Apols if already done but I am interested in what people think the 2 magic numbers are for Johnson in the 1st ballot - i.e. the one that if he exceeds it means he is virtually home and hosed, and the one that if he falls below it means he might be in serious danger.
I am thinking 120 and 80?
Agree, but with this silly voting system you can get 120 in the first round and not be certain of going through if your supporters get bored and start voting for other candidates in later rounds.
Has there ever been a thread header on here that gives a positive or balanced view of leaving the EU? I don’t think I have read one that pays any attention to the people who voted for it and the reasons why it might be a good thing for them if it happened.
Why don't you write one yourself instead of whinging
I’ve answered that question several times on this thread, but is it really whingeing to point out the imbalance?
I merely enquired if there had been any, and now @TheScreamingEagles has confirmed: Two in the last 1500 days/4500 threads or so, and none for three years, (written by a leaver that is pro mass immigration, so not entirely representative of leave voters I’d say)
I agree; it's an interesting question. There is no real impediment to anyone presenting a reasoned and coherent case, so why are such headers so rare ?
Because Brexit means Brexit is both a rather short header and neither reasoned nor coherent...
It would actually be fun trying to right a coherent rational for a No Deal Brexit - I'm curious to see how far I would actually get which I suspect wouldn't be that far. I also suspect any Brexiters would really dislike it.
One before and one immediately after the 2016 referendum. Anything since then?
Seriously unless you are suggesting that pro-Brexit headers are being submitted and rejected or censored we must assume that they are not appearing because nobody is writing them.
Seems like the usual case of leavers blaming everyone else but themselves for the problem. Perhaps some of you should get off your backsides and submit a piece
I have submitted two or three which have been knocked back or ignored, so your assumption is incorrect.
Anyway, I am prepared to accept the site bias, I like commenting below the line, but thought it worth pointing out
Haven't you had threaders published in the past?
I'll give two answers to your question: 1) Leavers are far too busy and influential to bother writing informed headers for free. 2) Leavers understand that their project is an almighty mess, and it is difficult to write anything positive about it. It's easier to let someone else do it, and then they can be blamed.
Choose whichever you prefer
In 2011 about Ed Miliband... that redresses the balance, I take it all back.. good point!
I happen to agree with him that it's pretty off-colour.
But from Nigel "pick up a rifle and head for the front lines" Farage, it loses its sting a little.
It was wholly unacceptable and she should face consequences
It depends what the consequences are.
If scorn is poured on her from opponents then I'm with you. If you can't take it then don't dish it out.
However if you're implying some form of formal sanction, investigation or legal action then I say no. If a citizen can't ridicule and imply comedic violence against our all too powerful politicians then we begin the slide toward a situation that should not be contemplated
I recall Kenny Everett bringing the house down when he told the Conservative conference to kick away Michael Foot's walking stick and nuke Moscow.
Be careful what you wish for.
Inciting someone to use acid to attack someone else, comedy or otherwise, is a very serious matter and at the very least the BBC should suspend her
It’s just the usual double standards and hypocrisy. If it had been said by a male right leaning Brexit supporting comedian - do the BBC employ anyone that meets that criteria? - the same people defending her would have been calling for her sacking and prosecution. The fact she did it on air on a BBC show and it was broadcast is even worse - rather than say using her personal twitter account.
As the hundreds who have been acid attacked in London in recent years remind us its no laughing matter. You never recover from it.
If the Tories do not commit to deliver Brexit they will be overtaken by the Brexit Party as the main party of the right it is as simple as that. No Deal Brexit would create difficulties and is certainly not as ideal a scenario as Brexit with a Deal but it would not produce the existential crisis for the Tories of failing to deliver Brexit at all
Probably we will leave on something like Theresa May's terms but tweaked so everyone can save face. A far longer transition period before the dreaded backstop, perhaps to allow technological solutions, and removal of May's red lines round FOM. It gives all three sides cover.
I suspect the Withdrawal Agreement tweaked may still be the final destination
Likewise. But with a Paddington Hard Stare from Boris, directed at Brussels. If he thinks for one minute the EU is acting in bad faith, he will pull the whole thing. "Abrogation" will be the big stick Boris will threaten to wield, a weapon unknown in May's armoury.
Having planned for it in the meantime.
I fear you're putting a little too much faith in Boris's skill and planning. In what do you base this faith ?
Not down to "skill and planning" so much as there's not much else to do with the hand he will inherit.
One before and one immediately after the 2016 referendum. Anything since then?
Seriously unless you are suggesting that pro-Brexit headers are being submitted and rejected or censored we must assume that they are not appearing because nobody is writing them.
Seems like the usual case of leavers blaming everyone else but themselves for the problem. Perhaps some of you should get off your backsides and submit a piece
I have submitted two or three which have been knocked back or ignored, so your assumption is incorrect.
Anyway, I am prepared to accept the site bias, I like commenting below the line, but thought it worth pointing out
Haven't you had threaders published in the past?
I'll give two answers to your question: 1) Leavers are far too busy and influential to bother writing informed headers for free. 2) Leavers understand that their project is an almighty mess, and it is difficult to write anything positive about it. It's easier to let someone else do it, and then they can be blamed.
Choose whichever you prefer
Tariffs is a great example of this. Game theory says you need to maximise them to ensure you have something to negotiate with however we would need to keep them at zero to ensure we could still get the essentials from the EU that we would need due to our economy being built around 20+ years of free trade within the EU.
Because I do not like the European project. I do not like more and more of our decisions being taken in an undemocratic structure by people we have no right to remove. I want my politicians to be accountable, to decide how we spend our own money, what our own priorities are. I do not approve of the gradual downgrading of the nation state. I see that as the objective of the project and the Euro as the main means of achieving this. Once national politicians are accountable for how much money is spent and what it is spent on they really are local government. I see the EZ being increasingly dominant inside the EU and pressure to join it over time. I think policy will evolve to favour the EZ bloc with its QMV to our detriment. I get it that some like our own Mr Glenn see these as a desirable end state, I don't.
None of this means that I want any unnecessary disruption in trade with the EU. I also accept that if you are going to have free unregulated trade you need common standards and regulatory equivalence at least in internationally traded goods. I accept that complete independence is a ridiculous fantasy. Cooperation on a bilateral state basis is a good thing not a trap. My objective is a UK that has a close relationship with the EU, works together on common problems but is that bit apart and has the freedom to choose its own path, recognising that such choices are not free and have consequences.
For me May's deal was and is a possible solution to this. Other solutions may exist but that is the one we have and time is pressing. A trade agreement built on the bones of that WA is likely to meet my objectives, modest as they are. As I have said on here before our relationship with the EU will always continue to evolve as it has throughout our membership. None of these choices are forever, not even leaving if the British people chose to go back in years to come. But right now we chose to leave and our political class should honour that choice.
Spot on and well written
A very good post. But most of this could have been got with Cameron’s deal. And if this is what had been pursued after the referendum we might not be where we are now. But it wasn’t. And perhaps there never was any realistic chance that it would be. So that is why, despite sharing many of @DavidL’s concerns, I prefer to remain.
Has there ever been a thread header on here that gives a positive or balanced view of leaving the EU? I don’t think I have read one that pays any attention to the people who voted for it and the reasons why it might be a good thing for them if it happened.
Why don't you write one yourself instead of whinging
I’ve answered that question several times on this thread, but is it really whingeing to point out the imbalance?
I merely enquired if there had been any, and now @TheScreamingEagles has confirmed: Two in the last 1500 days/4500 threads or so, and none for three years, (written by a leaver that is pro mass immigration, so not entirely representative of leave voters I’d say)
I agree; it's an interesting question. There is no real impediment to anyone presenting a reasoned and coherent case, so why are such headers so rare ?
Because Brexit means Brexit is both a rather short header and neither reasoned nor coherent...
It would actually be fun trying to right a coherent rational for a No Deal Brexit - I'm curious to see how far I would actually get which I suspect wouldn't be that far. I also suspect any Brexiters would really dislike it.
I'll admit snark is tempting, but I'm genuinely interested. Apart from apparently isam, and Alanbrooke, has anyone else made the effort ?
One before and one immediately after the 2016 referendum. Anything since then?
Seriously unless you are suggesting that pro-Brexit headers are being submitted and rejected or censored we must assume that they are not appearing because nobody is writing them.
Seems like the usual case of leavers blaming everyone else but themselves for the problem. Perhaps some of you should get off your backsides and submit a piece
I have submitted two or three which have been knocked back or ignored, so your assumption is incorrect.
Anyway, I am prepared to accept the site bias, I like commenting below the line, but thought it worth pointing out
Haven't you had threaders published in the past?
I'll give two answers to your question: 1) Leavers are far too busy and influential to bother writing informed headers for free. 2) Leavers understand that their project is an almighty mess, and it is difficult to write anything positive about it. It's easier to let someone else do it, and then they can be blamed.
Choose whichever you prefer
In 2011 about Ed Miliband... that redresses the balance, I take it all back.. good point!
Really? I thought you'd had one or two since since then. Or perhaps I'm misremembering links to your blog.
"Sajid Javid signs US extradition request for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange - where he faces up to 175 years in prison for 'leaking military secrets'"
Great piece Cyclefree. You are absolutely right that No Deal offers pitfalls in the medium term. Which is why Boris will go to the country in October, kill off the Brexit threat, kill off the Corbyn threat and buy himself 5 years to sort the No Deal mess.
Someone’s still piling cash on her. Really hope there isn’t a secret plan somewhere, because that someone must be close to six figures in the hole by now.
Has there ever been a thread header on here that gives a positive or balanced view of leaving the EU? I don’t think I have read one that pays any attention to the people who voted for it and the reasons why it might be a good thing for them if it happened.
Why don't you write one yourself instead of whinging
I’ve answered that question several times on this thread, but is it really whingeing to point out the imbalance?
I merely enquired if there had been any, and now @TheScreamingEagles has confirmed: Two in the last 1500 days/4500 threads or so, and none for three years, (written by a leaver that is pro mass immigration, so not entirely representative of leave voters I’d say)
I agree; it's an interesting question. There is no real impediment to anyone presenting a reasoned and coherent case, so why are such headers so rare ?
Because Brexit means Brexit is both a rather short header and neither reasoned nor coherent...
It would actually be fun trying to right a coherent rational for a No Deal Brexit - I'm curious to see how far I would actually get which I suspect wouldn't be that far. I also suspect any Brexiters would really dislike it.
I'll admit snark is tempting, but I'm genuinely interested. Apart from apparently isam, and Alanbrooke, has anyone else made the effort ?
Leaving aside people’s particular views on the EU question, writing articles is definitely more difficult than it appears, so well done to those who do.
I attempted one on aviation and Brexit (because most political journalists were getting it completely wrong) but it quickly descended into an alphabet soup of acronyms and inside terminology, yet still ran to well over 1,000 words!
By the way, there’s now agreement between U.K. and EU that, even in the event of a crash-out no-deal, there would still be a transition period for aviation that would prevent planes and pilots from being grounded.
Former Prime Minister Sir John Major has hit out at Tory leadership candidates suggesting they could suspend - or prorogue - Parliament in order to get through a no-deal Brexit.
Both Dominic Raab and Esther McVey have not ruled out the prospect.
But Sir John said to even suggest it was "dangerous territory" and that he could not imagine previous prime ministers "putting Parliament aside" to get through a "difficult policy".
He told the Chatham House London conference: "It is fundamentally unconstitutional, and to hear that argument come from people who in the Brexit debate talked of the sovereignty of Parliament being at stake, it is not only fundamentally distasteful, it is hypocrisy on a gold-plated standard."
Sir John said he did not think the House of Commons "will allow it to stand".
He adds: "To be absolutely frank, I don't think anyone who proposes [it] or even lets it flit through their mind for a second has any understanding of what Parliament is about, what sovereignty is about, what leadership is about or what the United Kingdom is about.
"And the sooner the House of Commons stamp on this idea, absolutely comprehensively and forever, the better."
Agree, but with this silly voting system you can get 120 in the first round and not be certain of going through if your supporters get bored and start voting for other candidates in later rounds.
OK thanks - let's go with 80 and 120 then.
Unfortunately (from my point of view) I sense that there is more chance of him beating 120 than there is of him failing to get 80.
It's getting a coronation feel about it to me.
I make a tidy sum but I would gladly give away thrice that tidy sum if it bought me a world where Boris Johnson would never be our PM.
"Sajid Javid signs US extradition request for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange - where he faces up to 175 years in prison for 'leaking military secrets'"
Has there ever been a thread header on here that gives a positive or balanced view of leaving the EU? I don’t think I have read one that pays any attention to the people who voted for it and the reasons why it might be a good thing for them if it happened.
Why don't you write one yourself instead of whinging
I’ve answered that question several times on this thread, but is it really whingeing to point out the imbalance?
I merely enquired if there had been any, and now @TheScreamingEagles has confirmed: Two in the last 1500 days/4500 threads or so, and none for three years, (written by a leaver that is pro mass immigration, so not entirely representative of leave voters I’d say)
I agree; it's an interesting question. There is no real impediment to anyone presenting a reasoned and coherent case, so why are such headers so rare ?
Because Brexit means Brexit is both a rather short header and neither reasoned nor coherent...
It would actually be fun trying to right a coherent rational for a No Deal Brexit - I'm curious to see how far I would actually get which I suspect wouldn't be that far. I also suspect any Brexiters would really dislike it.
I'll admit snark is tempting, but I'm genuinely interested. Apart from apparently isam, and Alanbrooke, has anyone else made the effort ?
Leaving aside people’s particular views on the EU question, writing articles is definitely more difficult than it appears, so well done to those who do.
I attempted one on aviation and Brexit (because most political journalists were getting it completely wrong) but it quickly descended into an alphabet soup of acronyms and inside terminology, yet still ran to well over 1,000 words!
Fair point. As an exercise I scrolled back through the last three months of headers, and the bulk are by our eminent host, TSE, Alastair Meeks, Cyclefree and David Herdson, with some by Harry Hayfield and Sunil.
The regulars are regular, because they both willing to contribute and rather good at doing so.
Agree, but with this silly voting system you can get 120 in the first round and not be certain of going through if your supporters get bored and start voting for other candidates in later rounds.
OK thanks - let's go with 80 and 120 then.
Unfortunately (from my point of view) I sense that there is more chance of him beating 120 than there is of him failing to get 80.
It's getting a coronation feel about it to me.
I make a tidy sum but I would gladly give away thrice that tidy sum if it bought me a world where Boris Johnson would never be our PM.
My guess is Boris will get between 85 and 105. I don't see him going as high as 120 in the first round.
With regards to not paying the money owed to the EU and just walking away. Dunno about you lot but as a contract negotiator I always give better deals to untrustworthy people who default on their obligations
Agree, but with this silly voting system you can get 120 in the first round and not be certain of going through if your supporters get bored and start voting for other candidates in later rounds.
OK thanks - let's go with 80 and 120 then.
Unfortunately (from my point of view) I sense that there is more chance of him beating 120 than there is of him failing to get 80.
It's getting a coronation feel about it to me.
I make a tidy sum but I would gladly give away thrice that tidy sum if it bought me a world where Boris Johnson would never be our PM.
As I am still a member of the Party Formally Recognised as the Conservative Party, I am almost tempted to vote for Boris so that he can be seen for the complete fuckwit that he is and have to soak up the opprobrium that he deserves. Unless there is a miracle and Rory Stewart wins (unlikely), the fantasists that tempted gullible people to vote for Brexit will continue to ensure our county's decline whoever gets in. It might as well be Johnson so he can end up with the title of shittest PM of all time.
With regards to not paying the money owed to the EU and just walking away. Dunno about you lot but as a contract negotiator I always give better deals to untrustworthy people who default on their obligations
You are more generous than me, I have a blanket policy that I won't work with them ever again..
Former Prime Minister Sir John Major has hit out at Tory leadership candidates suggesting they could suspend - or prorogue - Parliament in order to get through a no-deal Brexit.
Both Dominic Raab and Esther McVey have not ruled out the prospect.
But Sir John said to even suggest it was "dangerous territory" and that he could not imagine previous prime ministers "putting Parliament aside" to get through a "difficult policy".
He told the Chatham House London conference: "It is fundamentally unconstitutional, and to hear that argument come from people who in the Brexit debate talked of the sovereignty of Parliament being at stake, it is not only fundamentally distasteful, it is hypocrisy on a gold-plated standard."
Sir John said he did not think the House of Commons "will allow it to stand".
He adds: "To be absolutely frank, I don't think anyone who proposes [it] or even lets it flit through their mind for a second has any understanding of what Parliament is about, what sovereignty is about, what leadership is about or what the United Kingdom is about.
"And the sooner the House of Commons stamp on this idea, absolutely comprehensively and forever, the better."
Let's not forget Major's duplicity when portraying himself as the Eurosceptic candidate in order to win the leadership over Heseltine and Hurd in 1990.
Fair point. As an exercise I scrolled back through the last three months of headers, and the bulk are by our eminent host, TSE, Alastair Meeks, Cyclefree and David Herdson, with some by Harry Hayfield and Sunil.
The regulars are regular, because they both willing to contribute and rather good at doing so.
A while back I thought I'd write one about the EU's decision about Galileo, and how it was a poor move from them, and a poor indicator for how Brexit would go (and yes, I blamed the EU for a terrible decision).
To avoid confusing people, it turned into a technical primer / history lesson. I tried to trim it down to get to the nub of the point, but it proved too difficult. I'm just not skilled enough.
Writing threaders is immensely difficult, and I admire those who do it well (esp. Mr Meeks, who has quite a stellar throughput of high-quality threaders).
Beth Rigby suspects she'll go for Hunt or Stewart.
Surprised she’s voting, doesn’t the incumbent usually sit it out? (An observation not a critique)
I can see why Cameron - who resigned sat out the election. May did not resign and her vote is probably more against a few people than actually for anyone..
Let's not forget Major's duplicity when portraying himself as the Eurosceptic candidate in order to win the leadership over Heseltine and Hurd in 1990.
Duplicity? His opt-out from the single currency wasn't the action of a Europhile PM.
"Sajid Javid signs US extradition request for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange - where he faces up to 175 years in prison for 'leaking military secrets'"
With regards to not paying the money owed to the EU and just walking away. Dunno about you lot but as a contract negotiator I always give better deals to untrustworthy people who default on their obligations
You are more generous than me, I have a blanket policy that I won't work with them ever again..
You may have missed my dripping sarcasm. Or maybe not...!
Exactly the point though. No deal supporters imagine a world where we waltz away from our EU obligations owing cash and creating havoc, and then waltz up to the big trading nations who also trade with the EU and say "you can trust us. We know we just shafted your partner and we know we are now hugely smaller in size and less important. But you absolutely will give us a much better deal than the one we just defaulted on because we survived the blitz."
I don't know who scares me the most. The morons saying it? Or the millions of morons out there who believe it.
Great piece Cyclefree. You are absolutely right that No Deal offers pitfalls in the medium term. Which is why Boris will go to the country in October, kill off the Brexit threat, kill off the Corbyn threat and buy himself 5 years to sort the No Deal mess.
That is possible.
Also possible that such an election becomes a highly polarizing quasi Ref2 - Tories offering Hard Brexit vs Labour offering No Brexit via an actual Ref2 - and that Labour win.
Which is why I (just) think that he won't do it. He will backtrack on his 'promises' to the membership (they are offered only to secure the job) and when the crunch comes he will choose fudge and delay instead. Will try to finesse a rebranded May Deal - now the 'Johnson Deal' - through parliament in 2020.
With regards to not paying the money owed to the EU and just walking away. Dunno about you lot but as a contract negotiator I always give better deals to untrustworthy people who default on their obligations
Yea, you have to respect how tough they are. I mean, if I were selling my house, I would definitely favour a potential buyer whom I know defaulted on his last mortgage. I mean what a cool guy! You would just have to offer him a good deal
Has there ever been a thread header on here that gives a positive or balanced view of leaving the EU? I don’t think I have read one that pays any attention to the people who voted for it and the reasons why it might be a good thing for them if it happened.
Why don't you write one yourself instead of whinging
I’ve answered that question several times on this thread, but is it really whingeing to point out the imbalance?
I merely enquired if there had been any, and now @TheScreamingEagles has confirmed: Two in the last 1500 days/4500 threads or so, and none for three years, (written by a leaver that is pro mass immigration, so not entirely representative of leave voters I’d say)
I agree; it's an interesting question. There is no real impediment to anyone presenting a reasoned and coherent case, so why are such headers so rare ?
Because Brexit means Brexit is both a rather short header and neither reasoned nor coherent...
It would actually be fun trying to right a coherent rational for a No Deal Brexit - I'm curious to see how far I would actually get which I suspect wouldn't be that far. I also suspect any Brexiters would really dislike it.
I'll admit snark is tempting, but I'm genuinely interested. Apart from apparently isam, and Alanbrooke, has anyone else made the effort ?
Leaving aside people’s particular views on the EU question, writing articles is definitely more difficult than it appears, so well done to those who do.
I attempted one on aviation and Brexit (because most political journalists were getting it completely wrong) but it quickly descended into an alphabet soup of acronyms and inside terminology, yet still ran to well over 1,000 words!
Fair point. As an exercise I scrolled back through the last three months of headers, and the bulk are by our eminent host, TSE, Alastair Meeks, Cyclefree and David Herdson, with some by Harry Hayfield and Sunil.
The regulars are regular, because they both willing to contribute and rather good at doing so.
Former Prime Minister Sir John Major has hit out at Tory leadership candidates suggesting they could suspend - or prorogue - Parliament in order to get through a no-deal Brexit.
Both Dominic Raab and Esther McVey have not ruled out the prospect.
But Sir John said to even suggest it was "dangerous territory" and that he could not imagine previous prime ministers "putting Parliament aside" to get through a "difficult policy".
He told the Chatham House London conference: "It is fundamentally unconstitutional, and to hear that argument come from people who in the Brexit debate talked of the sovereignty of Parliament being at stake, it is not only fundamentally distasteful, it is hypocrisy on a gold-plated standard."
Sir John said he did not think the House of Commons "will allow it to stand".
He adds: "To be absolutely frank, I don't think anyone who proposes [it] or even lets it flit through their mind for a second has any understanding of what Parliament is about, what sovereignty is about, what leadership is about or what the United Kingdom is about.
"And the sooner the House of Commons stamp on this idea, absolutely comprehensively and forever, the better."
Let's not forget Major's duplicity when portraying himself as the Eurosceptic candidate in order to win the leadership over Heseltine and Hurd in 1990.
There is a considerable difference between Europhile (e.g. Clarke), Eurosceptic (Major, Cameron) and Europhobe (Davis, JRM, etc).
Has there ever been a thread header on here that gives a positive or balanced view of leaving the EU? I don’t think I have read one that pays any attention to the people who voted for it and the reasons why it might be a good thing for them if it happened.
Why don't you write one yourself instead of whinging
I’ve answered that question several times on this thread, but is it really whingeing to point out the imbalance?
I merely enquired if there had been any, and now @TheScreamingEagles has confirmed: Two in the last 1500 days/4500 threads or so, and none for three years, (written by a leaver that is pro mass immigration, so not entirely representative of leave voters I’d say)
I agree; it's an interesting question. There is no real impediment to anyone presenting a reasoned and coherent case, so why are such headers so rare ?
Because Brexit means Brexit is both a rather short header and neither reasoned nor coherent...
It would actually be fun trying to right a coherent rational for a No Deal Brexit - I'm curious to see how far I would actually get which I suspect wouldn't be that far. I also suspect any Brexiters would really dislike it.
I'll admit snark is tempting, but I'm genuinely interested. Apart from apparently isam, and Alanbrooke, has anyone else made the effort ?
Leaving aside people’s particular views on the EU question, writing articles is definitely more difficult than it appears, so well done to those who do.
I attempted one on aviation and Brexit (because most political journalists were getting it completely wrong) but it quickly descended into an alphabet soup of acronyms and inside terminology, yet still ran to well over 1,000 words!
Fair point. As an exercise I scrolled back through the last three months of headers, and the bulk are by our eminent host, TSE, Alastair Meeks, Cyclefree and David Herdson, with some by Harry Hayfield and Sunil.
The regulars are regular, because they both willing to contribute and rather good at doing so.
With regards to not paying the money owed to the EU and just walking away. Dunno about you lot but as a contract negotiator I always give better deals to untrustworthy people who default on their obligations
I'm happy with WTO but agree that if we have agreed to contribute to projects within the EU then we should pay our due, Unless the EU was to show serious bad faith then at that point we could withhold part/all. Haven't seen any bad faith yet - only EU looking after their own interests. Not their fault if they offer us terms and T May says we will give you a lot more than you are asking for.
Has there ever been a thread header on here that gives a positive or balanced view of leaving the EU? I don’t think I have read one that pays any attention to the people who voted for it and the reasons why it might be a good thing for them if it happened.
Why don't you write one yourself instead of whinging
I’ve answered that question several times on this thread, but is it really whingeing to point out the imbalance?
I merely enquired if there had been any, and now @TheScreamingEagles has confirmed: Two in the last 1500 days/4500 threads or so, and none for three years, (written by a leaver that is pro mass immigration, so not entirely representative of leave voters I’d say)
I agree; it's an interesting question. There is no real impediment to anyone presenting a reasoned and coherent case, so why are such headers so rare ?
Because Brexit means Brexit is both a rather short header and neither reasoned nor coherent...
It would actually be fun trying to right a coherent rational for a No Deal Brexit - I'm curious to see how far I would actually get which I suspect wouldn't be that far. I also suspect any Brexiters would really dislike it.
I'll admit snark is tempting, but I'm genuinely interested. Apart from apparently isam, and Alanbrooke, has anyone else made the effort ?
Leaving aside people’s particular views on the EU question, writing articles is definitely more difficult than it appears, so well done to those who do.
I attempted one on aviation and Brexit (because most political journalists were getting it completely wrong) but it quickly descended into an alphabet soup of acronyms and inside terminology, yet still ran to well over 1,000 words!
By the way, there’s now agreement between U.K. and EU that, even in the event of a crash-out no-deal, there would still be a transition period for aviation that would prevent planes and pilots from being grounded.
Was there a 1,000 word limit? I think it would be a good thing (this one is a bit over 1,500). The caption of a Matt cartoon is pretty much the limit on my attention span these days.
Former Prime Minister Sir John Major has hit out at Tory leadership candidates suggesting they could suspend - or prorogue - Parliament in order to get through a no-deal Brexit.
Both Dominic Raab and Esther McVey have not ruled out the prospect.
But Sir John said to even suggest it was "dangerous territory" and that he could not imagine previous prime ministers "putting Parliament aside" to get through a "difficult policy".
He told the Chatham House London conference: "It is fundamentally unconstitutional, and to hear that argument come from people who in the Brexit debate talked of the sovereignty of Parliament being at stake, it is not only fundamentally distasteful, it is hypocrisy on a gold-plated standard."
Sir John said he did not think the House of Commons "will allow it to stand".
He adds: "To be absolutely frank, I don't think anyone who proposes [it] or even lets it flit through their mind for a second has any understanding of what Parliament is about, what sovereignty is about, what leadership is about or what the United Kingdom is about.
"And the sooner the House of Commons stamp on this idea, absolutely comprehensively and forever, the better."
Let's not forget Major's duplicity when portraying himself as the Eurosceptic candidate in order to win the leadership over Heseltine and Hurd in 1990.
There is a considerable difference between Europhile (e.g. Clarke), Eurosceptic (Major, Cameron) and Europhobe (Davis, JRM, etc).
Well said. Don't forget though, that to any fanatic, if you do not share their simplistic view of the world you are kufir, and must be the enemy. No surrender!
He’s pig-ignorant then. In HK a couple of months ago, the SCMP, a nominally free(ish) newspaper had three pages of photographs of Xi visiting HK (I think) and being welcomed by one and all,
With regards to not paying the money owed to the EU and just walking away. Dunno about you lot but as a contract negotiator I always give better deals to untrustworthy people who default on their obligations
You are more generous than me, I have a blanket policy that I won't work with them ever again..
You may have missed my dripping sarcasm. Or maybe not...!
Exactly the point though. No deal supporters imagine a world where we waltz away from our EU obligations owing cash and creating havoc, and then waltz up to the big trading nations who also trade with the EU and say "you can trust us. We know we just shafted your partner and we know we are now hugely smaller in size and less important. But you absolutely will give us a much better deal than the one we just defaulted on because we survived the blitz."
I don't know who scares me the most. The morons saying it? Or the millions of morons out there who believe it.
The morons saying it for they should know better. The morons who believe it just want their lives to continue as before...
Equally I don't believe sarcasm works on morons you need to spell things out in small words, step by step by step...
He’s pig-ignorant then. In HK a couple of months ago, the SCMP, a nominally free(ish) newspaper had three pages of photographs of Xi visiting HK (I think) and being welcomed by one and all,
It would be interesting to see that SCMP piece. I wonder if the text was as gushingly sycophantic as Pearson's
How anyone can say Boris Johnson is a "One Nation" Conservative completely beats me. He is in favour of the maddest, most right wing policy (No Deal) ever inflicted on this country, certainly in the last 100 years. This policy will wreck communities just to appease the ignorant and the bigoted, and is likely to result in the break up of the Union. One Nation my backside!
Beyond issues of detail, the broad failing of the thread is that it assumes that the absence of any agreement on 1st November 2019, beyond the significant obligations of each party under WTO terms, would continue to 31st December 2019, into 2020 and beyond.
In practice it is almost inconceivable that the UK and EU will fail to reach some agreement of mutual benefit to both parties sometime after 1st November, once the question of the UK leaving has been settled and a default position which suits neither is in place. I think that would come about relatively quickly in practice. The main issue is how long the EU would wish to try and continue to punish the UK for its temerity at the expense of its states trading interests and the hole left in its own finances. There would in practice be enormous pressure from member states to try and reach a reasonable accommodation with the UK, once the hardline strategy designed to dissuade the UK from leaving were seen to have irrevocably failed.
Beyond issues of detail, the broad failing of the thread is that it assumes that the absence of any agreement on 1st November 2019, beyond the significant obligations of each party under WTO terms, would continue to 31st December 2019, into 2020 and beyond.
In practice it is almost inconceivable that the UK and EU will fail to reach some agreement of mutual benefit to both parties sometime after 1st November, once the question of the UK leaving has been settled and a default position which suits neither is in place. I think that would come about relatively quickly in practice. The main issue is how long the EU would wish to try and continue to punish the UK for its temerity at the expense of its states trading interests and the hole left in its own finances. There would in practice be enormous pressure from member states to try and reach a reasonable accommodation with the UK, once the hardline strategy designed to dissuade the UK from leaving were seen to have irrevocably failed.
Has there ever been a thread header on here that gives a positive or balanced view of leaving the EU? I don’t think I have read one that pays any attention to the people who voted for it and the reasons why it might be a good thing for them if it happened.
Why don't you write one yourself instead of whinging
I’ve answered that question several times on this thread, but is it really whingeing to point out the imbalance?
I merely enquired if there had been any, and now @TheScreamingEagles has confirmed: Two in the last 1500 days/4500 threads or so, and none for three years, (written by a leaver that is pro mass immigration, so not entirely representative of leave voters I’d say)
I agree; it's an interesting question. There is no real impediment to anyone presenting a reasoned and coherent case, so why are such headers so rare ?
Because Brexit means Brexit is both a rather short header and neither reasoned nor coherent...
It would actually be fun trying to right a coherent rational for a No Deal Brexit - I'm curious to see how far I would actually get which I suspect wouldn't be that far. I also suspect any Brexiters would really dislike it.
I'll admit snark is tempting, but I'm genuinely interested. Apart from apparently isam, and Alanbrooke, has anyone else made the effort ?
Fair point. As an exercise I scrolled back through the last three months of headers, and the bulk are by our eminent host, TSE, Alastair Meeks, Cyclefree and David Herdson, with some by Harry Hayfield and Sunil.
The regulars are regular, because they both willing to contribute and rather good at doing so.
Thank you Nigel. I'm glad you didn't put the link to the one where I recommended backing Esther McVey
Well you did also predict, by implication, Rory Stewart's candidature.
I think Rory will do surprisingly well today and I treat his plea for votes in The Sun yesterday as a ploy to boost up numbers. I still think McVey will squeak through to the second round and might have a possible path further if Raab blows up and Leadsom gets knocked out, and she is left as the only possible pro-Brexit alternative to Boris.
He’s pig-ignorant then. In HK a couple of months ago, the SCMP, a nominally free(ish) newspaper had three pages of photographs of Xi visiting HK (I think) and being welcomed by one and all,
Only three ?
The Telegraph expect you to pay for it, too...
Telegraph front page “Boris the clear frontrunner..”
PREMIUM The Tories need a leader who can break the mould. Boris is their only choice NICK TIMOTHY
PREMIUM Tory MPs must not deny party members the chance to vote for Boris TELEGRAPH VIEW
PREMIUM Tories would be mad not to choose Boris for leader – no one else comes close ALLISON PEARSON
PREMIUM Boris and Sajid prove the power of embracing true conservatism ALLISTER HEATH
He’s pig-ignorant then. In HK a couple of months ago, the SCMP, a nominally free(ish) newspaper had three pages of photographs of Xi visiting HK (I think) and being welcomed by one and all,
Oh, that makes sycophancy to Boris OK then does it?
Leaving aside people’s particular views on the EU question, writing articles is definitely more difficult than it appears, so well done to those who do.
I attempted one on aviation and Brexit (because most political journalists were getting it completely wrong) but it quickly descended into an alphabet soup of acronyms and inside terminology, yet still ran to well over 1,000 words!
Fair point. As an exercise I scrolled back through the last three months of headers, and the bulk are by our eminent host, TSE, Alastair Meeks, Cyclefree and David Herdson, with some by Harry Hayfield and Sunil.
The regulars are regular, because they both willing to contribute and rather good at doing so.
Comments
It would actually be fun trying to right a coherent rational for a No Deal Brexit - I'm curious to see how far I would actually get which I suspect wouldn't be that far. I also suspect any Brexiters would really dislike it.
The Garden Bridge fiasco - and Boris's refusal to cooperate with the inquiry - is a perfect example of why he'll be a terrible PM IMO.
And yet, and yet... I quite like him. I just think he'll be a terrible PM.
Low was "the scum of the earth, I believe?" ...
As the hundreds who have been acid attacked in London in recent years remind us its no laughing matter. You never recover from it.
https://twitter.com/dominicraab/status/1139103539970678784?s=21
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.125574963
And then it repeats.
Is someone still feeding the badger?
I now think the Leadsom backer theory is correct.
Apart from apparently isam, and Alanbrooke, has anyone else made the effort ?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7136697/Sajid-Javid-signs-extradition-order-Julian-Assange.html
I attempted one on aviation and Brexit (because most political journalists were getting it completely wrong) but it quickly descended into an alphabet soup of acronyms and inside terminology, yet still ran to well over 1,000 words!
By the way, there’s now agreement between U.K. and EU that, even in the event of a crash-out no-deal, there would still be a transition period for aviation that would prevent planes and pilots from being grounded.
Former Prime Minister Sir John Major has hit out at Tory leadership candidates suggesting they could suspend - or prorogue - Parliament in order to get through a no-deal Brexit.
Both Dominic Raab and Esther McVey have not ruled out the prospect.
But Sir John said to even suggest it was "dangerous territory" and that he could not imagine previous prime ministers "putting Parliament aside" to get through a "difficult policy".
He told the Chatham House London conference: "It is fundamentally unconstitutional, and to hear that argument come from people who in the Brexit debate talked of the sovereignty of Parliament being at stake, it is not only fundamentally distasteful, it is hypocrisy on a gold-plated standard."
Sir John said he did not think the House of Commons "will allow it to stand".
He adds: "To be absolutely frank, I don't think anyone who proposes [it] or even lets it flit through their mind for a second has any understanding of what Parliament is about, what sovereignty is about, what leadership is about or what the United Kingdom is about.
"And the sooner the House of Commons stamp on this idea, absolutely comprehensively and forever, the better."
Unfortunately (from my point of view) I sense that there is more chance of him beating 120 than there is of him failing to get 80.
It's getting a coronation feel about it to me.
I make a tidy sum but I would gladly give away thrice that tidy sum if it bought me a world where Boris Johnson would never be our PM.
Beth Rigby suspects she'll go for Hunt or Stewart.
Only Roary and Leadsom look safe - could Boris loan Andrea a few to keep a woman in the race ?
As an exercise I scrolled back through the last three months of headers, and the bulk are by our eminent host, TSE, Alastair Meeks, Cyclefree and David Herdson, with some by Harry Hayfield and Sunil.
The regulars are regular, because they both willing to contribute and rather good at doing so.
This one was quite prescient...
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/04/01/con-leadership-betting-analysis-this-is-less-about-brexit-and-more-about-personal-characteristics/
Dave (pbuh) did sit it out.
Howard, Major, and Thatcher did vote (For Dave (pbuh), Ken Clarke, and John Major.)
An actual real sentence.
https://twitter.com/Jacqui_Smith1/status/1139105348470673408
To avoid confusing people, it turned into a technical primer / history lesson. I tried to trim it down to get to the nub of the point, but it proved too difficult. I'm just not skilled enough.
Writing threaders is immensely difficult, and I admire those who do it well (esp. Mr Meeks, who has quite a stellar throughput of high-quality threaders).
Seems to depend on the mood of the leader, no clear trend.
Well at least he found the room unaided .... probably.
I may spend the rest of today rendering my garments.
Exactly the point though. No deal supporters imagine a world where we waltz away from our EU obligations owing cash and creating havoc, and then waltz up to the big trading nations who also trade with the EU and say "you can trust us. We know we just shafted your partner and we know we are now hugely smaller in size and less important. But you absolutely will give us a much better deal than the one we just defaulted on because we survived the blitz."
I don't know who scares me the most. The morons saying it? Or the millions of morons out there who believe it.
Also possible that such an election becomes a highly polarizing quasi Ref2 - Tories offering Hard Brexit vs Labour offering No Brexit via an actual Ref2 - and that Labour win.
Which is why I (just) think that he won't do it. He will backtrack on his 'promises' to the membership (they are offered only to secure the job) and when the crunch comes he will choose fudge and delay instead. Will try to finesse a rebranded May Deal - now the 'Johnson Deal' - through parliament in 2020.
Haven't seen any bad faith yet - only EU looking after their own interests. Not their fault if they offer us terms and T May says we will give you a lot more than you are asking for.
Think she'd be a Hunt man (woman)
I'll get my cape ....
"After Boris's pitch perfect performance, the leadership contest is over."
Both headlines from the same paper, yesterday. Guess which.
Equally I don't believe sarcasm works on morons you need to spell things out in small words, step by step by step...
In practice it is almost inconceivable that the UK and EU will fail to reach some agreement of mutual benefit to both parties sometime after 1st November, once the question of the UK leaving has been settled and a default position which suits neither is in place. I think that would come about relatively quickly in practice. The main issue is how long the EU would wish to try and continue to punish the UK for its temerity at the expense of its states trading interests and the hole left in its own finances. There would in practice be enormous pressure from member states to try and reach a reasonable accommodation with the UK, once the hardline strategy designed to dissuade the UK from leaving were seen to have irrevocably failed.
So in this contest, there's a minimum threshold of votes, not just the last-placed candidate obliged to withdraw?
The Telegraph expect you to pay for it, too...
Telegraph front page
“Boris the clear frontrunner..”
PREMIUM
The Tories need a leader who can break the mould. Boris is their only choice
NICK TIMOTHY
PREMIUM
Tory MPs must not deny party members the chance to vote for Boris
TELEGRAPH VIEW
PREMIUM
Tories would be mad not to choose Boris for leader – no one else comes close
ALLISON PEARSON
PREMIUM
Boris and Sajid prove the power of embracing true conservatism
ALLISTER HEATH
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/03/10/sunils-by-election-analysis-which-partys-has-done-best-and-which-worst-in-current-parliament/
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/10/18/the-nearest-run-thing/
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/04/21/is-it-bye-bye-to-by-elections/
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/04/27/bye-bye-by-elections-part-2-mps-who-resigned-their-seats-and-stood-in-the-ensuing-by-election/
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/05/20/putting-thursday-into-context-a-look-back-at-previous-uk-euro-elections/