign on steroids, while from the current evidence the Remain campaign will be based on the fact the that EU is Hotel California that we can never leave, and that Leave voters are a Basket of Deplorables.
"May has betrayed Brexit - vote for her deal"
How does that work?
The only possible second referendum is on the Noel Edmunds basis - deal or no deal. The minute that a hypothetical Deal or Remain referendum is proposed, the PM will be replaced by her own party.
Sod the working classes, they shat the bed and must live with their choices.
The fact that a no deal Brexit will negatively impact them disproportionately is delicious
They can't say they weren't warned by the Forces of Good and Light Remain campaign about the dangers of No Deal.
The discord in the country will only be resolved once we've experienced a few years outside the EU and people will be able to determine if it was worth it.
If the working classes had been listened to on immigration and Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 or Cameron managed to get at least some modicum of concession from the EU on free movement before the EU referendum fewer of them would have voted Leave
The only possible second referendum is on the Noel Edmunds basis - deal or no deal. The minute that a hypothetical Deal or Remain referendum is proposed, the PM will be replaced by her own party.
You know I'm writing a thread for publication in next week which says she might be replaced as Tory Leader but remain PM.
You know a PM needs the support of a majority of MPs.
Say Mrs May proposes another referendum on Remain or Leave options, she's ousted as Tory Leader but 100 Tory MPs align with 200 Labour MPs and enough from the Lib Dems, Greens, and SNP to keep Mrs May as PM to ensure the legislation for the referendum is passed.
Anything is possible. Don't factor it in if you don't want to, just listen to yourself.
Not a week ago you were rubbishing DeltaPoll, and ridiculing their main man Martin Boon when a poll of theirs didn't fit your narrative. A couple of days later you were citing their polling to back up an argument you wanted to make. That is bordering on intellectual dishonesty. Now you are defensive when someone points out a possible flaw in a poll you like. You should welcome the input if what you are interested in is the truth, rather than winning an argument or pushing a narrative
The fact that UKIP have collapsed (in every respect) is not a flaw in the polling. In any case it's central to the scenario I outlined below that the likes of Farage would be beneficial to the Remain campaign by rubbishing the actual Brexit deal that's on the table, so I don't see him or UKIP as an asset to any future Leave campaign where Leave means a long and tedious process.
You can't construct a hypothetical about the future by winding back the clock and replaying it.
IMO they would not fight on the proposed deal, they would fight the campaign on lying politicians. Videos of T May saying "Brexit means Brexit" and "We will control our borders, our laws, our etc" would be played non-stop. The videos would end with "LIARS."
EDIT: This is why May will never go for a second ref or peoples thingy, her political career would end.
Yes, any second referendum Leave campaign would start with videos of Cameron and May saying that they’ll implement the result and that Brexit means Brexit. It’ll be the original Leave campaign on steroids, while from the current evidence the Remain campaign will be based on the fact the that EU is Hotel California that we can never leave, and that Leave voters are a Basket of Deplorables.
"May has betrayed Brexit - vote for her deal"
How does that work?
The only possible second referendum is on the Noel Edmunds basis - deal or no deal. The minute that a hypothetical Deal or Remain referendum is proposed, the PM will be replaced by her own party.
No referendum gets through Parliament without a Remain option tacked on.
Yes, any second referendum Leave campaign would start with videos of Cameron and May saying that they’ll implement the result and that Brexit means Brexit. It’ll be the original Leave campaign on steroids, while from the current evidence the Remain campaign will be based on the fact the that EU is Hotel California that we can never leave, and that Leave voters are a Basket of Deplorables.
Worth remembering that the prophesies of immediate economic doom as a consequence of a vote to leave have also been proved wrong.
Your hypothesis is that if there were another referendum, UKIP would become more prominent. Suppose it's true. It's possible that it will have a negative effect, as people look at them and think, "You told us leaving the EU was a good idea and look what a mess it turned into."
Anything is possible. Don't factor it in if you don't want to, just listen to yourself.
Not a week ago you were rubbishing DeltaPoll, and ridiculing their main man Martin Boon when a poll of theirs didn't fit your narrative. A couple of days later you were citing their polling to back up an argument you wanted to make. That is bordering on intellectual dishonesty. Now you are defensive when someone points out a possible flaw in a poll you like. You should welcome the input if what you are interested in is the truth, rather than winning an argument or pushing a narrative
The fact that UKIP have collapsed (in every respect) is not a flaw in the polling. In any case it's central to the scenario I outlined below that the likes of Farage would be beneficial to the Remain campaign by rubbishing the actual Brexit deal that's on the table, so I don't see him or UKIP as an asset to any future Leave campaign where Leave means a long and tedious process.
You can't construct a hypothetical about the future by winding back the clock and replaying it.
IMO they would not fight on the proposed deal, they would fight the campaign on lying politicians. Videos of T May saying "Brexit means Brexit" and "We will control our borders, our laws, our etc" would be played non-stop. The videos would end with "LIARS."
EDIT: This is why May will never go for a second ref or peoples thingy, her political career would end.
Yes, any second referendum Leave campaign would start with videos of Cameron and May saying that they’ll implement the result and that Brexit means Brexit. It’ll be the original Leave campaign on steroids, while from the current evidence the Remain campaign will be based on the fact the that EU is Hotel California that we can never leave, and that Leave voters are a Basket of Deplorables.
In a hypothetical referendum campaign I would have thought the thrust of the Remain campaign would be to ask voters: “do you think the country has been going in a better direction since the last vote?”, illustrated with Mail headlines and the utterances of Leavers.
Watching a bunch of Londoners who earn more than the national average monthly wage per day, try and lecture the rest of the country why they were wrong the first time around is going to be hillarious to watch. They should sell tickets to it.
There are two reasons. Firstly, it's a matter of timing. Barring an extension of article 50 (which is not solely within the UK's remit), there's not enough time left for us to complete the procedural steps necessary for a second referendum.
Secondly, we'd need the agreement of our EU counterparties that we could return to the status quo ante. If they were agreeable (and I mean on an official basis, rather than warm noises from people like Tusk), then that would dramatically increase the likelihood. However, if you look at the Commission's position, they're using Brexit as an opportunity to look at removing
Hopefully not too partisan for your taste.
The only purpose of a second referendum is where Leavers realise their Brexit vote was a mistake and are looking for an out. That context changes things because the debate is no longer driven by Remainers versus Leavers but by Leave voters telling people that Brexit just won't work. There is no sign of Leavers actually changing their minds in great numbers so I basically agree with you.
I am certain however that Brexit will be a total clusterfuck. The only semi workable Brexit outcome is participation in the EU system on a do as you are told basis. i just don't see the UK accepting instruction from a body that it has rejected in a vote with effectively no influence or say over things that matter to it.
Brexit is undeliverable, yet SOMETHING has to be delivered. You don't get vacuums. Which is what makes the topic interesting, despite everything.
No Brexit and free movement remaining the same as before the EU referendum is undeliverable too without a far right party surge
Maybe but that doesn't help make any particular outcome more deliverable.
It does confirm the Chequers Deal or a variant of it remains the best outcome
The variant of Chequers that MIGHT be acceptable to the EU is SM for goods + CU + EU VAT area + ECJ oversight + agreed preferential treatment of EU nationals. Even that's not certain. Why not go the whole hog?
As a work permits requirement for EU citizens on arrival and at least the opportunity to do pur own trade deals are non negotiable under May's red lines
Anything is possible. Don't factor it in if you don't want to, just listen to yourself.
Not a week ago you were rubbishing DeltaPoll, and ridiculing their main man Martin Boon when a poll of theirs didn't fit your narrative. A couple of days later you were citing their polling to back up an argument you wanted to make. That is bordering on intellectual dishonesty. Now you are defensive when someone points out a possible flaw in a poll you like. You should welcome the input if what you are interested in is the truth, rather than winning an argument or pushing a narrative
The fact that UKIP have collapsed (in every respect) is not a flaw in the polling. In any case it's central to the scenario I outlined below that the likes of Farage would be beneficial to the Remain campaign by rubbishing the actual Brexit deal that's on the table, so I don't see him or UKIP as an asset to any future Leave campaign where Leave means a long and tedious process.
You can't construct a hypothetical about the future by winding back the clock and replaying it.
IMO they would not fight on the proposed deal, they would fight the campaign on lying politicians. Videos of T May saying "Brexit means Brexit" and "We will control our borders, our laws, our etc" would be played non-stop. The videos would end with "LIARS."
EDIT: This is why May will never go for a second ref or peoples thingy, her political career would end.
Yes, any second referendum Leave campaign would start with videos of Cameron and May saying that they’ll implement the result and that Brexit means Brexit. It’ll be the original Leave campaign on steroids, while from the current evidence the Remain campaign will be based on the fact the that EU is Hotel California that we can never leave, and that Leave voters are a Basket of Deplorables.
"May has betrayed Brexit - vote for her deal"
How does that work?
The only possible second referendum is on the Noel Edmunds basis - deal or no deal. The minute that a hypothetical Deal or Remain referendum is proposed, the PM will be replaced by her own party.
No referendum gets through Parliament without a Remain option tacked on.
True.
No referendum gets through Parliament without a Remain option. No referendum gets through the Party with a Remain option.
Your hypothesis is that if there were another referendum, UKIP would become more prominent. Suppose it's true. It's possible that it will have a negative effect, as people look at them and think, "You told us leaving the EU was a good idea and look what a mess it turned into."
Anything is possible. Don't factor it in if you don't want to, just listen to yourself.
rgument or pushing a narrative
The fact that UKIP have collapsed (in every respect) is not a flaw in the polling. In any case it's central to the scenario I outlined below that the likes of Farage would be beneficial to the Remain campaign by rubbishing the actual Brexit deal that's on the table, so I don't see him or UKIP as an asset to any future Leave campaign where Leave means a long and tedious process.
You can't construct a hypothetical about the future by winding back the clock and replaying it.
IMO they would not fight on the proposed deal, they would fight the campaign on lying politicians. Videos of T May saying "Brexit means Brexit" and "We will control our borders, our laws, our etc" would be played non-stop. The videos would end with "LIARS."
EDIT: This is why May will never go for a second ref or peoples thingy, her political career would end.
Yes, any second referendum Leave campaign would start with videos of Cameron and May saying that they’ll implement the result and that Brexit means Brexit. It’ll be the original Leave campaign on steroids, while from the current evidence the Remain campaign will be based on the fact the that EU is Hotel California that we can never leave, and that Leave voters are a Basket of Deplorables.
In a hypothetical referendum campaign I would have thought the thrust of the Remain campaign would be to ask voters: “do you think the country has been going in a better direction since the last vote?”, illustrated with Mail headlines and the utterances of Leavers.
It is very interesting to try and work out what a smart remain campaign would focus on. Your question would, by a lot of voters be answered yes. Why? Economy fine, jobs growing, England doing well in the World Cup. To me the only way remain can win a second ref is if the EU said we could have 10 years of EU immigration control. Then the campaign could come back with a bona fide new offer. I think they need a new offer to win.
Anything is possible. Don't factor it in if you don't want to, just listen to yourself.
Not a week ago you were rubbishing DeltaPoll, and ridiculing their main man Martin Boon when a poll of theirs didn't fit your narrative. A couple of days later you were citing their polling to back up an argument you wanted to make. That is bordering on intellectual dishonesty. Now you are defensive when someone points out a possible flaw in a poll you like. You should welcome the input if what you are interested in is the truth, rather than winning an argument or pushing a narrative
The fact that UKIP have collapsed (in every respect) is not a flaw in nd tedious process.
You can't construct a hypothetical about the future by winding back the clock and replaying it.
IMO they would not fight on the proposed deal, they would fight the campaign on lying politicians. Videos of T May saying "Brexit means Brexit" and "We will control our borders, our laws, our etc" would be played non-stop. The videos would end with "LIARS."
EDIT: This is why May will never go for a second ref or peoples thingy, her political career would end.
Yes, any second referendum Leave campaign would start with videos of Cameron and May saying that they’ll implement the result and that Brexit means Brexit. It’ll be the original Leave campaign on steroids, while from the current evidence the Remain campaign will be based on the fact the that EU is Hotel California that we can never leave, and that Leave voters are a Basket of Deplorables.
"May has betrayed Brexit - vote for her deal"
How does that work?
The only possible second referendum is on the Noel Edmunds basis - deal or no deal. The minute that a hypothetical Deal or Remain referendum is proposed, the PM will be replaced by her own party.
No referendum gets through Parliament without a Remain option tacked on.
It could do with most Tories + Labour Leave MPs like Stringer and Hoey and Field and Mann + the DUP voting for it. If the SNP abstain its passage would be guaranteed, it is not impossible Corbyn would abstain on a Deal or No Deal vote too
The only possible second referendum is on the Noel Edmunds basis - deal or no deal. The minute that a hypothetical Deal or Remain referendum is proposed, the PM will be replaced by her own party.
You know I'm writing a thread for publication in next week which says she might be replaced as Tory Leader but remain PM.
You know a PM needs the support of a majority of MPs.
Say Mrs May proposes another referendum on Remain or Leave options, she's ousted as Tory Leader but 100 Tory MPs align with 200 Labour MPs and enough from the Lib Dems, Greens, and SNP to keep Mrs May as PM to ensure the legislation for the referendum is passed.
Lol, I thought @seant was our house fantasy writer.
The only possible second referendum is on the Noel Edmunds basis - deal or no deal. The minute that a hypothetical Deal or Remain referendum is proposed, the PM will be replaced by her own party.
You know I'm writing a thread for publication in next week which says she might be replaced as Tory Leader but remain PM.
You know a PM needs the support of a majority of MPs.
Say Mrs May proposes another referendum on Remain or Leave options, she's ousted as Tory Leader but 100 Tory MPs align with 200 Labour MPs and enough from the Lib Dems, Greens, and SNP to keep Mrs May as PM to ensure the legislation for the referendum is passed.
Why wouldn't Corbyn in that scenario just put down a Vote of No Confidence and go to the country before first? There's no way 200 Labour MPs would vote against an early election and for the continuance of May as PM.
The fact that UKIP have collapsed (in every respect) is not a flaw in the polling. In any case it's central to the scenario I outlined below that the likes of Farage would be beneficial to the Remain campaign by rubbishing the actual Brexit deal that's on the table, so I don't see him or UKIP as an asset to any future Leave campaign where Leave means a long and tedious process.
You can't construct a hypothetical about the future by winding back the clock and replaying it.
IMO they would not fight on the proposed deal, they would fight the campaign on lying politicians. Videos of T May saying "Brexit means Brexit" and "We will control our borders, our laws, our etc" would be played non-stop. The videos would end with "LIARS."
EDIT: This is why May will never go for a second ref or peoples thingy, her political career would end.
Yes, any second referendum Leave campaign would start with videos of Cameron and May saying that they’ll implement the result and that Brexit means Brexit. It’ll be the original Leave campaign on steroids, while from the current evidence the Remain campaign will be based on the fact the that EU is Hotel California that we can never leave, and that Leave voters are a Basket of Deplorables.
In a hypothetical referendum campaign I would have thought the thrust of the Remain campaign would be to ask voters: “do you think the country has been going in a better direction since the last vote?”, illustrated with Mail headlines and the utterances of Leavers.
Watching a bunch of Londoners who earn more than the national average monthly wage per day, try and lecture the rest of the country why they were wrong the first time around is going to be hillarious to watch. They should sell tickets to it.
It would largely comprise words from Londoners called Boris, Iain, Andrea, Liam and a northerner called David. And you’re right, it would be hilarious.
Leave are the incumbents now and given their staggering ineptness in power, they would make for easy targets. Indeed, it’s highly likely their own campaign material would reinforce the Remain campaign themes.
Labour MP Mike Gapes 'reveals he is quitting the party' after calling Jeremy Corbyn a 'racist antisemite' over his comments on 'British Zionists'
I'm sure his many years of service to the party will be appreciated by all.
But in all seriousness, whether one agrees with his stand or not, well done him for at least taking that stand. There may be lines to be crossed for other MPs, but others seem to act as though there are no red lines for them, but they will persist in pretending they will go. We'll see in time how many are in the latter category - and if nothing could make them leave, or it would not be worth it due to losing all influence for good within the movement, fine, but they should be clear on that.
It could do with most Tories + Labour Leave MPs like Stringer and Hoey and Field and Mann + the DUP voting for it. If the SNP abstain its passage would be guaranteed, it is not impossible Corbyn would abstain on a Deal or No Deal vote too
SNP wouldn't abstain, they'd vote for a remain option and against any such deal or no deal referendum that didn't give Scotland a veto on the final choice (which would never happen so they'd vote against any referendum).
It is impossible Corbyn would abstain on giving May a referendum she wants.
Sod the working classes, they shat the bed and must live with their choices.
The fact that a no deal Brexit will negatively impact them disproportionately is delicious
They can't say they weren't warned by the Forces of Good and Light Remain campaign about the dangers of No Deal.
The discord in the country will only be resolved once we've experienced a few years outside the EU and people will be able to determine if it was worth it.
The only possible second referendum is on the Noel Edmunds basis - deal or no deal. The minute that a hypothetical Deal or Remain referendum is proposed, the PM will be replaced by her own party.
You know I'm writing a thread for publication in next week which says she might be replaced as Tory Leader but remain PM.
You know a PM needs the support of a majority of MPs.
Say Mrs May proposes another referendum on Remain or Leave options, she's ousted as Tory Leader but 100 Tory MPs align with 200 Labour MPs and enough from the Lib Dems, Greens, and SNP to keep Mrs May as PM to ensure the legislation for the referendum is passed.
Not going to happen - for starters the Palace would hate it because it would put the Queen right at the heart of the issue.
The convention is that the leader of the largest party is asked to see if they can form a government. The Palace will stick to that.
If 100 Tory MPs refuse to support the leader of their party as PM then effectively they have left and formed their own party.
The fact that UKIP have collapsed (in every respect) is not a flaw in the polling. In any case it's central to the scenario I outlined below that the likes of Farage would be beneficial to the Remain campaign by rubbishing the actual Brexit deal that's on the table, so I don't see him or UKIP as an asset to any future Leave campaign where Leave means a long and tedious process.
You can't construct a hypothetical about the future by winding back the clock and replaying it.
IMO they would not fight on the proposed deal, they would fight the campaign on lying politicians. Videos of T May saying "Brexit means Brexit" and "We will control our borders, our laws, our etc" would be played non-stop. The videos would end with "LIARS."
EDIT: This is why May will never go for a second ref or peoples thingy, her political career would end.
Yes, any second referendum Leave campaign would start with videos of Cameron and May saying that they’ll implement the result and that Brexit means Brexit. It’ll be the original Leave campaign on steroids, while from the current evidence the Remain campaign will be based on the fact the that EU is Hotel California that we can never leave, and that Leave voters are a Basket of Deplorables.
In a hypothetical referendum campaign I would have thought the thrust of the Remain campaign would be to ask voters: “do you think the country has been going in a better direction since the last vote?”, illustrated with Mail headlines and the utterances of Leavers.
It is very interesting to try and work out what a smart remain campaign would focus on. Your question would, by a lot of voters be answered yes. Why? Economy fine, jobs growing, England doing well in the World Cup. To me the only way remain can win a second ref is if the EU said we could have 10 years of EU immigration control. Then the campaign could come back with a bona fide new offer. I think they need a new offer to win.
Remain would only need to win a majority. They don’t need to persuade the hardcore nutjobs. The overwhelming majority think the government is making a complete Horlicks of things.
The only possible second referendum is on the Noel Edmunds basis - deal or no deal. The minute that a hypothetical Deal or Remain referendum is proposed, the PM will be replaced by her own party.
You know I'm writing a thread for publication in next week which says she might be replaced as Tory Leader but remain PM.
You know a PM needs the support of a majority of MPs.
Say Mrs May proposes another referendum on Remain or Leave options, she's ousted as Tory Leader but 100 Tory MPs align with 200 Labour MPs and enough from the Lib Dems, Greens, and SNP to keep Mrs May as PM to ensure the legislation for the referendum is passed.
The fact that UKIP have collapsed (in every respect) is not a flaw in the polling. In any case it's central to the scenario I outlined below that the likes of Farage would be beneficial to the Remain campaign by rubbishing the actual Brexit deal that's on the table, so I don't see him or UKIP as an asset to any future Leave campaign where Leave means a long and tedious process.
You can't construct a hypothetical about the future by winding back the clock and replaying it.
IMO they would not fight on the proposed deal, they would fight the campaign on lying politicians. Videos of T May saying "Brexit means Brexit" and "We will control our borders, our laws, our etc" would be played non-stop. The videos would end with "LIARS."
EDIT: This is why May will never go for a second ref or peoples thingy, her political career would end.
Yes, any second referendum Leave campaign would start with videos of Cameron and May saying that they’ll implement the result and that Brexit means Brexit. It’ll be the original Leave campaign on steroids, while from the current evidence the Remain campaign will be based on the fact the that EU is Hotel California that we can never leave, and that Leave voters are a Basket of Deplorables.
In a hypothetical referendum campaign I would have thought the thrust of the Remain campaign would be to ask voters: “do you think the country has been going in a better direction since the last vote?”, illustrated with Mail headlines and the utterances of Leavers.
Watching a bunch of Londoners who earn more than the national average monthly wage per day, try and lecture the rest of the country why they were wrong the first time around is going to be hillarious to watch. They should sell tickets to it.
It would largely comprise words from Londoners called Boris, Iain, Andrea, Liam and a northerner called David. And you’re right, it would be hilarious.
Leave are the incumbents now and given their staggering ineptness in power, they would make for easy targets. Indeed, it’s highly likely their own campaign material would reinforce the Remain campaign themes.
The only possible second referendum is on the Noel Edmunds basis - deal or no deal. The minute that a hypothetical Deal or Remain referendum is proposed, the PM will be replaced by her own party.
You know I'm writing a thread for publication in next week which says she might be replaced as Tory Leader but remain PM.
You know a PM needs the support of a majority of MPs.
Say Mrs May proposes another referendum on Remain or Leave options, she's ousted as Tory Leader but 100 Tory MPs align with 200 Labour MPs and enough from the Lib Dems, Greens, and SNP to keep Mrs May as PM to ensure the legislation for the referendum is passed.
Not going to happen - for starters the Palace would hate it because it would put the Queen right at the heart of the issue.
The convention is that the leader of the largest party is asked to see if they can form a government. The Palace will stick to that.
If 100 Tory MPs refuse to support the leader of their party as PM then effectively they have left and formed their own party.
Not going to happen.
That convention is superseded by the Fixed Term Parliament Act.
To me the only way remain can win a second ref is if the EU said we could have 10 years of EU immigration control. Then the campaign could come back with a bona fide new offer. I think they need a new offer to win.
The number one killer argument for Remain is that everyone is sick of Brexit and will vote for the option least likely to involve hearing about nothing else for the next 5 years or more.
The fact that UKIP have collapsed (in every respect) is not a flaw in the polling. In any case it's central to the scenario I outlined below that the likes of Farage would be beneficial to the Remain campaign by rubbishing the actual Brexit deal that's on the table, so I don't see him or UKIP as an asset to any future Leave campaign where Leave means a long and tedious process.
You can't construct a hypothetical about the future by winding back the clock and replaying it.
IMO they would not fight on the proposed deal, they would fight the campaign on lying politicians. Videos of T May saying "Brexit means Brexit" and "We will control our borders, our laws, our etc" would be played non-stop. The videos would end with "LIARS."
EDIT: This is why May will never go for a second ref or peoples thingy, her political career would end.
Yes, any second referendum Leave campaign would start with videos of Cameron and May saying that they’ll implement the result and that Brexit means Brexit. It’ll be the original Leave campaign on steroids, while from the current evidence the Remain campaign will be based on the fact the that EU is Hotel California that we can never leave, and that Leave voters are a Basket of Deplorables.
In a hypothetical referendum campaign I would have thought the thrust of the Remain campaign would be to ask voters: “do you think the country has been going in a better direction since the last vote?”, illustrated with Mail headlines and the utterances of Leavers.
Watching a bunch of Londoners who earn more than the national average monthly wage per day, try and lecture the rest of the country why they were wrong the first time around is going to be hillarious to watch. They should sell tickets to it.
It would largely comprise words from Londoners called Boris, Iain, Andrea, Liam and a northerner called David. And you’re right, it would be hilarious.
Leave are the incumbents now and given their staggering ineptness in power, they would make for easy targets. Indeed, it’s highly likely their own campaign material would reinforce the Remain campaign themes.
Isn't Liam Scottish???
Because he's useless at negotiating trade deals and spends all his time promoting his friends, he's been made an honorary member for the Square Mile.
The only possible second referendum is on the Noel Edmunds basis - deal or no deal. The minute that a hypothetical Deal or Remain referendum is proposed, the PM will be replaced by her own party.
You know I'm writing a thread for publication in next week which says she might be replaced as Tory Leader but remain PM.
You know a PM needs the support of a majority of MPs.
Say Mrs May proposes another referendum on Remain or Leave options, she's ousted as Tory Leader but 100 Tory MPs align with 200 Labour MPs and enough from the Lib Dems, Greens, and SNP to keep Mrs May as PM to ensure the legislation for the referendum is passed.
The Ramsay MacDonald option.
It ended so well for Labour and MacDonald...
That's one of the examples I use.
Mrs May will learn from history, the other example I'm using is the Kadima route.
Hopefully with a better outlook for Mrs May than Ariel Sharon.
Sod the working classes, they shat the bed and must live with their choices.
The fact that a no deal Brexit will negatively impact them disproportionately is delicious
They can't say they weren't warned by the Forces of Good and Light Remain campaign about the dangers of No Deal.
The discord in the country will only be resolved once we've experienced a few years outside the EU and people will be able to determine if it was worth it.
It could do with most Tories + Labour Leave MPs like Stringer and Hoey and Field and Mann + the DUP voting for it. If the SNP abstain its passage would be guaranteed, it is not impossible Corbyn would abstain on a Deal or No Deal vote too
SNP wouldn't abstain, they'd vote for a remain option and against any such deal or no deal referendum that didn't give Scotland a veto on the final choice (which would never happen so they'd vote against any referendum).
It is impossible Corbyn would abstain on giving May a referendum she wants.
Even if both the SNP and the vast majority of the Labour Party vote against a Deal or No Deal referendum proposed by May it could still pass with the support of the vast majority of Tory MPs (the ERG would vote for it as it included a No Deal option) and the DUP and 5 or 6 Labour Leave MPs much like the vote to Leave the Customs Union passed the Commons
It feels like there is a trend in the last few years of goalkeepers screwing around and wandering out of their area without need, and I don't really get it - even the really good goalkeepers who do it, they are't good because they do that, they are good inspite of it, and even then it causes them problems on occasion.
The only possible second referendum is on the Noel Edmunds basis - deal or no deal. The minute that a hypothetical Deal or Remain referendum is proposed, the PM will be replaced by her own party.
You know I'm writing a thread for publication in next week which says she might be replaced as Tory Leader but remain PM.
You know a PM needs the support of a majority of MPs.
Say Mrs May proposes another referendum on Remain or Leave options, she's ousted as Tory Leader but 100 Tory MPs align with 200 Labour MPs and enough from the Lib Dems, Greens, and SNP to keep Mrs May as PM to ensure the legislation for the referendum is passed.
Not going to happen - for starters the Palace would hate it because it would put the Queen right at the heart of the issue.
The convention is that the leader of the largest party is asked to see if they can form a government. The Palace will stick to that.
If 100 Tory MPs refuse to support the leader of their party as PM then effectively they have left and formed their own party.
Not going to happen.
That convention is superseded by the Fixed Term Parliament Act.
Nope - only if the PM loses a vote of confidence is someone else asked to try to form a government
Unless it's been pre-agreed by all the individuals (on the Tory side) it simply won't happen. And I can't see anyone on the Tory side being willing to become leader without also becoming PM.
The only possible second referendum is on the Noel Edmunds basis - deal or no deal. The minute that a hypothetical Deal or Remain referendum is proposed, the PM will be replaced by her own party.
You know I'm writing a thread for publication in next week which says she might be replaced as Tory Leader but remain PM.
You know a PM needs the support of a majority of MPs.
Say Mrs May proposes another referendum on Remain or Leave options, she's ousted as Tory Leader but 100 Tory MPs align with 200 Labour MPs and enough from the Lib Dems, Greens, and SNP to keep Mrs May as PM to ensure the legislation for the referendum is passed.
Not going to happen - for starters the Palace would hate it because it would put the Queen right at the heart of the issue.
The convention is that the leader of the largest party is asked to see if they can form a government. The Palace will stick to that.
If 100 Tory MPs refuse to support the leader of their party as PM then effectively they have left and formed their own party.
Not going to happen.
That convention is superseded by the Fixed Term Parliament Act.
And if it's the same Prime Minister continuing to command a majority in the House of Commons, why would it even trouble the palace?
The fact that UKIP have collapsed (in every respect) is not a flaw in the polling. In any case it's central to the scenario I outlined below that the likes of Farage would be beneficial to the Remain campaign by rubbishing the actual Brexit deal that's on the table, so I don't see him or UKIP as an asset to any future Leave campaign where Leave means a long and tedious process.
You can't construct a hypothetical about the future by winding back the clock and replaying it.
IMO they would not fight on the proposed deal, they would fight the campaign on lying politicians. Videos of T May saying "Brexit means Brexit" and "We will control our borders, our laws, our etc" would be played non-stop. The videos would end with "LIARS."
EDIT: This is why May will never go for a second ref or peoples thingy, her political career would end.
Yes, any second referendum Leave campaign would start with videos of Cameron and May saying that they’ll implement the result and that Brexit means Brexit. It’ll be the original Leave campaign on steroids, while from the current evidence the Remain campaign will be based on the fact the that EU is Hotel California that we can never leave, and that Leave voters are a Basket of Deplorables.
In a hypothetical referendum campaign I would have thought the thrust of the Remain campaign would be to ask voters: “do you think the country has been going in a better direction since the last vote?”, illustrated with Mail headlines and the utterances of Leavers.
Watching a bunch of Londoners who earn more than the national average monthly wage per day, try and lecture the rest of the country why they were wrong the first time around is going to be hillarious to watch. They should sell tickets to it.
It would largely comprise words from Londoners called Boris, Iain, Andrea, Liam and a northerner called David. And you’re right, it would be hilarious.
Leave are the incumbents now and given their staggering ineptness in power, they would make for easy targets. Indeed, it’s highly likely their own campaign material would reinforce the Remain campaign themes.
Indeed, those who use referendums to kick governments up the arse will have a great opportunity to switch sides.
The only possible second referendum is on the Noel Edmunds basis - deal or no deal. The minute that a hypothetical Deal or Remain referendum is proposed, the PM will be replaced by her own party.
You know I'm writing a thread for publication in next week which says she might be replaced as Tory Leader but remain PM.
You know a PM needs the support of a majority of MPs.
Say Mrs May proposes another referendum on Remain or Leave options, she's ousted as Tory Leader but 100 Tory MPs align with 200 Labour MPs and enough from the Lib Dems, Greens, and SNP to keep Mrs May as PM to ensure the legislation for the referendum is passed.
Not going to happen - for starters the Palace would hate it because it would put the Queen right at the heart of the issue.
The convention is that the leader of the largest party is asked to see if they can form a government. The Palace will stick to that.
If 100 Tory MPs refuse to support the leader of their party as PM then effectively they have left and formed their own party.
Not going to happen.
That convention is superseded by the Fixed Term Parliament Act.
And if it's the same Prime Minister continuing to command a majority in the House of Commons, why would it even trouble the palace?
Because any Tory MP who backed that without permission would be leaving the party.
Anyway, amusing though it is to imagine a fresh referendum campaign, the polling doesn’t yet justify one. There is no point unless it looks likely to settle the question decisively either way.
The only possible second referendum is on the Noel Edmunds basis - deal or no deal. The minute that a hypothetical Deal or Remain referendum is proposed, the PM will be replaced by her own party.
You know I'm writing a thread for publication in next week which says she might be replaced as Tory Leader but remain PM.
You know a PM needs the support of a majority of MPs.
Say Mrs May proposes another referendum on Remain or Leave options, she's ousted as Tory Leader but 100 Tory MPs align with 200 Labour MPs and enough from the Lib Dems, Greens, and SNP to keep Mrs May as PM to ensure the legislation for the referendum is passed.
The Ramsay MacDonald option.
It ended so well for Labour and MacDonald...
That's one of the examples I use.
Mrs May will learn from history, the other example I'm using is the Kadima route.
Hopefully with a better outlook for Mrs May than Ariel Sharon.
The problem is such options are disastrous for the country. The National Government left the opposition in the hands of a dogmatic pacifist. Had Arthur Henderson or Clynes been leader, it is inconceivable that rearmament would have been allowed to drop off the political agenda in the way it did. Kadima wrecked the traditional Israeli left wing parties, paving the way for the current power of Orthodox Jews and the settler movement over Netanyahu and Likud. It also gave Israel first Sharon and then Ehud Olmert as PM. The war criminal and the criminal.
I cannot see any scenario of May as MacDonald, Lloyd George or Sharon ending in anything than making matters still worse.
It feels like there is a trend in the last few years of goalkeepers screwing around and wandering out of their area without need, and I don't really get it - even the really good goalkeepers who do it, they are't good because they do that, they are good inspite of it, and even then it causes them problems on occasion.
The current generation of goalkeepers are the ones that started playing as kids after the back pass rule was implemented.
From a very young age they've had to play the ball.
The fact that UKIP have collapsed (in every respect) is not a flaw in the polling. In any case it's central to the scenario I outlined below that the likes of Farage would be beneficial to the Remain campaign by rubbishing the actual Brexit deal that's on the table, so I don't see him or UKIP as an asset to any future Leave campaign where Leave means a long and tedious process.
You can't construct a hypothetical about the future by winding back the clock and replaying it.
IMO they would not fight on the proposed deal, they would fight the campaign on lying politicians. Videos of T May saying "Brexit means Brexit" and "We will control our borders, our laws, our etc" would be played non-stop. The videos would end with "LIARS."
EDIT: This is why May will never go for a second ref or peoples thingy, her political career would end.
Yes, any second referendum Leave campaign would start with videos of Cameron and May saying that they’ll implement the result and that Brexit means Brexit. It’ll be the original Leave campaign on steroids, while from the current evidence the Remain campaign will be based on the fact the that EU is Hotel California that we can never leave, and that Leave voters are a Basket of Deplorables.
In a hypothetical referendum campaign I would have thought the thrust of the Remain campaign would be to ask voters: “do you think the country has been going in a better direction since the last vote?”, illustrated with Mail headlines and the utterances of Leavers.
Watching a bunch of Londoners who earn more than the national average monthly wage per day, try and lecture the rest of the country why they were wrong the first time around is going to be hillarious to watch. They should sell tickets to it.
It would largely comprise words from Londoners called Boris, Iain, Andrea, Liam and a northerner called David. And you’re right, it would be hilarious.
Leave are the incumbents now and given their staggering ineptness in power, they would make for easy targets. Indeed, it’s highly likely their own campaign material would reinforce the Remain campaign themes.
Great people talk about ideas. Average people talk about things. Small people talk about other people.
Right now, Leavers are talking about ideas and Remainers are talking about other people.
It feels like there is a trend in the last few years of goalkeepers screwing around and wandering out of their area without need, and I don't really get it - even the really good goalkeepers who do it, they are't good because they do that, they are good inspite of it, and even then it causes them problems on occasion.
The current generation of goalkeepers are the ones that started playing as kids after the back pass rule was implemented.
From a very young age they've had to play the ball.
That's not what they are doing wandering out needlessly, or getting caught out trying to be clever in playing the ball rather than hoofing it. It's like being a tailender - they need to know how to handle a bat a bit, the team might rely on it, but that doesn't mean they should mess about with extravagant and risky strokes if it is not needed.
When it works it is funny, but they aren't as good at it as they think and they need to be smarter about when they do it sometimes.
Anyway, amusing though it is to imagine a fresh referendum campaign, the polling doesn’t yet justify one. There is no point unless it looks likely to settle the question decisively either way.
The biggest problem with the first referendum is that it was effectively indecisive. If it had been 60/40 leave, there would be a very different narrative today and we wouldn't be expending nearly so much angst on different models.
The fact that UKIP have collapsed (in every respect) is not a flaw in the polling. In any case it's central to the scenario I outlined below that the likes of Farage would be beneficial to the Remain campaign by rubbishing the actual Brexit deal that's on the table, so I don't see him or UKIP as an asset to any future Leave campaign where Leave means a long and tedious process.
You can't construct a hypothetical about the future by winding back the clock and replaying it.
IMO they would not fight on the proposed deal, they would fight the campaign on lying politicians. Videos of T May saying "Brexit means Brexit" and "We will control our borders, our laws, our etc" would be played non-stop. The videos would end with "LIARS."
EDIT: This is why May will never go for a second ref or peoples thingy, her political career would end.
Yes, any second referendum Leave campaign would start with videos of Cameron and May saying that they’ll implement the result and that Brexit means Brexit. It’ll be the original Leave campaign on steroids, while from the current evidence the Remain campaign will be based on the fact the that EU is Hotel California that we can never leave, and that Leave voters are a Basket of Deplorables.
In a hypothetical referendum campaign I would have thought the thrust of the Remain campaign would be to ask voters: “do you think the country has been going in a better direction since the last vote?”, illustrated with Mail headlines and the utterances of Leavers.
Watching a bunch of Londoners who earn more than the national average monthly wage per day, try and lecture the rest of the country why they were wrong the first time around is going to be hillarious to watch. They should sell tickets to it.
It would largely comprise words from Londoners called Boris, Iain, Andrea, Liam and a northerner called David. And you’re right, it would be hilarious.
Leave are the incumbents now and given their staggering ineptness in power, they would make for easy targets. Indeed, it’s highly likely their own campaign material would reinforce the Remain campaign themes.
Great people talk about ideas. Average people talk about things. Small people talk about other people. Right now, Leavers are talking about ideas and Remainers are talking about other people.
The ideas Leavers are talking about are conspiracy theories and treachery. I’m not sure they count.
Anyway, amusing though it is to imagine a fresh referendum campaign, the polling doesn’t yet justify one. There is no point unless it looks likely to settle the question decisively either way.
The biggest problem with the first referendum is that it was effectively indecisive. If it had been 60/40 leave, there would be a very different narrative today and we wouldn't be expending nearly so much angst on different models.
The only way to guarantee a 60%+ result would have been for the referendum to be Remain and join the Eurozone or Leave, otherwise as long as it is halfway house Remain v Leave, Remain will always be able to get over 40%.
Thus the final EU referendum result was 52% Leave to 48% halfway house Remain
The third time I have posted the same thing more or less, so I apologise in advance....
At the time of the referendum, UKIP were polling 18-19%. They are now not even quoted by the pollsters. If there were another referendum they would become prominent again. It is up to the reader to decide whether that would make a difference or not, but it is worth bearing in mind when reading polls such as the one in the header.
Beyond Farage, who hasn't gone anywhere, who are 'they'?
There was a young man named Farage Who one day was locked in his garage He campaigned so hard But let down his guard And lost to an electoral barrage
*Checks diary for the 7th of September, Mike's midway through his holiday*
Let's see, that would be about 2.5 months since Swinson had her son I believe.
Could work.
You might be thinking too small. The timing fits with other political developments too.
Exciting as it might be for Cable to start his speech and then introduce all the Labour quitters one by one before announcing the launch of the New Party, I can't quite see it being that significant.
The only possible second referendum is on the Noel Edmunds basis - deal or no deal. The minute that a hypothetical Deal or Remain referendum is proposed, the PM will be replaced by her own party.
You know I'm writing a thread for publication in next week which says she might be replaced as Tory Leader but remain PM.
You know a PM needs the support of a majority of MPs.
Say Mrs May proposes another referendum on Remain or Leave options, she's ousted as Tory Leader but 100 Tory MPs align with 200 Labour MPs and enough from the Lib Dems, Greens, and SNP to keep Mrs May as PM to ensure the legislation for the referendum is passed.
The Ramsay MacDonald option.
It ended so well for Labour and MacDonald...
That's one of the examples I use.
Mrs May will learn from history, the other example I'm using is the Kadima route.
Hopefully with a better outlook for Mrs May than Ariel Sharon.
*Checks diary for the 7th of September, Mike's midway through his holiday*
Let's see, that would be about 2.5 months since Swinson had her son I believe.
Could work.
You might be thinking too small. The timing fits with other political developments too.
Exciting as it might be for Cable to start his speech and then introduce all the Labour quitters one by one before announcing the launch of the New Party, I can't quite see it being that significant.
I could conceivably see Mike Gapes joining the Lib Dems. Most so-called Labour moderates are just going to hang onto their sinecures until the public sees fit to put them out of their misery.
'Labour is a moral crusade or it is nothing' rings a bit hollow.
*Checks diary for the 7th of September, Mike's midway through his holiday*
Let's see, that would be about 2.5 months since Swinson had her son I believe.
Could work.
You might be thinking too small. The timing fits with other political developments too.
Exciting as it might be for Cable to start his speech and then introduce all the Labour quitters one by one before announcing the launch of the New Party, I can't quite see it being that significant.
I could conceivably see Mike Gapes joining the Lib Dems. Most so-called Labour moderates are just going to hang onto their sinecures until the public sees fit to put them out of their misery.
'Labour is a moral crusade or it is nothing' rings a bit hollow.
Nah, it still resonates.
It's just it's not a moral crusade at the moment.
Unless by 'Crusade' we are including all forms of war in the Holy Land, of course.
Comments
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/25-districts-that-could-decide-the-house-in-2018/?src=obsidebar=sb_1
You can't construct a hypothetical about the future by winding back the clock and replaying it.
As for the question of representation, post-2015 the pollsters realised they had a problem with unrepresentative panels and adopted two approaches: some (eg YouGov) made their panels more representative, some (eg Populus?) tweaked their turnout model to compensate. The former succeeded, the latter failed.
As for your assertion that "people who favour leaving the EU are less likely to register", may I ask for a link please? I know that younger people and the more politically engaged are more likely to join a panel (which indirectly supports your point), but is that true of Leavers per se?
EDIT: This is why May will never go for a second ref or peoples thingy, her political career would end.
They could call it... Iron Maiden.
In the same way, the suffragettes achieved their goal.
I am certain however that Brexit will be a total clusterfuck. The only semi workable Brexit outcome is participation in the EU system on a do as you are told basis. i just don't see the UK accepting instruction from a body that it has rejected in a vote with effectively no influence or say over things that matter to it.
Brexit is undeliverable, yet SOMETHING has to be delivered. You don't get vacuums. Which is what makes the topic interesting, despite everything.
If the choices are Remain and May's deal, why does it matter which side Cummings is on? May can't lose.
Also, would it not be a great smuggling route into the UK ?
We could say, for example, that all land borders that the UK has with third countries will be managed in this way, and that airports and ports will have a different procedure. So long as all countries are treated the same (AIUI) then we are compliant with WTO rules.
As for smuggling, yes, in theory. But it already happens because of the differential in taxes on easily transportable, high value items, such as cigarettes, that exist between the UK and RoI. The likelihood of significant other smuggling into the UK via RoI and NI is minimal.
And so if you take on a mortgage and other financial commitments in the expectation of a certain level of income for you and your family, that will play a part in your thinking about the future.
I don't think wanting to maintain your family's lifestyle is something that necessarily makes you a Tory.
Under current circumstances, I would have hoped morality was a more important factor. But it would appear not.
A nitpick ... Instead, he came into the pits (unsure if that was a bad strategy call of a reliability failing)
It was a simple strategy call which didn’t pay off (but might well have).
Note that when everyone pitted for tyres, Red Bull and Raikonnen fitted new boots and went immediately back out - which if the track had simply kept on getting wetter, would have given Raikkonen pole, and Red Bull a scent result. The downside, of course, is that no one has sufficient fuel onboard to run all the way through Q3 (SOP on a dry track, as carrying too much fuel costs too much time).
Ferrari (sensibly) split their strategy, and wheeled Vettel into the garage to top up his fuel (you can’t refuel in the pit lane), as did Mercedes with Hamilton, and pretty well everyone else.
The rain then stopped, and the low fuelled Bulls and Raikonnen were stuffed.
Then the EU and the UK can negotiate forever. After some years, people will even forget what the referendum was about.
Also the EU 27 want to move on as they are facing huge problems over immigration and the rise of the hard left and right within the EU and their own elections just 9 months away
If - as is rumoured - he is Selmayr's preferred candidate to replace Juncker the temptation to throw him under a bus to remind Brussels who really runs the EU must actually be very considerable.
How does that work?
The fact that a no deal Brexit will negatively impact them disproportionately is delicious
They can't say they weren't warned by the Forces of Good and Light Remain campaign about the dangers of No Deal.
The discord in the country will only be resolved once we've experienced a few years outside the EU and people will be able to determine if it was worth it.
I'm shocked, I tell you: shocked!
The minute that a hypothetical Deal or Remain referendum is proposed, the PM will be replaced by her own party.
You know a PM needs the support of a majority of MPs.
Say Mrs May proposes another referendum on Remain or Leave options, she's ousted as Tory Leader but 100 Tory MPs align with 200 Labour MPs and enough from the Lib Dems, Greens, and SNP to keep Mrs May as PM to ensure the legislation for the referendum is passed.
Good evening, everyone.
No referendum gets through Parliament without a Remain option.
No referendum gets through the Party with a Remain option.
Therefore no referendum gets through Parliament.
To me the only way remain can win a second ref is if the EU said we could have 10 years of EU immigration control. Then the campaign could come back with a bona fide new offer. I think they need a new offer to win.
*Checks diary for the 7th of September, Mike's midway through his holiday*
Leave are the incumbents now and given their staggering ineptness in power, they would make for easy targets. Indeed, it’s highly likely their own campaign material would reinforce the Remain campaign themes.
Alisson Becker.
He did this today.
https://twitter.com/UtkarshJos/status/1033416855921127425
And from a much better angle
https://twitter.com/Zaahid_LFC/status/1033422572988379136
But in all seriousness, whether one agrees with his stand or not, well done him for at least taking that stand. There may be lines to be crossed for other MPs, but others seem to act as though there are no red lines for them, but they will persist in pretending they will go. We'll see in time how many are in the latter category - and if nothing could make them leave, or it would not be worth it due to losing all influence for good within the movement, fine, but they should be clear on that.
It is impossible Corbyn would abstain on giving May a referendum she wants.
The convention is that the leader of the largest party is asked to see if they can form a government. The Palace will stick to that.
If 100 Tory MPs refuse to support the leader of their party as PM then effectively they have left and formed their own party.
Not going to happen.
It ended so well for Labour and MacDonald...
Mrs May will learn from history, the other example I'm using is the Kadima route.
Hopefully with a better outlook for Mrs May than Ariel Sharon.
Unless it's been pre-agreed by all the individuals (on the Tory side) it simply won't happen. And I can't see anyone on the Tory side being willing to become leader without also becoming PM.
Could work.
I cannot see any scenario of May as MacDonald, Lloyd George or Sharon ending in anything than making matters still worse.
From a very young age they've had to play the ball.
Average people talk about things.
Small people talk about other people.
Right now, Leavers are talking about ideas and Remainers are talking about other people.
When it works it is funny, but they aren't as good at it as they think and they need to be smarter about when they do it sometimes.
Thus the final EU referendum result was 52% Leave to 48% halfway house Remain
Who one day was locked in his garage
He campaigned so hard
But let down his guard
And lost to an electoral barrage
'Labour is a moral crusade or it is nothing' rings a bit hollow.
It's just it's not a moral crusade at the moment.
Unless by 'Crusade' we are including all forms of war in the Holy Land, of course.