> @MarkHopkins said: > If Boris said such an obvious 'lie', why didn't the Remainers call him out on it, and tell us all the actual figure at the time?
They did and Leave said it was project fear as they did about anything else...
> @franklyn said: > Next Thursday there is a parliamentary by-election in Peterborough. > Is anyone willing to have wager with me (for charity)? I would like to bet that the OMRL party candidate gets more votes than the Conservatives. > State your suggested odds and if we agree, the loser pays the money to a charity of the winner's choice. My charity of choice is the Salvation Army. > We would, of course, need to get Mr Smithson's approval that this is all above board. > Any takers?
Do you seriously believe that the Tories will poll less than 2% next week?
> @Scott_P said: > Suggested elsewhere, it should not be illegal to lie in a campaign, but it should bar you from holding public office again...
We'd have very few people left in public life. Everyone simplifies, exaggerates, distorts, spins, to get their case across. And, that has always been the case, ever since politics was invented.
> Not a bad day for me on the Tory race. I managed to lay both Boris and Leadsom at near their low points (c.2.8 and c.6.6 respectively) so am now as nowhere near as underwater as I was on the overall market two days ago.
>
> The shortness of both still baffles me.
Baffles me too, particularly Leadsome.
I believe she has four endorsements so far, against twenty plus for the leading contenders. I know they don't mean everything but what does she offer apart from the same kind of Brexit deliverable by others but with less charm.
What am I missing?
The case for backing Leadsom is: 1) she might be the last Brexiteer standing if the others form a circular firing squad; this is what happened last time and it could happen again 2) she has a better record in office than Boris or Raab 3) she is not as divisive as Gove 4) she has (iirc) previous experience of TV debates 5) buyers regret from last time when MPs preferred May 6) she might be seen as more trustworthy than Boris (thanks to the court case) and Gove (who stabbed Boris in the back)
Should she be favourite? No. Is she well placed to pick up votes once the eliminations start? Probably.
Is she value? I shan't be backing her at current prices but she was 25/1 at the weekend.
> @MarkHopkins said: > If Boris said such an obvious 'lie', why didn't the Remainers call him out on it, and tell us all the actual figure at the time?
You couldn't have been paying much attention to the referendum campaign! Presumably you voted Leave?
> @Sean_F said: > > @Scott_P said: > > Suggested elsewhere, it should not be illegal to lie in a campaign, but it should bar you from holding public office again... > > We'd have very few people left in public life. Everyone simplifies, exaggerates, distorts, spins, to get their case across. And, that has always been the case, ever since politics was invented.
Couldn't you say the same about estate agents, though?
> @Chris said: > > @Sean_F said: > > > @Scott_P said: > > > Suggested elsewhere, it should not be illegal to lie in a campaign, but it should bar you from holding public office again... > > > > We'd have very few people left in public life. Everyone simplifies, exaggerates, distorts, spins, to get their case across. And, that has always been the case, ever since politics was invented. > > Couldn't you say the same about estate agents, though?
"Politician tells porkies to win election" is very much dog bites man.
"Political party is actually money laundering front and I will say this on national TV without a shred of evidence" is rather more dubious territory. To conflate the two is disingenuous.
Conflation is exactly what Richard Tice is doing and may yet succeed. And if he does, somebody who we have never met will suffer financial hardship for expressing an opinion in an election campaign and who is defended by nobody. Meanwhile Boris Johnson, a man whose poor qualities I have adumbrated frequently and who is financially rewarded far beyond his gifts or desserts is brigaded by an army who defend his right to lie in an election campaign with passionate intensity.
If Boris said such an obvious 'lie', why didn't the Remainers call him out on it, and tell us all the actual figure at the time?
They did. The truth is rather complicated and yet the lie is simple.
So it was just two opinions in a political debate?
There is no denying that the intention was to suggest that the NHS would get £350m a week extra as a direct consequence of Brexit. This isn't an opinion, it's clear dishonesty. No amount of weaselling changes that.
Except in Italy as the Salvini surge confirms but to be fair Brexiteers like Hannan never said they wanted the EU to collapse, they just wanted to UK to join Switzerland and Norway etc outside it rather then become part of a Federal EU
> @DecrepitJohnL said: > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > Not a bad day for me on the Tory race. I managed to lay both Boris and Leadsom at near their low points (c.2.8 and c.6.6 respectively) so am now as nowhere near as underwater as I was on the overall market two days ago. > > > > > > The shortness of both still baffles me. > > > > Baffles me too, particularly Leadsome. > > > > I believe she has four endorsements so far, against twenty plus for the leading contenders. I know they don't mean everything but what does she offer apart from the same kind of Brexit deliverable by others but with less charm. > > > > What am I missing? > > The case for backing Leadsom is: > 1) she might be the last Brexiteer standing if the others form a circular firing squad; this is what happened last time and it could happen again > 2) she has a better record in office than Boris or Raab > 3) she is not as divisive as Gove > 4) she has (iirc) previous experience of TV debates > 5) buyers regret from last time when MPs preferred May > 6) she might be seen as more trustworthy than Boris (thanks to the court case) and Gove (who stabbed Boris in the back) > > Should she be favourite? No. Is she well placed to pick up votes once the eliminations start? Probably. > > Is she value? I shan't be backing her at current prices but she was 25/1 at the weekend.
Thanks DJ.
All those points were as accurate at the weekend as they are now, so why have the odds suddenly shortened? Did something happen?
I wouldn't argue with any of them but I couldn't have her as any better than fifth favorite myself.
Gosh, Nick Clegg and all the LibDems who signed the tuition fee pledge must be next.
Were they lying?
It'd be nice for Boris, Nick and Tony if could all share the same cell.
The LDs didn't win that election so were never in a position to do as they wanted.
And there is a difference between breaking a promise, and making a claim that is disproved by the National Statistician and then carrying on making that claim in the knowledge that it's false.
vote leave didn’t get into government - they won a referendum. May became PM and she wasn’t part of vote leave nor was her Chancellor or health secretary.
Clegg was deputy PM and could have refused to support the plan in Line with his pledge - he didn’t and nor did most of their MPs. They betrayed their promises for political expediency and power.
> @justin124 said: > > @franklyn said: > > Next Thursday there is a parliamentary by-election in Peterborough. > > Is anyone willing to have wager with me (for charity)? I would like to bet that the OMRL party candidate gets more votes than the Conservatives. > > State your suggested odds and if we agree, the loser pays the money to a charity of the winner's choice. My charity of choice is the Salvation Army. > > We would, of course, need to get Mr Smithson's approval that this is all above board. > > Any takers? > > Do you seriously believe that the Tories will poll less than 2% next week?
Tories got 3% in Gibraltar last week. If you think I am giving away money suggest some odds. Money where your mouth is time
There is no denying that the intention was to suggest that the NHS would get £350m a week extra as a direct consequence of Brexit. This isn't an opinion, it's clear dishonesty. No amount of weaselling changes that.
Which is another key point.
Brexiteers fixated on the 350M figure, but the "spend it on the NHS" is at least as contentious
> @Gallowgate said: > If Boris said such an obvious 'lie', why didn't the Remainers call him out on it, and tell us all the actual figure at the time? > > They did. The truth is rather complicated and yet the lie is simple. > > > So it was just two opinions in a political debate? > > > > There is no denying that the intention was to suggest that the NHS would get £350m a week extra as a direct consequence of Brexit. This isn't an opinion, it's clear dishonesty. No amount of weaselling changes that.
It's a bit like claiming there were "24 hours to save the NHS" in 1997.
If Boris said such an obvious 'lie', why didn't the Remainers call him out on it, and tell us all the actual figure at the time?
They did. The truth is rather complicated and yet the lie is simple.
On the contrary, the 'true figure' was made clear at the time and the bus was widely derided. However, the whole debacle promoted the bus and its message (and the 'true figure' which itself was fairly astronomical) far beyond what a fleet of buses could have achieved.
> @Sean_F said: > > @Scott_P said: > > Suggested elsewhere, it should not be illegal to lie in a campaign, but it should bar you from holding public office again... > > We'd have very few people left in public life. Everyone simplifies, exaggerates, distorts, spins, to get their case across. And, that has always been the case, ever since politics was invented.
There is always an abundance of people who will have aspirations of being an MP/Politician. Just look at when MPs expenses happened and the throng of applications to the Conservative party. I think you were one of them!
> > Not a bad day for me on the Tory race. I managed to lay both Boris and Leadsom at near their low points (c.2.8 and c.6.6 respectively) so am now as nowhere near as underwater as I was on the overall market two days ago.
>
> >
>
> > The shortness of both still baffles me.
>
>
>
> Baffles me too, particularly Leadsome.
>
>
>
> I believe she has four endorsements so far, against twenty plus for the leading contenders. I know they don't mean everything but what does she offer apart from the same kind of Brexit deliverable by others but with less charm.
>
>
>
> What am I missing?
>
> The case for backing Leadsom is:
> 1) she might be the last Brexiteer standing if the others form a circular firing squad; this is what happened last time and it could happen again
> 2) she has a better record in office than Boris or Raab
> 3) she is not as divisive as Gove
> 4) she has (iirc) previous experience of TV debates
> 5) buyers regret from last time when MPs preferred May
> 6) she might be seen as more trustworthy than Boris (thanks to the court case) and Gove (who stabbed Boris in the back)
>
> Should she be favourite? No. Is she well placed to pick up votes once the eliminations start? Probably.
>
> Is she value? I shan't be backing her at current prices but she was 25/1 at the weekend.
Thanks DJ.
All those points were as accurate at the weekend as they are now, so why have the odds suddenly shortened? Did something happen?
I wouldn't argue with any of them but I couldn't have her as any better than fifth favorite myself.
The bizarreness works both ways.
You can also back Esther McVey (like, right now) at well over 80/1 despite her having all the attributes and issues of Leadsom, and none of the baggage.
> @Scott_P said: > There is no denying that the intention was to suggest that the NHS would get £350m a week extra as a direct consequence of Brexit. This isn't an opinion, it's clear dishonesty. No amount of weaselling changes that. > > Which is another key point. > > Brexiteers fixated on the 350M figure, but the "spend it on the NHS" is at least as contentious
One thing is utterly unambiguous, though. A majority of people voted to leave. No amount of weaselling changes that.
If Boris said such an obvious 'lie', why didn't the Remainers call him out on it, and tell us all the actual figure at the time?
They did. The truth is rather complicated and yet the lie is simple.
So it was just two opinions in a political debate?
There is no denying that the intention was to suggest that the NHS would get £350m a week extra as a direct consequence of Brexit. This isn't an opinion, it's clear dishonesty. No amount of weaselling changes that.
Easily provable. In fact, Theresa May committed to it last year.
If Boris said such an obvious 'lie', why didn't the Remainers call him out on it, and tell us all the actual figure at the time?
They did. The truth is rather complicated and yet the lie is simple.
So it was just two opinions in a political debate?
There is no denying that the intention was to suggest that the NHS would get £350m a week extra as a direct consequence of Brexit. This isn't an opinion, it's clear dishonesty. No amount of weaselling changes that.
Well, after we Brexit, if Boris is PM, he needs to be held to account that the NHS is getting £350m more a week than during the referendum campaign.
> Not a bad day for me on the Tory race. I managed to lay both Boris and Leadsom at near their low points (c.2.8 and c.6.6 respectively) so am now as nowhere near as underwater as I was on the overall market two days ago.
>
> The shortness of both still baffles me.
Baffles me too, particularly Leadsome.
I believe she has four endorsements so far, against twenty plus for the leading contenders. I know they don't mean everything but what does she offer apart from the same kind of Brexit deliverable by others but with less charm.
What am I missing?
The case for backing Leadsom is: 1) she might be the last Brexiteer standing if the others form a circular firing squad; this is what happened last time and it could happen again 2) she has a better record in office than Boris or Raab 3) she is not as divisive as Gove 4) she has (iirc) previous experience of TV debates 5) buyers regret from last time when MPs preferred May 6) she might be seen as more trustworthy than Boris (thanks to the court case) and Gove (who stabbed Boris in the back)
Should she be favourite? No. Is she well placed to pick up votes once the eliminations start? Probably.
Is she value? I shan't be backing her at current prices but she was 25/1 at the weekend.
It's mainly (5) - three of the top four contenders on Betfair fought the contest last time. The other, Raab, has long been trailed as the new alternate Boris.
Punters are struggling to weigh up Javid, Hancock, McVey and Hunt - Hunt a bit too long, Javid about right, Hancock a tad long and McVey way too long - are curious about Rory Stewart, who is a bit short, and haven't a clue about the others.
So far Rory Stewart is the only person standing that could persuade me to vote Conservative again. He comes across as thoughtful, intelligent and as if he is actually thinking about what he says before saying it. Even the reader comments under this Guardian article aren't too bad, if you ignore the usual ones about Brexit: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/28/tory-leadership-contender-rory-stewart-principle-power
I can't see him winning this time, but once the Conservatives are ready for a more moderate leader surely he must stand a decent chance? Even if he never wins he seems like he'd probably make a good Foreign Secretary.
Political promises are a kind of contract with the public. As such we ought to have some sort of opportunity for redress. As far as possible this shouldn't be through the courts, but parliament should have appropriate procedures in place, eg. recall. Having said this, just as some contracts are unenforceable, lots of political promises can be got round. For one thing, various circumstances may provide an excuse.
It's probably a good thing that the Brexit bus is going to court - it was such a significant claim - so we can find out whether it really did fall foul of current law, and the law can then be amended if necessary.
> @HYUFD said: > > Except in Italy as the Salvini surge confirms but to be fair Brexiteers like Hannan never said they wanted the EU to collapse, they just wanted to UK to join Switzerland and Norway etc outside it rather then become part of a Federal EU --------
Hannan said he wanted other countries like Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands to leave and imagined that the UK would "lead a 22-state bloc" outside the EU.
> @Gallowgate said: > If Boris said such an obvious 'lie', why didn't the Remainers call him out on it, and tell us all the actual figure at the time? > > They did. The truth is rather complicated and yet the lie is simple. > > > So it was just two opinions in a political debate? > > > > There is no denying that the intention was to suggest that the NHS would get £350m a week extra as a direct consequence of Brexit. This isn't an opinion, it's clear dishonesty. No amount of weaselling changes that.
It came as a surprise to me that the £350m figure had any basis in reality at all. I'd always assumed it was plucked from thin air but then I wasn't much bothered. You had to be plug stupid to believe the claim, and those that did were plainly beyond any form of reason.
There's no reason in principle why politicians shouldn't be pulled up before the law for telling porkies, although the practical as well as the political difficulties must be acknowledged and respected.
I don't think this prosecution has much chance of success, but an independent judge has indicated that it has enough merit to proceed, so it will be interesting to see how due process unfolds. If nothing else, it will be a timely reminder of what a mendacious fecker Johnson is.
> @franklyn said: > Next Thursday there is a parliamentary by-election in Peterborough. > Is anyone willing to have wager with me (for charity)? I would like to bet that the OMRL party candidate gets more votes than the Conservatives. > State your suggested odds and if we agree, the loser pays the money to a charity of the winner's choice. My charity of choice is the Salvation Army. > We would, of course, need to get Mr Smithson's approval that this is all above board. > Any takers?
I'll give you 2/1 up to £25 (i.e. to win £50 for your charity). My charity is the Against Malaria Foundation. Just to be clear, my understanding is that my charity wins if the Tories outpoll the OMRLP and your charity wins if the reverse happens.
> @Gallowgate said: > Easily provable. In fact, Theresa May committed to it last year. > > Are we prosecuting her too? > > Stop being facetious. You're better than that. > > You know full well that 'extra £350m' had nothing to do with Brexit. Clearly demonstrated by the fact Brexit hasn't even happened!
That wasn't your point.
You see? It's very easy to turn on a head of pin on arguments like this.
> @Scott_P said: > One thing is utterly unambiguous, though. A majority of people voted to leave. No amount of weaselling changes that. > > Nobody is denying it.
Well, actually some are.
Russians. Rigged vote. Cambridge Analytica. Facebook. No majority voted to leave (babies/abstainers etc). Banks. Not valid because not a supermajority etc.
> @stodge said: > More Danish polls with the election to the Folketing on June 5th so just a week away: > > All three polls put the centre-left bloc of parties ahead of the centre-right group: > > Gallup has it 53-47 > YouGov has it 55-45 > Voxmeter has it 57-43 > > In essence very little change with the European elections but those did show a stronger vote for Venstre and a weaker vote for the Social Democrats than some polls had suggested.
After the European elections the likely next European Commission President to succeed Juncker is a Danish female liberal from Venstre, the current EU Competition Commissioner Margerethe Vestager, she certainly has Macron's support
> @Scott_P said: > Easily provable. In fact, Theresa May committed to it last year. > > Are we prosecuting her too? > > Wrong > > We haven't left, so any increase in NHS spending is absolutely not as a result of Brexit > > Easily provable...
No, right. NHS spending *has* absolutely increased because of the Brexit vote. Put it another way: the Government wouldn't have pledged to increase it so much had the Brexit vote not been carried.
And it's easily provable, because it's happened.
No-one (below) said anything about a direct budget transfer, today, from the EU contribution "pot" to the NHS budget "pot" in the Treasury. But, it has increased as part of the political consequences of Brexit - as a policy decision of the Government, not an economic benefit.
However, if we ever got to a full FTA in the early 2020s, we could argue the toss on that too as we would be paying much less to the EU under that arrangement some of which could be offset against the increased NHS budget.
Of course, you'd counterargue the economy is smaller than the counterfactual over if we'd voted Remain in 2016. And round and round we'd go.
Which shows how pointless and silly this case is, and how easily you fell into the trap.
Seeing the arguments presented that deliberate falsehoods made during a political campaign by politicians should be subject to solely political judgement (and not legal judgement) does seem to have one apparent flaw: - In an election, the obvious place for a political judgement is a following election. For falsehoods, or for broken promises. After all, the 2015 GE was the obvious example for the LDs. - In a referendum, where's the future political judgement? A future referendum? But the side represented by the one accused of deliberately and knowingly lying to obtain (successfully) his intended result are adamant that no such thing should happen.
So where is the route to justice? To hope that in an unrelated election for other matters a subset of electors will pass judgement? Which could be arguably unfair, anyway - why should other matters be either ignored or used to muddy the waters?
I don't know whether or not legal judgement is appropriate. I would agree that political judgement by means of another referendum is certainly appropriate, but the cynic in me finds it doubtful that anyone on Boris's side would be willing to countenance such a thing.
> @Quincel said: > > @franklyn said: > > Next Thursday there is a parliamentary by-election in Peterborough. > > Is anyone willing to have wager with me (for charity)? I would like to bet that the OMRL party candidate gets more votes than the Conservatives. > > State your suggested odds and if we agree, the loser pays the money to a charity of the winner's choice. My charity of choice is the Salvation Army. > > We would, of course, need to get Mr Smithson's approval that this is all above board. > > Any takers? > > I'll give you 2/1 up to £25 (i.e. to win £50 for your charity). My charity is the Against Malaria Foundation. Just to be clear, my understanding is that my charity wins if the Tories outpoll the OMRLP and your charity wins if the reverse happens.
Those are not charitable odds; 2-1 for the party of government not to outpoll the Loonys. Suggest 10-1
The domino effect was predicted to occur after we had voted to leave and instead support for the EU has increased elsewhere and I believe that AfD in Germany, 5 star in Italy and the Front National in France have dropped exiting the EU from their policies. Are you arguing that once we have actually left the domino effect will kick in? Care to name, say, the next couple of countries that will follow our lead?
> One thing is utterly unambiguous, though. A majority of people voted to leave. No amount of weaselling changes that.
>
> Nobody is denying it.
Well, actually some are.
Russians. Rigged vote. Cambridge Analytica. Facebook. No majority voted to leave (babies/abstainers etc). Banks. Not valid because not a supermajority etc.
Lots, in fact.
None of those "reasons" are a denial that Leave got a majority, they are reasons to explain how Leave did it.
> @franklyn said: > > @Quincel said: > > > @franklyn said: > > > Next Thursday there is a parliamentary by-election in Peterborough. > > > Is anyone willing to have wager with me (for charity)? I would like to bet that the OMRL party candidate gets more votes than the Conservatives. > > > State your suggested odds and if we agree, the loser pays the money to a charity of the winner's choice. My charity of choice is the Salvation Army. > > > We would, of course, need to get Mr Smithson's approval that this is all above board. > > > Any takers? > > > > I'll give you 2/1 up to £25 (i.e. to win £50 for your charity). My charity is the Against Malaria Foundation. Just to be clear, my understanding is that my charity wins if the Tories outpoll the OMRLP and your charity wins if the reverse happens. > > Those are not charitable odds; 2-1 for the party of government not to outpoll the Loonys. Suggest 10-1
I'd misunderstood how likely you thought this was, my mistake. No thanks, I think we're miles apart on what odds we're willing to agree.
> @williamglenn said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > > Except in Italy as the Salvini surge confirms but to be fair Brexiteers like Hannan never said they wanted the EU to collapse, they just wanted to UK to join Switzerland and Norway etc outside it rather then become part of a Federal EU > -------- > > Hannan said he wanted other countries like Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands to leave and imagined that the UK would "lead a 22-state bloc" outside the EU. > > https://reaction.life/britain-looks-like-brexit/
Denmark might have been realistic along with Sweden in an enlarged EFTA much as it was in 1960, the Benelux nations along with France, Germany and Italy as founder members of the EEC and the Eurozone nations including Ireland were never likely to leave
No, right. NHS spending *has* absolutely increased because of the Brexit vote. Put it another way: the Government wouldn't have pledged to increase it so much had the Brexit vote not been carried.
SNIP the rest of the WTFerry
Are we spending money on the NHS instead of sending it to the EU?
> @HYUFD said: > > @williamglenn said: > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > > Except in Italy as the Salvini surge confirms but to be fair Brexiteers like Hannan never said they wanted the EU to collapse, they just wanted to UK to join Switzerland and Norway etc outside it rather then become part of a Federal EU > > -------- > > > > Hannan said he wanted other countries like Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands to leave and imagined that the UK would "lead a 22-state bloc" outside the EU. > > > > https://reaction.life/britain-looks-like-brexit/ > > Denmark might have been realistic along with Sweden in an enlarged EFTA much as it was in 1960, the Benelux nations along with France, Germany and Italy as founder members of the EEC and the Eurozone nations including Ireland were never likely to leave
-------
So the fact that Hannan thought they would leave and join a bloc led by the UK says what about his judgment?
> @Casino_Royale said: > Nandy-Stewart Gov't of national unity ? > > > > https://twitter.com/lisanandy/status/1133768265241640961 > > > > If he did become PM, he might be the only Tory PM who could command support across the HoC for a deal. > > Perhaps that's what he's going for? > > He will fall out very early in the MP voting rounds, though.
The Withdrawal Agreement is still likely to be the same even if Jesus Christ is the next PM
> @Casino_Royale said: > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > Not a bad day for me on the Tory race. I managed to lay both Boris and Leadsom at near their low points (c.2.8 and c.6.6 respectively) so am now as nowhere near as underwater as I was on the overall market two days ago. > > > > > > The shortness of both still baffles me. > > > > Baffles me too, particularly Leadsome. > > > > I believe she has four endorsements so far, against twenty plus for the leading contenders. I know they don't mean everything but what does she offer apart from the same kind of Brexit deliverable by others but with less charm. > > > > What am I missing? > > The case for backing Leadsom is: > 1) she might be the last Brexiteer standing if the others form a circular firing squad; this is what happened last time and it could happen again > 2) she has a better record in office than Boris or Raab > 3) she is not as divisive as Gove > 4) she has (iirc) previous experience of TV debates > 5) buyers regret from last time when MPs preferred May > 6) she might be seen as more trustworthy than Boris (thanks to the court case) and Gove (who stabbed Boris in the back) > > Should she be favourite? No. Is she well placed to pick up votes once the eliminations start? Probably. > > Is she value? I shan't be backing her at current prices but she was 25/1 at the weekend. > > It's mainly (5) - three of the top four contenders on Betfair fought the contest last time. The other, Raab, has long been trailed as the new alternate Boris. > > Punters are struggling to weigh up Javid, Hancock, McVey and Hunt - Hunt a bit too long, Javid about right, Hancock a tad long and McVey way too long - are curious about Rory Stewart, who is a bit short, and haven't a clue about the others.
So nothing has actually happened to cause Leadsome to be punted then? In that case, I'd say she's way too short.
Agree Hunt is too long. He has most endorsements right now. Others seem about right to me.
Stewart is intriguing. He has just three endorsements, but appears to be 'having a good war' so far.
If Boris is going to be forced to prove that £350 mill+ a week is being sent to the EU, I believe with every fibre of my being, he'll be able to. That makes this court case a terrible move for continuity remain.
> @Sean_F said: > > @Scott_P said: > > Suggested elsewhere, it should not be illegal to lie in a campaign, but it should bar you from holding public office again... > > We'd have very few people left in public life. Everyone simplifies, exaggerates, distorts, spins, to get their case across. And, that has always been the case, ever since politics was invented.
Just like footallers complaining about a ref who gives out too many yellow cards. You only need four or five who get banned from holding public office before all of the others realise and start taking an interest in making statements that they can back up.
But anyway the 350m was not spin or distortion, it was a blatant lie which was repeated after it was shown to be a lie.
> @OllyT said: > > @MarkHopkins said: > > > @williamglenn said: > > > > > https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1133755079448813568 > > > > > > > > > > > > The domino effect that some leavers assured us would happen after Brexit has had exactly the opposite effect . What a surprise! > > > > > > Well, we haven't actually Brexitted yet > > The domino effect was predicted to occur after we had voted to leave and instead support for the EU has increased elsewhere and I believe that AfD in Germany, 5 star in Italy and the Front National in France have dropped exiting the EU from their policies. Are you arguing that once we have actually left the domino effect will kick in? Care to name, say, the next couple of countries that will follow our lead?
Tusk nailed it again when he said the Brexit experience had been noted by other EU countries, and reduced the propensity to leave, pretty much across the board.
> @Mauve said: > > @Gallowgate said: > > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1133813183234400256 > > > > > > > > > > So far Rory Stewart is the only person standing that could persuade me to vote Conservative again. He comes across as thoughtful, intelligent and as if he is actually thinking about what he says before saying it.
Tory party members aren't likely to be impressed by that kind of thing.
I'm half expecting the contenders to start challenging one another to bite their fingers off to prove they have the guts to take us out of the EU without a deal.
Can we prosecute Cameron for saying it was stable government under him, or chaos with Ed Miliband? OK, not an outright provable falsehood at the time he said it. But it's a good job there isn't an offence under the Predicting Utter and Total Bollocks whilst in Public Office Act.
> @Chris said: > > @Mauve said: > > > @Gallowgate said: > > > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1133813183234400256 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So far Rory Stewart is the only person standing that could persuade me to vote Conservative again. He comes across as thoughtful, intelligent and as if he is actually thinking about what he says before saying it. > > Tory party members aren't likely to be impressed by that kind of thing. > > I'm half expecting the contenders to start challenging one another to bite their fingers off to prove they have the guts to take us out of the EU without a deal. >
The winner will be top-Bezerker..... The One They Keep On The Boat until......
> @Peter_the_Punter said: > > @OllyT said: > > > @MarkHopkins said: > > > > @williamglenn said: > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1133755079448813568 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The domino effect that some leavers assured us would happen after Brexit has had exactly the opposite effect . What a surprise! > > > > > > > > > Well, we haven't actually Brexitted yet > > > > The domino effect was predicted to occur after we had voted to leave and instead support for the EU has increased elsewhere and I believe that AfD in Germany, 5 star in Italy and the Front National in France have dropped exiting the EU from their policies. Are you arguing that once we have actually left the domino effect will kick in? Care to name, say, the next couple of countries that will follow our lead? > > Tusk nailed it again when he said the Brexit experience had been noted by other EU countries, and reduced the propensity to leave, pretty much across the board.
Salvini is trying to form an anti EU alliance and will likely be the next Italian PM on Sunday's results, Le Pen topped the poll in France so while nationalists are not a majority in the EU they are still a significant force.
The UK of course was never one of the original EEC members and never joined the Euro, we should have stayed in EFTA where we belonged
> @Luckyguy1983 said: > If Boris is going to be forced to prove that £350 mill+ a week is being sent to the EU, I believe with every fibre of my being, he'll be able to. That makes this court case a terrible move for continuity remain. ------
> > Next Thursday there is a parliamentary by-election in Peterborough.
> > Is anyone willing to have wager with me (for charity)? I would like to bet that the OMRL party candidate gets more votes than the Conservatives.
> > State your suggested odds and if we agree, the loser pays the money to a charity of the winner's choice. My charity of choice is the Salvation Army.
> > We would, of course, need to get Mr Smithson's approval that this is all above board.
> > Any takers?
>
> Do you seriously believe that the Tories will poll less than 2% next week?
Tories got 3% in Gibraltar last week. If you think I am giving away money suggest some odds. Money where your mouth is time
> @HYUFD said: > > @Peter_the_Punter said: > > > @OllyT said: > > > > @MarkHopkins said: > > > > > @williamglenn said: > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1133755079448813568 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The domino effect that some leavers assured us would happen after Brexit has had exactly the opposite effect . What a surprise! > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, we haven't actually Brexitted yet > > > > > > The domino effect was predicted to occur after we had voted to leave and instead support for the EU has increased elsewhere and I believe that AfD in Germany, 5 star in Italy and the Front National in France have dropped exiting the EU from their policies. Are you arguing that once we have actually left the domino effect will kick in? Care to name, say, the next couple of countries that will follow our lead? > > > > Tusk nailed it again when he said the Brexit experience had been noted by other EU countries, and reduced the propensity to leave, pretty much across the board. > > Salvini is trying to form an anti EU alliance and will likely be the next Italian PM on Sunday's results, Le Pen topped the poll in France so while nationalists are not a majority in the EU they are still a significant force
Yes, but the idea of Frexit or Italexit or pretty much any kind of Exit seems to be on the back burner for the time being, no?
The Boris case will fail, I think, on the same grounds that manifestos have been legally stated to be unenforceable.
Its significance is the timing in the middle of the leadership constest, it is at the very least a distraction, possibly a tipping point against his chances.
> > The domino effect that some leavers assured us would happen after Brexit has had exactly the opposite effect . What a surprise!
> >
> >
> > Well, we haven't actually Brexitted yet
>
> The domino effect was predicted to occur after we had voted to leave and instead support for the EU has increased elsewhere and I believe that AfD in Germany, 5 star in Italy and the Front National in France have dropped exiting the EU from their policies. Are you arguing that once we have actually left the domino effect will kick in? Care to name, say, the next couple of countries that will follow our lead?
Tusk nailed it again when he said the Brexit experience had been noted by other EU countries, and reduced the propensity to leave, pretty much across the board.
Quote: "As a historian I fear Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction of not only the EU but also Western political civilisation in its entirety"
Unless you believe he had no such fear then it can't be a lie.
The Boris case will fail, I think, on the same grounds that manifestos have been legally stated to be unenforceable.
Its significance is the timing in the middle of the leadership constest, it is at the very least a distraction, possibly a tipping point against his chances.
> @Sunil_Prasannan said: > > @OllyT said: > > > > @MarkHopkins said: > > > > > @williamglenn said: > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1133755079448813568 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The domino effect that some leavers assured us would happen after Brexit has had exactly the opposite effect . What a surprise! > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, we haven't actually Brexitted yet > > > > > > The domino effect was predicted to occur after we had voted to leave and instead support for the EU has increased elsewhere and I believe that AfD in Germany, 5 star in Italy and the Front National in France have dropped exiting the EU from their policies. Are you arguing that once we have actually left the domino effect will kick in? Care to name, say, the next couple of countries that will follow our lead? > > > > Tusk nailed it again when he said the Brexit experience had been noted by other EU countries, and reduced the propensity to leave, pretty much across the board. > > Did Tusk "lie" when he said this?: > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36515680
> @Casino_Royale said: > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > > > > > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good to see that Leavers are huffing and puffing to be allowed to lie without consequence. I’m not sure that’s going to be very saleable to the general public. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I’m honest, Alastair, I’m very surprised to see you taking the position you have on this; I can only assume out of anger over the original Leave campaign itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are ultra hard Remainers - like Jo Maugham QC - who have added their voices to concerns over this today, and underlined that political sanctions should be the punishment and not the criminal law. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I’d have thought, as someone with a firm legal background and strong morals, that you’d be the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Strong morals require that lying for profit has consequences. All I see is Leavers saying that lying for profit for a cause they approve of should be given a free pass. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don’t think anyone is saying that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The political consequences are real and clear. > > > > > > > > > > > > He’s favourite to be next Prime Minister. > > > > > > The markets are overrating his chances. > > > > I was making the point that the political consequences are far from real and clear. The lying has been so far consequence-free. > > He’s gone from being a unifying figure to a divisive figure, split his siblings, fractured his own family, and lost respect of many of his colleagues. > > I’d say the consequences have been clear.
If he becomes Prime Minister he’ll cry all the way to the bank.
Comments
Northern Ireland and the backstop: Why 'alternative arrangements' aren't an alternative
https://www.cer.eu/insights/northern-ireland-and-backstop-why-alternative-arrangements-arent-alternative
https://twitter.com/lizzieloudon/status/1133784070620688385
If Boris said such an obvious 'lie', why didn't the Remainers call him out on it, and tell us all the actual figure at the time?
The case will very likely get thrown out by the court . However the collateral damage is it reinforces the view of others of his past behaviour .
It’s the other questions that will feed off this issue that are more likely to damage him.
He lied to his wife .
He lied whilst a journalist .
He caused undue problems for Nazanin Zaghari- Ratcliffe .
Etc etc .
https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1133785760509898753
https://twitter.com/lisanandy/status/1133768265241640961
> If Boris said such an obvious 'lie', why didn't the Remainers call him out on it, and tell us all the actual figure at the time?
They did and Leave said it was project fear as they did about anything else...
> Next Thursday there is a parliamentary by-election in Peterborough.
> Is anyone willing to have wager with me (for charity)? I would like to bet that the OMRL party candidate gets more votes than the Conservatives.
> State your suggested odds and if we agree, the loser pays the money to a charity of the winner's choice. My charity of choice is the Salvation Army.
> We would, of course, need to get Mr Smithson's approval that this is all above board.
> Any takers?
Do you seriously believe that the Tories will poll less than 2% next week?
> Suggested elsewhere, it should not be illegal to lie in a campaign, but it should bar you from holding public office again...
We'd have very few people left in public life. Everyone simplifies, exaggerates, distorts, spins, to get their case across. And, that has always been the case, ever since politics was invented.
1) she might be the last Brexiteer standing if the others form a circular firing squad; this is what happened last time and it could happen again
2) she has a better record in office than Boris or Raab
3) she is not as divisive as Gove
4) she has (iirc) previous experience of TV debates
5) buyers regret from last time when MPs preferred May
6) she might be seen as more trustworthy than Boris (thanks to the court case) and Gove (who stabbed Boris in the back)
Should she be favourite? No. Is she well placed to pick up votes once the eliminations start? Probably.
Is she value? I shan't be backing her at current prices but she was 25/1 at the weekend.
> If Boris said such an obvious 'lie', why didn't the Remainers call him out on it, and tell us all the actual figure at the time?
You couldn't have been paying much attention to the referendum campaign! Presumably you voted Leave?
So it was just two opinions in a political debate?
> > @Scott_P said:
> > Suggested elsewhere, it should not be illegal to lie in a campaign, but it should bar you from holding public office again...
>
> We'd have very few people left in public life. Everyone simplifies, exaggerates, distorts, spins, to get their case across. And, that has always been the case, ever since politics was invented.
Couldn't you say the same about estate agents, though?
> https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1133755079448813568
The domino effect that some leavers assured us would happen after Brexit has had exactly the opposite effect . What a surprise!
It was discussed a lot on here, but that's not the same thing...
> > @Sean_F said:
> > > @Scott_P said:
> > > Suggested elsewhere, it should not be illegal to lie in a campaign, but it should bar you from holding public office again...
> >
> > We'd have very few people left in public life. Everyone simplifies, exaggerates, distorts, spins, to get their case across. And, that has always been the case, ever since politics was invented.
>
> Couldn't you say the same about estate agents, though?
And, do you believe estate agents?
Well, we haven't actually Brexitted yet
> > @williamglenn said:
> > https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1133755079448813568
>
> The domino effect that some leavers assured us would happen after Brexit has had exactly the opposite effect . What a surprise!
Except in Italy as the Salvini surge confirms but to be fair Brexiteers like Hannan never said they wanted the EU to collapse, they just wanted to UK to join Switzerland and Norway etc outside it rather then become part of a Federal EU
> > @Casino_Royale said:
>
> > Not a bad day for me on the Tory race. I managed to lay both Boris and Leadsom at near their low points (c.2.8 and c.6.6 respectively) so am now as nowhere near as underwater as I was on the overall market two days ago.
>
> >
>
> > The shortness of both still baffles me.
>
>
>
> Baffles me too, particularly Leadsome.
>
>
>
> I believe she has four endorsements so far, against twenty plus for the leading contenders. I know they don't mean everything but what does she offer apart from the same kind of Brexit deliverable by others but with less charm.
>
>
>
> What am I missing?
>
> The case for backing Leadsom is:
> 1) she might be the last Brexiteer standing if the others form a circular firing squad; this is what happened last time and it could happen again
> 2) she has a better record in office than Boris or Raab
> 3) she is not as divisive as Gove
> 4) she has (iirc) previous experience of TV debates
> 5) buyers regret from last time when MPs preferred May
> 6) she might be seen as more trustworthy than Boris (thanks to the court case) and Gove (who stabbed Boris in the back)
>
> Should she be favourite? No. Is she well placed to pick up votes once the eliminations start? Probably.
>
> Is she value? I shan't be backing her at current prices but she was 25/1 at the weekend.
Thanks DJ.
All those points were as accurate at the weekend as they are now, so why have the odds suddenly shortened? Did something happen?
I wouldn't argue with any of them but I couldn't have her as any better than fifth favorite myself.
Clegg was deputy PM and could have refused to support the plan in Line with his pledge - he didn’t and nor did most of their MPs. They betrayed their promises for political expediency and power.
It’s called politics.
> > @franklyn said:
> > Next Thursday there is a parliamentary by-election in Peterborough.
> > Is anyone willing to have wager with me (for charity)? I would like to bet that the OMRL party candidate gets more votes than the Conservatives.
> > State your suggested odds and if we agree, the loser pays the money to a charity of the winner's choice. My charity of choice is the Salvation Army.
> > We would, of course, need to get Mr Smithson's approval that this is all above board.
> > Any takers?
>
> Do you seriously believe that the Tories will poll less than 2% next week?
Tories got 3% in Gibraltar last week. If you think I am giving away money suggest some odds. Money where your mouth is time
Brexiteers fixated on the 350M figure, but the "spend it on the NHS" is at least as contentious
> If Boris said such an obvious 'lie', why didn't the Remainers call him out on it, and tell us all the actual figure at the time?
>
> They did. The truth is rather complicated and yet the lie is simple.
>
>
> So it was just two opinions in a political debate?
>
>
>
> There is no denying that the intention was to suggest that the NHS would get £350m a week extra as a direct consequence of Brexit. This isn't an opinion, it's clear dishonesty. No amount of weaselling changes that.
It's a bit like claiming there were "24 hours to save the NHS" in 1997.
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1133805323276423169
Before you do that, please confirm there is an OMRL candidate standing.
https://twitter.com/JHowellUK
> > @Scott_P said:
> > Suggested elsewhere, it should not be illegal to lie in a campaign, but it should bar you from holding public office again...
>
> We'd have very few people left in public life. Everyone simplifies, exaggerates, distorts, spins, to get their case across. And, that has always been the case, ever since politics was invented.
There is always an abundance of people who will have aspirations of being an MP/Politician. Just look at when MPs expenses happened and the throng of applications to the Conservative party. I think you were one of them!
You can also back Esther McVey (like, right now) at well over 80/1 despite her having all the attributes and issues of Leadsom, and none of the baggage.
She's too long, and Leadsom is too short.
> There is no denying that the intention was to suggest that the NHS would get £350m a week extra as a direct consequence of Brexit. This isn't an opinion, it's clear dishonesty. No amount of weaselling changes that.
>
> Which is another key point.
>
> Brexiteers fixated on the 350M figure, but the "spend it on the NHS" is at least as contentious
One thing is utterly unambiguous, though. A majority of people voted to leave. No amount of weaselling changes that.
Are we prosecuting her too?
We haven't left, so any increase in NHS spending is absolutely not as a result of Brexit
Easily provable...
> Trivial pursuit question...
>
>
> https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1133805323276423169
Louis Quatorze , Versailles, self-indulgence , tragic failure.
I’ve got the popcorn in. Have you?
Well, after we Brexit, if Boris is PM, he needs to be held to account that the NHS is getting £350m more a week than during the referendum campaign.
You know full well that 'extra £350m' had nothing to do with Brexit. Clearly demonstrated by the fact Brexit hasn't even happened!
Punters are struggling to weigh up Javid, Hancock, McVey and Hunt - Hunt a bit too long, Javid about right, Hancock a tad long and McVey way too long - are curious about Rory Stewart, who is a bit short, and haven't a clue about the others.
> https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1133813183234400256
>
>
>
>
So far Rory Stewart is the only person standing that could persuade me to vote Conservative again. He comes across as thoughtful, intelligent and as if he is actually thinking about what he says before saying it. Even the reader comments under this Guardian article aren't too bad, if you ignore the usual ones about Brexit: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/28/tory-leadership-contender-rory-stewart-principle-power
I can't see him winning this time, but once the Conservatives are ready for a more moderate leader surely he must stand a decent chance? Even if he never wins he seems like he'd probably make a good Foreign Secretary.
Perhaps that's what he's going for?
He will fall out very early in the MP voting rounds, though.
It's probably a good thing that the Brexit bus is going to court - it was such a significant claim - so we can find out whether it really did fall foul of current law, and the law can then be amended if necessary.
> > @williamglenn said:
> > https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1133755079448813568
>
> The domino effect that some leavers assured us would happen after Brexit has had exactly the opposite effect . What a surprise!
And five years after Brexit has happened, our economy is racing along and the EU's isn't?
>
> Except in Italy as the Salvini surge confirms but to be fair Brexiteers like Hannan never said they wanted the EU to collapse, they just wanted to UK to join Switzerland and Norway etc outside it rather then become part of a Federal EU
--------
Hannan said he wanted other countries like Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands to leave and imagined that the UK would "lead a 22-state bloc" outside the EU.
https://reaction.life/britain-looks-like-brexit/
> @franklyn
>
> Before you do that, please confirm there is an OMRL candidate standing.
There is indeed a candidate for the Official Monster Raving Loony Party
> If Boris said such an obvious 'lie', why didn't the Remainers call him out on it, and tell us all the actual figure at the time?
>
> They did. The truth is rather complicated and yet the lie is simple.
>
>
> So it was just two opinions in a political debate?
>
>
>
> There is no denying that the intention was to suggest that the NHS would get £350m a week extra as a direct consequence of Brexit. This isn't an opinion, it's clear dishonesty. No amount of weaselling changes that.
It came as a surprise to me that the £350m figure had any basis in reality at all. I'd always assumed it was plucked from thin air but then I wasn't much bothered. You had to be plug stupid to believe the claim, and those that did were plainly beyond any form of reason.
There's no reason in principle why politicians shouldn't be pulled up before the law for telling porkies, although the practical as well as the political difficulties must be acknowledged and respected.
I don't think this prosecution has much chance of success, but an independent judge has indicated that it has enough merit to proceed, so it will be interesting to see how due process unfolds. If nothing else, it will be a timely reminder of what a mendacious fecker Johnson is.
We should all be grateful for that.
> Next Thursday there is a parliamentary by-election in Peterborough.
> Is anyone willing to have wager with me (for charity)? I would like to bet that the OMRL party candidate gets more votes than the Conservatives.
> State your suggested odds and if we agree, the loser pays the money to a charity of the winner's choice. My charity of choice is the Salvation Army.
> We would, of course, need to get Mr Smithson's approval that this is all above board.
> Any takers?
I'll give you 2/1 up to £25 (i.e. to win £50 for your charity). My charity is the Against Malaria Foundation. Just to be clear, my understanding is that my charity wins if the Tories outpoll the OMRLP and your charity wins if the reverse happens.
> Easily provable. In fact, Theresa May committed to it last year.
>
> Are we prosecuting her too?
>
> Stop being facetious. You're better than that.
>
> You know full well that 'extra £350m' had nothing to do with Brexit. Clearly demonstrated by the fact Brexit hasn't even happened!
That wasn't your point.
You see? It's very easy to turn on a head of pin on arguments like this.
> One thing is utterly unambiguous, though. A majority of people voted to leave. No amount of weaselling changes that.
>
> Nobody is denying it.
Well, actually some are.
Russians. Rigged vote. Cambridge Analytica. Facebook. No majority voted to leave (babies/abstainers etc). Banks. Not valid because not a supermajority etc.
Lots, in fact.
> More Danish polls with the election to the Folketing on June 5th so just a week away:
>
> All three polls put the centre-left bloc of parties ahead of the centre-right group:
>
> Gallup has it 53-47
> YouGov has it 55-45
> Voxmeter has it 57-43
>
> In essence very little change with the European elections but those did show a stronger vote for Venstre and a weaker vote for the Social Democrats than some polls had suggested.
After the European elections the likely next European Commission President to succeed Juncker is a Danish female liberal from Venstre, the current EU Competition Commissioner Margerethe Vestager, she certainly has Macron's support
> Easily provable. In fact, Theresa May committed to it last year.
>
> Are we prosecuting her too?
>
> Wrong
>
> We haven't left, so any increase in NHS spending is absolutely not as a result of Brexit
>
> Easily provable...
No, right. NHS spending *has* absolutely increased because of the Brexit vote. Put it another way: the Government wouldn't have pledged to increase it so much had the Brexit vote not been carried.
And it's easily provable, because it's happened.
No-one (below) said anything about a direct budget transfer, today, from the EU contribution "pot" to the NHS budget "pot" in the Treasury. But, it has increased as part of the political consequences of Brexit - as a policy decision of the Government, not an economic benefit.
However, if we ever got to a full FTA in the early 2020s, we could argue the toss on that too as we would be paying much less to the EU under that arrangement some of which could be offset against the increased NHS budget.
Of course, you'd counterargue the economy is smaller than the counterfactual over if we'd voted Remain in 2016. And round and round we'd go.
Which shows how pointless and silly this case is, and how easily you fell into the trap.
- In an election, the obvious place for a political judgement is a following election. For falsehoods, or for broken promises. After all, the 2015 GE was the obvious example for the LDs.
- In a referendum, where's the future political judgement? A future referendum? But the side represented by the one accused of deliberately and knowingly lying to obtain (successfully) his intended result are adamant that no such thing should happen.
So where is the route to justice? To hope that in an unrelated election for other matters a subset of electors will pass judgement? Which could be arguably unfair, anyway - why should other matters be either ignored or used to muddy the waters?
I don't know whether or not legal judgement is appropriate. I would agree that political judgement by means of another referendum is certainly appropriate, but the cynic in me finds it doubtful that anyone on Boris's side would be willing to countenance such a thing.
> > @franklyn said:
> > Next Thursday there is a parliamentary by-election in Peterborough.
> > Is anyone willing to have wager with me (for charity)? I would like to bet that the OMRL party candidate gets more votes than the Conservatives.
> > State your suggested odds and if we agree, the loser pays the money to a charity of the winner's choice. My charity of choice is the Salvation Army.
> > We would, of course, need to get Mr Smithson's approval that this is all above board.
> > Any takers?
>
> I'll give you 2/1 up to £25 (i.e. to win £50 for your charity). My charity is the Against Malaria Foundation. Just to be clear, my understanding is that my charity wins if the Tories outpoll the OMRLP and your charity wins if the reverse happens.
Those are not charitable odds; 2-1 for the party of government not to outpoll the Loonys. Suggest 10-1
> > @williamglenn said:
>
> > https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1133755079448813568
>
>
>
>
>
> The domino effect that some leavers assured us would happen after Brexit has had exactly the opposite effect . What a surprise!
>
>
> Well, we haven't actually Brexitted yet
The domino effect was predicted to occur after we had voted to leave and instead support for the EU has increased elsewhere and I believe that AfD in Germany, 5 star in Italy and the Front National in France have dropped exiting the EU from their policies. Are you arguing that once we have actually left the domino effect will kick in? Care to name, say, the next couple of countries that will follow our lead?
> > @Quincel said:
> > > @franklyn said:
> > > Next Thursday there is a parliamentary by-election in Peterborough.
> > > Is anyone willing to have wager with me (for charity)? I would like to bet that the OMRL party candidate gets more votes than the Conservatives.
> > > State your suggested odds and if we agree, the loser pays the money to a charity of the winner's choice. My charity of choice is the Salvation Army.
> > > We would, of course, need to get Mr Smithson's approval that this is all above board.
> > > Any takers?
> >
> > I'll give you 2/1 up to £25 (i.e. to win £50 for your charity). My charity is the Against Malaria Foundation. Just to be clear, my understanding is that my charity wins if the Tories outpoll the OMRLP and your charity wins if the reverse happens.
>
> Those are not charitable odds; 2-1 for the party of government not to outpoll the Loonys. Suggest 10-1
I'd misunderstood how likely you thought this was, my mistake. No thanks, I think we're miles apart on what odds we're willing to agree.
> > @HYUFD said:
> >
> > Except in Italy as the Salvini surge confirms but to be fair Brexiteers like Hannan never said they wanted the EU to collapse, they just wanted to UK to join Switzerland and Norway etc outside it rather then become part of a Federal EU
> --------
>
> Hannan said he wanted other countries like Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands to leave and imagined that the UK would "lead a 22-state bloc" outside the EU.
>
> https://reaction.life/britain-looks-like-brexit/
Denmark might have been realistic along with Sweden in an enlarged EFTA much as it was in 1960, the Benelux nations along with France, Germany and Italy as founder members of the EEC and the Eurozone nations including Ireland were never likely to leave
No.
Easily provable...
> > @williamglenn said:
> > > @HYUFD said:
> > >
> > > Except in Italy as the Salvini surge confirms but to be fair Brexiteers like Hannan never said they wanted the EU to collapse, they just wanted to UK to join Switzerland and Norway etc outside it rather then become part of a Federal EU
> > --------
> >
> > Hannan said he wanted other countries like Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands to leave and imagined that the UK would "lead a 22-state bloc" outside the EU.
> >
> > https://reaction.life/britain-looks-like-brexit/
>
> Denmark might have been realistic along with Sweden in an enlarged EFTA much as it was in 1960, the Benelux nations along with France, Germany and Italy as founder members of the EEC and the Eurozone nations including Ireland were never likely to leave
-------
So the fact that Hannan thought they would leave and join a bloc led by the UK says what about his judgment?
> Nandy-Stewart Gov't of national unity ?
>
>
>
> https://twitter.com/lisanandy/status/1133768265241640961
>
>
>
> If he did become PM, he might be the only Tory PM who could command support across the HoC for a deal.
>
> Perhaps that's what he's going for?
>
> He will fall out very early in the MP voting rounds, though.
The Withdrawal Agreement is still likely to be the same even if Jesus Christ is the next PM
> > @Casino_Royale said:
>
> > Not a bad day for me on the Tory race. I managed to lay both Boris and Leadsom at near their low points (c.2.8 and c.6.6 respectively) so am now as nowhere near as underwater as I was on the overall market two days ago.
>
> >
>
> > The shortness of both still baffles me.
>
>
>
> Baffles me too, particularly Leadsome.
>
>
>
> I believe she has four endorsements so far, against twenty plus for the leading contenders. I know they don't mean everything but what does she offer apart from the same kind of Brexit deliverable by others but with less charm.
>
>
>
> What am I missing?
>
> The case for backing Leadsom is:
> 1) she might be the last Brexiteer standing if the others form a circular firing squad; this is what happened last time and it could happen again
> 2) she has a better record in office than Boris or Raab
> 3) she is not as divisive as Gove
> 4) she has (iirc) previous experience of TV debates
> 5) buyers regret from last time when MPs preferred May
> 6) she might be seen as more trustworthy than Boris (thanks to the court case) and Gove (who stabbed Boris in the back)
>
> Should she be favourite? No. Is she well placed to pick up votes once the eliminations start? Probably.
>
> Is she value? I shan't be backing her at current prices but she was 25/1 at the weekend.
>
> It's mainly (5) - three of the top four contenders on Betfair fought the contest last time. The other, Raab, has long been trailed as the new alternate Boris.
>
> Punters are struggling to weigh up Javid, Hancock, McVey and Hunt - Hunt a bit too long, Javid about right, Hancock a tad long and McVey way too long - are curious about Rory Stewart, who is a bit short, and haven't a clue about the others.
So nothing has actually happened to cause Leadsome to be punted then? In that case, I'd say she's way too short.
Agree Hunt is too long. He has most endorsements right now. Others seem about right to me.
Stewart is intriguing. He has just three endorsements, but appears to be 'having a good war' so far.
> > @Scott_P said:
> > Suggested elsewhere, it should not be illegal to lie in a campaign, but it should bar you from holding public office again...
>
> We'd have very few people left in public life. Everyone simplifies, exaggerates, distorts, spins, to get their case across. And, that has always been the case, ever since politics was invented.
Just like footallers complaining about a ref who gives out too many yellow cards. You only need four or five who get banned from holding public office before all of the others realise and start taking an interest in making statements that they can back up.
But anyway the 350m was not spin or distortion, it was a blatant lie which was repeated after it was shown to be a lie.
> > @MarkHopkins said:
> > > @williamglenn said:
> >
> > > https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1133755079448813568
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The domino effect that some leavers assured us would happen after Brexit has had exactly the opposite effect . What a surprise!
> >
> >
> > Well, we haven't actually Brexitted yet
>
> The domino effect was predicted to occur after we had voted to leave and instead support for the EU has increased elsewhere and I believe that AfD in Germany, 5 star in Italy and the Front National in France have dropped exiting the EU from their policies. Are you arguing that once we have actually left the domino effect will kick in? Care to name, say, the next couple of countries that will follow our lead?
Tusk nailed it again when he said the Brexit experience had been noted by other EU countries, and reduced the propensity to leave, pretty much across the board.
> > @Gallowgate said:
> > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1133813183234400256
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> So far Rory Stewart is the only person standing that could persuade me to vote Conservative again. He comes across as thoughtful, intelligent and as if he is actually thinking about what he says before saying it.
Tory party members aren't likely to be impressed by that kind of thing.
I'm half expecting the contenders to start challenging one another to bite their fingers off to prove they have the guts to take us out of the EU without a deal.
*Deactivates it*
> @RobD said:
> Interesting that this supposed lie actually appears in the ONS’ own accounts of payments made to the EU.
*Reactivates it*
Let me know if you need to rely on official figures again - better safe than sorry
> https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1133831177423511553
Eh? Politician blasts 'political stunt'! Do me a favor!
OK, not an outright provable falsehood at the time he said it.
But it's a good job there isn't an offence under the Predicting Utter and Total Bollocks whilst in Public Office Act.
> > @Mauve said:
> > > @Gallowgate said:
> > > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1133813183234400256
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > So far Rory Stewart is the only person standing that could persuade me to vote Conservative again. He comes across as thoughtful, intelligent and as if he is actually thinking about what he says before saying it.
>
> Tory party members aren't likely to be impressed by that kind of thing.
>
> I'm half expecting the contenders to start challenging one another to bite their fingers off to prove they have the guts to take us out of the EU without a deal.
>
The winner will be top-Bezerker..... The One They Keep On The Boat until......
> > @OllyT said:
> > > @MarkHopkins said:
> > > > @williamglenn said:
> > >
> > > > https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1133755079448813568
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The domino effect that some leavers assured us would happen after Brexit has had exactly the opposite effect . What a surprise!
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, we haven't actually Brexitted yet
> >
> > The domino effect was predicted to occur after we had voted to leave and instead support for the EU has increased elsewhere and I believe that AfD in Germany, 5 star in Italy and the Front National in France have dropped exiting the EU from their policies. Are you arguing that once we have actually left the domino effect will kick in? Care to name, say, the next couple of countries that will follow our lead?
>
> Tusk nailed it again when he said the Brexit experience had been noted by other EU countries, and reduced the propensity to leave, pretty much across the board.
Salvini is trying to form an anti EU alliance and will likely be the next Italian PM on Sunday's results, Le Pen topped the poll in France so while nationalists are not a majority in the EU they are still a significant force.
The UK of course was never one of the original EEC members and never joined the Euro, we should have stayed in EFTA where we belonged
> If Boris is going to be forced to prove that £350 mill+ a week is being sent to the EU, I believe with every fibre of my being, he'll be able to. That makes this court case a terrible move for continuity remain.
------
He'd need to prove it was try in April-June 2016.
> > @Peter_the_Punter said:
> > > @OllyT said:
> > > > @MarkHopkins said:
> > > > > @williamglenn said:
> > > >
> > > > > https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1133755079448813568
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The domino effect that some leavers assured us would happen after Brexit has had exactly the opposite effect . What a surprise!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, we haven't actually Brexitted yet
> > >
> > > The domino effect was predicted to occur after we had voted to leave and instead support for the EU has increased elsewhere and I believe that AfD in Germany, 5 star in Italy and the Front National in France have dropped exiting the EU from their policies. Are you arguing that once we have actually left the domino effect will kick in? Care to name, say, the next couple of countries that will follow our lead?
> >
> > Tusk nailed it again when he said the Brexit experience had been noted by other EU countries, and reduced the propensity to leave, pretty much across the board.
>
> Salvini is trying to form an anti EU alliance and will likely be the next Italian PM on Sunday's results, Le Pen topped the poll in France so while nationalists are not a majority in the EU they are still a significant force
Yes, but the idea of Frexit or Italexit or pretty much any kind of Exit seems to be on the back burner for the time being, no?
Its significance is the timing in the middle of the leadership constest, it is at the very least a distraction, possibly a tipping point against his chances.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36515680
Anyway, the new Tory leader is irrelevant.
The Brexit Party won the Euros, so they're the only party with the mandate to negotiate with the EU about Brexit.
...
>
> Did Tusk "lie" when he said this?:
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36515680
---------
Quote: "As a historian I fear Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction of not only the EU but also Western political civilisation in its entirety"
Unless you believe he had no such fear then it can't be a lie.
> > @OllyT said:
>
> > > @MarkHopkins said:
>
> > > > @williamglenn said:
>
> > >
>
> > > > https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1133755079448813568
>
>
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > The domino effect that some leavers assured us would happen after Brexit has had exactly the opposite effect . What a surprise!
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Well, we haven't actually Brexitted yet
>
> >
>
> > The domino effect was predicted to occur after we had voted to leave and instead support for the EU has increased elsewhere and I believe that AfD in Germany, 5 star in Italy and the Front National in France have dropped exiting the EU from their policies. Are you arguing that once we have actually left the domino effect will kick in? Care to name, say, the next couple of countries that will follow our lead?
>
>
>
> Tusk nailed it again when he said the Brexit experience had been noted by other EU countries, and reduced the propensity to leave, pretty much across the board.
>
> Did Tusk "lie" when he said this?:
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36515680
Too early to tell!
> > @Casino_Royale said:
>
> > > @Casino_Royale said:
>
> >
>
> > > > @Casino_Royale said:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Good to see that Leavers are huffing and puffing to be allowed to lie without consequence. I’m not sure that’s going to be very saleable to the general public.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > If I’m honest, Alastair, I’m very surprised to see you taking the position you have on this; I can only assume out of anger over the original Leave campaign itself.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > There are ultra hard Remainers - like Jo Maugham QC - who have added their voices to concerns over this today, and underlined that political sanctions should be the punishment and not the criminal law.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > I’d have thought, as someone with a firm legal background and strong morals, that you’d be the same.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Strong morals require that lying for profit has consequences. All I see is Leavers saying that lying for profit for a cause they approve of should be given a free pass.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I don’t think anyone is saying that.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The political consequences are real and clear.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > He’s favourite to be next Prime Minister.
>
> >
>
> > The markets are overrating his chances.
>
>
>
> I was making the point that the political consequences are far from real and clear. The lying has been so far consequence-free.
>
> He’s gone from being a unifying figure to a divisive figure, split his siblings, fractured his own family, and lost respect of many of his colleagues.
>
> I’d say the consequences have been clear.
If he becomes Prime Minister he’ll cry all the way to the bank.