"No breakthrough but constructive" - how many weeks has that been the line? Nobody seems to have the energy or imagination to describe the talks with any sort of variety on that take.
> @kle4 said: > > @Barnesian said: > > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > @Barnesian said: > > > > > > @Foxy said: > > > > > > > > One scenario is that parliament rumbles on, finally agrees to a soft Brexit deal and we leave the EU. Even though this will fall far short of what Farage, the ERG etc. want, it would then be hard to imagine a Brexit Party winning an election. > > > > Another scenario is that we end up having a second referendum. Which ever side wins, the UK is in for considerably more pain than we've gone through already. > > I am sure that if the Brexit Party win the Euros, Peterborough and start to poll 30%, the WA will pass > > Why? The Tories who backed it ar the third try probably would not as no deal would seem to have momentum, and remainers are not going to get less remainy - they've already been willing to risk no deal to get to their goal, and they can be confident parliament wont allow that.
Labour MPs from Leave seats will start to fear the threat from the Brexit Party and some will finally vote for the Withdrawal Agreement enabling it to scrape through even with ERG hardliner and Remainer opposition
> @Pulpstar said: > London, South East, South west ? South East looks unlikely unless you think they might get 17% or whatever you need for a second seat. I mean, it's possible I guess. I'm thinking of voting for them. But I'm experiencing more uncertainty about whom to vote for than I've ever felt. Still waiting for my leaflets. Only had Green so far.
> @FF43 said: > It is of course worth mentioning that the backstop under Mrs May's deal was: > > SM (Goods) + CU - Fees - FoM - ECJ* > > And, in a sensible world, would be a good staging post to a destination of: > > SM (Goods) - Fees - FoM - ECJ > > * It's not completely free of the ECJ as it is still allowed to opine on measures related to the the single market in goods, and it would be better if the EFTA court or equivalent, was used instead. Still, it removed the 90% of the ECJ that was most objectionable. Of course, most people will still get it confused with the ECHR. > > You make it sound so neat: the loss of influence over the things that matter to us, along with year after dreary year of negotiations to retain something very similar to the status quo.
> @JosiasJessop said: > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > @Harris_Tweed said: > > > > > > @david_herdson said: > > > > > > > @_Anazina_ said: > > > > > > > Lots of Brexit Party supporters on PB. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The kippers got very high percentages in Euro elections in the past. They soon enough faded to complete irrelevancy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think people can be forgiven for not getting too sweaty about the latest rightwing flash in the pan. > > > > > > > > > > > > You are having a laugh, presumably? > > > > > > > > > > I agree that's a rather simplistic calculation. > > > > > > > > > > *BUT* I think there's undoubtedly a chunk of TBP's share which can be identified as the Screw You vote. > > > > > > > > > > I'm sure many people ARE richly pissed off at the failure to deliver Brexit, and I'm sure they'll turn out for Nigel. > > > > > > > > > > But I wonder if there are more who, for example, voted Lab in 2017.. who'll turn to TBP just to give Con & Lab a good kicking because it's Thursday. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if the Brexit Party does fade into nothing, I think it's highly unlikely that they'll do so without leaving a permanent mark. > > > > > > > > UKIP ). > > > > > > > > Cert. > > > > Distinguishing between TBP and UKIP is dancing on the head of a pin, though. Even the names of both of them give the clue: they mean exactly the same thing. TBP is just UKIP 2.0 with a fresh lick of paint, a rebranding.. and the same leader. > > > > The reason it’s got traction is because old UKIP still existing effectively detoxes TBP by having something to its right, its media operation has been very savvy and the two main parties have screwed Brexit up. So people don’t care. > > > > People aren't voting for a government, Brexit isn't going to win a GE. But people also won't vote for something with a fascist tinge. Farage's operation makes good sense. > > > > Farage so far has managed to share the limelight in TBP. > > > > Will his ego hold all the way to polling day? > > Or will he simply find the supply simply too good not to get high upon? > > Off-topic: > > @Casino_Royale , (and other rail nuts), if you're still on you might be interested in the following: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4claek3eAw > > How things change and yet remain the same ...
I was interested in the D’Hondt discussion and thought I would do some modelling (CORRECTED POST)
I took a region like London with eight seats, assumed seven political parties, and split the vote randomly between them so that each party scored somewhere between 3-35% of the total vote. Using Excel I worked out the seats for each party, then replicated the exercise over and over to model a large number of outcomes.
The results in terms of seats for vote share were are follows (percentage vote shares rounded to the nearest whole number, so “7%” really means 6.5-7.49%):
8% or less = no seats (at 8%, a 7% chance of a seat) 9% = 75% chance of a seat 10% = 99% chance of a seat 11%-15% = one seat 16% = one seat, 8% chance of a second 17% = one seat, 32% chance of a second 18% = two seats three quarters of the time, otherwise one 19% = two seats except for 8% of the time with one 20% = two seats 99% of the time 21%-23% = two seats 24% = two seats, 8% chance of a third 25% = two seats, 28% chance of a third 26% = two seats or three seats (50/50) 27%-28% = three seats except 16% of the time with two 29%-30% = three seats except 4% of the time with two 31%-33% = three seats
At 34% and above there was a small chance for a fourth seat
The critical zones where additional votes are most likely to “count” are therefore around 9% for winning the first seat, and 17-18% for winning the second, and 25-26% for the third. At all other ratings the number of seats was pretty much a given regardless of how other parties performed.
I then looked at over- and under-representation, and interestingly the pattern was (roughly - I couldn’t be bothered to count up) as follows:
Above 28% vote share a party is over-represented Between 25%-27% a party is twice as likely to be over as under-represented Between 20%-25% a party is over-represented Between 18%-19% a party is twice as likely to be over as under-represented At 17% there is a mix of over- and under-representation At 16% a party is much more likely to be under than over-represented Between 13-15% a party is under-represented Between 10-12% a party is over-represented At 9% a party is more likely to be over- than under-represented At 8% and lower a party is un(der)-represented
Compared to my earlier erroneous posting, the advantage for larger vote shares is clearer, but nevertheless there are bands such as the 10-12% one where a party generally gets more than its proportional entitlement.
> @MikeSmithson said: > Completely off topic but it must be comforting for MUFC fans to know that even after a disappointing season that the Premiership trophy is still in Manchester
> It is of course worth mentioning that the backstop under Mrs May's deal was:
>
> SM (Goods) + CU - Fees - FoM - ECJ*
>
> And, in a sensible world, would be a good staging post to a destination of:
>
> SM (Goods) - Fees - FoM - ECJ
>
> * It's not completely free of the ECJ as it is still allowed to opine on measures related to the the single market in goods, and it would be better if the EFTA court or equivalent, was used instead. Still, it removed the 90% of the ECJ that was most objectionable. Of course, most people will still get it confused with the ECHR.
>
> You make it sound so neat: the loss of influence over the things that matter to us, along with year after dreary year of negotiations to retain something very similar to the status quo.
Lol. You're floundering.
Not really. I still on balance expect Brexit to happen, albeit more integrated than as described by RCS - including CFP by another name, CAP by another name and FoM in practice. There are quite likely to be payments IMO. "May's Deal" is neither the deal - it's a prerequisite to the negotiations to a deal - nor is it May's - it's an EU construct.
Anyhow. The point is, we can live without a say over our affairs; people won't tolerate No Deal. The negotiations without end are part of that reconstruction effort So if we Brexit, and I expect we will, this is what it will be.
> LD leader of Kingston council strips the local Rose theatre founded by Sir Peter Hall of its annual funding and will not replace a bursary it received. The previous Tory administration wrote off the theatre's debt and reduced its rent.
The theatre chairman said 'There is no simple model by means of which income from ticket sales or fundraising could simply be 'turned up' or the costs 'turned down' to compensate for the withdrawal of council support. If there were, we would have done it already'
"Where in this Agreement reference is made to Union acts or provisions thereof, such reference shall, where relevant, be understood to include a reference to Union law or provisions thereof that, although replaced or superseded by the act referred to, continue to apply in accordance with that act."
> >Have you actually read the text of the withdrawal agreement? I ask this, because the backstop, as it is currently written, has the UK bound by EU product standards for goods, and has zero barriers for trade in goods between the UK and the EU.
>
> --------
>
> Yes, and I suspect you skimmed over some important parts of it. It's the UK *in respect of Northern Ireland*.
"Where in this Agreement reference is made to Union acts or provisions thereof, such reference shall, where relevant, be understood to include a reference to Union law or provisions thereof that, although replaced or superseded by the act referred to, continue to apply in accordance with that act."
Page 311:
"Legislation as defined in point (2) of Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council1shall apply to and in the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland (not including the territorial waters of the United Kingdom). However, the Joint Committee shall establish the conditions, including in quantitative terms, under which certain fishery and aquaculture products brought into the customs territory of the Union defined in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 by vessels flying the flag of the United Kingdom and registered in Northern Ireland are exempted from duties.
"The provisions of Union law listed in Annex 5 to this Protocol shall also apply, under the conditions set out therein, to and in the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland.
"Articles 30 and 110 TFEU shall apply to and in the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland. Quantitative restrictions on exports and imports shall be prohibited between the Union and Northern Ireland."
"The two sides reached agreement on a draft Withdrawal Agreement in November 2018, which included a Protocol on Northern Ireland setting out the backstop. The EU made a significant concession in granting a UK-wide ‘single customs territory’, avoiding the need for customs checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, while the requirement for regulatory alignment is limited to Northern Ireland."
@rcs1000 - One further point: why do you think the DUP are opposed to the deal specifically on the grounds that it would create a distinction between Northern Ireland and Great Britain?
Comments
> > @williamglenn said:
> >
> >
> > https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1128006563921182720
>
> Sounds like good news for Brexiters *and* Remainers!
Very funny ! It’s like both the Tories and Labour are members of the band playing on the Titanic .
"No breakthrough but constructive" - how many weeks has that been the line? Nobody seems to have the energy or imagination to describe the talks with any sort of variety on that take.
https://twitter.com/davieclegg/status/1128011373651402752
> > @Barnesian said:
>
> > > @HYUFD said:
>
> > > > @Barnesian said:
>
> > > > > @Foxy said:
>
> > > > > >
> One scenario is that parliament rumbles on, finally agrees to a soft Brexit deal and we leave the EU. Even though this will fall far short of what Farage, the ERG etc. want, it would then be hard to imagine a Brexit Party winning an election.
>
>
>
> Another scenario is that we end up having a second referendum. Which ever side wins, the UK is in for considerably more pain than we've gone through already.
>
> I am sure that if the Brexit Party win the Euros, Peterborough and start to poll 30%, the WA will pass
>
> Why? The Tories who backed it ar the third try probably would not as no deal would seem to have momentum, and remainers are not going to get less remainy - they've already been willing to risk no deal to get to their goal, and they can be confident parliament wont allow that.
Labour MPs from Leave seats will start to fear the threat from the Brexit Party and some will finally vote for the Withdrawal Agreement enabling it to scrape through even with ERG hardliner and Remainer opposition
> London, South East, South west ?
South East looks unlikely unless you think they might get 17% or whatever you need for a second seat.
I mean, it's possible I guess. I'm thinking of voting for them. But I'm experiencing more uncertainty about whom to vote for than I've ever felt. Still waiting for my leaflets. Only had Green so far.
Vote Leave and the rest promised a deal , if the country is to accept no deal it needs a mandate from the public .
Remain politicians need to stick to that line .
> It is of course worth mentioning that the backstop under Mrs May's deal was:
>
> SM (Goods) + CU - Fees - FoM - ECJ*
>
> And, in a sensible world, would be a good staging post to a destination of:
>
> SM (Goods) - Fees - FoM - ECJ
>
> * It's not completely free of the ECJ as it is still allowed to opine on measures related to the the single market in goods, and it would be better if the EFTA court or equivalent, was used instead. Still, it removed the 90% of the ECJ that was most objectionable. Of course, most people will still get it confused with the ECHR.
>
> You make it sound so neat: the loss of influence over the things that matter to us, along with year after dreary year of negotiations to retain something very similar to the status quo.
Lol. You're floundering.
> > @Casino_Royale said:
> > > @Harris_Tweed said:
> >
> > > > @david_herdson said:
> >
> > > > > @_Anazina_ said:
> >
> > > > > Lots of Brexit Party supporters on PB.
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > > > The kippers got very high percentages in Euro elections in the past. They soon enough faded to complete irrelevancy.
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > > > I think people can be forgiven for not getting too sweaty about the latest rightwing flash in the pan.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > You are having a laugh, presumably?
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I agree that's a rather simplistic calculation.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > *BUT* I think there's undoubtedly a chunk of TBP's share which can be identified as the Screw You vote.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I'm sure many people ARE richly pissed off at the failure to deliver Brexit, and I'm sure they'll turn out for Nigel.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > But I wonder if there are more who, for example, voted Lab in 2017.. who'll turn to TBP just to give Con & Lab a good kicking because it's Thursday.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Even if the Brexit Party does fade into nothing, I think it's highly unlikely that they'll do so without leaving a permanent mark.
> >
> >
> >
> > UKIP ).
> >
> >
> >
> > Cert.
> >
> > Distinguishing between TBP and UKIP is dancing on the head of a pin, though. Even the names of both of them give the clue: they mean exactly the same thing. TBP is just UKIP 2.0 with a fresh lick of paint, a rebranding.. and the same leader.
> >
> > The reason it’s got traction is because old UKIP still existing effectively detoxes TBP by having something to its right, its media operation has been very savvy and the two main parties have screwed Brexit up. So people don’t care.
> >
> > People aren't voting for a government, Brexit isn't going to win a GE. But people also won't vote for something with a fascist tinge. Farage's operation makes good sense.
> >
> > Farage so far has managed to share the limelight in TBP.
> >
> > Will his ego hold all the way to polling day?
> > Or will he simply find the supply simply too good not to get high upon?
>
> Off-topic:
>
> @Casino_Royale , (and other rail nuts), if you're still on you might be interested in the following:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4claek3eAw
>
> How things change and yet remain the same ...
Cheers, JJ.
I took a region like London with eight seats, assumed seven political parties, and split the vote randomly between them so that each party scored somewhere between 3-35% of the total vote. Using Excel I worked out the seats for each party, then replicated the exercise over and over to model a large number of outcomes.
The results in terms of seats for vote share were are follows (percentage vote shares rounded to the nearest whole number, so “7%” really means 6.5-7.49%):
8% or less = no seats (at 8%, a 7% chance of a seat)
9% = 75% chance of a seat
10% = 99% chance of a seat
11%-15% = one seat
16% = one seat, 8% chance of a second
17% = one seat, 32% chance of a second
18% = two seats three quarters of the time, otherwise one
19% = two seats except for 8% of the time with one
20% = two seats 99% of the time
21%-23% = two seats
24% = two seats, 8% chance of a third
25% = two seats, 28% chance of a third
26% = two seats or three seats (50/50)
27%-28% = three seats except 16% of the time with two
29%-30% = three seats except 4% of the time with two
31%-33% = three seats
At 34% and above there was a small chance for a fourth seat
The critical zones where additional votes are most likely to “count” are therefore around 9% for winning the first seat, and 17-18% for winning the second, and 25-26% for the third. At all other ratings the number of seats was pretty much a given regardless of how other parties performed.
I then looked at over- and under-representation, and interestingly the pattern was (roughly - I couldn’t be bothered to count up) as follows:
Above 28% vote share a party is over-represented
Between 25%-27% a party is twice as likely to be over as under-represented
Between 20%-25% a party is over-represented
Between 18%-19% a party is twice as likely to be over as under-represented
At 17% there is a mix of over- and under-representation
At 16% a party is much more likely to be under than over-represented
Between 13-15% a party is under-represented
Between 10-12% a party is over-represented
At 9% a party is more likely to be over- than under-represented
At 8% and lower a party is un(der)-represented
Compared to my earlier erroneous posting, the advantage for larger vote shares is clearer, but nevertheless there are bands such as the 10-12% one where a party generally gets more than its proportional entitlement.
> Completely off topic but it must be comforting for MUFC fans to know that even after a disappointing season that the Premiership trophy is still in Manchester
but sale missed out on the playoffs
Anyhow. The point is, we can live without a say over our affairs; people won't tolerate No Deal. The negotiations without end are part of that reconstruction effort So if we Brexit, and I expect we will, this is what it will be.
> @rcs1000
> >Have you actually read the text of the withdrawal agreement? I ask this, because the backstop, as it is currently written, has the UK bound by EU product standards for goods, and has zero barriers for trade in goods between the UK and the EU.
>
> --------
>
> Yes, and I suspect you skimmed over some important parts of it. It's the UK *in respect of Northern Ireland*.
>
> Read Article 6-2.
>
> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/759019/25_November_Agreement_on_the_withdrawal_of_the_United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Northern_Ireland_from_the_European_Union_and_the_European_Atomic_Energy_Community.pdf
Article 6, section 2 says:
"Where in this Agreement reference is made to Union acts or provisions thereof, such reference shall, where relevant, be understood to include a reference to Union law or provisions thereof that, although replaced or superseded by the act referred to, continue to apply in accordance with that act."
"Legislation as defined in point (2) of Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council1shall apply to and in the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland (not including the territorial waters of the United Kingdom). However, the Joint Committee shall establish the conditions, including in quantitative terms, under which certain fishery and aquaculture products brought into the customs territory of the Union defined in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 by vessels flying the flag of the United Kingdom and registered in Northern Ireland are exempted from duties.
"The provisions of Union law listed in Annex 5 to this Protocol shall also apply, under the conditions set out therein, to and in the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland.
"Articles 30 and 110 TFEU shall apply to and in the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland. Quantitative restrictions on exports and imports shall be prohibited between the Union and Northern Ireland."
"The two sides reached agreement on a draft Withdrawal Agreement in November 2018, which included a Protocol on Northern Ireland setting out the backstop. The EU made a significant concession in granting a UK-wide ‘single customs territory’, avoiding the need for customs checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, while the requirement for regulatory alignment is limited to Northern Ireland."
Q. How do you make Jelly Babies?
A.