Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With Trump in trouble a look at the best betting markets

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With Trump in trouble a look at the best betting markets

While we have been mostly focused on the high octane politics currently in the UK there’ve been big developments in the US which raise questions over whether Donald Trump will win a second term in November 2020.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,551
    First like Con at the general election.
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,502
    Oooh. Second?
  • If you've not seen it do catch tonight's Brexit Party PPB. It clearly references a children's story telling show with Nigel Farage as the Narrator. It begins with the question " Why hasn't Brexit happened ? " then tells a story as it sees it.

    What's fascinating is the political premise used for the future. The election it is clearly aimed is one where Boris has a deal and we have quite possibly left the EU.

    Boris' deal is described as " The Surrender Treaty " and " Mrs May's deal in a blond wig ". It then simply reframes the classic Leave/Remain debate as The Surrender Treaty vs " a Clean Break ".

    In my mind itt's clearly aimed an election where the Brexit Party is standing in every seat where the incumbent hasn't promised to/didn't vote against The Surrender Treaty.

    That also chimes with both of Farage's narrative framing interventions in the last 48 hours.

    Other's will take a different view but I would encourage everyone to watch it.
  • Of course the Brexit Party are standing in every seat. And of course they will be attacking whatever shagger's deal is. Or even his no deal. No deal won't be no dealy enough. Will have failed to deliver the unicorn cake. Etc
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,948
    edited September 2019
    Anyhoo. Trailer of New Scorsese is out. Soundtrack check. Italian-American actors, check. Orrible Gang Murders, check. Brilliant cast, check. Yummy... :)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjrzu37-ljI
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,708

    If you've not seen it do catch tonight's Brexit Party PPB. It clearly references a children's story telling show with Nigel Farage as the Narrator. It begins with the question " Why hasn't Brexit happened ? " then tells a story as it sees it.

    What's fascinating is the political premise used for the future. The election it is clearly aimed is one where Boris has a deal and we have quite possibly left the EU.

    Boris' deal is described as " The Surrender Treaty " and " Mrs May's deal in a blond wig ". It then simply reframes the classic Leave/Remain debate as The Surrender Treaty vs " a Clean Break ".

    In my mind itt's clearly aimed an election where the Brexit Party is standing in every seat where the incumbent hasn't promised to/didn't vote against The Surrender Treaty.

    That also chimes with both of Farage's narrative framing interventions in the last 48 hours.

    Other's will take a different view but I would encourage everyone to watch it.

    Interesting thanks.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,890

    If you've not seen it do catch tonight's Brexit Party PPB. It clearly references a children's story telling show with Nigel Farage as the Narrator. It begins with the question " Why hasn't Brexit happened ? " then tells a story as it sees it.

    What's fascinating is the political premise used for the future. The election it is clearly aimed is one where Boris has a deal and we have quite possibly left the EU.

    Boris' deal is described as " The Surrender Treaty " and " Mrs May's deal in a blond wig ". It then simply reframes the classic Leave/Remain debate as The Surrender Treaty vs " a Clean Break ".

    In my mind itt's clearly aimed an election where the Brexit Party is standing in every seat where the incumbent hasn't promised to/didn't vote against The Surrender Treaty.

    That also chimes with both of Farage's narrative framing interventions in the last 48 hours.

    Other's will take a different view but I would encourage everyone to watch it.

    How could they campaign to leave with No Deal if we'd already left with a deal? Surely the scenario would have to be an extension?
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,230
    edited September 2019


    Other's will take a different view but I would encourage everyone to watch it.

    Interesting analysis of the PPB but as to watching it... I would rather die in a ditch.
  • PendduPenddu Posts: 265
    If Boris/Dom tries another legal trick to suspend or delay legislation I would expect SC to grant an immediate injunction to stop it. And to call them in to answer for Contempt of Court.
  • Oh and the Brexit Party PPB also uses the " No Vote, No Voice, No Veto " slogan against ' The Surrender Treaty '. Coined of course by Sam Gyimah when he resigned from Givernment to vote against May's deal from a europhile direction. He is of course now a Liberal Democrat MP. Funny old world.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    GIN1138 said:

    First like Con at the general election.



    Labour whilst screaming that the evil tories are starving and / or killing people are content to leave those evil people in power .... go figure.
  • nunuonenunuone Posts: 1,138
    Penddu said:

    If Boris/Dom tries another legal trick to suspend or delay legislation I would expect SC to grant an immediate injunction to stop it. And to call them in to answer for Contempt of Court.

    Basically what you are saying is the Supreme Court (a new Labour invention) is highly political.

    Time to start appointing the Supreme Court by the PM.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,708
    Chris said:

    If you've not seen it do catch tonight's Brexit Party PPB. It clearly references a children's story telling show with Nigel Farage as the Narrator. It begins with the question " Why hasn't Brexit happened ? " then tells a story as it sees it.

    What's fascinating is the political premise used for the future. The election it is clearly aimed is one where Boris has a deal and we have quite possibly left the EU.

    Boris' deal is described as " The Surrender Treaty " and " Mrs May's deal in a blond wig ". It then simply reframes the classic Leave/Remain debate as The Surrender Treaty vs " a Clean Break ".

    In my mind itt's clearly aimed an election where the Brexit Party is standing in every seat where the incumbent hasn't promised to/didn't vote against The Surrender Treaty.

    That also chimes with both of Farage's narrative framing interventions in the last 48 hours.

    Other's will take a different view but I would encourage everyone to watch it.

    How could they campaign to leave with No Deal if we'd already left with a deal? Surely the scenario would have to be an extension?
    He'll find something.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    The New York Times is going absolutely mental over the impeachment.

    They've just ran a piece of reactions to impeachment from "swing" voters where they fail to disclose things lile the swing voter has been to 23 Trump rallies, or the swing voter has voted straight Republican all their life etc.

    They have just now all but outed the whistle-blower.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,708
    nunuone said:

    Penddu said:

    If Boris/Dom tries another legal trick to suspend or delay legislation I would expect SC to grant an immediate injunction to stop it. And to call them in to answer for Contempt of Court.

    Basically what you are saying is the Supreme Court (a new Labour invention) is highly political.

    Time to start appointing the Supreme Court by the PM.
    Sounds good. All it needs is for parliament to pass a law to that effect.
  • nunuone said:

    Penddu said:

    If Boris/Dom tries another legal trick to suspend or delay legislation I would expect SC to grant an immediate injunction to stop it. And to call them in to answer for Contempt of Court.

    Basically what you are saying is the Supreme Court (a new Labour invention) is highly political.

    Time to start appointing the Supreme Court by the PM.
    Don't be stupid...its about the rule of law...we aren't a dictatorship yet.....
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    Chris said:

    If you've not seen it do catch tonight's Brexit Party PPB. It clearly references a children's story telling show with Nigel Farage as the Narrator. It begins with the question " Why hasn't Brexit happened ? " then tells a story as it sees it.

    What's fascinating is the political premise used for the future. The election it is clearly aimed is one where Boris has a deal and we have quite possibly left the EU.

    Boris' deal is described as " The Surrender Treaty " and " Mrs May's deal in a blond wig ". It then simply reframes the classic Leave/Remain debate as The Surrender Treaty vs " a Clean Break ".

    In my mind itt's clearly aimed an election where the Brexit Party is standing in every seat where the incumbent hasn't promised to/didn't vote against The Surrender Treaty.

    That also chimes with both of Farage's narrative framing interventions in the last 48 hours.

    Other's will take a different view but I would encourage everyone to watch it.

    How could they campaign to leave with No Deal if we'd already left with a deal? Surely the scenario would have to be an extension?
    I think one of the most compelling pieces of evidence that May's deal is in fact a very good deal is that Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Jeremy Corbyn are all so opposed to it.
  • nunuone said:

    Penddu said:

    If Boris/Dom tries another legal trick to suspend or delay legislation I would expect SC to grant an immediate injunction to stop it. And to call them in to answer for Contempt of Court.

    Basically what you are saying is the Supreme Court (a new Labour invention) is highly political.

    Time to start appointing the Supreme Court by the PM.
    Preventing the PM from ignoring the law is not a political act
  • PendduPenddu Posts: 265
    nunuone said:

    Penddu said:

    If Boris/Dom tries another legal trick to suspend or delay legislation I would expect SC to grant an immediate injunction to stop it. And to call them in to answer for Contempt of Court.

    Basically what you are saying is the Supreme Court (a new Labour invention) is highly political.

    Time to start appointing the Supreme Court by the PM.
    No - they are highly judicial.

    They would only become political if appointed by PM.
  • nunuone said:

    Penddu said:

    If Boris/Dom tries another legal trick to suspend or delay legislation I would expect SC to grant an immediate injunction to stop it. And to call them in to answer for Contempt of Court.

    Basically what you are saying is the Supreme Court (a new Labour invention) is highly political.

    Time to start appointing the Supreme Court by the PM.
    Really? You Leavers embarrass yourselves so much.

    The current Supremes are appointed on the recommendation of the PM.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903

    nunuone said:

    Penddu said:

    If Boris/Dom tries another legal trick to suspend or delay legislation I would expect SC to grant an immediate injunction to stop it. And to call them in to answer for Contempt of Court.

    Basically what you are saying is the Supreme Court (a new Labour invention) is highly political.

    Time to start appointing the Supreme Court by the PM.
    Really? You Leavers embarrass yourselves so much.

    The current Supremes are appointed on the recommendation of the PM.
    If only there was a Supreme Court in the EU.

    Then we could talk endlessly about Fudge Supreme.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Floater said:

    GIN1138 said:

    First like Con at the general election.



    Labour whilst screaming that the evil tories are starving and / or killing people are content to leave those evil people in power .... go figure.
    Ok, figured:
    An election hands more power to the PM during the election campaign, because there no MPs any more.
    Given the PM can't be trusted to uphold the law -- as the courts have found -- it would be irresponsible of them call an election until The Letter has been sent.

    That said, a legitimate way out would be to find a compromise candidate -- Ken Clarke would do -- to be interim PM. So that's VONC, advise HM that Clarke can win a confidence vote, Clarke sends the letter, amend FTPA to schedule a November election, Clarke retires to the Lords when a new government forms.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,988

    nunuone said:

    Penddu said:

    If Boris/Dom tries another legal trick to suspend or delay legislation I would expect SC to grant an immediate injunction to stop it. And to call them in to answer for Contempt of Court.

    Basically what you are saying is the Supreme Court (a new Labour invention) is highly political.

    Time to start appointing the Supreme Court by the PM.
    Really? You Leavers embarrass yourselves so much.

    The current Supremes are appointed on the recommendation of the PM.
    Isn’t the committee independent, and there’s no veto on their decision? I might be thinking of something else.

    In any case, political appointments would be the absolute worst.
  • nunuone said:

    Penddu said:

    If Boris/Dom tries another legal trick to suspend or delay legislation I would expect SC to grant an immediate injunction to stop it. And to call them in to answer for Contempt of Court.

    Basically what you are saying is the Supreme Court (a new Labour invention) is highly political.

    Time to start appointing the Supreme Court by the PM.
    Really? You Leavers embarrass yourselves so much.

    The current Supremes are appointed on the recommendation of the PM.
    Glad to see leavers now agreeing that we don't need to repatriate powers to make laws to British Parliamentarians and British courts because both have far too much power to make laws.

    Time for a fatherly dictatorship. And Boris and his Johnson have already fathered a lot. So he knows what he's doing when it comes down to "technology lessons"
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,502

    nunuone said:

    Penddu said:

    If Boris/Dom tries another legal trick to suspend or delay legislation I would expect SC to grant an immediate injunction to stop it. And to call them in to answer for Contempt of Court.

    Basically what you are saying is the Supreme Court (a new Labour invention) is highly political.

    Time to start appointing the Supreme Court by the PM.
    Preventing the PM from ignoring the law is not a political act
    Agreed. But don’t fall into the trap of thinking like some leavers in that the SC is there to stop Brexit or deliberately hobble the government. If whatever chicanery the government uses (if it does at all) is legal then the SC won’t come running to the rescue. It’s there for law and law alone. It’s what the government may do is lawful then....well you have to respect the decision.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Alistair said:

    The New York Times is going absolutely mental over the impeachment.

    They've just ran a piece of reactions to impeachment from "swing" voters where they fail to disclose things lile the swing voter has been to 23 Trump rallies, or the swing voter has voted straight Republican all their life etc.

    They have just now all but outed the whistle-blower.

    Trump is a media golden goose, who sells clicks like nothing else on earth.
    Sure, he's trashing democracy, but all the NYT gives a fuck about is banner ad views.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903

    nunuone said:

    Penddu said:

    If Boris/Dom tries another legal trick to suspend or delay legislation I would expect SC to grant an immediate injunction to stop it. And to call them in to answer for Contempt of Court.

    Basically what you are saying is the Supreme Court (a new Labour invention) is highly political.

    Time to start appointing the Supreme Court by the PM.
    Really? You Leavers embarrass yourselves so much.

    The current Supremes are appointed on the recommendation of the PM.
    Glad to see leavers now agreeing that we don't need to repatriate powers to make laws to British Parliamentarians and British courts because both have far too much power to make laws.

    Time for a fatherly dictatorship. And Boris and his Johnson have already fathered a lot. So he knows what he's doing when it comes down to "technology lessons"
    He's been overusing his hardware?
  • RobD said:

    nunuone said:

    Penddu said:

    If Boris/Dom tries another legal trick to suspend or delay legislation I would expect SC to grant an immediate injunction to stop it. And to call them in to answer for Contempt of Court.

    Basically what you are saying is the Supreme Court (a new Labour invention) is highly political.

    Time to start appointing the Supreme Court by the PM.
    Really? You Leavers embarrass yourselves so much.

    The current Supremes are appointed on the recommendation of the PM.
    Isn’t the committee independent, and there’s no veto on their decision? I might be thinking of something else.

    In any case, political appointments would be the absolute worst.
    The Judicial Appointments Commission plays a role in the process.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,301

    Of course the Brexit Party are standing in every seat. And of course they will be attacking whatever shagger's deal is. Or even his no deal. No deal won't be no dealy enough. Will have failed to deliver the unicorn cake. Etc

    And they will score about what UKIP scored in 2015, aka 12% of the vote and nul points in the commons.

    Which was enough to give the Tories a majority.

    And that was before the Lib Dems started cannibalising the Labour vote.

    Speaking of which, judging from your avatar do I take it you have accepted Jo Swinson into your heart as your lord and saviour? I'm surprised as I thought you were a democrat and revoke is decidedly un-democratic.



  • dodradedodrade Posts: 595

    If you've not seen it do catch tonight's Brexit Party PPB. It clearly references a children's story telling show with Nigel Farage as the Narrator. It begins with the question " Why hasn't Brexit happened ? " then tells a story as it sees it.

    What's fascinating is the political premise used for the future. The election it is clearly aimed is one where Boris has a deal and we have quite possibly left the EU.

    Boris' deal is described as " The Surrender Treaty " and " Mrs May's deal in a blond wig ". It then simply reframes the classic Leave/Remain debate as The Surrender Treaty vs " a Clean Break ".

    In my mind itt's clearly aimed an election where the Brexit Party is standing in every seat where the incumbent hasn't promised to/didn't vote against The Surrender Treaty.

    That also chimes with both of Farage's narrative framing interventions in the last 48 hours.

    Other's will take a different view but I would encourage everyone to watch it.

    It is quite well done, although the focus on a Boris/May deal contradicts Richard Tice earlier in the week saying it was obvious Brexit wouldn't happen on October 31st.
  • kyf_100 said:

    Of course the Brexit Party are standing in every seat. And of course they will be attacking whatever shagger's deal is. Or even his no deal. No deal won't be no dealy enough. Will have failed to deliver the unicorn cake. Etc

    And they will score about what UKIP scored in 2015, aka 12% of the vote and nul points in the commons.

    Which was enough to give the Tories a majority.

    And that was before the Lib Dems started cannibalising the Labour vote.

    Speaking of which, judging from your avatar do I take it you have accepted Jo Swinson into your heart as your lord and saviour? I'm surprised as I thought you were a democrat and revoke is decidedly un-democratic.



    So a government elected by a majority vote introducing it's manifesto policies is un-democratic?

    Another fool with no idea how our democratic system works
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    I've changed my mind about Boris.

    A couple of times I've said he's bad but not as bad as May. I now have to admit I was wrong. He's worse. Much, much worse.

    Mea culpa.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    edited September 2019
    TGOHF2 said:
    Well, Dominic Cummings is officially more deluded than Charles VI of France, who refused to let anyone touch him because he thought he was made of glass.

    But that doesn't necessarily mean MPs are judging the mood correctly either.
  • Noo said:

    Alistair said:

    The New York Times is going absolutely mental over the impeachment.

    They've just ran a piece of reactions to impeachment from "swing" voters where they fail to disclose things lile the swing voter has been to 23 Trump rallies, or the swing voter has voted straight Republican all their life etc.

    They have just now all but outed the whistle-blower.

    Trump is a media golden goose, who sells clicks like nothing else on earth.
    Sure, he's trashing democracy, but all the NYT gives a fuck about is banner ad views.
    I think it was the ALCU who candidly referred to " the Trump Bump " as their fundraising has exploded since he was elected. The NYT CEO gave an equally candid interview citing Trump as a big driver in its very healthy online subscription growth. ( The NYT is now in profit and recruiting extra newsroom staff. Quite something in today's media environment )
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,948
    nunuone said:

    Penddu said:

    If Boris/Dom tries another legal trick to suspend or delay legislation I would expect SC to grant an immediate injunction to stop it. And to call them in to answer for Contempt of Court.

    Basically what you are saying is the Supreme Court (a new Labour invention) is highly political.

    Time to start appointing the Supreme Court by the PM.
    Indeed. Bringing all the branches of government under one individual is far better. You can turn Parliament into an advisory body, close it down when it displeases you, reform the Civil Service and appoint and fire the judges, and rule directly by Orders. If I could only think of a a name for such a PM... :)
  • Noo said:

    Alistair said:

    The New York Times is going absolutely mental over the impeachment.

    They've just ran a piece of reactions to impeachment from "swing" voters where they fail to disclose things lile the swing voter has been to 23 Trump rallies, or the swing voter has voted straight Republican all their life etc.

    They have just now all but outed the whistle-blower.

    Trump is a media golden goose, who sells clicks like nothing else on earth.
    Sure, he's trashing democracy, but all the NYT gives a fuck about is banner ad views.
    Do you really think that - the journalists there do an amazing job in trying to bring these corrupt bastards to account for themselves.
    All your side want is to sell our country and our values off to the likes of them. If we have a no deal, I hope this country turns into a heap of shit. I am sick of hearing about the 17.4million. There are 68 million people living here...millions of whom pay tax but got no vote. Nobody born in this millenium had a vote. I really could not care less about the referendum result. Leaving the EU is a stupid idea, believed in by stupid people, led by tossers who could not give a fig for the welfare of the less well off. You think Jacob and Nigel give a flying fuck about ordinary families and their problems. You think Boris does?

  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    viewcode said:

    nunuone said:

    Penddu said:

    If Boris/Dom tries another legal trick to suspend or delay legislation I would expect SC to grant an immediate injunction to stop it. And to call them in to answer for Contempt of Court.

    Basically what you are saying is the Supreme Court (a new Labour invention) is highly political.

    Time to start appointing the Supreme Court by the PM.
    Indeed. Bringing all the branches of government under one individual is far better. You can turn Parliament into an advisory body, close it down when it displeases you, reform the Civil Service and appoint and fire the judges, and rule directly by Orders. If I could only think of a a name for such a PM... :)
    Citation blitzkrieg! Brilliant!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,988
    viewcode said:

    nunuone said:

    Penddu said:

    If Boris/Dom tries another legal trick to suspend or delay legislation I would expect SC to grant an immediate injunction to stop it. And to call them in to answer for Contempt of Court.

    Basically what you are saying is the Supreme Court (a new Labour invention) is highly political.

    Time to start appointing the Supreme Court by the PM.
    Indeed. Bringing all the branches of government under one individual is far better. You can turn Parliament into an advisory body, close it down when it displeases you, reform the Civil Service and appoint and fire the judges, and rule directly by Orders. If I could only think of a a name for such a PM... :)
    Oooo, let me guess..... Senator Palpatine?

    :D
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    Byronic said:
    I misjudged him.

    He's officiallly more deluded than the Emperor Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    ydoethur said:

    Byronic said:
    I misjudged him.

    He's officiallly more deluded than the Emperor Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus.
    He does sound weirdly confident. And there are intriguing reports of Boris being far bouncier than one would expect.

    Hmm. Do they possibly have a cunning plan, after all? What could it possibly be??!!

    I hope they surprise us on the upside; I doubt they will.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    Byronic said:

    ydoethur said:

    Byronic said:
    I misjudged him.

    He's officiallly more deluded than the Emperor Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus.
    He does sound weirdly confident. And there are intriguing reports of Boris being far bouncier than one would expect.

    Hmm. Do they possibly have a cunning plan, after all? What could it possibly be??!!

    I hope they surprise us on the upside; I doubt they will.

    Well, he's already made a donkey PM, so that's up there with Incitatus being proposed as a consul.

    Has he declared war on clouds for getting in the way of the sunlit uplands yet?
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 595
    Byronic said:

    ydoethur said:

    Byronic said:
    I misjudged him.

    He's officiallly more deluded than the Emperor Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus.
    He does sound weirdly confident. And there are intriguing reports of Boris being far bouncier than one would expect.

    Hmm. Do they possibly have a cunning plan, after all? What could it possibly be??!!
    Tanks on College Green?
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,502
    Byronic said:

    ydoethur said:

    Byronic said:
    I misjudged him.

    He's officiallly more deluded than the Emperor Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus.
    He does sound weirdly confident. And there are intriguing reports of Boris being far bouncier than one would expect.

    Hmm. Do they possibly have a cunning plan, after all? What could it possibly be??!!

    I hope they surprise us on the upside; I doubt they will.

    If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected .
  • Scott_P said:
    Isn't the general rule that when someone goes public on how you don't need to worry, because something is easy and going well, you should worry a lot, because it's difficult and going badly?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,948
    RobD said:

    viewcode said:

    nunuone said:

    Penddu said:

    If Boris/Dom tries another legal trick to suspend or delay legislation I would expect SC to grant an immediate injunction to stop it. And to call them in to answer for Contempt of Court.

    Basically what you are saying is the Supreme Court (a new Labour invention) is highly political.

    Time to start appointing the Supreme Court by the PM.
    Indeed. Bringing all the branches of government under one individual is far better. You can turn Parliament into an advisory body, close it down when it displeases you, reform the Civil Service and appoint and fire the judges, and rule directly by Orders. If I could only think of a a name for such a PM... :)
    Oooo, let me guess..... Senator Palpatine?

    :D
    Sunil's unemployed. I had to think of something for him to do... :)
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    ydoethur said:

    Byronic said:
    I misjudged him.

    He's officiallly more deluded than the Emperor Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus.
    Perhaps he is just an optimist.
  • I see the moderators are out in force.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,824
    Alistair said:

    The New York Times is going absolutely mental over the impeachment.

    They've just ran a piece of reactions to impeachment from "swing" voters where they fail to disclose things lile the swing voter has been to 23 Trump rallies, or the swing voter has voted straight Republican all their life etc.

    They have just now all but outed the whistle-blower.

    Wall to wall coverage here in the US. NPR are carrying the committee hearings in full, interspersed with experts making comparisons with Nixon (the most pertinent being that it needs a piece of killer evidence to turn public opinion); meanwhile the talk stations churn out pro-Trump stuff and damn the whole story as part of the never ending witch hunt.

    Meanwhile the rumour is that Trump thinks he now has the religious nuts sewn up and is looking for a female running mate to replace Pence
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,948
    Noo said:

    viewcode said:

    nunuone said:

    Penddu said:

    If Boris/Dom tries another legal trick to suspend or delay legislation I would expect SC to grant an immediate injunction to stop it. And to call them in to answer for Contempt of Court.

    Basically what you are saying is the Supreme Court (a new Labour invention) is highly political.

    Time to start appointing the Supreme Court by the PM.
    Indeed. Bringing all the branches of government under one individual is far better. You can turn Parliament into an advisory body, close it down when it displeases you, reform the Civil Service and appoint and fire the judges, and rule directly by Orders. If I could only think of a a name for such a PM... :)
    Citation blitzkrieg! Brilliant!
    Thank you.
  • Chris said:

    If you've not seen it do catch tonight's Brexit Party PPB. It clearly references a children's story telling show with Nigel Farage as the Narrator. It begins with the question " Why hasn't Brexit happened ? " then tells a story as it sees it.

    What's fascinating is the political premise used for the future. The election it is clearly aimed is one where Boris has a deal and we have quite possibly left the EU.

    Boris' deal is described as " The Surrender Treaty " and " Mrs May's deal in a blond wig ". It then simply reframes the classic Leave/Remain debate as The Surrender Treaty vs " a Clean Break ".

    In my mind itt's clearly aimed an election where the Brexit Party is standing in every seat where the incumbent hasn't promised to/didn't vote against The Surrender Treaty.

    That also chimes with both of Farage's narrative framing interventions in the last 48 hours.

    Other's will take a different view but I would encourage everyone to watch it.

    How could they campaign to leave with No Deal if we'd already left with a deal? Surely the scenario would have to be an extension?
    I don't think that's correct. The WA settles fairly few issues, the political declaration is not legally binding.
    The largest part of future EU-UK relations is yet to be negotiated.
    Where we are now is just the first step of many more to come, and even the WA, if and when ratified, could just be reneged on by a Tory/BXP government.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,988
    viewcode said:

    RobD said:

    viewcode said:

    nunuone said:

    Penddu said:

    If Boris/Dom tries another legal trick to suspend or delay legislation I would expect SC to grant an immediate injunction to stop it. And to call them in to answer for Contempt of Court.

    Basically what you are saying is the Supreme Court (a new Labour invention) is highly political.

    Time to start appointing the Supreme Court by the PM.
    Indeed. Bringing all the branches of government under one individual is far better. You can turn Parliament into an advisory body, close it down when it displeases you, reform the Civil Service and appoint and fire the judges, and rule directly by Orders. If I could only think of a a name for such a PM... :)
    Oooo, let me guess..... Senator Palpatine?

    :D
    Sunil's unemployed. I had to think of something for him to do... :)
    Like Palpatine, I too love democracy... when it gives me an answer I agree with. :p
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    nielh said:

    ydoethur said:

    Byronic said:
    I misjudged him.

    He's officiallly more deluded than the Emperor Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus.
    Perhaps he is just an optimist.
    *thinks hard*

    No.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578

    I see the moderators are out in force.

    Yes, I insulted you with dismissive flippancy, yet they have seen fit to protect you, despite your flailing and idiotic remarks. Pff.
  • How long has this buffoon been PM? It feels like about 5 years.

    Honestly nostalgic for May. She was inept, but at least she wasn't using the Bannon playbook.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,926
    Is it surrender to insist on a deal or is it surrender to not vote for a deal?

    - Confused of Scotland
  • John Major warning the government might try to use an order of council to overrule the Benn act. Frightening stuff. I think parliament is going to have to VONC this government next month.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Leaving the EU is a stupid idea, believed in by stupid people, led by tossers who could not give a fig for the welfare of the less well off. You think Jacob and Nigel give a flying fuck about ordinary families and their problems. You think Boris does?

    I agree with you.
    My avatar might need some explanation. Firstly, it's gone midnight and the Vote Leave bus has turned back into a pumpkin.
    Secondly, it stemmed from a conversation about some Leavers not even having a single candle burning in the empty vegetable hollow that is their head.
    If you thought I was a Leaver, you thought wrong.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,988

    John Major warning the government might try to use an order of council to overrule the Benn act. Frightening stuff. I think parliament is going to have to VONC this government next month.

    Are they threatening to do it to invoke a response I wonder.
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,502
    RobD said:

    John Major warning the government might try to use an order of council to overrule the Benn act. Frightening stuff. I think parliament is going to have to VONC this government next month.

    Are they threatening to do it to invoke a response I wonder.
    Uh. Yes.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,824

    John Major warning the government might try to use an order of council to overrule the Benn act. Frightening stuff. I think parliament is going to have to VONC this government next month.

    That's the flaw in the purported plan. By law Bozo has to ask for the extension by 19 Oct and there is time enough to depose and replace him after that, whatever way he finds to avoid sending the letter.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903

    John Major warning the government might try to use an order of council to overrule the Benn act. Frightening stuff. I think parliament is going to have to VONC this government next month.

    Anyone with half a brain would have done it already.

    Unfortunately, Corbyn doesn't even have half a brain.
  • RobD said:

    John Major warning the government might try to use an order of council to overrule the Benn act. Frightening stuff. I think parliament is going to have to VONC this government next month.

    Are they threatening to do it to invoke a response I wonder.
    It's all such 4d chess that I have lost track.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,301

    I see the moderators are out in force.

    Apparently it's OK to call me a fool for suggesting that 52% is a higher number than 30% though.

    Oh well.
  • This.

    https://twitter.com/StewartWood/status/1177178027723231232

    Will we ever see a conservative party again?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903

    How long has this buffoon been PM? It feels like about 5 years.

    Honestly nostalgic for May. She was inept, but at least she wasn't using the Bannon playbook.

    'Too fecking long' would seem to cover it.

    Mind, I felt like that about thirty seconds after he'd kissed hands.
  • Byronic said:

    I see the moderators are out in force.

    Yes, I insulted you with dismissive flippancy, yet they have seen fit to protect you, despite your flailing and idiotic remarks. Pff.
    I'd rather live in my happy world than your sad one..... this bitterness you have it'll eat you up you know. Sad.
  • IanB2 said:

    John Major warning the government might try to use an order of council to overrule the Benn act. Frightening stuff. I think parliament is going to have to VONC this government next month.

    That's the flaw in the purported plan. By law Bozo has to ask for the extension by 19 Oct and there is time enough to depose and replace him after that, whatever way he finds to avoid sending the letter.
    https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1177296694209404928
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903

    This.

    https://twitter.com/StewartWood/status/1177178027723231232

    Will we ever see a conservative party again?

    We've got Labour with their plans to take us back to the 1950s.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,890

    Chris said:

    If you've not seen it do catch tonight's Brexit Party PPB. It clearly references a children's story telling show with Nigel Farage as the Narrator. It begins with the question " Why hasn't Brexit happened ? " then tells a story as it sees it.

    What's fascinating is the political premise used for the future. The election it is clearly aimed is one where Boris has a deal and we have quite possibly left the EU.

    Boris' deal is described as " The Surrender Treaty " and " Mrs May's deal in a blond wig ". It then simply reframes the classic Leave/Remain debate as The Surrender Treaty vs " a Clean Break ".

    In my mind itt's clearly aimed an election where the Brexit Party is standing in every seat where the incumbent hasn't promised to/didn't vote against The Surrender Treaty.

    That also chimes with both of Farage's narrative framing interventions in the last 48 hours.

    Other's will take a different view but I would encourage everyone to watch it.

    How could they campaign to leave with No Deal if we'd already left with a deal? Surely the scenario would have to be an extension?
    I don't think that's correct. The WA settles fairly few issues, the political declaration is not legally binding.
    The largest part of future EU-UK relations is yet to be negotiated.
    Where we are now is just the first step of many more to come, and even the WA, if and when ratified, could just be reneged on by a Tory/BXP government.
    Reneging on the withdrawal agreement isn't the same as leaving though.

    It's just not possible to leave twice. If we've already left, we can't leave again. Unless Farage wants to rejoin just so that we can leave with No Deal. Who knows?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,162
    ydoethur said:

    TGOHF2 said:
    Well, Dominic Cummings is officially more deluded than Charles VI of France, who refused to let anyone touch him because he thought he was made of glass.

    But that doesn't necessarily mean MPs are judging the mood correctly either.
    That may well be true.

    But MPs have surgeries, receive correspondence from their voters, are out and about in their constituencies and have been elected.

    Cummings has been elected by no-one. Who does he talk to? Whom does he represent? How dare an unelected administrator lecture people who have actually bothered to go to the effort to get themselves elected. He has no more right to be heard or to think himself important than any one of us here or a random person in the street. He has one vote just like the rest of us.

    He is displaying the same sort of arrogance that Brexiteers usually accuse Eurocrats of displaying.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,309

    This.

    https://twitter.com/StewartWood/status/1177178027723231232

    Will we ever see a conservative party again?

    Waugh really needs to remember to protect his sources!
  • ydoethur said:

    John Major warning the government might try to use an order of council to overrule the Benn act. Frightening stuff. I think parliament is going to have to VONC this government next month.

    Anyone with half a brain would have done it already.

    Unfortunately, Corbyn doesn't even have half a brain.
    He can't do it until he is sure that he or AN Other acceptable to him will be able to form a government. Otherwise Johnson stays PM, parliament stops sitting and we leave without a deal on 31 Oct. To do that, he has to show that all other options have been exhausted, otherwise the allies he needs, including a handful of Tory rebels, won't trust him.

    I am far from Corbyn's biggest fan but I think he has been acting sensibly and responsibly on this issue, at least recently.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,309
    IanB2 said:

    Alistair said:

    The New York Times is going absolutely mental over the impeachment.

    They've just ran a piece of reactions to impeachment from "swing" voters where they fail to disclose things lile the swing voter has been to 23 Trump rallies, or the swing voter has voted straight Republican all their life etc.

    They have just now all but outed the whistle-blower.

    Wall to wall coverage here in the US. NPR are carrying the committee hearings in full, interspersed with experts making comparisons with Nixon (the most pertinent being that it needs a piece of killer evidence to turn public opinion); meanwhile the talk stations churn out pro-Trump stuff and damn the whole story as part of the never ending witch hunt.

    Meanwhile the rumour is that Trump thinks he now has the religious nuts sewn up and is looking for a female running mate to replace Pence
    What’s Sarah Palin up to these days? 😁
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,890
    ydoethur said:

    Byronic said:
    I misjudged him.

    He's officiallly more deluded than the Emperor Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus.
    He wishes that parliament had but one neck.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    ydoethur said:

    This.

    https://twitter.com/StewartWood/status/1177178027723231232

    Will we ever see a conservative party again?

    We've got Labour with their plans to take us back to the 1950s.
    Is this the same Stewart Wood who was Gordon Brown's spad.????. Lets just get the direction of travel about who is saying what and their motivation..
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    TGOHF2 said:
    Well, Dominic Cummings is officially more deluded than Charles VI of France, who refused to let anyone touch him because he thought he was made of glass.

    But that doesn't necessarily mean MPs are judging the mood correctly either.
    That may well be true.

    But MPs have surgeries, receive correspondence from their voters, are out and about in their constituencies and have been elected.

    Cummings has been elected by no-one. Who does he talk to? Whom does he represent? How dare an unelected administrator lecture people who have actually bothered to go to the effort to get themselves elected. He has no more right to be heard or to think himself important than any one of us here or a random person in the street. He has one vote just like the rest of us.

    He is displaying the same sort of arrogance that Brexiteers usually accuse Eurocrats of displaying.
    While I agree with you about Cummings, such straws in the wind as we are seeing suggest that whatever the actual rights and wrongs of the situation right now Parliament is making itself look ridiculous. That's not helpful. Their refusal to vote through a recess for the Tory conference was however emotionally satisfying for them both crass and, given the likely events at that conference, very foolish.
  • kyf_100 said:

    I see the moderators are out in force.

    Apparently it's OK to call me a fool for suggesting that 52% is a higher number than 30% though.

    Oh well.
    52% isn't a number 52 is a number.
  • Yellow_SubmarineYellow_Submarine Posts: 647
    edited September 2019

    IanB2 said:

    John Major warning the government might try to use an order of council to overrule the Benn act. Frightening stuff. I think parliament is going to have to VONC this government next month.

    That's the flaw in the purported plan. By law Bozo has to ask for the extension by 19 Oct and there is time enough to depose and replace him after that, whatever way he finds to avoid sending the letter.
    https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1177296694209404928
    Major was almost certainly hinting at the Civil Contingencies Act. Just as the Supreme Court was with its specific reasoning and device in the prorogation ruling. It's exactly the same reason and device they'd use to quash a State of Emergency declared under the CCA. It's another reason why it's a very well crafted ruling.
  • For all the hysterical blustering one fact remains.

    The opposition parties could bring down the government tomorrow and install Corbyn as PM to deliver the extension request followed by an immediate GE.

    If the country is in such grave danger why are they not taking this action?
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,864

    kyf_100 said:

    I see the moderators are out in force.

    Apparently it's OK to call me a fool for suggesting that 52% is a higher number than 30% though.

    Oh well.
    52% isn't a number 52 is a number.
    52 % is 52/100 which is a perfectly fine number.

    It is not an integer or counting number.
  • kyf_100 said:

    I see the moderators are out in force.

    Apparently it's OK to call me a fool for suggesting that 52% is a higher number than 30% though.

    Oh well.
    52% isn't a number 52 is a number.
    Congratulations! Fewer than a 100 posts and you have already won a PB Pedantry Award. :)
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,502

    For all the hysterical blustering one fact remains.

    The opposition parties could bring down the government tomorrow and install Corbyn as PM to deliver the extension request followed by an immediate GE.

    If the country is in such grave danger why are they not taking this action?

    Because, because, because, because, because
    Because of the wonderful things Corbyn does
  • IanB2 said:

    John Major warning the government might try to use an order of council to overrule the Benn act. Frightening stuff. I think parliament is going to have to VONC this government next month.

    That's the flaw in the purported plan. By law Bozo has to ask for the extension by 19 Oct and there is time enough to depose and replace him after that, whatever way he finds to avoid sending the letter.
    https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1177296694209404928
    Major was almost certainly hinting at the Civil Contingencies Act. Just as the Supreme Court was with its specific reasoning and device in the prorogation ruling. It's exactly the same reason and device they'd use to quash a State of Emergency declared undrr the CCA. It's another reason why it's a very well crafted ruling.
    He didn't mention the CCA. Although I believe Jo Maugham has warned that they might go down that route. Major certainly didn't mince his words, to see a Conservative PM speaking about his successor like that was quite remarkable.
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749
    On topic.

    One of those graphs that suddenly switches all of a sudden at some point?
  • IanB2 said:

    Alistair said:

    The New York Times is going absolutely mental over the impeachment.

    They've just ran a piece of reactions to impeachment from "swing" voters where they fail to disclose things lile the swing voter has been to 23 Trump rallies, or the swing voter has voted straight Republican all their life etc.

    They have just now all but outed the whistle-blower.

    Wall to wall coverage here in the US. NPR are carrying the committee hearings in full, interspersed with experts making comparisons with Nixon (the most pertinent being that it needs a piece of killer evidence to turn public opinion); meanwhile the talk stations churn out pro-Trump stuff and damn the whole story as part of the never ending witch hunt.

    Meanwhile the rumour is that Trump thinks he now has the religious nuts sewn up and is looking for a female running mate to replace Pence
    What’s Sarah Palin up to these days? 😁
    Getting a divorce from Todd, so plenty of time on her hands.
  • IanB2 said:

    Alistair said:

    The New York Times is going absolutely mental over the impeachment.

    They've just ran a piece of reactions to impeachment from "swing" voters where they fail to disclose things lile the swing voter has been to 23 Trump rallies, or the swing voter has voted straight Republican all their life etc.

    They have just now all but outed the whistle-blower.

    Wall to wall coverage here in the US. NPR are carrying the committee hearings in full, interspersed with experts making comparisons with Nixon (the most pertinent being that it needs a piece of killer evidence to turn public opinion); meanwhile the talk stations churn out pro-Trump stuff and damn the whole story as part of the never ending witch hunt.

    Meanwhile the rumour is that Trump thinks he now has the religious nuts sewn up and is looking for a female running mate to replace Pence
    What’s Sarah Palin up to these days? 😁
    Will Haley want to be pulled back into this vortex of shit?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,162
    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    TGOHF2 said:
    Well, Dominic Cummings is officially more deluded than Charles VI of France, who refused to let anyone touch him because he thought he was made of glass.

    But that doesn't necessarily mean MPs are judging the mood correctly either.
    That may well be true.

    But MPs have surgeries, receive correspondence from their voters, are out and about in their constituencies and have been elected.

    Cummings has been elected by no-one. Who does he talk to? Whom does he represent? How dare an unelected administrator lecture people who have actually bothered to go to the effort to get themselves elected. He has no more right to be heard or to think himself important than any one of us here or a random person in the street. He has one vote just like the rest of us.

    He is displaying the same sort of arrogance that Brexiteers usually accuse Eurocrats of displaying.
    While I agree with you about Cummings, such straws in the wind as we are seeing suggest that whatever the actual rights and wrongs of the situation right now Parliament is making itself look ridiculous. That's not helpful. Their refusal to vote through a recess for the Tory conference was however emotionally satisfying for them both crass and, given the likely events at that conference, very foolish.
    Agreed. Though I note that the opposition parties did offer a compromise re attendance to allow the Tory conference to go ahead, before the vote, which the Tories refused. So even there the fault is rather more evenly shared than you are assuming.

    Parliament was elected by us. It reflects our divisions. I'd rather have a Parliament - however foolish - that I elect governing me than some elected nobody, no matter how clever he thinks he is, who thinks he can ignore the law.

    I want to live "constrained by law but not constrained by tyranny". Such straws in the wind are there are suggest we may well end up subject to tyranny but have no law to protect us.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    For all the hysterical blustering one fact remains.

    The opposition parties could bring down the government tomorrow and install Corbyn as PM to deliver the extension request followed by an immediate GE.

    If the country is in such grave danger why are they not taking this action?

    1 they want Johnson to have to do it because it is a problem of his own making
    2 I would trust corbyn as much as I trust Johnson to do the right thing

    The way out is for Johnson who wants an election to seek an extension to morrow which when granted will allow him to seek a GE which could take place in October, what is wrong with that? Problem solved everybody gets what the want after all a 10% in time extension of article 50 is neither here or there to ant body without paranoid fears.
  • kyf_100 said:

    I see the moderators are out in force.

    Apparently it's OK to call me a fool for suggesting that 52% is a higher number than 30% though.

    Oh well.
    Don't remember saying anything of the sort. The fool bit is that you think that a government elected in a 2019 election fulfilling the manifesto which got it elected to majority is "undemocratic". I am confident that you are aware that our system is first past the post thus national percentage vote tallies or percentages are largely irrelevant. That a majority government elected on 35% national percentage is as legitimate as a government elected on a 50% national percentage. That no parliament is bound by the laws or actions of its predecessors.

    You surely know all this. That you disagree with it - and think that somehow overrides the reality - is the foolish bit. You and all the other people spouting the same nonsense.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900

    For all the hysterical blustering one fact remains.

    The opposition parties could bring down the government tomorrow and install Corbyn as PM to deliver the extension request followed by an immediate GE.

    If the country is in such grave danger why are they not taking this action?


    Because most of them are aware that awful as Johnson is, Corbyn is somehow much, much worse.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,484

    Byronic said:

    ydoethur said:

    Byronic said:
    I misjudged him.

    He's officiallly more deluded than the Emperor Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus.
    He does sound weirdly confident. And there are intriguing reports of Boris being far bouncier than one would expect.

    Hmm. Do they possibly have a cunning plan, after all? What could it possibly be??!!

    I hope they surprise us on the upside; I doubt they will.

    If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected .
    You missed: "If you have no idea what's going on, tell everybody that everything is going according to plan, and that you're winning."
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,502
    Andrew said:

    For all the hysterical blustering one fact remains.

    The opposition parties could bring down the government tomorrow and install Corbyn as PM to deliver the extension request followed by an immediate GE.

    If the country is in such grave danger why are they not taking this action?


    Because most of them are aware that awful as Johnson is, Corbyn is somehow much, much worse.
    This. x100
  • IanB2 said:

    John Major warning the government might try to use an order of council to overrule the Benn act. Frightening stuff. I think parliament is going to have to VONC this government next month.

    That's the flaw in the purported plan. By law Bozo has to ask for the extension by 19 Oct and there is time enough to depose and replace him after that, whatever way he finds to avoid sending the letter.
    https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1177296694209404928
    Major was almost certainly hinting at the Civil Contingencies Act. Just as the Supreme Court was with its specific reasoning and device in the prorogation ruling. It's exactly the same reason and device they'd use to quash a State of Emergency declared undrr the CCA. It's another reason why it's a very well crafted ruling.
    He didn't mention the CCA. Although I believe Jo Maugham has warned that they might go down that route. Major certainly didn't mince his words, to see a Conservative PM speaking about his successor like that was quite remarkable.
    It is not clear the conservative party survives this.
  • Andrew said:

    For all the hysterical blustering one fact remains.

    The opposition parties could bring down the government tomorrow and install Corbyn as PM to deliver the extension request followed by an immediate GE.

    If the country is in such grave danger why are they not taking this action?


    Because most of them are aware that awful as Johnson is, Corbyn is somehow much, much worse.
    So who you going for - the charlatan or the marxist?
  • Chris said:

    Chris said:

    If you've not seen it do catch tonight's Brexit Party PPB. It clearly references a children's story telling show with Nigel Farage as the Narrator. It begins with the question " Why hasn't Brexit happened ? " then tells a story as it sees it.

    What's fascinating is the political premise used for the future. The election it is clearly aimed is one where Boris has a deal and we have quite possibly left the EU.

    Boris' deal is described as " The Surrender Treaty " and " Mrs May's deal in a blond wig ". It then simply reframes the classic Leave/Remain debate as The Surrender Treaty vs " a Clean Break ".

    In my mind itt's clearly aimed an election where the Brexit Party is standing in every seat where the incumbent hasn't promised to/didn't vote against The Surrender Treaty.

    That also chimes with both of Farage's narrative framing interventions in the last 48 hours.

    Other's will take a different view but I would encourage everyone to watch it.

    How could they campaign to leave with No Deal if we'd already left with a deal? Surely the scenario would have to be an extension?
    I don't think that's correct. The WA settles fairly few issues, the political declaration is not legally binding.
    The largest part of future EU-UK relations is yet to be negotiated.
    Where we are now is just the first step of many more to come, and even the WA, if and when ratified, could just be reneged on by a Tory/BXP government.
    Reneging on the withdrawal agreement isn't the same as leaving though.

    It's just not possible to leave twice. If we've already left, we can't leave again. Unless Farage wants to rejoin just so that we can leave with No Deal. Who knows?
    On the one hand, you are correct, of course, you can 'leave' only once.

    On the other hand, it should ne noted that the content of the WA (citizens' rights, money, NI) is merely a side show in comparison to the real issues that come next, those are objectively more consequential by at least one order of magnitude, and if you succeed in selling the WA as BRINO to your audience, then there opens up a new opportunity for creating monumental mischief.
This discussion has been closed.