politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Brexit deadlock: Some group has got to shift bit it is not

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Brexit deadlock: Some group has got to shift bit it is not clear who that will be

After another deadlocked day at Westminster the time is running out before the April 12th deadline and if the UK is not to slip out of the EU then without a deal then some grouping has got to change their previously set out strong position.

Read the full story here

edmundintokyo

The EU should impose a faffing fee, it starts at 1 Euro then doubles every day

matt

Cage fighting.

Or, perhaps the EU will make a real hard deadline. I can't help feeling that their not very immutable deadlines aren't helping.

edmundintokyo

matt said:

Cage fighting.

Or toss a coin? Seriously.

edmundintokyo

In Japan this would be settled with successive rounds of scissors-paper-stone

rcs1000

I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:

The ballot paper has three either/or questions:

1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"

Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.

In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.

Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.

So, @Philip_Thompson would probably choose:

1. No Deal
2. Remain
3. No Deal

@Richard_Tyndall would probably go for:

1. No Deal
2. Deal
3. Deal

Etc.

edmundintokyo

rcs1000 said:

I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:

The ballot paper has three either/or questions:

1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"

Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.

In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.

Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.

So, @Philip_Thompson would probably choose:

1. No Deal
2. Remain
3. No Deal

@Richard_Tyndall would probably go for:

1. No Deal
2. Deal
3. Deal

Etc.

The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.

matt

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:

The ballot paper has three either/or questions:

1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"

Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.

In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.

Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.

So, @Philip_Thompson would probably choose:

1. No Deal
2. Remain
3. No Deal

@Richard_Tyndall would probably go for:

1. No Deal
2. Deal
3. Deal

Etc.

The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.

The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.

brokenwheel

edmundintokyo said:

In Japan this would be settled with successive rounds of scissors-paper-stone

I'd prefer Battle Royale.

rcs1000

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:

The ballot paper has three either/or questions:

1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"

Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.

In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.

Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.

So, @Philip_Thompson would probably choose:

1. No Deal
2. Remain
3. No Deal

@Richard_Tyndall would probably go for:

1. No Deal
2. Deal
3. Deal

Etc.

The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.

Would they?

This ensures that we find the Concordet Winner, which is what we should all be aiming for, right?

Given the EU will not change the WA, this is the clear and only way out.

There's no real room for voters to game the system - or at least not without risking getting something they really don't want.

The current situation means people deliberately lie.

If you are a Leaver, and you want us to Leave without a Deal, then it is incumbent upon you to convince more moderate Leavers that you think the Deal is worse than Remain. Because that's the only way you'll get what you want. But in the system I propose, lying is a dangerous game.

If Remain really is the Concordet winner, then so be it.

rcs1000

matt said:

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:

The ballot paper has three either/or questions:

1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"

Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.

In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.

Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.

So, @Philip_Thompson would probably choose:

1. No Deal
2. Remain
3. No Deal

@Richard_Tyndall would probably go for:

1. No Deal
2. Deal
3. Deal

Etc.

The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.

The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.

I think voters are able to play three rounds of "Would you rather {x} or {y}?"

edmundintokyo

matt said:

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:

The ballot paper has three either/or questions:

1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"

Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.

In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.

Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.

So, @Philip_Thompson would probably choose:

1. No Deal
2. Remain
3. No Deal

@Richard_Tyndall would probably go for:

1. No Deal
2. Deal
3. Deal

Etc.

The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.

The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.

No, it's nothing to do with being intelligent and thoughtful. If they were intelligent and thoughtful they wouldn't change their minds based on the brexit negotiations turning out the way intelligent and thoughtful people already expected them to.

Remain would be favourite because Leave only just squeaked in before, so there's no scope to lose voters, and they'd lose some to Remain when faced with either of the specific ways of leaving that would be on the ballot. Plus, it's going worse than floating voters expected, and a lot of them are sick of it. Plus, the combination of Trump, a better economy and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.

None of it's at all a cert, but if you're a Leave supporter, and you've already won, you obviously don't want to roll the dice for anything less than a strong probability of a win, and they definitely don't have that.

rcs1000

edmundintokyo said:

matt said:

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:

The ballot paper has three either/or questions:

1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"

Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.

In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.

Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.

So, @Philip_Thompson would probably choose:

1. No Deal
2. Remain
3. No Deal

@Richard_Tyndall would probably go for:

1. No Deal
2. Deal
3. Deal

Etc.

The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.

The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.

No, it's nothing to do with being intelligent and thoughtful. If they were intelligent and thoughtful they wouldn't change their minds based on the brexit negotiations turning out the way intelligent and thoughtful people already expected them to.

Remain would be favourite because Leave only just squeaked in before, so there's no scope to lose voters, and they'd lose some to Remain when faced with either of the specific ways of leaving that would be on the ballot. Plus, it's going worse than floating voters expected, and a lot of them are sick of it. Plus, the combination of Trump, a better economy and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.

None of it's at all a cert, but if you're a Leave supporter, and you've already won, you obviously don't want to roll the dice for anything less than a strong probability of a win, and they definitely don't have that.

I'm not sure that's true.

Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.

edmundintokyo

rcs1000 said:

Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.

That's certainly a possibility. Against that Remainiacs are riled up in a way they weren't originally.

But that answers your other question. Rightly or wrongly leavers don't feel they should have to win another referendum. So it's just really hard to get leavers in general, and Tory MPs specifically, to back the idea of having another referendum, no matter how it's set up.

edmundintokyo

brokenwheel said:

edmundintokyo said:

In Japan this would be settled with successive rounds of scissors-paper-stone

I'd prefer Battle Royale.

That would be such a great betting event

rcs1000

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.

That's certainly a possibility. Against that Remainiacs are riled up in a way they weren't originally.

But that answers your other question. Rightly or wrongly leavers don't feel they should have to win another referendum. So it's just really hard to get leavers in general, and Tory MPs specifically, to back the idea of having another referendum, no matter how it's set up.

I understand that point of view.

However, many of those same Leavers seem hellbent on taking the UK towards a "No Deal" exit, which was certainly not on the agenda back in 2016.

If the will of the people really is for No Deal Brexit, then my system will discover it. If Remain really is better than Deal, then so be it.

But if it turns out that most people would like to confirm the first referendum result, without dynamiting the Channel Tunnel, then that will be revealed too.

edmundintokyo

rcs1000 said:

I understand that point of view.

However, many of those same Leavers seem hellbent on taking the UK towards a "No Deal" exit, which was certainly not on the agenda back in 2016.

If the will of the people really is for No Deal Brexit, then my system will discover it. If Remain really is better than Deal, then so be it.

But if it turns out that most people would like to confirm the first referendum result, without dynamiting the Channel Tunnel, then that will be revealed too.

I agree with all of that. I just don't see how you pass it through parliament. I mean, TMay could probably make it pass, but does she want to?

matt

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.

That's certainly a possibility. Against that Remainiacs are riled up in a way they weren't originally.

But that answers your other question. Rightly or wrongly leavers don't feel they should have to win another referendum. So it's just really hard to get leavers in general, and Tory MPs specifically, to back the idea of having another referendum, no matter how it's set up.

I understand that point of view.

However, many of those same Leavers seem hellbent on taking the UK towards a "No Deal" exit, which was certainly not on the agenda back in 2016.

If the will of the people really is for No Deal Brexit, then my system will discover it. If Remain really is better than Deal, then so be it.

But if it turns out that most people would like to confirm the first referendum result, without dynamiting the Channel Tunnel, then that will be revealed too.

I take all of that. My concern with all of this is information flow. It's clear that MPs, who at least (in theory), are meant to be a relatively sophisticated and intelligent electorate, struggle with the options, the consequences and how they interact.

How might the electorate differentiate between competing claims of "all aircraft will/won't be grounded", "supermarket chiller cabinets will/will not be empty" and the like? A cacophony of lies and misrepresentations.


You might make the same point re GEs but the arguments have the merit of being more familiar.

rcs1000

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

I understand that point of view.

However, many of those same Leavers seem hellbent on taking the UK towards a "No Deal" exit, which was certainly not on the agenda back in 2016.

If the will of the people really is for No Deal Brexit, then my system will discover it. If Remain really is better than Deal, then so be it.

But if it turns out that most people would like to confirm the first referendum result, without dynamiting the Channel Tunnel, then that will be revealed too.

I agree with all of that. I just don't see how you pass it through parliament. I mean, TMay could probably make it pass, but does she want to?

I think it's the best chance she has for selling her deal.

You see, what has really scuppered her (IMHO) is that those who favour No Deal have pretended to the world that Remain was better than the Deal. Why? Because for those who voted Leave, if Deal was taken off the table, broke for No Deal. It was breathtakingly cynical, but it might well have worked.

Under my system honesty is rewarded.

rcs1000

matt said:

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.

That's certainly a possibility. Against that Remainiacs are riled up in a way they weren't originally.

But that answers your other question. Rightly or wrongly leavers don't feel they should have to win another referendum. So it's just really hard to get leavers in general, and Tory MPs specifically, to back the idea of having another referendum, no matter how it's set up.

I understand that point of view.

However, many of those same Leavers seem hellbent on taking the UK towards a "No Deal" exit, which was certainly not on the agenda back in 2016.

If the will of the people really is for No Deal Brexit, then my system will discover it. If Remain really is better than Deal, then so be it.

But if it turns out that most people would like to confirm the first referendum result, without dynamiting the Channel Tunnel, then that will be revealed too.

I take all of that. My concern with all of this is information flow. It's clear that MPs, who at least (in theory), are meant to be a relatively sophisticated and intelligent electorate, struggle with the options, the consequences and how they interact.

How might the electorate differentiate between competing claims of "all aircraft will/won't be grounded", "supermarket chiller cabinets will/will not be empty" and the like? A cacophony of lies and misrepresentations.


You might make the same point re GEs but the arguments have the merit of being more familiar.

Fortunately, this video explains all:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyahEuxvBUk

AlastairMeeks

We have now reached the stage where any responsible MP would be voting yes to any option that did not result in profound disruption. So, yes to Theresa May’s Deal, yes to Common Market 2.0, yes to a customs union and yes to a new referendum.

Britain has few responsible MPs.

eek

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:

The ballot paper has three either/or questions:

1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"

Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.

In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.

Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.

So, @Philip_Thompson would probably choose:

1. No Deal
2. Remain
3. No Deal

@Richard_Tyndall would probably go for:

1. No Deal
2. Deal
3. Deal

Etc.

The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.

That’s not a problem - it means the people have changed their minds which they gave the right to do

AlastairMeeks

eek said:

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:

The ballot paper has three either/or questions:

1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"

Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.

In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.

Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.

So, @Philip_Thompson would probably choose:

1. No Deal
2. Remain
3. No Deal

@Richard_Tyndall would probably go for:

1. No Deal
2. Deal
3. Deal

Etc.

The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.

That’s not a problem - it means the people have changed their minds which they gave the right to do

It’s a problem for Conservatives, the bulk of whose voters have turned into moon-howling maniacs.

matt

rcs1000 said:

matt said:

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.

That's certainly a possibility. Against that Remainiacs are riled up in a way they weren't originally.

But that answers your other question. Rightly or wrongly leavers don't feel they should have to win another referendum. So it's just really hard to get leavers in general, and Tory MPs specifically, to back the idea of having another referendum, no matter how it's set up.

I understand that point of view.

However, many of those same Leavers seem hellbent on taking the UK towards a "No Deal" exit, which was certainly not on the agenda back in 2016.

If the will of the people really is for No Deal Brexit, then my system will discover it. If Remain really is better than Deal, then so be it.

But if it turns out that most people would like to confirm the first referendum result, without dynamiting the Channel Tunnel, then that will be revealed too.

I take all of that. My concern with all of this is information flow. It's clear that MPs, who at least (in theory), are meant to be a relatively sophisticated and intelligent electorate, struggle with the options, the consequences and how they interact.

How might the electorate differentiate between competing claims of "all aircraft will/won't be grounded", "supermarket chiller cabinets will/will not be empty" and the like? A cacophony of lies and misrepresentations.


You might make the same point re GEs but the arguments have the merit of being more familiar.

Fortunately, this video explains all:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyahEuxvBUk

Unfortunately, I'm somewhere with internet control and VPNs are blocked as much as possible. Makes PB comments slightly better generally as one can't see halfwitted cut and pastes from Twitter.

Scott_P

AlastairMeeks said:

We have now reached the stage where any responsible MP would be voting yes to any option that did not result in profound disruption.

It seems the bulk of MPs, for different reasons, want profound disruption

eek

AlastairMeeks said:

eek said:

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:

The ballot paper has three either/or questions:

1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"

Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.

In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.

Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.

So, @Philip_Thompson would probably choose:

1. No Deal
2. Remain
3. No Deal

@Richard_Tyndall would probably go for:

1. No Deal
2. Deal
3. Deal

Etc.

The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.

That’s not a problem - it means the people have changed their minds which they gave the right to do

It’s a problem for Conservatives, the bulk of whose voters have turned into moon-howling maniacs.

So we get back to the question of when and how would the stories like to self destruct. Now by revoking, slightly later as someone negotiates the final agreements after May’s Deal or in a completely instructed way as things go wrong after a No Deal departure

eek

AlastairMeeks said:

We have now reached the stage where any responsible MP would be voting yes to any option that did not result in profound disruption. So, yes to Theresa May’s Deal, yes to Common Market 2.0, yes to a customs union and yes to a new referendum.

Britain has few responsible MPs.

Given that the cabinet was abstaining you can hardly blame MPs for being equally responsible and still hunting for the unicorn the cabinet are also looking for

matt

eek said:

AlastairMeeks said:

We have now reached the stage where any responsible MP would be voting yes to any option that did not result in profound disruption. So, yes to Theresa May’s Deal, yes to Common Market 2.0, yes to a customs union and yes to a new referendum.

Britain has few responsible MPs.

Given that the cabinet was abstaining you can hardly blame MPs for being equally responsible and still hunting for the unicorn the cabinet are also looking for

I disagree. The cabinet abstaining was implicitly suggesting that they will implement the instruction of MPs (a qualified neutrality if you will). MPs instruction appears to be an irresponsible, "we don't like anything".

Recidivist

I think there will be 6 million people who are not remotely impressed with the Conservatives over this.

https://twitter.com/UK4Europe/status/1112846404718940162

Black_Rook

AlastairMeeks said:

We have now reached the stage where any responsible MP would be voting yes to any option that did not result in profound disruption. So, yes to Theresa May’s Deal, yes to Common Market 2.0, yes to a customs union and yes to a new referendum.

Britain has few responsible MPs.

I think it's simply the case of their having been arguing about this for such a very, very long time by now that a great many MPs are dug into entrenched positions from which they no longer feel able to move.

I think Parliament has three chances left to avoid No Deal: a majority for one option on Wednesday that the Government can then accept and have a reasonable chance of implementing; MV4 with some major concession tacked onto it (a referendum, perhaps, has the best chance of passing); and, if those both fail, a straight Revoke vs No Deal vote on April 10th or 11th. True, the EU might also let us extend the A50 deadline again for more general pissing about, but I don't see what they have to gain from this.

Anyway, we haven't long left to find out what the denouement will be.

brokenwheel said:

edmundintokyo said:

In Japan this would be settled with successive rounds of scissors-paper-stone

I'd prefer Battle Royale.

If this does somehow end in a situation where we participate in the European Parliament elections then you may well get it - although, personally, I'd imagined that contest more as a bar room brawl from an old fashioned Western. The SNP ought to score a clear victory in Scotland, but South of the Border you could very easily see outright Dutchification: seven different parties (eight or nine in Wales) all within about ten points of each other.

Black_Rook

Recidivist said:

I think there will be 6 million people who are not remotely impressed with the Conservatives over this.

https://twitter.com/UK4Europe/status/1112846404718940162

How many of those were thinking of voting Tory anyway?

matt

"I think it's simply the case of their having been arguing about this for such a very, very long time by now that a great many MPs are dug into entrenched positions from which they no longer feel able to move."


Western Front WW1. Who will play the roles of the Strosstruppen/Americans?

Recidivist

Black_Rook said:

Recidivist said:

I think there will be 6 million people who are not remotely impressed with the Conservatives over this.

https://twitter.com/UK4Europe/status/1112846404718940162

How many of those were thinking of voting Tory anyway?

Who knows. If the polls are anything to go by there are about 2 million Tory voters who want to stay in the EU out there. They would have an above average incentive to sign the petition. I'd have thought that the Tories might have made some effort to keep them on board.

Black_Rook

AlastairMeeks said:

eek said:

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:

The ballot paper has three either/or questions:

1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"

Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.

In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.

Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.

So, @Philip_Thompson would probably choose:

1. No Deal
2. Remain
3. No Deal

@Richard_Tyndall would probably go for:

1. No Deal
2. Deal
3. Deal

Etc.

The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.

That’s not a problem - it means the people have changed their minds which they gave the right to do

It’s a problem for Conservatives, the bulk of whose voters have turned into moon-howling maniacs.

This sort of crude characterisation really doesn't help. There are howling ultras dug in on both sides of this argument; most of the population - representing various shades of opinion from "the referendum should be respected" to "the referendum should be run again," and encompassing groups such as "this is all so confusing" and "what is this Brexit mullarkey anyway" are stuck between the warring factions. This includes at least a very large fraction of both the Tory and Labour votes.

When we next get to a General Election, the most important determinants of voting behaviour are still liable to be cultural/habit/robotic voting, and the perceived desirability or otherwise of Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. The Leave/Remain divide is a factor, but it's not the be all and end all of everything. Not by a long chalk.

Black_Rook

Recidivist said:

Black_Rook said:

Recidivist said:

I think there will be 6 million people who are not remotely impressed with the Conservatives over this.

https://twitter.com/UK4Europe/status/1112846404718940162

How many of those were thinking of voting Tory anyway?

Who knows. If the polls are anything to go by there are about 2 million Tory voters who want to stay in the EU out there. They would have an above average incentive to sign the petition. I'd have thought that the Tories might have made some effort to keep them on board.

I'm still not surprised that Conservatives don't want to be seen flirting with the idea of Revocation. Whilst I think that Brexit won't be the most important factor in the next General Election, failing to deliver any form of Brexit at all has much greater potential consequences for them in terms of loss of trust and fragmentation of their voter coalition than any Brexit outcome does - even No Deal, save perhaps if the consequences thereof turn out to be apocalyptic.

Or, to put it more succinctly, it's not possible to please everyone.

Recidivist

Black_Rook said:

Recidivist said:

Black_Rook said:

Recidivist said:

I think there will be 6 million people who are not remotely impressed with the Conservatives over this.

https://twitter.com/UK4Europe/status/1112846404718940162

How many of those were thinking of voting Tory anyway?

Who knows. If the polls are anything to go by there are about 2 million Tory voters who want to stay in the EU out there. They would have an above average incentive to sign the petition. I'd have thought that the Tories might have made some effort to keep them on board.

I'm still not surprised that Conservatives don't want to be seen flirting with the idea of Revocation. Whilst I think that Brexit won't be the most important factor in the next General Election, failing to deliver any form of Brexit at all has much greater potential consequences for them in terms of loss of trust and fragmentation of their voter coalition than any Brexit outcome does - even No Deal, save perhaps if the consequences thereof turn out to be apocalyptic.

Or, to put it more succinctly, it's not possible to please everyone.

There are ways of saying no respectfully.

Casino_Royale

FPT: Air France = Air Chance

Avoid.

Black_Rook

Recidivist said:

Black_Rook said:

Recidivist said:

Black_Rook said:

Recidivist said:

I think there will be 6 million people who are not remotely impressed with the Conservatives over this.

https://twitter.com/UK4Europe/status/1112846404718940162

How many of those were thinking of voting Tory anyway?

Who knows. If the polls are anything to go by there are about 2 million Tory voters who want to stay in the EU out there. They would have an above average incentive to sign the petition. I'd have thought that the Tories might have made some effort to keep them on board.

I'm still not surprised that Conservatives don't want to be seen flirting with the idea of Revocation. Whilst I think that Brexit won't be the most important factor in the next General Election, failing to deliver any form of Brexit at all has much greater potential consequences for them in terms of loss of trust and fragmentation of their voter coalition than any Brexit outcome does - even No Deal, save perhaps if the consequences thereof turn out to be apocalyptic.

Or, to put it more succinctly, it's not possible to please everyone.

There are ways of saying no respectfully.

You could just as easily argue that a Revoke debate is about a relatively small minority of MPs representing a relatively small minority of voters telling the 52% to shove their Brexit where the Sun don't shine. That's hardly respectful either.

Yes, the Government could've sent a junior minister along to restate its long-held opinion that the will of the people, expressed in 2016, should be respected - but what would this have achieved? We knew this already. It would've been a waste of time.

If one were being crude then, theoretically, the whole event might best be described as one massive circle jerk for desperate hardcore Remainiacs. But I'm a good boy so will not stoop so low.

Casino_Royale

matt said:

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:

The ballot paper has three either/or questions:

1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"

Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.

In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.

Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.

So, @Philip_Thompson would probably choose:

1. No Deal
2. Remain
3. No Deal

@Richard_Tyndall would probably go for:

1. No Deal
2. Deal
3. Deal

Etc.

The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.

The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.

Such a vote might not even be about the EU.

SouthamObserver

The majority of Tory MPs and ministers seem to have settled on May’s Deal or No Deal. The PM is among them, so No Deal it will be. The full consequences of that are not knowable, but they do not look good for either the Tories or the country.

Casino_Royale

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

matt said:

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:

The ballot paper has three either/or questions:

1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"

Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.

In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.

Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.

So, @Philip_Thompson would probably choose:

1. No Deal
2. Remain
3. No Deal

@Richard_Tyndall would probably go for:

1. No Deal
2. Deal
3. Deal

Etc.

The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.

The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.

No, it's nothing to do with being intelligent and thoughtful. If they were intelligent and thoughtful they wouldn't change their minds based on the brexit negotiations turning out the way intelligent and thoughtful people already expected them to.

Remain would be favourite because Leave only just squeaked in before, so there's no scope to lose voters, and they'd lose some to Remain when faced with either of the specific ways of leaving that would be on the ballot. Plus, it's going worse than floating voters expected, and a lot of them are sick of it. Plus, the combination of Trump, a better economy and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.

None of it's at all a cert, but if you're a Leave supporter, and you've already won, you obviously don't want to roll the dice for anything less than a strong probability of a win, and they definitely don't have that.

I'm not sure that's true.

Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.

Indeed.

I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.

SouthamObserver

Scott_P said:

AlastairMeeks said:

We have now reached the stage where any responsible MP would be voting yes to any option that did not result in profound disruption.

It seems the bulk of MPs, for different reasons, want profound disruption

For MPs No Deal is an abstract concept. It will largely happen to other people. At least until the next general election.

Pulpstar

Who will fold ?
Not the EU, not Ireland, not Dodds, not Corbyn.

It'll be May.

Casino_Royale

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.

That's certainly a possibility. Against that Remainiacs are riled up in a way they weren't originally.

But that answers your other question. Rightly or wrongly leavers don't feel they should have to win another referendum. So it's just really hard to get leavers in general, and Tory MPs specifically, to back the idea of having another referendum, no matter how it's set up.

I’d reluctantly back one - along the lines Robert is suggesting - if Parliament is incapable of making a decision, and it gets us out of this.

But, it would need to be imposed by Parliament under Letwin as legislation led by Parliament in recognition it had failed to do so.

Casino_Royale

SouthamObserver said:

Scott_P said:

AlastairMeeks said:

We have now reached the stage where any responsible MP would be voting yes to any option that did not result in profound disruption.

It seems the bulk of MPs, for different reasons, want profound disruption

For MPs No Deal is an abstract concept. It will largely happen to other people. At least until the next general election.

The ERG and Corbyn’s inner circle are as bad as each other.

Watching Steve Baker’s ego in full flood last night on BBC2’s Brexit documentary was nauseating.

edmundintokyo

Pulpstar said:

Who will fold ?
Not the EU, not Ireland, not Dodds, not Corbyn.

It'll be May.

Sure, we know that TMay will surrender. But what we don't know is who she'll surrender *to*...

DavidL

I went to bed early last night and really can't believe that I am waking up to the rejection of every proposal once again. What is wrong with these people? It is not as if this slightly bizarre procedure made them choose. They could easily have voted yes to all 4 proposals if they are so minded and yet we cannot get a majority for anything.

A huge part of the problem lies with May. She sought to keep her party together with studied ambiguity for so long that both the ERG and the softest of remainers thought that they had her ear and support. Because they thought that they saw no need to compromise or to build a broader consensus. They still think the same way. If the ERG were persuaded that there was a real risk of no Brexit they would surely all compromise. Many did for May's deal last time out but enough still thought that if they just held on they could get their no deal fantasy. After last night they will be reinforced in that view.

The remainers/soft Brexiteers are in a slightly more difficult position. Until very recently, even yesterday, the momentum seemed to be with them and being in the CU with regulatory alignment seemed to have all the momentum. But the split between the CU and CM2.0 seems to have done for them as does the increasing number who will not support any Brexit without a second referendum.

Yesterday while driving I heard Jack Dromey and a female Conservative MP. They both represented constituencies which had car plants. They were in complete agreement and both entirely reasonable. What they were clearest about is the damage being done by the current uncertainty had to end and a choice had to be made. They will not be alone in their despair this morning.

SouthamObserver

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

matt said:

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:

The ballot paper has three either/or questions:

1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"

Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.

In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.

Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.

So, @Philip_Thompson would probably choose:

1. No Deal
2. Remain
3. No Deal

@Richard_Tyndall would probably go for:

1. No Deal
2. Deal
3. Deal

Etc.

The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.

The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.

No, it's nothing to do with being intelligent and thoughtful. If they were intelligent and thoughtful they wouldn't change their minds based on the brexit negotiations turning out the way intelligent and thoughtful people already expected them to.

Remain would be favourite because Leave only just squeaked in before, so there's no scope to lose voters, and they'd lose some to Remain when faced with either of the specific ways of leaving that would be on the ballot. Plus, it's going worse than floating voters expected, and a lot of them are sick of it. Plus, the combination of Trump, a better economy and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.

None of it's at all a cert, but if you're a Leave supporter, and you've already won, you obviously don't want to roll the dice for anything less than a strong probability of a win, and they definitely don't have that.

I'm not sure that's true.

Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.

Indeed.

I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.

Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?

SouthamObserver

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Scott_P said:

AlastairMeeks said:

We have now reached the stage where any responsible MP would be voting yes to any option that did not result in profound disruption.

It seems the bulk of MPs, for different reasons, want profound disruption

For MPs No Deal is an abstract concept. It will largely happen to other people. At least until the next general election.

The ERG and Corbyn’s inner circle are as bad as each other.

Watching Steve Baker’s ego in full flood last night on BBC2’s Brexit documentary was nauseating.

Yep.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

DavidL

AlastairMeeks said:

We have now reached the stage where any responsible MP would be voting yes to any option that did not result in profound disruption. So, yes to Theresa May’s Deal, yes to Common Market 2.0, yes to a customs union and yes to a new referendum.

Britain has few responsible MPs.

I agree Alastair although I think a new referendum would increase the length of the uncertainty unacceptably at this point. I would rather revoke than go down that line. Alternatively, we might commit to a second referendum in 10 years time when people can see how whatever we end up with compares to membership. I would be ok with that.

But we have just got to find a way forward here.

Casino_Royale

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

matt said:

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:

The ballot paper has three either/or questions:

1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"

Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.

In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.

Easypeasy.

Etc.

The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.

The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.

No, it's nothing to do with being intelligent and thoughtful. If they were intelligent and thoughtful they wouldn't change their minds based on the brexit negotiations turning out the way intelligent and thoughtful people already expected them to.

Remain would be favourite because Leave only just squeaked in before, so there's no scope to lose voters, and they'd lose some to Remain when faced with either of the specific ways of leaving that would be on the ballot. Plus, it's going worse than floating voters expected, and a lot of them are sick of it. Plus, the combination of Trump, a better economy and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.

None of it's at all a cert, but if you're a Leave supporter, and you've already won, you obviously don't want to roll the dice for anything less than a strong probability of a win, and they definitely don't have that.

I'm not sure that's true.

Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.

Indeed.

I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.

Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?

The Prime Minister, who may not be Theresa May.

I’d also expect Cummings to come back to Vote Leave.

Casino_Royale

Pulpstar said:

Who will fold ?
Not the EU, not Ireland, not Dodds, not Corbyn.

It'll be May.

I expect Customs Union will pass on a 3rd attempt.

Looking at the votes last night it only failed by three and that was because the TIGers and some of LDs cynically voted it down and there was some weird switching.

RochdalePioneers

edmundintokyo said:

Pulpstar said:

Who will fold ?
Not the EU, not Ireland, not Dodds, not Corbyn.

It'll be May.

Sure, we know that TMay will surrender. But what we don't know is who she'll surrender *to*...

The reports over the weekend that Downing Street is looking to push a leadership contest into the Autumn. May has offered her head if her deal passes. But I don't think she envisages it passing, so then she can once again say nothing has changed, I am the leader, I have delivered Brexit, all kneel and praise me.

Truly truly wretched. I'd almost like to see a General Election just for the comedy value. Montgomery Brewster for PM.

MarqueeMark

matt said:

eek said:

AlastairMeeks said:

We have now reached the stage where any responsible MP would be voting yes to any option that did not result in profound disruption. So, yes to Theresa May’s Deal, yes to Common Market 2.0, yes to a customs union and yes to a new referendum.

Britain has few responsible MPs.

Given that the cabinet was abstaining you can hardly blame MPs for being equally responsible and still hunting for the unicorn the cabinet are also looking for

I disagree. The cabinet abstaining was implicitly suggesting that they will implement the instruction of MPs (a qualified neutrality if you will). MPs instruction appears to be an irresponsible, "we don't like anything".

We have a Parliament from Little Britain.

Andy Pipkins: "I want that one....."

Lou Todd: "Are you sure now?"

Andy Pipkins: "Don't like it...."

Lou Todd: "What a kerfuffle!"

Andy Pipkins: "Yeah I know....."

Lou Todd: "Now, shall we have another round of voting?"

Andy Pipkins: "I want that one....."

Lou Todd: "Are you sure now?"

Andy Pipkins: "Yeah....."

pause

Andy Pipkins: "Don't like it....."

DavidL

edmundintokyo said:

Pulpstar said:

Who will fold ?
Not the EU, not Ireland, not Dodds, not Corbyn.

It'll be May.

Sure, we know that TMay will surrender. But what we don't know is who she'll surrender *to*...

I am not sure that she can surrender. If she surrenders to the ERG and goes no deal then she loses a chunk of her cabinet including her Chancellor. If she surrenders to the CU she loses any pretense of having a majority in the Commons. Either way she loses power after which who cares what she thinks?

Scott_P

Black_Rook said:

I'm still not surprised that Conservatives don't want to be seen flirting with the idea of Revocation. Whilst I think that Brexit won't be the most important factor in the next General Election, failing to deliver any form of Brexit at all has much greater potential consequences for them in terms of loss of trust and fragmentation of their voter coalition than any Brexit outcome does - even No Deal, save perhaps if the consequences thereof turn out to be apocalyptic.

Or, to put it more succinctly, it's not possible to please everyone.

Rachel Sylvester's article in the Times this morning is instructive.

David Cameron's plan was to distance the Conservative party from UKIP. May has chosen to embrace them instead.

A Brexit-supporting minister is convinced that there is a reservoir of potential voters in Leave-voting constituencies who “want a sense of belonging” and could be won over to a patriotic Tory party. “One of the missing elements of ‘Modernisation 1.0’ was the failure to secure the support of working-class voters and people in the north and the Midlands,” he says. “They’re the people who have now come over.

One MP on the liberal wing concedes that the Tory party could turn itself into a right-wing populist party with working-class appeal: socially conservative, tough on crime and immigration, in favour of public spending. “It would be a kind of Ukip-lite, forcing Labour out of its northern strongholds, except in urban areas,” he says. “But it’s not a Tory party I would ever be able to be part of.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/ukip-infiltrators-will-tear-the-tories-apart-7jntwh5zx

https://twitter.com/JimHacker/status/1112963346792415232

Dura_Ace

SouthamObserver said:

Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?

Ian Huntley and Levi Bellfield will be the new Gove and Boris as they are less despicable than the originals.

Casino_Royale

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

We have now reached the stage where any responsible MP would be voting yes to any option that did not result in profound disruption. So, yes to Theresa May’s Deal, yes to Common Market 2.0, yes to a customs union and yes to a new referendum.

Britain has few responsible MPs.

I agree Alastair although I think a new referendum would increase the length of the uncertainty unacceptably at this point. I would rather revoke than go down that line. Alternatively, we might commit to a second referendum in 10 years time when people can see how whatever we end up with compares to membership. I would be ok with that.

But we have just got to find a way forward here.

I’d take a narrow referendum defeat, a fractious Government and a Tory party loss in GE2022 over a GE now, over/caused by No Deal, which I think would result in a crushing Tory defeat, with Corbyn as PM.

The main thing for me is keeping the Marxists hands off the Treasury, MoD, Foreign Office, and Home Office for as long as possible.

Luckyguy1983

DavidL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Pulpstar said:

Who will fold ?
Not the EU, not Ireland, not Dodds, not Corbyn.

It'll be May.

Sure, we know that TMay will surrender. But what we don't know is who she'll surrender *to*...

I am not sure that she can surrender. If she surrenders to the ERG and goes no deal then she loses a chunk of her cabinet including her Chancellor. If she surrenders to the CU she loses any pretense of having a majority in the Commons. Either way she loses power after which who cares what she thinks?

Is there a compromise? Can we be in the CU for 10 years? In theory Governments can't bind their successors anyway. Morning all.

MarqueeMark

Casino_Royale said:

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.

That's certainly a possibility. Against that Remainiacs are riled up in a way they weren't originally.

But that answers your other question. Rightly or wrongly leavers don't feel they should have to win another referendum. So it's just really hard to get leavers in general, and Tory MPs specifically, to back the idea of having another referendum, no matter how it's set up.

I’d reluctantly back one - along the lines Robert is suggesting - if Parliament is incapable of making a decision, and it gets us out of this.

But, it would need to be imposed by Parliament under Letwin as legislation led by Parliament in recognition it had failed to do so.

With the bulk of the ERG onside, the problems we are experiencing in our democracy are now entirely down to Remainer MPs refusing to back the deal on offer from the EU. Do MPs really think the voters can't see this?

SouthamObserver

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

matt said:

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:

The ballot paper has three either/or questions:

1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"

Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.

In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.

Easypeasy.

Etc.

The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.

The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.

No, it's nothing to do with being intelligent and thoughtful. If they were intelligent and thoughtful they wouldn't change their minds based on the brexit negotiations turning out the way intelligent and thoughtful people already expected them to.

Remain would be and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.

None of it's at all a cert, but if you're a Leave supporter, and you've already won, you obviously don't want to roll the dice for anything less than a strong probability of a win, and they definitely don't have that.

I'm not sure that's true.

Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.

Indeed.

I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.

Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?

The Prime Minister, who may not be Theresa May.

I’d also expect Cummings to come back to Vote Leave.

Leave’s problem would be that any of those leading it would be extremely polarising. I think both campaigns would start with significant difficulties to overcome.

SouthamObserver

DavidL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Pulpstar said:

Who will fold ?
Not the EU, not Ireland, not Dodds, not Corbyn.

It'll be May.

Sure, we know that TMay will surrender. But what we don't know is who she'll surrender *to*...

I am not sure that she can surrender. If she surrenders to the ERG and goes no deal then she loses a chunk of her cabinet including her Chancellor. If she surrenders to the CU she loses any pretense of having a majority in the Commons. Either way she loses power after which who cares what she thinks?

The majority of Tories now seem to see No Deal as a viable option. So that’s where May will go.

DavidL

The person who could potentially break the logjam here is Corbyn. If he said that he would whip his party to vote for the WA providing the PD commits the UK to the CU after the transitional period (where we are already committed to it) then the WA passes despite the ERG.

But I don't think that he thinks that it is in his interests to resolve this. That second GE opportunity is tantalisingly close.

DavidL

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Pulpstar said:

Who will fold ?
Not the EU, not Ireland, not Dodds, not Corbyn.

It'll be May.

Sure, we know that TMay will surrender. But what we don't know is who she'll surrender *to*...

I am not sure that she can surrender. If she surrenders to the ERG and goes no deal then she loses a chunk of her cabinet including her Chancellor. If she surrenders to the CU she loses any pretense of having a majority in the Commons. Either way she loses power after which who cares what she thinks?

The majority of Tories now seem to see No Deal as a viable option. So that’s where May will go.

Then she falls from power and there is a GE where Corbyn probably wins against a completely divided, potentially outright split, Tory party. Its not a good option. No wonder she keeps coming back to her deal which has something for everyone if not everything for anyone.

Casino_Royale

Dura_Ace said:

SouthamObserver said:

Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?

Ian Huntley and Levi Bellfield will be the new Gove and Boris as they are less despicable than the originals.

Don’t be silly.

Casino_Royale

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.

That's certainly a possibility. Against that Remainiacs are riled up in a way they weren't originally.

But that answers your other question. Rightly or wrongly leavers don't feel they should have to win another referendum. So it's just really hard to get leavers in general, and Tory MPs specifically, to back the idea of having another referendum, no matter how it's set up.

I’d reluctantly back one - along the lines Robert is suggesting - if Parliament is incapable of making a decision, and it gets us out of this.

But, it would need to be imposed by Parliament under Letwin as legislation led by Parliament in recognition it had failed to do so.

With the bulk of the ERG onside, the problems we are experiencing in our democracy are now entirely down to Remainer MPs refusing to back the deal on offer from the EU. Do MPs really think the voters can't see this?

Yes

They’ve calculated (I think correctly) that it’ll be the Conservatives that take the blame.

felix

DavidL said:

I went to bed early last night and really can't believe that I am waking up to the rejection of every proposal once again. What is wrong with these people? It is not as if this slightly bizarre procedure made them choose. They could easily have voted yes to all 4 proposals if they are so minded and yet we cannot get a majority for anything.

A huge part of the problem lies with May. She sought to keep her party together with studied ambiguity for so long that both the ERG and the softest of remainers thought that they had her ear and support. Because they thought that they saw no need to compromise or to build a broader consensus. They still think the same way. If the ERG were persuaded that there was a real risk of no Brexit they would surely all compromise. Many did for May's deal last time out but enough still thought that if they just held on they could get their no deal fantasy. After last night they will be reinforced in that view.

The remainers/soft Brexiteers are in a slightly more difficult position. Until very recently, even yesterday, the momentum seemed to be with them and being in the CU with regulatory alignment seemed to have all the momentum. But the split between the CU and CM2.0 seems to have done for them as does the increasing number who will not support any Brexit without a second referendum.

Yesterday while driving I heard Jack Dromey and a female Conservative MP. They both represented constituencies which had car plants. They were in complete agreement and both entirely reasonable. What they were clearest about is the damage being done by the current uncertainty had to end and a choice had to be made. They will not be alone in their despair this morning.

So has the 'reasonable' Mr. Dromey voted for the deal? Or not?

SouthamObserver

Scott_P said:

Black_Rook said:

I'm still not surprised that Conservatives don't want to be seen flirting with the idea of Revocation. Whilst I think that Brexit won't be the most important factor in the next General Election, failing to deliver any form of Brexit at all has much greater potential consequences for them in terms of loss of trust and fragmentation of their voter coalition than any Brexit outcome does - even No Deal, save perhaps if the consequences thereof turn out to be apocalyptic.

Or, to put it more succinctly, it's not possible to please everyone.

Rachel Sylvester's article in the Times this morning is instructive.

David Cameron's plan was to distance the Conservative party from UKIP. May has chosen to embrace them instead.

A Brexit-supporting minister is convinced that there is a reservoir of potential voters in Leave-voting constituencies who “want a sense of belonging” and could be won over to a patriotic Tory party. “One of the missing elements of ‘Modernisation 1.0’ was the failure to secure the support of working-class voters and people in the north and the Midlands,” he says. “They’re the people who have now come over.

One MP on the liberal wing concedes that the Tory party could turn itself into a right-wing populist party with working-class appeal: socially conservative, tough on crime and immigration, in favour of public spending. “It would be a kind of Ukip-lite, forcing Labour out of its northern strongholds, except in urban areas,” he says. “But it’s not a Tory party I would ever be able to be part of.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/ukip-infiltrators-will-tear-the-tories-apart-7jntwh5zx

https://twitter.com/JimHacker/status/1112963346792415232

The Tories can do the hard right English nationalism. They can’t do the public spending. That’s their problem.

Casino_Royale

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

matt said:

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:

The ballot paper has three either/or questions:

1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"

Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.

In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.

Easypeasy.

Etc.

The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.

The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.

No, it's nothing to do with being intelligent and thoughtful. If they were intelligent and thoughtful they wouldn't change their minds based on the brexit negotiations turning out the way intelligent and thoughtful people already expected them to.

Remain would be and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.

None of it's at all a cert, but if you're a Leave supporter, and you've already won, you obviously don't want to roll the dice for anything less than a strong probability of a win, and they definitely don't have that.

I'm not sure that's true.

Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.

Indeed.

I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.

Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?

The Prime Minister, who may not be Theresa May.

I’d also expect Cummings to come back to Vote Leave.

Leave’s problem would be that any of those leading it would be extremely polarising. I think both campaigns would start with significant difficulties to overcome.

I agree with that. Nevertheless a public vote isn’t necessarily about its leaders or what its leaders want it to be about.

edmundintokyo

DavidL said:

The person who could potentially break the logjam here is Corbyn. If he said that he would whip his party to vote for the WA providing the PD commits the UK to the CU after the transitional period (where we are already committed to it) then the WA passes despite the ERG.

But I don't think that he thinks that it is in his interests to resolve this. That second GE opportunity is tantalisingly close.

That and the fact that TMay or whatever unlucky Tory gets lumbered with her job would most likely proceed to ignore the PD and negotiate whatever they needed to stop the ERG and the DUP from throwing their toys out of the pram.

Foxy

edmundintokyo said:

DavidL said:

The person who could potentially break the logjam here is Corbyn. If he said that he would whip his party to vote for the WA providing the PD commits the UK to the CU after the transitional period (where we are already committed to it) then the WA passes despite the ERG.

But I don't think that he thinks that it is in his interests to resolve this. That second GE opportunity is tantalisingly close.

That and the fact that TMay or whatever unlucky Tory gets lumbered with her job would most likely proceed to ignore the PD and negotiate whatever they needed to stop the ERG and the DUP from throwing their toys out of the pram.

That is the real problem with Mays deal. Everyone expects the PD to be torn up the day after it passes, from ERG to Revokers.

SquareRoot

A plague on all their houses.

MaxPB

eek said:

AlastairMeeks said:

We have now reached the stage where any responsible MP would be voting yes to any option that did not result in profound disruption. So, yes to Theresa May’s Deal, yes to Common Market 2.0, yes to a customs union and yes to a new referendum.

Britain has few responsible MPs.

Given that the cabinet was abstaining you can hardly blame MPs for being equally responsible and still hunting for the unicorn the cabinet are also looking for

What are you banging on about? The cabinet supports the WA, not some half baked CM2 or CU that the EU hasn't agreed to. The WA is the only game in town to avoid no deal, the sooner the cowards in the Labour party realise the sooner we'll be out of this mess.

Foxy

SouthamObserver said:

Scott_P said:

Black_Rook said:

I'm still not surprised that Conservatives don't want to be seen flirting with the idea of Revocation. Whilst I think that Brexit won't be the most important factor in the next General Election, failing to deliver any form of Brexit at all has much greater potential consequences for them in terms of loss of trust and fragmentation of their voter coalition than any Brexit outcome does - even No Deal, save perhaps if the consequences thereof turn out to be apocalyptic.

Or, to put it more succinctly, it's not possible to please everyone.

Rachel Sylvester's article in the Times this morning is instructive.

David Cameron's plan was to distance the Conservative party from UKIP. May has chosen to embrace them instead.

A Brexit-supporting minister is convinced that there is a reservoir of potential voters in Leave-voting constituencies who “want a sense of belonging” and could be won over to a patriotic Tory party. “One of the missing elements of ‘Modernisation 1.0’ was the failure to secure the support of working-class voters and people in the north and the Midlands,” he says. “They’re the people who have now come over.

One MP on the liberal wing concedes that the Tory party could turn itself into a right-wing populist party with working-class appeal: socially conservative, tough on crime and immigration, in favour of public spending. “It would be a kind of Ukip-lite, forcing Labour out of its northern strongholds, except in urban areas,” he says. “But it’s not a Tory party I would ever be able to be part of.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/ukip-infiltrators-will-tear-the-tories-apart-7jntwh5zx

https://twitter.com/JimHacker/status/1112963346792415232

The Tories can do the hard right English nationalism. They can’t do the public spending. That’s their problem.

They already have a problem combining social liberal freemarketerrs with socially conservative nativist protectioneers. It is a support base as divided as Labours Islington set and Northern towns.

SouthamObserver

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Pulpstar said:

Who will fold ?
Not the EU, not Ireland, not Dodds, not Corbyn.

It'll be May.

Sure, we know that TMay will surrender. But what we don't know is who she'll surrender *to*...

I am not sure that she can surrender. If she surrenders to the ERG and goes no deal then she loses a chunk of her cabinet including her Chancellor. If she surrenders to the CU she loses any pretense of having a majority in the Commons. Either way she loses power after which who cares what she thinks?

The majority of Tories now seem to see No Deal as a viable option. So that’s where May will go.

Then she falls from power and there is a GE where Corbyn probably wins against a completely divided, potentially outright split, Tory party. Its not a good option. No wonder she keeps coming back to her deal which has something for everyone if not everything for anyone.

Her Deal only passes with Labour votes. That means concessions written into law and that, too, brings down her government. She has no good options left, so she’ll take the least worst one. For her that’s the one that leads to the smallest Tory split. And that means No Deal.

DavidL

edmundintokyo said:

DavidL said:

The person who could potentially break the logjam here is Corbyn. If he said that he would whip his party to vote for the WA providing the PD commits the UK to the CU after the transitional period (where we are already committed to it) then the WA passes despite the ERG.

But I don't think that he thinks that it is in his interests to resolve this. That second GE opportunity is tantalisingly close.

That and the fact that TMay or whatever unlucky Tory gets lumbered with her job would most likely proceed to ignore the PD and negotiate whatever they needed to stop the ERG and the DUP from throwing their toys out of the pram.

There is a problem with the PD not being binding on either party. And of course if we are irrevocably committed to it the EU may well up the price of membership of it considerably.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1112969018510663680

MaxPB

Casino_Royale said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.

That's certainly a possibility. Against that Remainiacs are riled up in a way they weren't originally.

But that answers your other question. Rightly or wrongly leavers don't feel they should have to win another referendum. So it's just really hard to get leavers in general, and Tory MPs specifically, to back the idea of having another referendum, no matter how it's set up.

I’d reluctantly back one - along the lines Robert is suggesting - if Parliament is incapable of making a decision, and it gets us out of this.

But, it would need to be imposed by Parliament under Letwin as legislation led by Parliament in recognition it had failed to do so.

With the bulk of the ERG onside, the problems we are experiencing in our democracy are now entirely down to Remainer MPs refusing to back the deal on offer from the EU. Do MPs really think the voters can't see this?

Yes

They’ve calculated (I think correctly) that it’ll be the Conservatives that take the blame.

I think you're wrong, remember our voters want no deal, it's Labour voters that are watching their party vote against the WA despite it being the only realistic way of avoiding no deal. That isn't going unnoticed. If Corbyn scuppers MV4 (it's coming back) then I'm certain he will get shat on by Labour voters who want to avoid no deal.

Scott_P

SouthamObserver said:

For her that’s the one that leads to the smallest Tory split. And that means No Deal.

That only keeps the party together until the food runs out...

Recidivist

SquareRoot said:

A plague on all their houses.

I'd agree. But Brexit is a plague on all our houses.

OblitusSumMe

Black_Rook said:

Recidivist said:

I think there will be 6 million people who are not remotely impressed with the Conservatives over this.

https://twitter.com/UK4Europe/status/1112846404718940162

How many of those were thinking of voting Tory anyway?

Interestingly signatures are more likely to come from Tory-held seats than Labour-held seats (for the same Remain vote in the referendum).

http://propolis.io/dataviz/referendum_vs_petition/tool.html

SouthamObserver

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

matt said:

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:

The ballot paper has three either/or questions:

1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"

Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.

In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.

Easypeasy.

Etc.

The problem is thatCalvinball.

The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.

No, it's nothing toexpected them to.

Remain would be and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.

None of it's at all a cert, but if you're a Leave supporter, and you've already won, you obviously don't want to roll the dice for anything less than a strong probability of a win, and they definitely don't have that.

I'm not sure that's true.

Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.

Indeed.

I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.

Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?

The Prime Minister, who may not be Theresa May.

I’d also expect Cummings to come back to Vote Leave.

Leave’s problem would be that any of those leading it would be extremely polarising. I think both campaigns would start with significant difficulties to overcome.

I agree with that. Nevertheless a public vote isn’t necessarily about its leaders or what its leaders want it to be about.

Remain would seek to make it a referendum on Francois, Farage, Grayling, Bridgen, Rees Mogg, Johnson, Trump, etc. If they’re for Leave, aren’t you against? It will be a pretty strong calling card if played probably. That said, I can’t see a referendum happening.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1112970082190274560

Foxy

OblitusSumMe said:

Black_Rook said:

Recidivist said:

I think there will be 6 million people who are not remotely impressed with the Conservatives over this.

https://twitter.com/UK4Europe/status/1112846404718940162

How many of those were thinking of voting Tory anyway?

Interestingly signatures are more likely to come from Tory-held seats than Labour-held seats (for the same Remain vote in the referendum).

http://propolis.io/dataviz/referendum_vs_petition/tool.html

I was rather surprised that my Tory voting, County set secretary had signed for #revoke.

Recidivist

SouthamObserver said:

Scott_P said:

Black_Rook said:

I'm still not surprised that Conservatives don't want to be seen flirting with the idea of Revocation. Whilst I think that Brexit won't be the most important factor in the next General Election, failing to deliver any form of Brexit at all has much greater potential consequences for them in terms of loss of trust and fragmentation of their voter coalition than any Brexit outcome does - even No Deal, save perhaps if the consequences thereof turn out to be apocalyptic.

Or, to put it more succinctly, it's not possible to please everyone.

Rachel Sylvester's article in the Times this morning is instructive.

David Cameron's plan was to distance the Conservative party from UKIP. May has chosen to embrace them instead.

A Brexit-supporting minister is convinced that there is a reservoir of potential voters in Leave-voting constituencies who “want a sense of belonging” and could be won over to a patriotic Tory party. “One of the missing elements of ‘Modernisation 1.0’ was the failure to secure the support of working-class voters and people in the north and the Midlands,” he says. “They’re the people who have now come over.

One MP on the liberal wing concedes that the Tory party could turn itself into a right-wing populist party with working-class appeal: socially conservative, tough on crime and immigration, in favour of public spending. “It would be a kind of Ukip-lite, forcing Labour out of its northern strongholds, except in urban areas,” he says. “But it’s not a Tory party I would ever be able to be part of.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/ukip-infiltrators-will-tear-the-tories-apart-7jntwh5zx

https://twitter.com/JimHacker/status/1112963346792415232

The Tories can do the hard right English nationalism. They can’t do the public spending. That’s their problem.

Oh I think they can.

TGOHF

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

matt said:

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:

The ballot paper has three either/or questions:

1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"

Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.

In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.

Easypeasy.

Etc.

The problem is thatCalvinball.

The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.

No, it's nothing toexpected them to.

Remain would be and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.

None of it's at all a cert, but if you're a Leave supporter, and you've already won, you obviously don't want to roll the dice for anything less than a strong probability of a win, and they definitely don't have that.

I'm not sure that's true.

Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.

Indeed.

I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.

Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?

The Prime Minister, who may not be Theresa May.

I’d also expect Cummings to come back to Vote Leave.

Leave’s problem would be that any of those leading it would be extremely polarising. I think both campaigns would start with significant difficulties to overcome.

I agree with that. Nevertheless a public vote isn’t necessarily about its leaders or what its leaders want it to be about.

Remain would seek to make it a referendum on Francois, Farage, Grayling, Bridgen, Rees Mogg, Johnson, Trump, etc. If they’re for Leave, aren’t you against? It will be a pretty strong calling card if played probably. That said, I can’t see a referendum happening.

“Come sneer with us at the gammons and the white proles that thought they knew better than us”

Recidivist

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

matt said:

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:

The ballot paper has three either/or questions:

1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"

Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.

In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.

Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.

So, @Philip_Thompson would probably choose:

1. No Deal
2. Remain
3. No Deal

@Richard_Tyndall would probably go for:

1. No Deal
2. Deal
3. Deal

Etc.

The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.

The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.

No, it's nothing to do with being intelligent and thoughtful. If they were intelligent and thoughtful they wouldn't change their minds based on the brexit negotiations turning out the way intelligent and thoughtful people already expected them to.

Remain would be favourite because Leave only just squeaked in before, so there's no scope to lose voters, and they'd lose some to Remain when faced with either of the specific ways of leaving that would be on the ballot. Plus, it's going worse than floating voters expected, and a lot of them are sick of it. Plus, the combination of Trump, a better economy and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.

None of it's at all a cert, but if you're a Leave supporter, and you've already won, you obviously don't want to roll the dice for anything less than a strong probability of a win, and they definitely don't have that.

I'm not sure that's true.

Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.

Indeed.

I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.

Well if you are so confident let's get out the pencils.

AlastairMeeks

SquareRoot said:

A plague on all their houses.

A blue one saying “a moron lived here 2010-2019”?

Endillion

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.

That's certainly a possibility. Against that Remainiacs are riled up in a way they weren't originally.

But that answers your other question. Rightly or wrongly leavers don't feel they should have to win another referendum. So it's just really hard to get leavers in general, and Tory MPs specifically, to back the idea of having another referendum, no matter how it's set up.

I agree with Edmund. And add that the real risk here is Remain winning on a lower turnout, and Leavers forever arguing that the result does not therefore have the mandate to override the original.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Observer, that sounds like a repeat, in part, of the last campaign.

I said then that the "Little England" line taken by Cameron was bloody stupid, and so it was. Adding Nigel Farage's name didn't improve it.

If there is another referendum then Remain, assuming that's an option, should emphasise what they see as the positives of membership.

tottenhamWC

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.

That's certainly a possibility. Against that Remainiacs are riled up in a way they weren't originally.

But that answers your other question. Rightly or wrongly leavers don't feel they should have to win another referendum. So it's just really hard to get leavers in general, and Tory MPs specifically, to back the idea of having another referendum, no matter how it's set up.

I’d reluctantly back one - along the lines Robert is suggesting - if Parliament is incapable of making a decision, and it gets us out of this.

But, it would need to be imposed by Parliament under Letwin as legislation led by Parliament in recognition it had failed to do so.

With the bulk of the ERG onside, the problems we are experiencing in our democracy are now entirely down to Remainer MPs refusing to back the deal on offer from the EU. Do MPs really think the voters can't see this?

Yes

They’ve calculated (I think correctly) that it’ll be the Conservatives that take the blame.

I think you're wrong, remember our voters want no deal, it's Labour voters that are watching their party vote against the WA despite it being the only realistic way of avoiding no deal. That isn't going unnoticed. If Corbyn scuppers MV4 (it's coming back) then I'm certain he will get shat on by Labour voters who want to avoid no deal.

If you really think all conservative voters want no deal, that is a massively misreading. A very large proportion don't (especially in the middle ground where elections are won).

SouthamObserver

TGOHF said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

matt said:

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:

The ballot paper has three either/or questions:

1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"

Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.

In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.

Easypeasy.

Etc.

The problem is thatCalvinball.

The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.

No, it's nothing toexpected them to.

Remain would countries.

None of it's at all a cert, that.

I'm not sure that's true.

Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.

Indeed.

I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.

Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?

The Prime Minister, who may not be Theresa May.

I’d also expect Cummings to come back to Vote Leave.

Leave’s problem would be that any of those leading it would be extremely polarising. I think both campaigns would start with significant difficulties to overcome.

I agree with that. Nevertheless a public vote isn’t necessarily about its leaders or what its leaders want it to be about.

Remain would seek to make it a referendum on Francois, Farage, Grayling, Bridgen, Rees Mogg, Johnson, Trump, etc. If they’re for Leave, aren’t you against? It will be a pretty strong calling card if played probably. That said, I can’t see a referendum happening.

“Come sneer with us at the gammons and the white proles that thought they knew better than us”

If you want to hold Francois, Bridgen, Rees Mogg and co as representative of a majority demographic in the UK, good luck!

DavidL

May is one of the worst politicians that we have ever had as PM, totally incapable of building a consensus about anything, but she is not stupid. What the indicative vote nonsense has shown is that her deal and the red lines on which it is based comes closer to meeting most peoples' aspirations than anything else, not least because it leaves so much up for grabs in the PD.

So much of the debate yesterday are about options that will still be on the table if the WA goes through. I know it has already been trialed and failed on Friday but for me the current solution is to approve the WA but say to the EU we are still trying to decide what our future relationship with the EU should be so we would prefer not to have a PD at the moment. I think that they would be ok with that.

I think that the logical outcome of that would be that there would be a GE well within the 2 years of the transitional agreement so that a new Parliament with a new PM can decide what the arrangement with the EU should be.

CD13

Corbyn is treading a fine line and so far doing it reasonably well. In the North, there remain a lot of old-fashioned Labour voters, distinct from the younger Jezzarites. They instinctively distrust the Tories, but they feel forgotten by their natural party which seems to have embraced the new, shiny policies natural to the famous 'metropolitan elite'. In the words of some … "transgender toilets are more important than wage rises."

The EU Leave vote was boosted by this exasperation. if Jezza were to go full-fat revoke or second referendum, he'd get a boost in the South, a temporary one at least. But that has to be weighed against the potential for a possible hand-sitting display in the North at the next GE.

Labour need to decide where its future lies, in the same way the Tory party does.

Scott_P

Morris_Dancer said:

I said then that the "Little England" line taken by Cameron was bloody stupid, and so it was.

It was increasingly accurate though.

TGOHF

SouthamObserver said:

TGOHF said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

matt said:

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:

The ballot paper has three either/or questions:

1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"

Whichever option wins both times it's up is the

Easypeasy.

Etc.

The problem is thatCalvinball.

The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.

No, it's nothing toexpected them to.

Remain would countries.

None of it's at all a cert, that.

I'm not sure that's true.

Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.

Indeed.

I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.

Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?

The Prime Minister, who may not be Theresa May.

I’d also expect Cummings to come back to Vote Leave.

Leave’s problem would be that any of those leading it would be extremely polarising. I think.

I agree with that. Nevertheless a public vote isn’t necessarily about its leaders or what its leaders want it to be about.

Remain would seek to make it a referendum on Francois, Farage, Grayling, Bridgen, Rees Mogg, Johnson, Trump, etc. If they’re for Leave, aren’t you against? It will be a pretty strong calling card if played probably. That said, I can’t see a referendum happening.

“Come sneer with us at the gammons and the white proles that thought they knew better than us”

If you want to hold Francois, Bridgen, Rees Mogg and co as representative of a majority demographic in the UK, good luck!

Why don’t you fight on the virtues of the EU ?

Why does it have to be an intersectional battle against your own white mans guilt ?

Foxy

TGOHF said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

matt said:

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:

The ballot paper has three

Etc.

The problem is thatCalvinball.

The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.

No, it's nothing toexpected them to.

I'm not sure that's true.

Indeed.

I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.

Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?

The Prime Minister, who may not be Theresa May.

I’d also expect Cummings to come back to Vote Leave.

Leave’s problem would be that any of those leading it would be extremely polarising. I think both campaigns would start with significant difficulties to overcome.

I agree with that. Nevertheless a public vote isn’t necessarily about its leaders or what its leaders want it to be about.

Remain would seek to make it a referendum on Francois, Farage, Grayling, Bridgen, Rees Mogg, Johnson, Trump, etc. If they’re for Leave, aren’t you against? It will be a pretty strong calling card if played probably. That said, I can’t see a referendum happening.

“Come sneer with us at the gammons and the white proles that thought they knew better than us”

You cannogt stop the nutters campaigning, just as you cannot stop those who think there is no difference between the EU and Hitler. They will not be representative on either side though.

The anti-government vote will switch to anti-Brexit, and there may well be significantly different demograpghic splits to voting. Not nailed on but a #peoplesvote definitely favours Remain. It is why Leavers are afraid of it.

SouthamObserver

Recidivist said:

SouthamObserver said:

Scott_P said:

Black_Rook said:

I'm still not surprised that Conservatives don't want to be seen flirting with the idea of Revocation. Whilst I think that Brexit won't be the most important factor in the next General Election, failing to deliver any form of Brexit at all has much greater potential consequences for them in terms of loss of trust and fragmentation of their voter coalition than any Brexit outcome does - even No Deal, save perhaps if the consequences thereof turn out to be apocalyptic.

Or, to put it more succinctly, it's not possible to please everyone.

Rachel Sylvester's article in the Times this morning is instructive.

David Cameron's plan was to distance the Conservative party from UKIP. May has chosen to embrace them instead.

A Brexit-supporting minister is convinced that there is a reservoir of potential voters in Leave-voting constituencies who “want a sense of belonging” and could be won over to a patriotic Tory party. “One of the missing elements of ‘Modernisation 1.0’ was the failure to secure the support of working-class voters and people in the north and the Midlands,” he says. “They’re the people who have now come over.

One MP on the liberal wing concedes that the Tory party could turn itself into a right-wing populist party with working-class appeal: socially conservative, tough on crime and immigration, in favour of public spending. “It would be a kind of Ukip-lite, forcing Labour out of its northern strongholds, except in urban areas,” he says. “But it’s not a Tory party I would ever be able to be part of.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/ukip-infiltrators-will-tear-the-tories-apart-7jntwh5zx

https://twitter.com/JimHacker/status/1112963346792415232

The Tories can do the hard right English nationalism. They can’t do the public spending. That’s their problem.

Oh I think they can.

It would be intriguing to see the Tories become the party of higher taxes and borrowing.

MarqueeMark

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

matt said:

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:

The ballot paper has three either/or questions:

1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"

Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.

In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.

Easypeasy.

Etc.

The problem is thatCalvinball.

The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.

No, it's nothing toexpected them to.

Remain would be and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.

None of it's at all a cert, but if you're a Leave supporter, and you've already won, you obviously don't want to roll the dice for anything less than a strong probability of a win, and they definitely don't have that.

I'm not sure that's true.

Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.

Indeed.

I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.

Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?

The Prime Minister, who may not be Theresa May.

I’d also expect Cummings to come back to Vote Leave.

Leave’s problem would be that any of those leading it would be extremely polarising. I think both campaigns would start with significant difficulties to overcome.

I agree with that. Nevertheless a public vote isn’t necessarily about its leaders or what its leaders want it to be about.

Remain would seek to make it a referendum on Francois, Farage, Grayling, Bridgen, Rees Mogg, Johnson, Trump, etc. If they’re for Leave, aren’t you against? It will be a pretty strong calling card if played probably. That said, I can’t see a referendum happening.

Leave would make it about "Who governs us? MPs - or voters? Let them know...."

Fenman

Let's just leave, please. I'm a committed European and they've suffered enough.