I have heard if really really concentrate on ignoring non YouGov polls you get suddenly transported to a magical place where other polling companies don't exist....
With a clearout of these Cabinet ministers following May's exit the EU will be looking at a very different British government. At that point a big block of Eurofudge may be tastier than going to the wire and seeing if Britain really is serious or not.
During the Greek debt crisis, the Greeks held a referendum. The papers were full of florid dialogue. They agreed that Tsipras should go to the EU and asked for better terms. He did so. The EU ignored him, and, quietly and without any fuss, dismembered him.
Except Tsipras was only leading the 50th largest economy in the world, Boris will be leading the 5th largest economy in the world and the EU's biggest export destination
We are the destination of roughly 16% of EU exports. That’s the largest single destination sure, just above the US at 15%. However the EU is 44% of our export market. So it is true that no deal would harm the EU. But it would devastate us and they k ow we know it.
Absolute numbers are what matter, not the sophistry of comparing percentages calculated on different bases.
Numbers, percentages, thresholds: you need all three. See previous rants.
I have heard if really really concentrate on ignoring non YouGov polls you get suddenly transported to a magical place where other polling companies don't exist....
No guarantee YouGov is wrong.
There isn't. I don't claim YouGov intentionally gives Labour figures or that they should be ignored. My only point is that all the other polling companies shouldn't be ignored either. Which seems fair IMO.
I think they will go to the wire and slightly beyond on the grounds that they could live with the risk of a few weeks of disruption to their export markets in order to test the UK to the limit. (How the Irish Government treats their border would be particularly interesting during that time.) After that I think they will be prepared to negotiate further.
The Leave camp have I think made a tactical error by failing to challenge the Remainer concept of "No Deal" as being a permanent state we are stuck with after 31st October. It is not - a subsequent treaty covering trade et al could be agreed at any point.
I agree with that and I have made the point very often (as have other leavers).
The EU are bluffing over the backstop. The very purpose of the backstop is to prevent a potential future no deal, so why on earth cause a no deal over it? It is illogical.
If we call the EU's bluff then the EU faces two unpalatable choices. Erect a hard border and the Irish will be fuming and want it removed. Don't erect a hard border and their single market has a big hole in its border that will need dealing with to maintain its integrity. The UK will face one choice: meander through dealing with whatever issues crop up, or fold and go back on bended knees desperate for a deal (like Tsipiras).
Time is on the UK's side, not the EU's. Since the biggest risks to the UK are immediate and transitionary, the longer the UK is out of the EU without a deal the more dealt with and distant the problems become. We'll still want a deal, as we do now, but we won't be desperate.
The danger for the UK is that Johnson et al might believe this. It's a huge risk because the argument sounds plausible as long as you don't listen to what the other side are saying and don't see things from their point of view. But it is a dangerously wrong take.
I think they will go to the wire and slightly beyond on the grounds that they could live with the risk of a few weeks of disruption to their export markets in order to test the UK to the limit. (How the Irish Government treats their border would be particularly interesting during that time.) After that I think they will be prepared to negotiate further.
The Leave camp have I think made a tactical error by failing to challenge the Remainer concept of "No Deal" as being a permanent state we are stuck with after 31st October. It is not - a subsequent treaty covering trade et al could be agreed at any point.
I agree with that and I have made the point very often (as have other leavers).
The EU are bluffing over the backstop. The very purpose of the backstop is to prevent a potential future no deal, so why on earth cause a no deal over it? It is illogical.
If we call the EU's bluff then the EU faces two unpalatable choices. Erect a hard border and the Irish will be fuming and want it removed. Don't erect a hard border and their single market has a big hole in its border that will need dealing with to maintain its integrity. The UK will face one choice: meander through dealing with whatever issues crop up, or fold and go back on bended knees desperate for a deal (like Tsipiras).
Time is on the UK's side, not the EU's. Since the biggest risks to the UK are immediate and transitionary, the longer the UK is out of the EU without a deal the more dealt with and distant the problems become. We'll still want a deal, as we do now, but we won't be desperate.
The danger for the UK is that Johnson et al might believe this. It's a huge risk because the argument sounds plausible as long as you don't listen to what the other side are saying and don't see things from their point of view. But it is a dangerously wrong take.
I should add that the Irish backstop gets the attention because that was one of the few things negotiated up front with "May's Deal". There's a bunch of other contentious stuff coming up: the GB border, CAP, fishing rights, immigration policy, ongoing payments, VAT, the UK's participation in the EU:s third party arrangements. The backstop won't be the only blocker.
Comments
Just as well, scanning some of the nonsense below.