I doubt it has gained that much traction with (a very bored and disengaged) Joe Public and that’s why I think Deal wins handily vs Remain. Richard N’s post really surprised me. I don’t agree, but I could be wildly wrong. As he himself says, “who knows?”
If I'm right and it comes down to Revoke vs The Deal, who's going to be campaigning for the deal?
Some Tories. I don't buy that remain/revoke would lose vs the deal - in that scenario virtually all of labour, plenty of Tories and every other political party would have already and continue to trash the deal.
That’s the point he is making I think?
I know, but others believe deal would win against remain.
It would be a fair question and the answer would depend on whether the mood becomes "yes, we really should leave even though it will be long and difficult" or "what a waste of time this is; let's accept we're in the EU to stay and get on with life".
I doubt it has gained that much traction with (a very bored and disengaged) Joe Public and that’s why I think Deal wins handily vs Remain. Richard N’s post really surprised me. I don’t agree, but I could be wildly wrong. As he himself says, “who knows?”
If I'm right and it comes down to Revoke vs The Deal, who's going to be campaigning for the deal?
Listening to the debate in the commons there are so many divergent views on Brexit that no compromise will ever get a majority. I am astounded how so many speakers just ignore the referendum result. It’s like they think we no longer live in a democracy and the will of the people can be ignored.
You should ask WHY the Commons does not reflect the same distribution of views as the referendum did. Everybody knows politicians are mostly expense-munching tossers but that's not the reason.
FPTP is a reason but only a minor one. It doesn't explain the disparity in UKIP voteshares: first place with 27% in an EU election (2014), third place with 13% in a GE (2015), and then the win in the referendum (2016) with over 60% in 163 constituencies. Come the general election in 2017 they got 2%, narrowly beating the Greens. Why on earth? In another country they would probably be in power by now. Nigel Farage would be prime minister or at least the leader of an important partner in a coalition. But not in Britain. For many Leave voters the referendum was a chance, at long last, to say "the hell with it; the politicians have eventually managed to ask me how I really feel and they're going to find out." People did something they believed to be considered naughty and dirty, including to some extent by themselves, but which was true and "real". Those who are planning big muesli parties for when the results of the rerun are announced will be in for such a big surprise. За здоровье!
Nutter O’Clock.
Ooh! I do like some nuts on my meuesli for Brexit.
I doubt it has gained that much traction with (a very bored and disengaged) Joe Public and that’s why I think Deal wins handily vs Remain. Richard N’s post really surprised me. I don’t agree, but I could be wildly wrong. As he himself says, “who knows?”
If I'm right and it comes down to Revoke vs The Deal, who's going to be campaigning for the deal?
Probably just me and Theresa
Sounds like someone would earn a peerage in her resignation honours.
Seems to me the HoC is a fair reflection of a country utterly divided, roughly 50:50 on the EU, with various sub-groups within each portion who disagree on various aspects and nuances.
Yes, Leave won. But by far too small a margin to settle matters.
Cameron's failure to add a threshold was a calamity.
Indeed - any constitutional referendum should have a sensible threshold set.
Some countries set a threshold for turnout, but is there a single country in the world where ANY kind of proposed change being voted on in a referendum, whether constitutional or otherwise, is declared the victor only if it wins by something other than a simple majority?
David Cameron's failure wasn't that he didn't require Leave to achieve 53%, or 66.7%, or some other figure bigger than 51.9%, which would have been idiotic and probably caused the mess the country is in by now to be even worse than it is. His failure was that he didn't convince enough people of the merits of staying in the EU. Partly that was because he wasn't fighting against a discredited Labour government that had been in office for 13 years and whose leader had just showed himself as a two-faced b*stard when he expressed his utmost contempt for a working class woman on film, nor was he able to play an "I agree with Nick" move. Mainly it was because no British government had ever bothered to channel propaganda to the Morlocks that painted the EU as an "us". Not many Tory clubs hang pictures of Edward Heath on their walls either. Which doesn't let Cameron off the hook. During his 7 years in office he didn't even try.
I doubt it has gained that much traction with (a very bored and disengaged) Joe Public and that’s why I think Deal wins handily vs Remain. Richard N’s post really surprised me. I don’t agree, but I could be wildly wrong. As he himself says, “who knows?”
If I'm right and it comes down to Revoke vs The Deal, who's going to be campaigning for the deal?
Check your Sporting Index account, Utah's turnout has been settled at a disgustingly large 51.40
I doubt it has gained that much traction with (a very bored and disengaged) Joe Public and that’s why I think Deal wins handily vs Remain. Richard N’s post really surprised me. I don’t agree, but I could be wildly wrong. As he himself says, “who knows?”
If I'm right and it comes down to Revoke vs The Deal, who's going to be campaigning for the deal?
Brexit is effectively about the Vassal State. Are Leavers willing to take "May's Deal" and commit to doing what we are told by the EU without any real say or influence? If yes, Brexit goes ahead. If no, it probably won't. Remainers are irrelevant to this. They will vote the same way in any second referendum. This is entirely a Leaver fight.
So, any defeats upcoming for the government in the coming days or are the votes all done until the 11th?
Mmmm. There weren't supposed to be any votes today, until late last night. To lose 3 votes when there weren't any is quite something. They may contrive a way to lose some tomorrow too.
No, but they've found another way to annoy people - apparently they may not release the legal guidance tomorrow, merely announce tomorrow that they will comply at a later date.
Seems to me the HoC is a fair reflection of a country utterly divided, roughly 50:50 on the EU, with various sub-groups within each portion who disagree on various aspects and nuances.
Yes, Leave won. But by far too small a margin to settle matters.
Cameron's failure to add a threshold was a calamity.
Indeed - any constitutional referendum should have a sensible threshold set.
Some countries set a threshold for turnout, but is there a single country in the world where ANY kind of proposed change being voted on in a referendum, whether constitutional or otherwise, is declared the victor only if it wins by something other than a simple majority?
David Cameron's failure wasn't that he didn't require Leave to achieve 53%, or 66.7%, or some other figure bigger than 51.9%, which would have been idiotic and probably caused the mess the country is in by now to be even worse than it is. His failure was that he didn't convince enough people of the merits of staying in the EU. Partly that was because he wasn't fighting against a discredited Labour government that had been in office for 13 years and whose leader had just showed himself as a two-faced b*stard when he expressed his utmost contempt for a working class woman on film, nor was he able to play an "I agree with Nick" move. Mainly it was because no British government had ever bothered to channel propaganda to the Morlocks that painted the EU as an "us". Not many Tory clubs hang pictures of Edward Heath on their walls either. Which doesn't let Cameron off the hook. During his 7 years in office he didn't even try.
So, any defeats upcoming for the government in the coming days or are the votes all done until the 11th?
Mmmm. There weren't supposed to be any votes today, until late last night. To lose 3 votes when there weren't any is quite something. They may contrive a way to lose some tomorrow too.
No, but they've found another way to annoy people - apparently they may not release the legal guidance tomorrow, merely announce tomorrow that they will comply at a later date.
Eh, they're already in contempt, stupidly, and the deal is already going down, I suppose further pettiness won't do any more harm.
So, any defeats upcoming for the government in the coming days or are the votes all done until the 11th?
Mmmm. There weren't supposed to be any votes today, until late last night. To lose 3 votes when there weren't any is quite something. They may contrive a way to lose some tomorrow too.
No, but they've found another way to annoy people - apparently they may not release the legal guidance tomorrow, merely announce tomorrow that they will comply at a later date.
The government's like a dodgy call centre hitting its SLA by answering and then putting you on hold.
So, any defeats upcoming for the government in the coming days or are the votes all done until the 11th?
Mmmm. There weren't supposed to be any votes today, until late last night. To lose 3 votes when there weren't any is quite something. They may contrive a way to lose some tomorrow too.
No, but they've found another way to annoy people - apparently they may not release the legal guidance tomorrow, merely announce tomorrow that they will comply at a later date.
The government's like a dodgy call centre hitting its SLA by answering and then putting you on hold.
Next step they will release it, but only by delivering it line by line in the Chamber, from the world's slowest speaking man, who also has an incomprehensible accent.
So, any defeats upcoming for the government in the coming days or are the votes all done until the 11th?
Mmmm. There weren't supposed to be any votes today, until late last night. To lose 3 votes when there weren't any is quite something. They may contrive a way to lose some tomorrow too.
No, but they've found another way to annoy people - apparently they may not release the legal guidance tomorrow, merely announce tomorrow that they will comply at a later date.
Will the whole Gov't be suspended from the house ?
So, any defeats upcoming for the government in the coming days or are the votes all done until the 11th?
Mmmm. There weren't supposed to be any votes today, until late last night. To lose 3 votes when there weren't any is quite something. They may contrive a way to lose some tomorrow too.
No, but they've found another way to annoy people - apparently they may not release the legal guidance tomorrow, merely announce tomorrow that they will comply at a later date.
Will the whole Gov't be suspended from the house ?
Seems to me the HoC is a fair reflection of a country utterly divided, roughly 50:50 on the EU, with various sub-groups within each portion who disagree on various aspects and nuances.
Yes, Leave won. But by far too small a margin to settle matters.
Cameron's failure to add a threshold was a calamity.
Indeed - any constitutional referendum should have a sensible threshold set.
Some countries set a threshold for turnout, but is there a single country in the world where ANY kind of proposed change being voted on in a referendum, whether constitutional or otherwise, is declared the victor only if it wins by something other than a simple majority?
David Cameron's failure wasn't that he didn't require Leave to achieve 53%, or 66.7%, or some other figure bigger than 51.9%, which would have been idiotic and probably caused the mess the country is in by now to be even worse than it is. His failure was that he didn't convince enough people of the merits of staying in the EU. Partly that was because he wasn't fighting against a discredited Labour government that had been in office for 13 years and whose leader had just showed himself as a two-faced b*stard when he expressed his utmost contempt for a working class woman on film, nor was he able to play an "I agree with Nick" move. Mainly it was because no British government had ever bothered to channel propaganda to the Morlocks that painted the EU as an "us". Not many Tory clubs hang pictures of Edward Heath on their walls either. Which doesn't let Cameron off the hook. During his 7 years in office he didn't even try.
I doubt it has gained that much traction with (a very bored and disengaged) Joe Public and that’s why I think Deal wins handily vs Remain. Richard N’s post really surprised me. I don’t agree, but I could be wildly wrong. As he himself says, “who knows?”
If I'm right and it comes down to Revoke vs The Deal, who's going to be campaigning for the deal?
Check your Sporting Index account, Utah's turnout has been settled at a disgustingly large 51.40
I doubt it has gained that much traction with (a very bored and disengaged) Joe Public and that’s why I think Deal wins handily vs Remain. Richard N’s post really surprised me. I don’t agree, but I could be wildly wrong. As he himself says, “who knows?”
If I'm right and it comes down to Revoke vs The Deal, who's going to be campaigning for the deal?
Michael Gove. Quite a career-enhancing outcome for him whichever way it goes.
Great to see effective punters in action. It's not just the accuracy of the predictions, it's the grace and agility with which they reverse themselves when new evidence comes in.
So, any defeats upcoming for the government in the coming days or are the votes all done until the 11th?
Mmmm. There weren't supposed to be any votes today, until late last night. To lose 3 votes when there weren't any is quite something. They may contrive a way to lose some tomorrow too.
No, but they've found another way to annoy people - apparently they may not release the legal guidance tomorrow, merely announce tomorrow that they will comply at a later date.
Winning friends and influencing people. Either the advice is devastating for their case or they really don't know what they are doing. I do not know how to price that market.
Great to see effective punters in action. It's not just the accuracy of the predictions, it's the grace and agility with which they reverse themselves when new evidence comes in.
Dunno about grace and agility, but I reserve the right to change my mind again, whether or not the facts change. This is the most intractable political conundrum I've ever known, in which you can make a plausible case that all plausible outcomes are impossible.
Brexit is effectively about the Vassal State. Are Leavers willing to take "May's Deal" and commit to doing what we are told by the EU without any real say or influence? If yes, Brexit goes ahead. If no, it probably won't. Remainers are irrelevant to this. They will vote the same way in any second referendum. This is entirely a Leaver fight.
I wouldn't bank on it. There are plenty of intelligent Remainers who are not happy with the question being asked again. There have been a couple posting on here and I know of a fair few more. They may not all vote for Leave this time but plenty will abstain on principle. How many will be as important as what Leave voters do.
In this polarised environment, the Deal only stands a chance if it is up against just one alternative. The plan had looked to be making that No Deal, with the government running down the clock.
But today's developments, with the news that A50 is likely to be unilaterally revocable, and the Grieve amendment passing, mean that the government has pivoted to making the final battle Deal vs Remain. This is riskier, since there was no majority for No Deal in the Commons, and there might be one for Remain (or at least a referendum to that end). But needs must.
Great to see effective punters in action. It's not just the accuracy of the predictions, it's the grace and agility with which they reverse themselves when new evidence comes in.
Dunno about grace and agility, but I reserve the right to change my mind again, whether or not the facts change. This is the most intractable political conundrum I've ever known, in which you can make a plausible case that all plausible outcomes are impossible.
Totally. I mean, it's a shitshow, but it's absolutely fascinating.
Re: Spanish Navy nonsense on the previous thread... The Armada Española is perfectly within its rights to assert freedom of navigation in British territorial waters (3m at Gibraltar). It would be an Article 19 violation if they are doing something which threatens the security or integrity of the British territory. It's not clear that playing La Marcha Real falls into this category. It's vexatious and stupid but probably not contrary to maritime law.
Hull University is to reconsider naming its lecture theatre after Jenni Murray after students protested, claiming that she has made “transphobic” comments.
The university refurbished six lecture theatres earlier this year and named them after prominent female alumnae, who were invited to an event on Monday evening to mark the opening of the new facilities.
Students gathered outside the event to protest, holding placards saying “trans women are real women” and “students against transphobia”.
Following the student protest, the university has now said it will “comprehensively review” its decision to name the lecture theatre after Dame Jenni.
So, any defeats upcoming for the government in the coming days or are the votes all done until the 11th?
Mmmm. There weren't supposed to be any votes today, until late last night. To lose 3 votes when there weren't any is quite something. They may contrive a way to lose some tomorrow too.
No, but they've found another way to annoy people - apparently they may not release the legal guidance tomorrow, merely announce tomorrow that they will comply at a later date.
The government's like a dodgy call centre hitting its SLA by answering and then putting you on hold.
Next step they will release it, but only by delivering it line by line in the Chamber, from the world's slowest speaking man, who also has an incomprehensible accent.
Brexit is effectively about the Vassal State. Are Leavers willing to take "May's Deal" and commit to doing what we are told by the EU without any real say or influence? If yes, Brexit goes ahead. If no, it probably won't. Remainers are irrelevant to this. They will vote the same way in any second referendum. This is entirely a Leaver fight.
I wouldn't bank on it. There are plenty of intelligent Remainers who are not happy with the question being asked again. There have been a couple posting on here and I know of a fair few more. They may not all vote for Leave this time but plenty will abstain on principle. How many will be as important as what Leave voters do.
My theory is that most Leavers aren't bothered about the Vassal State. They are interested in the symbols of sovereignty and not the exercise of it. They don't want to make trade offs, which is what sovereignty actually means.
If it went to a referendum I'd guess most incandescent Leavers would go Deal (something, anything rather than Remain). We're then down to how many reluctant Remainers opt for Deal, out of either democrat conviction or genuine enthusiasm for it. The latter, ironically, may depend on how much the ERG's 'Deal is worse than staying in' slogan has gained traction.
The trick TMay missed was seriously raising the possibility of a re-referendum like this as soon as the deal was announced. That would have made people of an ideological Leave persuasion more reluctant to demagogue it, for fear of losing the referendum.
Also kind of interesting to see how faced with an ambiguous but Leavy mandate, TMay and parliamentary remainers have both played the same game, with different enemies:
TMay put Davis and Johnson in charge of the thing and let them run with it until it was clear they'd driven the thing into the mud, and only then stepped in herself. (At least overtly, I have no idea what was happening behind closed doors.)
Parliament then played exactly the same game with TMay: Gave her the legislation she asked for, voted for Article 50, and let her take it as far as she could. Now she's got the thing stuck in the mud too, they show up and start trying to decide the next steps.
I doubt it has gained that much traction with (a very bored and disengaged) Joe Public and that’s why I think Deal wins handily vs Remain. Richard N’s post really surprised me. I don’t agree, but I could be wildly wrong. As he himself says, “who knows?”
If I'm right and it comes down to Revoke vs The Deal, who's going to be campaigning for the deal?
If I were a self-serving politician, my priorities would be: (1) Don't destroy your career by voting for "No Deal" (2) Don't jeopardise your career by going against The Will of The People.
I think that's essentially what Theresa May's Deal has going for it.
The Grieve amendment opportunity might allow other Brexit options to be shown to be preferred by parliament but does not bind the government to introduce a bill to execute it nor can it reverse the Withdrawal Act which sees us leave the EU on March 29th.
I wonder why suicide rates are moving in opposite directions in the USA and UK? The situation is improving here in the UK, while getting worse over there.
Hull University is to reconsider naming its lecture theatre after Jenni Murray after students protested, claiming that she has made “transphobic” comments.
The university refurbished six lecture theatres earlier this year and named them after prominent female alumnae, who were invited to an event on Monday evening to mark the opening of the new facilities.
Students gathered outside the event to protest, holding placards saying “trans women are real women” and “students against transphobia”.
Following the student protest, the university has now said it will “comprehensively review” its decision to name the lecture theatre after Dame Jenni.
So, any defeats upcoming for the government in the coming days or are the votes all done until the 11th?
Mmmm. There weren't supposed to be any votes today, until late last night. To lose 3 votes when there weren't any is quite something. They may contrive a way to lose some tomorrow too.
No, but they've found another way to annoy people - apparently they may not release the legal guidance tomorrow, merely announce tomorrow that they will comply at a later date.
Andrea Leadsom gave no undertaking to release the full legal advice - only that they would respoind on Wednesday. Bercow and Labour let her off the hook by not following up on the ambiguous reply.
I wonder why suicide rates are moving in opposite directions in the USA and UK? The situation is improving here in the UK, while getting worse over there.
I wonder why suicide rates are moving in opposite directions in the USA and UK? The situation is improving here in the UK, while getting worse over there.
Also kind of interesting to see how faced with an ambiguous but Leavy mandate, TMay and parliamentary remainers have both played the same game, with different enemies:
TMay put Davis and Johnson in charge of the thing and let them run with it until it was clear they'd driven the thing into the mud, and only then stepped in herself. (At least overtly, I have no idea what was happening behind closed doors.)
Parliament then played exactly the same game with TMay: Gave her the legislation she asked for, voted for Article 50, and let her take it as far as she could. Now she's got the thing stuck in the mud too, they show up and start trying to decide the next steps.
Except May didn't get stuck in the mud, other than parliament refusing to pass her deal that met 95% of her goals. Labour put forward six tests that no relationship could meet (including EU membership) and then complained they weren't met.
Also kind of interesting to see how faced with an ambiguous but Leavy mandate, TMay and parliamentary remainers have both played the same game, with different enemies:
TMay put Davis and Johnson in charge of the thing and let them run with it until it was clear they'd driven the thing into the mud, and only then stepped in herself. (At least overtly, I have no idea what was happening behind closed doors.)
Parliament then played exactly the same game with TMay: Gave her the legislation she asked for, voted for Article 50, and let her take it as far as she could. Now she's got the thing stuck in the mud too, they show up and start trying to decide the next steps.
Except May didn't get stuck in the mud, other than parliament refusing to pass her deal that met 95% of her goals. Labour put forward six tests that no relationship could meet (including EU membership) and then complained they weren't met.
She had the goal of getting the trade deal agreed before the end of Article 50. She achieved 0% of that.
Also kind of interesting to see how faced with an ambiguous but Leavy mandate, TMay and parliamentary remainers have both played the same game, with different enemies:
TMay put Davis and Johnson in charge of the thing and let them run with it until it was clear they'd driven the thing into the mud, and only then stepped in herself. (At least overtly, I have no idea what was happening behind closed doors.)
Parliament then played exactly the same game with TMay: Gave her the legislation she asked for, voted for Article 50, and let her take it as far as she could. Now she's got the thing stuck in the mud too, they show up and start trying to decide the next steps.
Except May didn't get stuck in the mud, other than parliament refusing to pass her deal that met 95% of her goals. Labour put forward six tests that no relationship could meet (including EU membership) and then complained they weren't met.
Well, most of the Leave advocates in her cabinet resigned...
Also kind of interesting to see how faced with an ambiguous but Leavy mandate, TMay and parliamentary remainers have both played the same game, with different enemies:
TMay put Davis and Johnson in charge of the thing and let them run with it until it was clear they'd driven the thing into the mud, and only then stepped in herself. (At least overtly, I have no idea what was happening behind closed doors.)
Parliament then played exactly the same game with TMay: Gave her the legislation she asked for, voted for Article 50, and let her take it as far as she could. Now she's got the thing stuck in the mud too, they show up and start trying to decide the next steps.
Except May didn't get stuck in the mud, other than parliament refusing to pass her deal that met 95% of her goals. Labour put forward six tests that no relationship could meet (including EU membership) and then complained they weren't met.
May spent a year trying to get something on the backstop that met the ERG and DUP's red lines, then just said "Eh, never mind, then".
Also kind of interesting to see how faced with an ambiguous but Leavy mandate, TMay and parliamentary remainers have both played the same game, with different enemies:
TMay put Davis and Johnson in charge of the thing and let them run with it until it was clear they'd driven the thing into the mud, and only then stepped in herself. (At least overtly, I have no idea what was happening behind closed doors.)
Parliament then played exactly the same game with TMay: Gave her the legislation she asked for, voted for Article 50, and let her take it as far as she could. Now she's got the thing stuck in the mud too, they show up and start trying to decide the next steps.
Except May didn't get stuck in the mud, other than parliament refusing to pass her deal that met 95% of her goals. Labour put forward six tests that no relationship could meet (including EU membership) and then complained they weren't met.
She had the goal of getting the trade deal agreed before the end of Article 50. She achieved 0% of that.
Mainly because the EU won't negotiate on that front until we're out.
I wonder why suicide rates are moving in opposite directions in the USA and UK? The situation is improving here in the UK, while getting worse over there.
Brexit is effectively about the Vassal State. Are Leavers willing to take "May's Deal" and commit to doing what we are told by the EU without any real say or influence? If yes, Brexit goes ahead. If no, it probably won't. Remainers are irrelevant to this. They will vote the same way in any second referendum. This is entirely a Leaver fight.
I wouldn't bank on it. There are plenty of intelligent Remainers who are not happy with the question being asked again. There have been a couple posting on here and I know of a fair few more. They may not all vote for Leave this time but plenty will abstain on principle. How many will be as important as what Leave voters do.
My theory is that most Leavers aren't bothered about the Vassal State. They are interested in the symbols of sovereignty and not the exercise of it. They don't want to make trade offs, which is what sovereignty actually means.
The "vassal state" thing is simply a smear that doesn't reflect the actual deal. The rule making areas vastly outstrip the rule taking ones (purely limited to some goods areas, less than a fifth of the economy). The other four fifths of the economy and the non economic stuff we get full control over.
I wonder why suicide rates are moving in opposite directions in the USA and UK? The situation is improving here in the UK, while getting worse over there.
Many US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are commiting suicide might be one reason.
It may be that the serious drugs epidemic they have in the US is triggering mental health crises and in turn suicides
Wages have been stagnant for far longer in the US than the UK. Their mass unskilled immigration started in the 1970s, while ours only began from the late 1990s.
Brexit is effectively about the Vassal State. Are Leavers willing to take "May's Deal" and commit to doing what we are told by the EU without any real say or influence? If yes, Brexit goes ahead. If no, it probably won't. Remainers are irrelevant to this. They will vote the same way in any second referendum. This is entirely a Leaver fight.
I wouldn't bank on it. There are plenty of intelligent Remainers who are not happy with the question being asked again. There have been a couple posting on here and I know of a fair few more. They may not all vote for Leave this time but plenty will abstain on principle. How many will be as important as what Leave voters do.
My theory is that most Leavers aren't bothered about the Vassal State. They are interested in the symbols of sovereignty and not the exercise of it. They don't want to make trade offs, which is what sovereignty actually means.
The "vassal state" thing is simply a smear that doesn't reflect the actual deal. The rule making areas vastly outstrip the rule taking ones (purely limited to some goods areas, less than a fifth of the economy). The other four fifths of the economy and the non economic stuff we get full control over.
And even the goods stuff is hugely overrated in most sectors. Does anybody really believe there is a market for non-EC certified electronics. Heck, you can't even get non-EC certified electronics in the US. (And you can't get non-UL and non-FCC certified ones in the UK or Europe either.)
Also kind of interesting to see how faced with an ambiguous but Leavy mandate, TMay and parliamentary remainers have both played the same game, with different enemies:
TMay put Davis and Johnson in charge of the thing and let them run with it until it was clear they'd driven the thing into the mud, and only then stepped in herself. (At least overtly, I have no idea what was happening behind closed doors.)
Parliament then played exactly the same game with TMay: Gave her the legislation she asked for, voted for Article 50, and let her take it as far as she could. Now she's got the thing stuck in the mud too, they show up and start trying to decide the next steps.
Except May didn't get stuck in the mud, other than parliament refusing to pass her deal that met 95% of her goals. Labour put forward six tests that no relationship could meet (including EU membership) and then complained they weren't met.
She had the goal of getting the trade deal agreed before the end of Article 50. She achieved 0% of that.
Mainly because the EU won't negotiate on that front until we're out.
And she managed to wrangle them into giving up their "close the borders" leverage putting us in a stronger position for round 2.
Brexit is effectively about the Vassal State. Are Leavers willing to take "May's Deal" and commit to doing what we are told by the EU without any real say or influence? If yes, Brexit goes ahead. If no, it probably won't. Remainers are irrelevant to this. They will vote the same way in any second referendum. This is entirely a Leaver fight.
I wouldn't bank on it. There are plenty of intelligent Remainers who are not happy with the question being asked again. There have been a couple posting on here and I know of a fair few more. They may not all vote for Leave this time but plenty will abstain on principle. How many will be as important as what Leave voters do.
My theory is that most Leavers aren't bothered about the Vassal State. They are interested in the symbols of sovereignty and not the exercise of it. They don't want to make trade offs, which is what sovereignty actually means.
The "vassal state" thing is simply a smear that doesn't reflect the actual deal.
Also kind of interesting to see how faced with an ambiguous but Leavy mandate, TMay and parliamentary remainers have both played the same game, with different enemies:
TMay put Davis and Johnson in charge of the thing and let them run with it until it was clear they'd driven the thing into the mud, and only then stepped in herself. (At least overtly, I have no idea what was happening behind closed doors.)
Parliament then played exactly the same game with TMay: Gave her the legislation she asked for, voted for Article 50, and let her take it as far as she could. Now she's got the thing stuck in the mud too, they show up and start trying to decide the next steps.
Except May didn't get stuck in the mud, other than parliament refusing to pass her deal that met 95% of her goals. Labour put forward six tests that no relationship could meet (including EU membership) and then complained they weren't met.
She had the goal of getting the trade deal agreed before the end of Article 50. She achieved 0% of that.
Mainly because the EU won't negotiate on that front until we're out.
And she managed to wrangle them into giving up their "close the borders" leverage putting us in a stronger position for round 2.
What protection do cross-border services have in the backstop?
90%+ of world trade is on WTO terms and we get control of our borders,our laws and our money.
Do you have a source for the 90% number? My guess is that for physical goods, then at least a third, and possibly than half is under non-WTO terms.
So, the UK's trade with the EU and with the US, the EFTA countries, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Korea, Israel, and a bunch of other places is not under "WTO" terms.
The EU has eight agreements with the US, covering 178 different areas. Some of these are extensive liberalisations - such as Open Skies - or allow access to sensitive parts of the economy like military procurement. Others merely cover mutual recognition of standards.
Leaving the EU without a transition period has surprisingly little impact on UK-EU trade. Our standards are harmonised, and getting certified for (for example) electronics is a pretty simple process.
But with other people: the impact is much greater.
Take South Korea, under the terms of the EU-Korea trade deal, EU banks are allowed to hold South Korean banking licenses. We have not replicated our current arrangement with South Korea. Without a transition, it's entirely possible that British banks will no longer be allowed to legally operate there.
I wonder why suicide rates are moving in opposite directions in the USA and UK? The situation is improving here in the UK, while getting worse over there.
Many US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are commiting suicide might be one reason.
It may be that the serious drugs epidemic they have in the US is triggering mental health crises and in turn suicides
Wages have been stagnant for far longer in the US than the UK. Their mass unskilled immigration started in the 1970s, while ours only began from the late 1990s.
Unskilled immigration in the US has been declining as a percent of the population since about 1850.
Seems to me the HoC is a fair reflection of a country utterly divided, roughly 50:50 on the EU, with various sub-groups within each portion who disagree on various aspects and nuances.
Yes, Leave won. But by far too small a margin to settle matters.
Cameron's failure to add a threshold was a calamity.
Indeed - any constitutional referendum should have a sensible threshold set.
Some countries set a threshold for turnout, but is there a single country in the world where ANY kind of proposed change being voted on in a referendum, whether constitutional or otherwise, is declared the victor only if it wins by something other than a simple majority?
David Cameron's failure wasn't that he didn't require Leave to achieve 53%, or 66.7%, or some other figure bigger than 51.9%, which would have been idiotic and probably caused the mess the country is in by now to be even worse than it is. His failure was that he didn't convince enough people of the merits of staying in the EU. Partly that was because he wasn't fighting against a discredited Labour government that had been in office for 13 years and whose leader had just showed himself as a two-faced b*stard when he expressed his utmost contempt for a working class woman on film, nor was he able to play an "I agree with Nick" move. Mainly it was because no British government had ever bothered to channel propaganda to the Morlocks that painted the EU as an "us". Not many Tory clubs hang pictures of Edward Heath on their walls either. Which doesn't let Cameron off the hook. During his 7 years in office he didn't even try.
See also the Nevis independence referendum in 1998 that failed to achieve the required 2/3 majority but did get 62% for independence, or the Tokelau self-determination referenda of 2006 and 2007 that failed to get the required 2/3 for full self-government (along the lines of the Cook Islands) by 38 and 16 votes respectively.
I understand that while Australian constitutional referenda only require a straight majority of those voting, a majority also has to be achieved in at least four out of the six states. The ACT and Northern Territory get to vote in this referenda, and their votes count towards achieving an overall majority of voters, but they don't count as states for the majority of states requirement.
I wonder why suicide rates are moving in opposite directions in the USA and UK? The situation is improving here in the UK, while getting worse over there.
Many US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are commiting suicide might be one reason.
It may be that the serious drugs epidemic they have in the US is triggering mental health crises and in turn suicides
Wages have been stagnant for far longer in the US than the UK. Their mass unskilled immigration started in the 1970s, while ours only began from the late 1990s.
Unskilled immigration in the US has been declining as a percent of the population since about 1850.
Avoiding some witty but mpolite comments that could be made to that, that would be true even if the same number of unskilled people arrived each year?
I wonder why suicide rates are moving in opposite directions in the USA and UK? The situation is improving here in the UK, while getting worse over there.
I wonder why suicide rates are moving in opposite directions in the USA and UK? The situation is improving here in the UK, while getting worse over there.
Many US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are commiting suicide might be one reason.
It may be that the serious drugs epidemic they have in the US is triggering mental health crises and in turn suicides
Wages have been stagnant for far longer in the US than the UK. Their mass unskilled immigration started in the 1970s, while ours only began from the late 1990s.
Unskilled immigration in the US has been declining as a percent of the population since about 1850.
Avoiding some witty but mpolite comments that could be made to that, that would be true even if the same number of unskilled people arrived each year?
That's correct. The only meaningful number is percentage of the population.
Otherwise, you'd say 10 unskilled workers entering the UK had the same effect on wages as 10 people joining the Pitcairn Islands.
I wonder why suicide rates are moving in opposite directions in the USA and UK? The situation is improving here in the UK, while getting worse over there.
It is guns again. In the USA more than half of suicides are with firearms, which are freely availible and highly effective. Most suicides are in older men, and particularly when under the cosh financially and socially. The high rates of opiod and alcohol abuse are part of this tooo.
In the rest of the world, suicide is dropping ignificantly, and the UK resembles other European countries with this.
I now expect the Remainer MPs, who form the majority, to propose a 2nd referendum, which on the basis of the evidence that you have publicised, will lead to the cancellation of Brexit.
So, if the Leave campaign does crash and burn, how do 'victors' behave? Surely one of the first things to do is what we should have done in the first place; make sure that anyone arriving under FOM cannot get social security until they've been here for several months. There's a downside in that it offers opportunities for unscrupulous employers but it ought tpo be possible to make a few examples which will deter such people.
I now expect the Remainer MPs, who form the majority, to propose a 2nd referendum, which on the basis of the evidence that you have publicised, will lead to the cancellation of Brexit.
Yes I think this is now the most likely outcome.
There is no Commons majoritynfor any exit deal, "Norway" included, and no deal is not an option.
So a second referendum it will be and Article 50 will be revoked.
The fact that polling shows that people believe “with hindsight” it was a mistake to (vote to?) leave the EU, doesn’t mean that a new vote to remain or leave would reverse the decision. Many believe that the path has been chosen, for good or bad, and we’re stuck with it.
The Tory voting intention lead has narrowed. They are on 40 per cent, unchanged on last week, but Labour is up three points to 38 per cent. The Liberal Democrats are on 9 per cent, down one point, and Ukip is on 4 per cent, up one.
Support for Theresa May’s Brexit deal has faded since its high watermark last week. Now 23 per cent say that they support it, down from 27 per cent last Thursday, while 46 per cent oppose it, up from 45 per cent.
Brexit is effectively about the Vassal State. Are Leavers willing to take "May's Deal" and commit to doing what we are told by the EU without any real say or influence? If yes, Brexit goes ahead. If no, it probably won't. Remainers are irrelevant to this. They will vote the same way in any second referendum. This is entirely a Leaver fight.
I wouldn't bank on it. There are plenty of intelligent Remainers who are not happy with the question being asked again. There have been a couple posting on here and I know of a fair few more. They may not all vote for Leave this time but plenty will abstain on principle. How many will be as important as what Leave voters do.
My theory is that most Leavers aren't bothered about the Vassal State. They are interested in the symbols of sovereignty and not the exercise of it. They don't want to make trade offs, which is what sovereignty actually means.
The "vassal state" thing is simply a smear that doesn't reflect the actual deal. The rule making areas vastly outstrip the rule taking ones (purely limited to some goods areas, less than a fifth of the economy). The other four fifths of the economy and the non economic stuff we get full control over.
A large chunk of the “vassal state” stuff is caused by a (deliberate?) conflation of the transition period with the post transition period. They seem think that the backstop is a permanent extension of the transition, not a minimalist measure designed to keep the Irish border open.
Was interested in seeing where YouGov was heading in their latest poll. They were starting to look a little lonely. A 10 point lead for the Tories would have at least been good for a laugh.
Using polls asking whether leaving the the EU was a mistake as a proxy for another referendum also err by not adequately considering why people might say “don’t know”. “Don’t know” could just be an expression that we still don’t know what Leave means eg. “mistake if we leave with no deal, not a mistake otherwise”. Specify the form of leave in a referendum, and the question changes.
Using polls asking whether leaving the the EU was a mistake as a proxy for another referendum also err by not adequately considering why people might say “don’t know”. “Don’t know” could just be an expression that we still don’t know what Leave means eg. “mistake if we leave with no deal, not a mistake otherwise”. Specify the form of leave in a referendum, and the question changes.
Both of your posts make fair points. However, this is a long running series and for the first time a substantial gap has opened up. Even if it is an outlier, the trend is still cemented. We can debate what the polling means but it means something.
Using polls asking whether leaving the the EU was a mistake as a proxy for another referendum also err by not adequately considering why people might say “don’t know”. “Don’t know” could just be an expression that we still don’t know what Leave means eg. “mistake if we leave with no deal, not a mistake otherwise”. Specify the form of leave in a referendum, and the question changes.
Both of your posts make fair points. However, this is a long running series and for the first time a substantial gap has opened up. Even if it is an outlier, the trend is still cemented. We can debate what the polling means but it means something.
I agree the statistical significance. But we have moved from a slow-burn political issue to a fast moving environment. A range of dramatic things *might* happen and any of them could bring a step change in the polls. The same goes for VI polls in relation to possible changes in party leadership or even defections and splits, etc.
Hence we should be even more wary than usual of taking much notice of HY's latest pronouncement that whatever is in yesterday's poll is certain to happen tomorrow.
So, if the Leave campaign does crash and burn, how do 'victors' behave? Surely one of the first things to do is what we should have done in the first place; make sure that anyone arriving under FOM cannot get social security until they've been here for several months. There's a downside in that it offers opportunities for unscrupulous employers but it ought tpo be possible to make a few examples which will deter such people.
The UK has complete control, and more control than it cares to use over both non EU and EU migration. It ought to consider using, or at the very very least start explaining exactly who is coming into and out of the country.
Brexit is effectively about the Vassal State. Are Leavers willing to take "May's Deal" and commit to doing what we are told by the EU without any real say or influence? If yes, Brexit goes ahead. If no, it probably won't. Remainers are irrelevant to this. They will vote the same way in any second referendum. This is entirely a Leaver fight.
I wouldn't bank on it. There are plenty of intelligent Remainers who are not happy with the question being asked again. There have been a couple posting on here and I know of a fair few more. They may not all vote for Leave this time but plenty will abstain on principle. How many will be as important as what Leave voters do.
My theory is that most Leavers aren't bothered about the Vassal State. They are interested in the symbols of sovereignty and not the exercise of it. They don't want to make trade offs, which is what sovereignty actually means.
The "vassal state" thing is simply a smear that doesn't reflect the actual deal. The rule making areas vastly outstrip the rule taking ones (purely limited to some goods areas, less than a fifth of the economy). The other four fifths of the economy and the non economic stuff we get full control over.
A large chunk of the “vassal state” stuff is caused by a (deliberate?) conflation of the transition period with the post transition period. They seem think that the backstop is a permanent extension of the transition, not a minimalist measure designed to keep the Irish border open.
The final deal will look a lot like the WA because the same factors will be driving it, in terms of NI, supply chains etc.
I now expect the Remainer MPs, who form the majority, to propose a 2nd referendum, which on the basis of the evidence that you have publicised, will lead to the cancellation of Brexit.
Do "Remainer" MPs form the majority ? 83% of them were elected 18 months ago on a manifestos that promised to leave the EU
The names of the Tory rebels on the Grieve amendment are interesting, not so much for being the usual remain suspects, but for the fact that a small number of them will actually be voting for the deal.
Although I suppose backing the deal in itself keeps them on the traitor list in some, swivelier, eyes.
Brexit is effectively about the Vassal State. Are Leavers willing to take "May's Deal" and commit to doing what we are told by the EU without any real say or influence? If yes, Brexit goes ahead. If no, it probably won't. Remainers are irrelevant to this. They will vote the same way in any second referendum. This is entirely a Leaver fight.
I wouldn't bank on it. There are plenty of intelligent Remainers who are not happy with the question being asked again. There have been a couple posting on here and I know of a fair few more. They may not all vote for Leave this time but plenty will abstain on principle. How many will be as important as what Leave voters do.
My theory is that most Leavers aren't bothered about the Vassal State. They are interested in the symbols of sovereignty and not the exercise of it. They don't want to make trade offs, which is what sovereignty actually means.
The "vassal state" thing is simply a smear that doesn't reflect the actual deal. The rule making areas vastly outstrip the rule taking ones (purely limited to some goods areas, less than a fifth of the economy). The other four fifths of the economy and the non economic stuff we get full control over.
A large chunk of the “vassal state” stuff is caused by a (deliberate?) conflation of the transition period with the post transition period. They seem think that the backstop is a permanent extension of the transition, not a minimalist measure designed to keep the Irish border open.
In reality, there are relationships, trust and mutual interests; the idea that the backstop might be used as some sort of device for the EU to hold the UK indefinitely in a situation contrary to its wishes is absurd; in such an unlikely situation we have plenty of levers to pull and the situation would escalate quickly to resolution.
The arguments being deployed against are from politicians who already have a preferred position and are looking for easier points to score in its favour. For leavers in particular, many of them were never going to be reconciled to any sort of compromise nor sign up to any sort of document that refers to the EU within it. They need to be *betrayed* in order to protect the purity of their self-delusion from losing its virginity in the real world. The remainer argument that the current deal is the best one is at least realistic, whether or not you agree with it.
The Fixed Term Parliament Act is looking more stupid than ever today.
The politicians are in a room and can't come out until they sort out a way forward. That isn't such a bad place to put them.
For the majority of them in safe seats, an election is of no consequence other than delay, anyhow, and for the majority of voters in safe seats an election offers them next to nothing.
The Fixed Term Parliament Act is looking more stupid than ever today.
What's the problem? Jeremy Corbyn says he wants a General Election, so if TMay wants one too there's nothing to stop her asking Parliament to vote for one.
Comments
David Cameron's failure wasn't that he didn't require Leave to achieve 53%, or 66.7%, or some other figure bigger than 51.9%, which would have been idiotic and probably caused the mess the country is in by now to be even worse than it is. His failure was that he didn't convince enough people of the merits of staying in the EU. Partly that was because he wasn't fighting against a discredited Labour government that had been in office for 13 years and whose leader had just showed himself as a two-faced b*stard when he expressed his utmost contempt for a working class woman on film, nor was he able to play an "I agree with Nick" move. Mainly it was because no British government had ever bothered to channel propaganda to the Morlocks that painted the EU as an "us". Not many Tory clubs hang pictures of Edward Heath on their walls either. Which doesn't let Cameron off the hook. During his 7 years in office he didn't even try.
If parliament has left off some steam, this will be great for May.
But if parliament has acquired the taste for rebellion, she is finished.
Feels more like the latter tonight, but you never know.
Up to a point I agree with @jonathan.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/10/18/the-nearest-run-thing/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46449498
I do not know how to price that market.
But today's developments, with the news that A50 is likely to be unilaterally revocable, and the Grieve amendment passing, mean that the government has pivoted to making the final battle Deal vs Remain. This is riskier, since there was no majority for No Deal in the Commons, and there might be one for Remain (or at least a referendum to that end). But needs must.
The university refurbished six lecture theatres earlier this year and named them after prominent female alumnae, who were invited to an event on Monday evening to mark the opening of the new facilities.
Students gathered outside the event to protest, holding placards saying “trans women are real women” and “students against transphobia”.
Following the student protest, the university has now said it will “comprehensively review” its decision to name the lecture theatre after Dame Jenni.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/12/04/university-reconsider-naming-lecture-theatre-jenni-murray-student/
SADDDDDDDD....
ducks and runs
TMay put Davis and Johnson in charge of the thing and let them run with it until it was clear they'd driven the thing into the mud, and only then stepped in herself. (At least overtly, I have no idea what was happening behind closed doors.)
Parliament then played exactly the same game with TMay: Gave her the legislation she asked for, voted for Article 50, and let her take it as far as she could. Now she's got the thing stuck in the mud too, they show up and start trying to decide the next steps.
(1) Don't destroy your career by voting for "No Deal"
(2) Don't jeopardise your career by going against The Will of The People.
I think that's essentially what Theresa May's Deal has going for it.
So why would any Brexiteers be worried about it?
I wonder why suicide rates are moving in opposite directions in the USA and UK? The situation is improving here in the UK, while getting worse over there.
https://apnews.com/de57909c5bcc4162b122948539ed9c6a
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-42393071
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
So, the UK's trade with the EU and with the US, the EFTA countries, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Korea, Israel, and a bunch of other places is not under "WTO" terms.
The EU has eight agreements with the US, covering 178 different areas. Some of these are extensive liberalisations - such as Open Skies - or allow access to sensitive parts of the economy like military procurement. Others merely cover mutual recognition of standards.
Leaving the EU without a transition period has surprisingly little impact on UK-EU trade. Our standards are harmonised, and getting certified for (for example) electronics is a pretty simple process.
But with other people: the impact is much greater.
Take South Korea, under the terms of the EU-Korea trade deal, EU banks are allowed to hold South Korean banking licenses. We have not replicated our current arrangement with South Korea. Without a transition, it's entirely possible that British banks will no longer be allowed to legally operate there.
I understand that while Australian constitutional referenda only require a straight majority of those voting, a majority also has to be achieved in at least four out of the six states. The ACT and Northern Territory get to vote in this referenda, and their votes count towards achieving an overall majority of voters, but they don't count as states for the majority of states requirement.
https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5118
Otherwise, you'd say 10 unskilled workers entering the UK had the same effect on wages as 10 people joining the Pitcairn Islands.
In the rest of the world, suicide is dropping ignificantly, and the UK resembles other European countries with this.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjb6YbggIjfAhUFuHEKHU4FB-IQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/11/30/why-the-global-suicide-rate-is-falling&psig=AOvVaw3wbysriq4k-pBEJIVX8Ysk&ust=1544075804752097
https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1070101534866894848?s=21
https://twitter.com/europeelects/status/1070126691597590528?s=21
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1070130237617389568?s=19
I see also that the voting intention has returned to baseline. That yougov on 35% Lab looks like an outlier.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1070134535768150020?s=19
There is no Commons majoritynfor any exit deal, "Norway" included, and no deal is not an option.
So a second referendum it will be and Article 50 will be revoked.
The Tory voting intention lead has narrowed. They are on 40 per cent, unchanged on last week, but Labour is up three points to 38 per cent. The Liberal Democrats are on 9 per cent, down one point, and Ukip is on 4 per cent, up one.
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1070215908205957121
Hence we should be even more wary than usual of taking much notice of HY's latest pronouncement that whatever is in yesterday's poll is certain to happen tomorrow.
Pineapple puss to all those that said turnout wouldn’t be anywhere near 50%.
The Fixed Term Parliament Act is looking more stupid than ever today.
Although I suppose backing the deal in itself keeps them on the traitor list in some, swivelier, eyes.
The arguments being deployed against are from politicians who already have a preferred position and are looking for easier points to score in its favour. For leavers in particular, many of them were never going to be reconciled to any sort of compromise nor sign up to any sort of document that refers to the EU within it. They need to be *betrayed* in order to protect the purity of their self-delusion from losing its virginity in the real world. The remainer argument that the current deal is the best one is at least realistic, whether or not you agree with it.
(William's not here yet, so I thought I'd stand in for him.)
For the majority of them in safe seats, an election is of no consequence other than delay, anyhow, and for the majority of voters in safe seats an election offers them next to nothing.