Neither the ERG nor the Remain extremists like Grieve, Greening, Morgan, Soubry etc could be relied upon and neither could the DUP.
Slander!
Supports Brexit.
Having a Pauline conversion to supporting May’s deal does not mean she supports Brexit. May’s deal doesn’t deliver Brexit. Morgan has been every bit as bad as Soubry, Grieve etc so her late conversion is probably for personal career advantage.
It’s an odd world where people who want to preserve the status quo are described as extremists.
I think there's a real danger for parties in the next election on any side of the debate being seen to be fighting the last war if they go on about Brexit. Building on it, reversing it, whatever, they'll all be vote-losers.
It's why, although I disagree with him, I do sympathize with the persistent argument of Matthew Parris that these next few weeks are the time for Remainers to lay it all down and do everything they possibly can and then some to stop Brexit happening. Go for it. Kill the damn thing or die trying. Do not leave anything on the pitch because afterwards it will be too late for anything but regrets.
We will only leave on 29 March if either the deal passes or we crash out. So by implication, punters rate the chance of crashing out with no deal as precisely zero.
Yes, I have noticed that too. Interesting.
I rate it as unlikely but I would not go lower than 10%.
So do you think that the chance of her deal passing by 30 March is only 33% (plus 10% chance of no deal) or do you think the chance of the UK leaving the UK is 53% (43% by her deal passing and 10% by crashing out)? There's room for some betting between the two markets but I'm not sure how to play it.
Were a General Election to come about , Labour would simply decline to engage on Brexit to any significant extent. They would seek to change the subject - as happened in both 2017 and February 1974 - by raising other issues to which voters can much more readily relate.The chances of managing that over a six week campaign period seem good to me. People wish to move on!
Wouldn't work for toffee. Firstly, because any upcoming election this year will be called as a 'Brexit election' - called to decide the form it takes and little else. Secondly, because a significant number of their MPs would demand clarity or effectively go freelance. Third, because a significant section of the party's voter-base deeply care about the issue and want clarity on it. They might not desert the party as would have other concerns - but it's absurd to think Labour could get away with not engaging with it. They'd at least have to neutralise the issue with something like a People's Vote or risk being torn apart on it.
Those who call an election do not control the priorities of the voters. Theresa May found that out in 2017 - as did Ted Heath before her in February 1974. People on this Board - and the commentariat more widely - can be as obsessed as they wish re-Brexit, but - IMHO - that does not reflect the views of the public at large. Most people are sick to death of the subject , and are highly likely to respond in a positive way to any attempt to raise issues & problems which are far less technical and much more directly relevant to their daily lives. To repeat a point I have made before here - far too many commentators fail to distinguish between an issue being 'highly important ' - which Brexit clearly is - and 'salient' which I believe not to be the case electorally.
I would say many people aren't at all interested in the EU, they don't understand it, and instinctively don't like it much and would like not to be part of it. On that basis, you're right. The less about the EU the better of you want to get on politically. But that assumes Brexit has no effect on anything important. One of the ironies of Brexit is that it will ensure the EU will impact far more on our lives as non members than it ever did while we were a member. It will have the opposite effect to the one low information Leave voters expected.
Neither the ERG nor the Remain extremists like Grieve, Greening, Morgan, Soubry etc could be relied upon and neither could the DUP.
Slander!
Supports Brexit.
Having a Pauline conversion to supporting May’s deal does not mean she supports Brexit. May’s deal doesn’t deliver Brexit. Morgan has been every bit as bad as Soubry, Grieve etc so her late conversion is probably for personal career advantage.
It’s an odd world where people who want to preserve the status quo are described as extremists.
Except we voted to change that status quo and they were elected on a manifesto commitment to deliver that change. Ignoring the democratically expressed verdict of the electorate, twice, is what I would call extreme when practised by sitting MPs. Presumably, you think it’s ok to ignore the electorate.
Just watched "Leave No Trace" about a former US Vet with PTSD and his daughter living off the grid. The performance of the daughter by 18 year old Thomasin Mackenzie is the best performance I have seen this year.
Tehe film is rated at 100% on Rotten Tomatoes (along with Paddington 2).
'a former US Vet with PTSD'
Carrying out all those castrations must have had a lasting impact.
It is NATO and UN Security Council membership that gives us military clout
I think it makes a difference. Remember how quickly we were able to get military supplies to Argentina from Europe embargoed during the Falklands conflict.
Argentina got much of its Exocet missiles then from France
#Ohgodpleaseletsnotdothisagain
...and most of its bombs from the Americans, and its planes from the Americans and French, and its ships from the Americans and the French and the British. Now somebody's going to bring up that blokrgh!
And I really hope that sentence pisses off the Francophobe TSE.
Between 1940 and 1942 we fought several land battles against French government forces, notably in Syria and Madagascar. There were several thousand casualties.
De Gaulle was, arguably a traitor. However, there's an old rhyme:
Treason doth never prosper What's the reason? If it do prosper, none dare call it treason!
Britain recognised Free France as the legitimate government in the wake of Mers-el-Kebir in July 1940.
Doesn't matter who WE recognised. Who did the people of France recognise? Who did the majority of the world recognise although, of course, since several significant countries were in our orbit that might be a moot point! However, according Wikipedia, the Americans maintained an Embassy in France until Operation Torch late in 1942.
Well to be fair in the pecking order of Western military and diplomatic power while the US leads we are just behind, helped by Commonwealth ties, though France under Macron is catching up fast
That's true. B.
Not in military terms, in economic terms maybe.
It is NATO and UN Security Council membership that gives us military clout
I think it makes a difference. Remember how quickly we were able to get military supplies to Argentina from Europe embargoed during the Falklands conflict.
Argentina got much of its Exocet missiles then from France
Thatcher about Mitterrand, and then things quiet down until the next time. Aaargh!
Spot on. The French did every single thing we could have asked of them as an ally short of actually sending their own forces to help - which of course we never asked for. The myth of French cowardice and duplicity is one I have absolutely no time for given they have been our allies since the 1850s.
And I really hope that sentence pisses off the Francophobe TSE.
Between 1940 and 1942 we fought several land battles against French government forces, notably in Syria and Madagascar. There were several thousand casualties.
They were not recognised as French Government forces by the British as we refused to recognise the Vichy Government.
Britain recognised Free France as the legitimate government in the wake of Mers-el-Kebir in July 1940. And moreover, Free French forces took part in the Syrian Campaign.
It is NATO and UN Security Council membership that gives us military clout
I think it makes a difference. Remember how quickly we were able to get military supplies to Argentina from Europe embargoed during the Falklands conflict.
Argentina got much of its Exocet missiles then from France
#Ohgodpleaseletsnot
And I really hope that sentence pisses off the Francophobe TSE.
Betwee in Syria and Madagascar. There were several thousand casualties.
De Gaulle was, arguably a traitor. However, there's an old rhyme:
Treason doth never prosper What's the reason? If it do prosper, none dare call it treason!
Britain recognised Free France as the legitimate government in the wake of Mers-el-Kebir in July 1940.
Doesn't matter who WE recognised. Who did the people of France recognise? Who did the majority of the world recognise although, of course, since several significant countries were in our orbit that might be a moot point! However, according Wikipedia, the Americans maintained an Embassy in France until Operation Torch late in 1942.
The French couldn't have done much apart from Resist, given that Petain got the National Assembly to grant him dictatorial powers in July 1940.
It is NATO and UN Security Council membership that gives us military clout
I think it makes a difference. Remember how quickly we were able to get military supplies to Argentina from Europe embargoed during the Falklands conflict.
Argentina got much of its Exocet missiles then from France
#Ohgodpleaseletsnotdothisagain
...and most of its bombs from the Americans, and its planes from the Americans and French, and its ships from the Americans and the French and the British. Now somebody's going to bring up that bloke who worked for Dassault, then we mention Jean Kirkpatrick, I finish things off with that quote from Margaret Thatcher about Mitterrand, and then things quiet down until the next time. Aaargh!
Spot on. The French did every single thing we could have asked of them as an ally short of actually sending their own forces to help - which of course we never asked for. The myth of French cowardice and duplicity is one I have absolutely no time for given they have been our allies since the 1850s.
And I really hope that sentence pisses off the Francophobe TSE.
Between 1940 and 1942 we fought several land battles against French government forces, notably in Syria and Madagascar. There were several thousand casualties.
They were not recognised as French Government forces by the British as we refused to recognise the Vichy Government.
Virtually all French, and their colonies declared for Vichy. We (and they!) may wish otherwise, but they are clearly the successor government of France and inheirited nearly the entirety of the loyalty of the French armed forces.
Like it or not, we certainly fought the French government in those years.
Except we voted to change that status quo and they were elected on a manifesto commitment to deliver that change. Ignoring the democratically expressed verdict of the electorate, twice, is what I would call extreme when practised by sitting MPs. Presumably, you think it’s ok to ignore the electorate.
Did the manifesto promise new trade barriers? Where did the manifesto promise to put the customs border with Ireland? Did the manifesto promise the EBA and EMA would go?
Well to be fair in the pecking order of Western military and diplomatic power while the US leads we are just behind, helped by Commonwealth ties, though France under Macron is catching up fast
"just behind"
US Navy escorts:230 RN escorts: 17
Geography means we aren't that well integrated with the preeminent commonwealth military (Australia) so we rarely exercise with them.
I would have thought the pre-eminent Commonwealth military is India?
The Indian military is enormous, very professional (more so than the British in certain areas) and is rapidly modernising but their entire force posture is geared toward a war with Pakistan hence they don't do power projection.
I think there's a real danger for parties in the next election on any side of the debate being seen to be fighting the last war if they go on about Brexit. Building on it, reversing it, whatever, they'll all be vote-losers.
It's why, although I disagree with him, I do sympathize with the persistent argument of Matthew Parris that these next few weeks are the time for Remainers to lay it all down and do everything they possibly can and then some to stop Brexit happening. Go for it. Kill the damn thing or die trying. Do not leave anything on the pitch because afterwards it will be too late for anything but regrets.
"What did you do to stop Brexit, daddy?"
"Well, I ... err ... I ..."
Seems really odd to me that absolutely no-one seems prepared to look into the future and see any possibility, no matter how remote, that in 30 years' time today's young people will be looking back and thinking "Thank goodness we left the EU when we did!"
Untrue technically. Since it terminates our membership of the European Union.
And on the substance? Also untrue, as evidenced by the dislike of it amongst Remainers.
But what is true is that it is not a clean break Brexit. Because of the Backstop.
So what you should say is "May's deal doesn't deliver a clean break Brexit."
Or alternatively, "May's deal does not deliver the Brexit that EYE voted for."
Both formulations are aye ok.
MPs who voted for Brexit are not entirely queuing up to support it are they and it doesn’t seem to have attracted any real public support.
Terminating our membership of the EU but still paying them £ 39 bn for no good reason; still being bound by their trade regs over which we have no say and with major uncertainty over whether we will concede EU unlimited immigration, continued access to UK waters for fishing and whether or not we shall pay for trade when the actual trade negotiations start is not Brexit. And that’s before you get to the backstop.
So do you think that the chance of her deal passing by 30 March is only 33% (plus 10% chance of no deal) or do you think the chance of the UK leaving the UK is 53% (43% by her deal passing and 10% by crashing out)? There's room for some betting between the two markets but I'm not sure how to play it.
You could back us leaving and lay the deal. Flat if we leave with the deal, or don't leave, nice profit if we leave without it.
I have it 60/10/30, deal / no deal / no brexit, so 70% combined that we leave on 29/3, meaning that my best bet (which I have done) is the simple Yes on the 'will we leave by?' market.
Except we voted to change that status quo and they were elected on a manifesto commitment to deliver that change. Ignoring the democratically expressed verdict of the electorate, twice, is what I would call extreme when practised by sitting MPs. Presumably, you think it’s ok to ignore the electorate.
Did the manifesto promise new trade barriers? Where did the manifesto promise to put the customs border with Ireland? Did the manifesto promise the EBA and EMA would go?
The manifesto committed to the U.K. leaving the customs union. Arguing that the consequences of that were not in the manifesto and are therefore not policy is facile.
Were a General Election to come about , Labour would simply decline to engage on Brexit to any significant extent. They would seek to change the subject - as happened in both 2017 and February 1974 - by raising other issues to which voters can much more readily relate.The chances of managing that over a six week campaign period seem good to me. People wish to move on!
Wouldn't work for toffee. Firstly, because any upcoming election this year will be called as a 'Brexit election' - called to decide the form it takes and little else. Secondly, because a significant number of their MPs would demand clarity or effectively go freelance. Third, because a significant section of the party's voter-base deeply care about the issue and want clarity on it. They might not desert the party as would have other concerns - but it's absurd to think Labour could get away with not engaging with it. They'd at least have to neutralise the issue with something like a People's Vote or risk being torn apart on it.
Those who call an election do not control the priorities of the voters. Theresa May found that out in 2017 - as did Ted Heath before her in February 1974. People on this Board - and the commentariat more widely - can be as obsessed as they wish re-Brexit, but - IMHO - that does not reflect the views of the public at large. Most people are sick to death of the subject , and are highly likely to respond in a positive way to any attempt to raise issues & problems which are far less technical and much more directly relevant to their daily lives. To repeat a point I have made before here - far too many commentators fail to distinguish between an issue being 'highly important ' - which Brexit clearly is - and 'salient' which I believe not to be the case electorally.
I would say many people aren't at all interested in the EU, they don't understand it, and instinctively don't like it much and would like not to be part of it. On that basis, you're right. The less about the EU the better of you want to get on politically. But that assumes Brexit has no effect on anything important. One of the ironies of Brexit is that it will ensure the EU will impact far more on our lives as non members than it ever did while we were a member. It will have the opposite effect to the one low information Leave voters expected.
The issue is certainly important, but it is not what most people want to talk about - nor will it be the key factor in determining how they vote.
Seems really odd to me that absolutely no-one seems prepared to look into the future and see any possibility, no matter how remote, that in 30 years' time today's young people will be looking back and thinking "Thank goodness we left the EU when we did!"
Well I would not rule that out. I think it unlikely but I really don't know and nor, in truth, does anybody else.
The only way to discover what Leave means in practice is to Leave.
So do you think that the chance of her deal passing by 30 March is only 33% (plus 10% chance of no deal) or do you think the chance of the UK leaving the UK is 53% (43% by her deal passing and 10% by crashing out)? There's room for some betting between the two markets but I'm not sure how to play it.
You could back us leaving and lay the deal. Flat if we leave with the deal, or don't leave, nice profit if we leave without it.
I have it 60/10/30, deal / no deal / no brexit, so 70% combined that we leave on 29/3, meaning that my best bet (which I have done) is the simple Yes on the 'will we leave by?' market.
Terminating our membership of the EU but still paying them £ 39 bn for no good reason; still being bound by their trade regs over which we have no say and with major uncertainty over whether we will concede EU unlimited immigration, continued access to UK waters for fishing and whether or not we shall pay for trade when the actual trade negotiations start is not Brexit.
Is not a clean break Brexit.
Neither is it the Brexit that you voted for.
Look, I'll cut you some slack. You can say that it is not the Brexit you voted for, nor the Brexit that all of those who voted for a clean break Brexit, in the full knowledge of what a clean break Brexit entails, voted for.
Well to be fair in the pecking order of Western military and diplomatic power while the US leads we are just behind, helped by Commonwealth ties, though France under Macron is catching up fast
"just behind"
US Navy escorts:230 RN escorts: 17
Geography means we aren't that well integrated with the preeminent commonwealth military (Australia) so we rarely exercise with them.
I would have thought the pre-eminent Commonwealth military is India?
The Indian military is enormous, very professional (more so than the British in certain areas) and is rapidly modernising but their entire force posture is geared toward a war with Pakistan hence they don't do power projection.
India has one STOBAR aircraft carrier in service, and has another currently fitting out, to replace Viraat (the ex-HMS Hermes of Falklands fame) which has just decomissioned. Australia has two helicopter carriers, but no fixed wing carrier aircraft at the moment.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/30/french-resistance-hero-saved-jewish-children-dies-georges-loinger
It’s an odd world where people who want to preserve the status quo are described as extremists.
"What did you do to stop Brexit, daddy?"
"Well, I ... err ... I ..."
Except we voted to change that status quo and they were elected on a manifesto commitment to deliver that change. Ignoring the democratically expressed verdict of the electorate, twice, is what I would call extreme when practised by sitting MPs. Presumably, you think it’s ok to ignore the electorate.
Carrying out all those castrations must have had a lasting impact.
Oh, you meant Veteran, not Veterinarian!
And on the substance? Also untrue, as evidenced by the dislike of it amongst Remainers.
But what is true is that it is not a clean break Brexit. Because of the Backstop.
So what you should say is "May's deal doesn't deliver a clean break Brexit."
Or alternatively, "May's deal does not deliver the Brexit that EYE voted for."
Both formulations are aye ok.
Like it or not, we certainly fought the French government in those years.
NEW THREAD
Good afternoon, everyone.
Terminating our membership of the EU but still paying them £ 39 bn for no good reason; still being bound by their trade regs over which we have no say and with major uncertainty over whether we will concede EU unlimited immigration, continued access to UK waters for fishing and whether or not we shall pay for trade when the actual trade negotiations start is not Brexit. And that’s before you get to the backstop.
I have it 60/10/30, deal / no deal / no brexit, so 70% combined that we leave on 29/3, meaning that my best bet (which I have done) is the simple Yes on the 'will we leave by?' market.
The only way to discover what Leave means in practice is to Leave.
Not sure about the timing of exit however.
Neither is it the Brexit that you voted for.
Look, I'll cut you some slack. You can say that it is not the Brexit you voted for, nor the Brexit that all of those who voted for a clean break Brexit, in the full knowledge of what a clean break Brexit entails, voted for.
No issue with that.
If we knew each other, a big cash bet would be on the cards.
Or perhaps you are the other side of some of my betfair activity.
:-)