Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On the betting markets punters now make it a 3.7% chance that

124

Comments

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,237
    SunnyJim said:

    I really don't believe that would be in Labour's long-term interests.

    At the very least Labour need to stay competitive for the GE after this one and if they try and play silly games through until next year then I can see them getting such a beating they won't be back in contention for a long time.

    They should grab the chance of making it look like they are forcing the Tories in to an election and then make the best of the Brexit message they can.

    My way would risk an even worse loss, yes. OTOH, it opens up a chance to win. They have no chance of a win right now. 30/1 on Betfair says it all.

    Two in the bush beats one in the hand where the one in the hand is something you really don't want to be holding.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    SunnyJim said:

    Carnyx said:


    Not quite. The Sewell convention is basically that Westminster can't pass laws in the areas of competence of the Holyrood and the other devolved parliaments. However a recent UKSC (I think) judgement claimed that this was only a 'political' decision. So Mr Johnson would be breaking an established procedure, if not quite illegally, then certainly at some political cost.

    If it helps the SNP further their independence battle then i'm not sure it will be a 'cost'.

    I suspect I am in a minority as a Conservative who wants to see Scotland and NI set free...Wales on the other hand I would move heaven and earth to stay together with.
    Why?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,237
    edited October 2019
    Stocky said:

    Nigelb said: "Meanwhile, a plausible explanation for the Hillary odds:
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/467021-clinton-2020-whisper-campaign-hits-new-heights"

    I`ve been quietly backing Hillary for a while now but up to now haven`t admitted it for fear of you taking the piss and calling me a mug punter.

    Me too! Got on at 80. But only for peanuts and only on the vague idea that I knew she would LOVE to go for it.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,237

    Nothing matters very much and few things matter at all, as a Prime Minister once said.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCRZZC-DH7M
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,504
    Earlier today Gin said “Big G knows more about politics than you so if he says there will be a 2019 election there will be one”.

    Bookmark that. No further comment.
  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 1,106
    Alistair said:

    It was even more ridiculous the 2nd time of reading.
  • johnt said:

    It is certainly true that Corbyn and the Labour Party have been a major factor in Brexit and the damage it has done and will continue to do to the country. I have always felt that Brexit should be implemented as long as the government of the day can do a deal which looks 90 plus percent like the arrangements which Vote Leave said they would get in the referendum of 2016. Delivering no Brexit or delivering a Brexit which delivered some, but not all the major commitments of the Vote Leave campaign are both exactly the same for me. Neither has a democratic mandate. It was obvious 18 months ago that the Vote Leave deal was not going to happen and that was the time when Corbyn and Labour should have said that the referendum result of 2016 was no longer sound enough to be safe. Personally I suspect that had he done that a way would have been found to pass May's deal at the start of the year subject to a referendum and we would now be moving forward. He failed to have a policy, parliament failed to have an effective opposition and MPs failed to find an option they could agree. The rest, as they say, is history.

    The vote was Remain or Leave. Any form of Leave which officially removes us from the EU organisation is fulfilling the mandate of the referendum. That could be SM and CU or it could be No Deal - or anything imbetween.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited October 2019
    Brexit xkcd!!! https://xkcd.com/2218
  • eekeek Posts: 28,405
    Scott_P said:
    um everyone who knew what the deadline was?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    SunnyJim said:

    Alistair said:

    It was even more ridiculous the 2nd time of reading.
    Do you think they only make Pale Ales?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,751

    Earlier today Gin said “Big G knows more about politics than you so if he says there will be a 2019 election there will be one”.

    Bookmark that. No further comment.

    It's only a couple of days since Big G was telling us that the European Parliament was going to ratify the deal this week, and that an extension couldn't be agreed without a face-to-face meeting of the European Council.
  • If your premise is right Mr Smithson, then why is the Labour Party clearly so very wary of an early GE? Their private polling perhaps suggests something different to your contention.

    Brexit has become a far bigger issue than it was in 2016 and it is very much clearer now than it was then how far Corbyn's Labour has strayed from its traditional voter base.
  • Scott_P said:
    If this goes to a GE I expect this will not deter most conservative supporters but of course will provide a talking point for remainers

    I am not at all sure the voters are into details. They know the choice is between a deal and exit by the 31st December with the conservatives, revoke or a referendum by the Lib Dems, and we can negotiate a better deal and put it to a referendum where we would actively support remain and dish the deal we agreed from labour
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    johnt said:

    It is certainly true that Corbyn and the Labour Party have been a major factor in Brexit and the damage it has done and will continue to do to the country. I have always felt that Brexit should be implemented as long as the government of the day can do a deal which looks 90 plus percent like the arrangements which Vote Leave said they would get in the referendum of 2016. Delivering no Brexit or delivering a Brexit which delivered some, but not all the major commitments of the Vote Leave campaign are both exactly the same for me. Neither has a democratic mandate. It was obvious 18 months ago that the Vote Leave deal was not going to happen and that was the time when Corbyn and Labour should have said that the referendum result of 2016 was no longer sound enough to be safe. Personally I suspect that had he done that a way would have been found to pass May's deal at the start of the year subject to a referendum and we would now be moving forward. He failed to have a policy, parliament failed to have an effective opposition and MPs failed to find an option they could agree. The rest, as they say, is history.

    The vote was Remain or Leave. Any form of Leave which officially removes us from the EU organisation is fulfilling the mandate of the referendum. That could be SM and CU or it could be No Deal - or anything imbetween.
    Yep yep. Any form of Leaving is legit. Anything else is not, including not having left 3.5 years after the vote.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,751
    Scott_P said:
    It sounds as though the European Parliament is asking for an extension because they need more time ...
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,503
    edited October 2019

    Scott_P said:
    If this goes to a GE I expect this will not deter most conservative supporters but of course will provide a talking point for remainers

    I am not at all sure the voters are into details. They know the choice is between a deal and exit by the 31st December with the conservatives, revoke or a referendum by the Lib Dems, and we can negotiate a better deal and put it to a referendum where we would actively support remain and dish the deal we agreed from labour
    If only there was an example of an existing FTA a lot of detail could be transferred across from. Hmmm. Beats me.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Brexit has become a far bigger issue than it was in 2016

    People's views on Brexit have... changed?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,133
    edited October 2019
    Chris said:

    Earlier today Gin said “Big G knows more about politics than you so if he says there will be a 2019 election there will be one”.

    Bookmark that. No further comment.

    It's only a couple of days since Big G was telling us that the European Parliament was going to ratify the deal this week, and that an extension couldn't be agreed without a face-to-face meeting of the European Council.
    Both are true.

    The EU were to ratify it tomorrow if the remainers hadn't stopped the programme motion last night and the face to face meetings is normal procedure and may still happen as Sky says Macron is displeased with Tusk for pre empting a decision that has not been made and they prefer a short extension to the 30th November

    But honoured to see you read my posts
  • johntjohnt Posts: 166



    The vote was Remain or Leave. Any form of Leave which officially removes us from the EU organisation is fulfilling the mandate of the referendum. That could be SM and CU or it could be No Deal - or anything imbetween.

    I have two problems with that argument Richard. Firstly, to allow the government of the day to deliver a form of Brexit which is clearly a million miles from what people thought they were voting for would be hugely damaging for democracy. We have (unfortunately) become very familiar with politicians lying to get elected and failing to deliver on their manifesto promises. But this referendum is different. Politicians can be removed at the next election. The damage done by the lies of vote leave will never be undone, they will just get worse. The second problem I have is that it is a logic which only seems to apply to 48% of the population. The 52% claim frequently that this is 'BINO' or that is 'not what we voted for' but the 48% are shouted down if they say a Brexit deal is unacceptable saying the referendum must be honoured. Really they cannot have it both ways.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,151
    edited October 2019

    Chris said:

    Earlier today Gin said “Big G knows more about politics than you so if he says there will be a 2019 election there will be one”.

    Bookmark that. No further comment.

    It's only a couple of days since Big G was telling us that the European Parliament was going to ratify the deal this week, and that an extension couldn't be agreed without a face-to-face meeting of the European Council.
    Both are true.

    The EU were to ratify it tomorrow if the remainers hadn't stopped the programme motion last night and the face to face meetings is normal procedure and may still happen as Sky says Macron is displeased with Tusk for pre empting a decision that has not been made and they prefer a short extension to the 30th November

    But honoured to see you read my posts
    Indeed until Macron has spoken what the rest of the Council and the European Parliament election thinks is irrelevant as he could veto further extension on his own
  • Chris said:

    Scott_P said:
    It sounds as though the European Parliament is asking for an extension because they need more time ...
    It is not in their gift
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited October 2019
    johnt said:



    The vote was Remain or Leave. Any form of Leave which officially removes us from the EU organisation is fulfilling the mandate of the referendum. That could be SM and CU or it could be No Deal - or anything imbetween.

    I have two problems with that argument Richard. Firstly, to allow the government of the day to deliver a form of Brexit which is clearly a million miles from what people thought they were voting for would be hugely damaging for democracy. We have (unfortunately) become very familiar with politicians lying to get elected and failing to deliver on their manifesto promises. But this referendum is different. Politicians can be removed at the next election. The damage done by the lies of vote leave will never be undone, they will just get worse. The second problem I have is that it is a logic which only seems to apply to 48% of the population. The 52% claim frequently that this is 'BINO' or that is 'not what we voted for' but the 48% are shouted down if they say a Brexit deal is unacceptable saying the referendum must be honoured. Really they cannot have it both ways.
    The scale of EU immigration from 2004 onwards, the thing that caused the referendum to be held and Leave to win, was lied about by successive governments of all three parties that held power. The moral high ground upon which Remainers think they stand is built on very weak foundations
  • Scott_P said:
    2 to 3 days was Ken Clarke's suggestion yesterday
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,151
    SunnyJim said:

    Carnyx said:


    Not quite. The Sewell convention is basically that Westminster can't pass laws in the areas of competence of the Holyrood and the other devolved parliaments. However a recent UKSC (I think) judgement claimed that this was only a 'political' decision. So Mr Johnson would be breaking an established procedure, if not quite illegally, then certainly at some political cost.

    If it helps the SNP further their independence battle then i'm not sure it will be a 'cost'.

    I suspect I am in a minority as a Conservative who wants to see Scotland and NI set free...Wales on the other hand I would move heaven and earth to stay together with.
    Given 55% of Scots voted against independence in 2014 and most MPs from Northern Ireland are DUP they would hardly be set free if they still want to stay
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,503
    Noo said:

    Brexit has become a far bigger issue than it was in 2016

    People's views on Brexit have... changed?
    There was chap in Coventry someone said had changed his mind. Mike? Or might have been Trevor something? Anyway it wasn’t confirmed which way he had changed his mind, as he had an urgent dentist appointment to get to, so the canvasser made an educated guess.

    Apart from Mike (or Trevor) an advanced analysis tool, deployed in top secret, showed with 106% accuracy that no one has changed their mind. This is confirmed on Twitter by a man. There is a bar chart available and a pie-chart (which is always an exciting thing).
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,720
    isam said:

    The scale of EU immigration from 2004 onwards, the thing that caused the referendum to be held and Leave to win, was lied about by successive governments of all three parties that held power. The high moral ground upon which Remainers think they stand is built on very weak foundations

    The moral high ground is in the eye of the beholder. Given that you are happy for free movement to continue after Brexit, your position is a bizarre form of virtue signalling.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:

    The scale of EU immigration from 2004 onwards, the thing that caused the referendum to be held and Leave to win, was lied about by successive governments of all three parties that held power. The high moral ground upon which Remainers think they stand is built on very weak foundations

    The moral high ground is in the eye of the beholder. Given that you are happy for free movement to continue after Brexit, your position is a bizarre form of virtue signalling.
    Well some people think lying is ok I guess. You seem to be one, as I am not happy about FOM continuing, something you just made up
  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 1,106
    isam said:


    The scale of EU immigration from 2004 onwards, the thing that caused the referendum to be held and Leave to win, was lied about by successive governments of all three parties that held power. The high moral ground upon which Remainers think they stand is built on very weak foundations

    It was Labour's policy to 'rub the rights nose in it'.

    What they hadn't appreciated was that many on the right who may be better off actually benefited hugely from free movement.

    It was the poorest who were impacted most.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,236
    Chris said:

    Earlier today Gin said “Big G knows more about politics than you so if he says there will be a 2019 election there will be one”.

    Bookmark that. No further comment.

    It's only a couple of days since Big G was telling us that the European Parliament was going to ratify the deal this week, and that an extension couldn't be agreed without a face-to-face meeting of the European Council.
    To be fair, Brexit has made everyone look like an idiot.
    Are any of us exceptions to that ?
  • Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    Earlier today Gin said “Big G knows more about politics than you so if he says there will be a 2019 election there will be one”.

    Bookmark that. No further comment.

    It's only a couple of days since Big G was telling us that the European Parliament was going to ratify the deal this week, and that an extension couldn't be agreed without a face-to-face meeting of the European Council.
    To be fair, Brexit has made everyone look like an idiot.
    Are any of us exceptions to that ?
    Excuse me. That was and is accurate
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,236
    Scott_P said:
    Is the chief whip’s nickname ‘Sand’ ?

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,720
    edited October 2019
    isam said:

    isam said:

    The scale of EU immigration from 2004 onwards, the thing that caused the referendum to be held and Leave to win, was lied about by successive governments of all three parties that held power. The high moral ground upon which Remainers think they stand is built on very weak foundations

    The moral high ground is in the eye of the beholder. Given that you are happy for free movement to continue after Brexit, your position is a bizarre form of virtue signalling.
    Well some people think lying is ok I guess. You seem to be one, as I am not happy about FOM continuing, something you just made up
    I've noticed that you like to gaslight as well. You said only three days ago that you would be "fine" with a deal that kept FoM. Here's the relevant post:

    https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/comment/2547925/#Comment_2547925
  • johnt said:



    The vote was Remain or Leave. Any form of Leave which officially removes us from the EU organisation is fulfilling the mandate of the referendum. That could be SM and CU or it could be No Deal - or anything imbetween.

    I have two problems with that argument Richard. Firstly, to allow the government of the day to deliver a form of Brexit which is clearly a million miles from what people thought they were voting for would be hugely damaging for democracy. We have (unfortunately) become very familiar with politicians lying to get elected and failing to deliver on their manifesto promises. But this referendum is different. Politicians can be removed at the next election. The damage done by the lies of vote leave will never be undone, they will just get worse. The second problem I have is that it is a logic which only seems to apply to 48% of the population. The 52% claim frequently that this is 'BINO' or that is 'not what we voted for' but the 48% are shouted down if they say a Brexit deal is unacceptable saying the referendum must be honoured. Really they cannot have it both ways.
    Well said.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Nigelb said:

    Scott_P said:
    Is the chief whip’s nickname ‘Sand’ ?

    I thought long and hard over whether that joke was funny enough to post... best I could come up with too
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    Chris said:

    Scott_P said:
    It sounds as though the European Parliament is asking for an extension because they need more time ...
    Interesting thing is that under the Benn Act if EU propose an extension to 31st Jan the U.K. Govt MUST accept it!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,616
    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    Nigelb said: "Meanwhile, a plausible explanation for the Hillary odds:
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/467021-clinton-2020-whisper-campaign-hits-new-heights"

    I`ve been quietly backing Hillary for a while now but up to now haven`t admitted it for fear of you taking the piss and calling me a mug punter.

    Me too! Got on at 80. But only for peanuts and only on the vague idea that I knew she would LOVE to go for it.
    That Hillary's name gets mentioned at all is just an acknowledgment that the Democrat field for 2020 is seriously underwhelming.....
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,236
    isam said:

    Nigelb said:

    Scott_P said:
    Is the chief whip’s nickname ‘Sand’ ?

    I thought long and hard over whether that joke was funny enough to post... best I could come up with too
    Puns don’t have to be good to be posted. PB tradition....
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,133
    edited October 2019
    alex. said:

    Chris said:

    Scott_P said:
    It sounds as though the European Parliament is asking for an extension because they need more time ...
    Interesting thing is that under the Benn Act if EU propose an extension to 31st Jan the U.K. Govt MUST accept it!
    And they will but it is not upto the EU Parliament, it is the 27 national leaders through the Council headed by Donald Tusk
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,236

    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    Nigelb said: "Meanwhile, a plausible explanation for the Hillary odds:
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/467021-clinton-2020-whisper-campaign-hits-new-heights"

    I`ve been quietly backing Hillary for a while now but up to now haven`t admitted it for fear of you taking the piss and calling me a mug punter.

    Me too! Got on at 80. But only for peanuts and only on the vague idea that I knew she would LOVE to go for it.
    That Hillary's name gets mentioned at all is just an acknowledgment that the Democrat field for 2020 is seriously underwhelming.....
    Or a function of the Republican desperation to stir shit, and the credulity of their supporters ?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,131
    Nigelb said:

    Scott_P said:
    Is the chief whip’s nickname ‘Sand’ ?

    Nick "Sand" Brown. Nahh, doesn't fit.

    Pause

    I'll get me coat... :)
  • johnt said:



    The vote was Remain or Leave. Any form of Leave which officially removes us from the EU organisation is fulfilling the mandate of the referendum. That could be SM and CU or it could be No Deal - or anything imbetween.

    I have two problems with that argument Richard. Firstly, to allow the government of the day to deliver a form of Brexit which is clearly a million miles from what people thought they were voting for would be hugely damaging for democracy. We have (unfortunately) become very familiar with politicians lying to get elected and failing to deliver on their manifesto promises. But this referendum is different. Politicians can be removed at the next election. The damage done by the lies of vote leave will never be undone, they will just get worse. The second problem I have is that it is a logic which only seems to apply to 48% of the population. The 52% claim frequently that this is 'BINO' or that is 'not what we voted for' but the 48% are shouted down if they say a Brexit deal is unacceptable saying the referendum must be honoured. Really they cannot have it both ways.
    No one is wanting it both ways except you Remainers. You are happy to tell us that as Leavers we didn't vote for this or that sort of Brexit and therefore we should not leave. But the one thing that we absolutely did vote for above all else was to Leave. Of course there will be disagreements about what form that leave should take but the one thing that is clear is that Remaining does not satisfy any form of Leave.

    I am afraid that all these comments from Remainers about 'the wrong sort of Leave' are just a smokescreen for the one truly undemocratic thing they want to do which is to stop Brexit.

    .
  • johnt said:



    The vote was Remain or Leave. Any form of Leave which officially removes us from the EU organisation is fulfilling the mandate of the referendum. That could be SM and CU or it could be No Deal - or anything imbetween.

    I have two problems with that argument Richard. Firstly, to allow the government of the day to deliver a form of Brexit which is clearly a million miles from what people thought they were voting for would be hugely damaging for democracy. We have (unfortunately) become very familiar with politicians lying to get elected and failing to deliver on their manifesto promises. But this referendum is different. Politicians can be removed at the next election. The damage done by the lies of vote leave will never be undone, they will just get worse. The second problem I have is that it is a logic which only seems to apply to 48% of the population. The 52% claim frequently that this is 'BINO' or that is 'not what we voted for' but the 48% are shouted down if they say a Brexit deal is unacceptable saying the referendum must be honoured. Really they cannot have it both ways.
    Well said.
    Errant nonsense
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    isam said:

    isam said:

    The scale of EU immigration from 2004 onwards, the thing that caused the referendum to be held and Leave to win, was lied about by successive governments of all three parties that held power. The high moral ground upon which Remainers think they stand is built on very weak foundations

    The moral high ground is in the eye of the beholder. Given that you are happy for free movement to continue after Brexit, your position is a bizarre form of virtue signalling.
    Well some people think lying is ok I guess. You seem to be one, as I am not happy about FOM continuing, something you just made up
    I've noticed that you like to gaslight as well. You said only three days ago that you would be "fine" with a deal that kept FoM. Here's the relevant post:

    https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/comment/2547925/#Comment_2547925
    isam lied? Colour me shocked.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited October 2019

    isam said:

    isam said:

    The scale of EU immigration from 2004 onwards, the thing that caused the referendum to be held and Leave to win, was lied about by successive governments of all three parties that held power. The high moral ground upon which Remainers think they stand is built on very weak foundations

    The moral high ground is in the eye of the beholder. Given that you are happy for free movement to continue after Brexit, your position is a bizarre form of virtue signalling.
    Well some people think lying is ok I guess. You seem to be one, as I am not happy about FOM continuing, something you just made up
    I've noticed that you like to gaslight as well. You said only three days ago that you would be "fine" with a deal that kept FoM. Here's the relevant post:

    https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/comment/2547925/#Comment_2547925
    Yeah. Not that you're predictable, but I knew you'd be scurrying around the archives for a quote. Ah well, time wasted, you fell into a trap..

    What I mean by being ok with it continuing is that we have had a political establishment for the last 20 odd years with a huge appetite for mass immigration, and, while we are in the EU, they can claim there is nothing they can do to prevent a lot of it. So we need to leave to take that excuse away from them.

    The filibustering from the HofC for the last 3.5 years has put leaving in jeopardy, so I would take any deal that gets us out, so that a party can put an end to FOM in their manifesto at the next GE, and do so when they win.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Noo said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    The scale of EU immigration from 2004 onwards, the thing that caused the referendum to be held and Leave to win, was lied about by successive governments of all three parties that held power. The high moral ground upon which Remainers think they stand is built on very weak foundations

    The moral high ground is in the eye of the beholder. Given that you are happy for free movement to continue after Brexit, your position is a bizarre form of virtue signalling.
    Well some people think lying is ok I guess. You seem to be one, as I am not happy about FOM continuing, something you just made up
    I've noticed that you like to gaslight as well. You said only three days ago that you would be "fine" with a deal that kept FoM. Here's the relevant post:

    https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/comment/2547925/#Comment_2547925
    isam lied? Colour me shocked.
    Haha oh dear

    "Feck Me" naughty naughty!
  • johnt said:



    The vote was Remain or Leave. Any form of Leave which officially removes us from the EU organisation is fulfilling the mandate of the referendum. That could be SM and CU or it could be No Deal - or anything imbetween.

    I have two problems with that argument Richard. Firstly, to allow the government of the day to deliver a form of Brexit which is clearly a million miles from what people thought they were voting for would be hugely damaging for democracy. We have (unfortunately) become very familiar with politicians lying to get elected and failing to deliver on their manifesto promises. But this referendum is different. Politicians can be removed at the next election. The damage done by the lies of vote leave will never be undone, they will just get worse. The second problem I have is that it is a logic which only seems to apply to 48% of the population. The 52% claim frequently that this is 'BINO' or that is 'not what we voted for' but the 48% are shouted down if they say a Brexit deal is unacceptable saying the referendum must be honoured. Really they cannot have it both ways.
    Well said.
    Errant nonsense
    You've arred in your spelling, Richard.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,720
    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    The scale of EU immigration from 2004 onwards, the thing that caused the referendum to be held and Leave to win, was lied about by successive governments of all three parties that held power. The high moral ground upon which Remainers think they stand is built on very weak foundations

    The moral high ground is in the eye of the beholder. Given that you are happy for free movement to continue after Brexit, your position is a bizarre form of virtue signalling.
    Well some people think lying is ok I guess. You seem to be one, as I am not happy about FOM continuing, something you just made up
    I've noticed that you like to gaslight as well. You said only three days ago that you would be "fine" with a deal that kept FoM. Here's the relevant post:

    https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/comment/2547925/#Comment_2547925
    Yeah. Not that you're predictable, but I knew you'd be scurrying around the archives for a quote. Ah well, you fell into a trap.

    What I mean by being ok with it continuing is that we have had a political establishment for the last 20 odd years with a huge appetite for mass immigration, and, while we are in the EU, they can claim there is nothing they can do to prevent a lot of it. So we need to leave to take that excuse away from them.

    The filibustering from the HofC for the last 3.5 years has put leaving in jeopardy, so I would take any deal that gets us out, so that a party can put an end to FOM in their manifesto at the next GE, and do so when they win.
    Then you clearly don’t understand the nature of treaties. If we have a deal that keeps FoM, it will be no easier for a future government to end it than it is now.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited October 2019

    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    The scale of EU immigration from 2004 onwards, the thing that caused the referendum to be held and Leave to win, was lied about by successive governments of all three parties that held power. The high moral ground upon which Remainers think they stand is built on very weak foundations

    The moral high ground is in the eye of the beholder. Given that you are happy for free movement to continue after Brexit, your position is a bizarre form of virtue signalling.
    Well some people think lying is ok I guess. You seem to be one, as I am not happy about FOM continuing, something you just made up
    I've noticed that you like to gaslight as well. You said only three days ago that you would be "fine" with a deal that kept FoM. Here's the relevant post:

    https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/comment/2547925/#Comment_2547925
    Yeah. Not that you're predictable, but I knew you'd be scurrying around the archives for a quote. Ah well, you fell into a trap.

    What I mean by being ok with it continuing is that we have had a political establishment for the last 20 odd years with a huge appetite for mass immigration, and, while we are in the EU, they can claim there is nothing they can do to prevent a lot of it. So we need to leave to take that excuse away from them.

    The filibustering from the HofC for the last 3.5 years has put leaving in jeopardy, so I would take any deal that gets us out, so that a party can put an end to FOM in their manifesto at the next GE, and do so when they win.
    Then you clearly don’t understand the nature of treaties. If we have a deal that keeps FoM, it will be no easier for a future government to end it than it is now.
    Maybe I don't understand the nature of treaties then.

    Oh the shame
  • johnt said:



    The vote was Remain or Leave. Any form of Leave which officially removes us from the EU organisation is fulfilling the mandate of the referendum. That could be SM and CU or it could be No Deal - or anything imbetween.

    I have two problems with that argument Richard. Firstly, to allow the government of the day to deliver a form of Brexit which is clearly a million miles from what people thought they were voting for would be hugely damaging for democracy. We have (unfortunately) become very familiar with politicians lying to get elected and failing to deliver on their manifesto promises. But this referendum is different. Politicians can be removed at the next election. The damage done by the lies of vote leave will never be undone, they will just get worse. The second problem I have is that it is a logic which only seems to apply to 48% of the population. The 52% claim frequently that this is 'BINO' or that is 'not what we voted for' but the 48% are shouted down if they say a Brexit deal is unacceptable saying the referendum must be honoured. Really they cannot have it both ways.
    Well said.
    Errant nonsense
    You've arred in your spelling, Richard.
    Thanks Richard. Can I pretend it was you since we have the same name? :smile:
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    The scale of EU immigration from 2004 onwards, the thing that caused the referendum to be held and Leave to win, was lied about by successive governments of all three parties that held power. The high moral ground upon which Remainers think they stand is built on very weak foundations

    The moral high ground is in the eye of the beholder. Given that you are happy for free movement to continue after Brexit, your position is a bizarre form of virtue signalling.
    Well some people think lying is ok I guess. You seem to be one, as I am not happy about FOM continuing, something you just made up
    I've noticed that you like to gaslight as well. You said only three days ago that you would be "fine" with a deal that kept FoM. Here's the relevant post:

    https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/comment/2547925/#Comment_2547925
    Yeah. Not that you're predictable, but I knew you'd be scurrying around the archives for a quote. Ah well, time wasted, you fell into a trap..

    What I mean by being ok with it continuing is that we have had a political establishment for the last 20 odd years with a huge appetite for mass immigration, and, while we are in the EU, they can claim there is nothing they can do to prevent a lot of it. So we need to leave to take that excuse away from them.

    The filibustering from the HofC for the last 3.5 years has put leaving in jeopardy, so I would take any deal that gets us out, so that a party can put an end to FOM in their manifesto at the next GE, and do so when they win.
    :D
    desperate stuff from you today
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Nigelb said:

    isam said:

    Nigelb said:

    Scott_P said:
    Is the chief whip’s nickname ‘Sand’ ?

    I thought long and hard over whether that joke was funny enough to post... best I could come up with too
    Puns don’t have to be good to be posted. PB tradition....
    True dat
  • If the EU offers a 31st January end date that ends a referendum but still leaves deal, no deal or GE

    At least that would narrow the choices but only at the margins, though tens of thousands of remainers will be furious
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Noo said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    The scale of EU immigration from 2004 onwards, the thing that caused the referendum to be held and Leave to win, was lied about by successive governments of all three parties that held power. The high moral ground upon which Remainers think they stand is built on very weak foundations

    The moral high ground is in the eye of the beholder. Given that you are happy for free movement to continue after Brexit, your position is a bizarre form of virtue signalling.
    Well some people think lying is ok I guess. You seem to be one, as I am not happy about FOM continuing, something you just made up
    I've noticed that you like to gaslight as well. You said only three days ago that you would be "fine" with a deal that kept FoM. Here's the relevant post:

    https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/comment/2547925/#Comment_2547925
    Yeah. Not that you're predictable, but I knew you'd be scurrying around the archives for a quote. Ah well, time wasted, you fell into a trap..

    What I mean by being ok with it continuing is that we have had a political establishment for the last 20 odd years with a huge appetite for mass immigration, and, while we are in the EU, they can claim there is nothing they can do to prevent a lot of it. So we need to leave to take that excuse away from them.

    The filibustering from the HofC for the last 3.5 years has put leaving in jeopardy, so I would take any deal that gets us out, so that a party can put an end to FOM in their manifesto at the next GE, and do so when they win.
    :D
    desperate stuff from you today
    Least I'm not a retread! x
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    I think the EU wants to find a way of trying to bring things to a conclusion sooner rather than later .

    Latest rumours are a one month extension is being pushed by some countries . It’s not just France which is fed up of things.

  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 1,106
    nico67 said:

    I think the EU wants to find a way of trying to bring things to a conclusion sooner rather than later .

    Latest rumours are a one month extension is being pushed by some countries . It’s not just France which is fed up of things.

    I'm trying to work out to whose benefit that would be.

    It isn't long enough for a GE.

    Certainly not for R2.

    It is long enough for the WA to be mangled though.
  • nunuonenunuone Posts: 1,138
    nico67 said:

    I think the EU wants to find a way of trying to bring things to a conclusion sooner rather than later .

    Latest rumours are a one month extension is being pushed by some countries . It’s not just France which is fed up of things.

    If they are fed up then they need to scare Parliament into acting.

    Only when Remain MPs truly believe there will be no more extensions will they vote for a deal
  • nunuonenunuone Posts: 1,138
    edited October 2019
    I dont get it?

    Should have been a clown.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502

    If the EU offers a 31st January end date that ends a referendum but still leaves deal, no deal or GE

    At least that would narrow the choices but only at the margins, though tens of thousands of remainers will be furious

    Why if a miracle happens and Labour win the EU will extend for a second vote . The only way a second vote happens is after an election .

    Seeing as the odds of Labour winning are minimal the only thing I care about is avoiding a no deal . So I’d be quite pleased if the deal was done with a month extension.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,133
    edited October 2019
    nico67 said:

    I think the EU wants to find a way of trying to bring things to a conclusion sooner rather than later .

    Latest rumours are a one month extension is being pushed by some countries . It’s not just France which is fed up of things.

    I have heard that as well and that is why there is such irritation withTusk. He went out on his own and this may well be the offer but I would want to wait and see

    Of course that would see the deal pass unamended with excluding a customs union and a referendum and no deal comes back in a big way

    It would be a pivotal moment and of course this deal is all ready for approval by the EU - the EU Parliament were due to do so tomorrow before last night

    Last week we saw a great friendship developing with Macron, Varadkar and Boris and maybe that is in play now, but of course it may not be
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,236
    So, when't the election?
  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 1,106
    nico67 said:


    Why if a miracle happens and Labour win the EU will extend for a second vote . The only way a second vote happens is after an election .

    Seeing as the odds of Labour winning are minimal the only thing I care about is avoiding a no deal . So I’d be quite pleased if the deal was done with a month extension.

    Supposing the extension was just for 1 month I would imagine that if the wrecking amendments started appearing the government could just pause the bill again.

    So that would deter remainers from playing games.

    But then what if the ERG started throwing in amendments in the hope of stopping the progress of the deal and running down the clock.

    Then I suppose there would be enough justification to revoke.

    But would there be enough time for that.




    So many questions and probably none of them pertinent to the discussion.
  • johntjohnt Posts: 166

    johnt said:



    The vote was Remain or Leave. Any form of Leave which officially removes us from the EU organisation is fulfilling the mandate of the referendum. That could be SM and CU or it could be No Deal - or anything imbetween.

    I have two problems with that argument Richard. Firstly, to allow the government of the day to deliver a form of Brexit which is clearly a million miles from what people thought they were voting for would be hugely damaging for democracy. We have (unfortunately) become very familiar with politicians lying to get elected and failing to deliver on their manifesto promises. But this referendum is different. Politicians can be removed at the next election. The damage done by the lies of vote leave will never be undone, they will just get worse. The second problem I have is that it is a logic which only seems to apply to 48% of the population. The 52% claim frequently that this is 'BINO' or that is 'not what we voted for' but the 48% are shouted down if they say a Brexit deal is unacceptable saying the referendum must be honoured. Really they cannot have it both ways.
    No one is wanting it both ways except you Remainers. You are happy to tell us that as Leavers we didn't vote for this or that sort of Brexit and therefore we should not leave. But the one thing that we absolutely did vote for above all else was to Leave. Of course there will be disagreements about what form that leave should take but the one thing that is clear is that Remaining does not satisfy any form of Leave.

    I am afraid that all these comments from Remainers about 'the wrong sort of Leave' are just a smokescreen for the one truly undemocratic thing they want to do which is to stop Brexit.

    .
    Oh dear that seemed to touch a nerve. Look let's be clear shall we. For all the endless moaning to the contrary it was the ERG and the DUP who blocked the UK leaving the EU earlier in the year. The leavers blocked us leaving. So the endless going on about how undemocratic remainer MPs have been seems to me to be completely pointless.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    johnt said:

    It is certainly true that Corbyn and the Labour Party have been a major factor in Brexit and the damage it has done and will continue to do to the country. I have always felt that Brexit should be implemented as long as the government of the day can do a deal which looks 90 plus percent like the arrangements which Vote Leave said they would get in the referendum of 2016. Delivering no Brexit or delivering a Brexit which delivered some, but not all the major commitments of the Vote Leave campaign are both exactly the same for me. Neither has a democratic mandate. It was obvious 18 months ago that the Vote Leave deal was not going to happen and that was the time when Corbyn and Labour should have said that the referendum result of 2016 was no longer sound enough to be safe. Personally I suspect that had he done that a way would have been found to pass May's deal at the start of the year subject to a referendum and we would now be moving forward. He failed to have a policy, parliament failed to have an effective opposition and MPs failed to find an option they could agree. The rest, as they say, is history.

    The vote was Remain or Leave. Any form of Leave which officially removes us from the EU organisation is fulfilling the mandate of the referendum. That could be SM and CU or it could be No Deal - or anything imbetween.
    I agree Richard, but you know as well as I that one of the many poisons in this debate is that many/most Brexiteers consider that SM and/or CU isn’t “real” Brexit and does not therefore fulfil the referendum’s mandate. You and I agree it is but, as you know, disagree on much else. The mess we are in is that even on the same “side” there are such wide differences in what the referendum “meant”. As a piece of legal drafting, therefore, it was terrible. The failure to specify an end state is what has done for this process.
  • nico67 said:

    If the EU offers a 31st January end date that ends a referendum but still leaves deal, no deal or GE

    At least that would narrow the choices but only at the margins, though tens of thousands of remainers will be furious

    Why if a miracle happens and Labour win the EU will extend for a second vote . The only way a second vote happens is after an election .

    Seeing as the odds of Labour winning are minimal the only thing I care about is avoiding a no deal . So I’d be quite pleased if the deal was done with a month extension.
    I agree with that
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,491
    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    The scale of EU immigration from 2004 onwards, the thing that caused the referendum to be held and Leave to win, was lied about by successive governments of all three parties that held power. The high moral ground upon which Remainers think they stand is built on very weak foundations

    The moral high ground is in the eye of the beholder. Given that you are happy for free movement to continue after Brexit, your position is a bizarre form of virtue signalling.
    Well some people think lying is ok I guess. You seem to be one, as I am not happy about FOM continuing, something you just made up
    I've noticed that you like to gaslight as well. You said only three days ago that you would be "fine" with a deal that kept FoM. Here's the relevant post:

    https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/comment/2547925/#Comment_2547925
    Yeah. Not that you're predictable, but I knew you'd be scurrying around the archives for a quote. Ah well, time wasted, you fell into a trap..

    What I mean by being ok with it continuing is that we have had a political establishment for the last 20 odd years with a huge appetite for mass immigration, and, while we are in the EU, they can claim there is nothing they can do to prevent a lot of it. So we need to leave to take that excuse away from them.

    The filibustering from the HofC for the last 3.5 years has put leaving in jeopardy, so I would take any deal that gets us out, so that a party can put an end to FOM in their manifesto at the next GE, and do so when they win.
    I largely agree with that.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,491

    Scott_P said:
    2 to 3 days was Ken Clarke's suggestion yesterday

    Let me let you into a little secret: no deal on this will ever be agreed.

    Even if Corbyn and Boris did agree it’s not in their respective political interests to be seen to do so, particularly Corbyn.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,133
    edited October 2019
    Sky confirming split in EU leaders

    Also adds might need a full Council meeting next week as Macron is the main anti 31st January extension looking for a much shorter one
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,237
    isam said:

    Yep yep. Any form of Leaving is legit. Anything else is not, including not having left 3.5 years after the vote.

    There’s no rush. In fact deferred gratification is a key component of genuine achievement.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,616

    Sky confirming split in EU leaders

    It only needs one hold out - and Parliament is working Saturday and Sunday to get this over the line for the 31st....

    Or No Deal.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,722
    isam said:

    johnt said:



    The vote was Remain or Leave. Any form of Leave which officially removes us from the EU organisation is fulfilling the mandate of the referendum. That could be SM and CU or it could be No Deal - or anything imbetween.

    I have two problems with that argument Richard. Firstly, to allow the government of the day to deliver a form of Brexit which is clearly a million miles from what people thought they were voting for would be hugely damaging for democracy. We have (unfortunately) become very familiar with politicians lying to get elected and failing to deliver on their manifesto promises. But this referendum is different. Politicians can be removed at the next election. The damage done by the lies of vote leave will never be undone, they will just get worse. The second problem I have is that it is a logic which only seems to apply to 48% of the population. The 52% claim frequently that this is 'BINO' or that is 'not what we voted for' but the 48% are shouted down if they say a Brexit deal is unacceptable saying the referendum must be honoured. Really they cannot have it both ways.
    The scale of EU immigration from 2004 onwards, the thing that caused the referendum to be held and Leave to win, was lied about by successive governments of all three parties that held power. The moral high ground upon which Remainers think they stand is built on very weak foundations
    Philip Johnson's opinion piece in today's Telegraph expands on that. Lays the blame squarely on Blair's administration.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    SunnyJim said:

    nico67 said:


    Why if a miracle happens and Labour win the EU will extend for a second vote . The only way a second vote happens is after an election .

    Seeing as the odds of Labour winning are minimal the only thing I care about is avoiding a no deal . So I’d be quite pleased if the deal was done with a month extension.

    Supposing the extension was just for 1 month I would imagine that if the wrecking amendments started appearing the government could just pause the bill again.

    So that would deter remainers from playing games.

    But then what if the ERG started throwing in amendments in the hope of stopping the progress of the deal and running down the clock.

    Then I suppose there would be enough justification to revoke.

    But would there be enough time for that.




    So many questions and probably none of them pertinent to the discussion.
    True but the EU can’t win either way . They can’t say we’ll only offer you a three month extension if you have an election . Any request has to come from the UK not be seen as the EU trying to influence things .

    It’s not acceptable for Johnson to dump the problem on them . This is really a UK matter .

    It’s well known that even the French would accept a three month request as long as it’s for an election .

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,491
    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    Nigelb said: "Meanwhile, a plausible explanation for the Hillary odds:
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/467021-clinton-2020-whisper-campaign-hits-new-heights"

    I`ve been quietly backing Hillary for a while now but up to now haven`t admitted it for fear of you taking the piss and calling me a mug punter.

    Me too! Got on at 80. But only for peanuts and only on the vague idea that I knew she would LOVE to go for it.
    There’s barely 14 weeks till the Iowa Caucus, with Christmas inbetween, so make that 12 weeks. So far, there’s not a hint of a sign Hillary is serious about a run and has no funding or campaign infrastructure in place. Other candidates have been there for months and months and have offices and volunteers all over the State, many of whom would have been previous Hillary backers but are now invested in their new candidates.

    How does she go from a totally cold standing start to being a credible challenger there in less than 3 months?
  • Scott_P said:
    2 to 3 days was Ken Clarke's suggestion yesterday

    Let me let you into a little secret: no deal on this will ever be agreed.

    Even if Corbyn and Boris did agree it’s not in their respective political interests to be seen to do so, particularly Corbyn.
    I absolutely agree but the danger is an accidental one
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,616
    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    Nigelb said: "Meanwhile, a plausible explanation for the Hillary odds:
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/467021-clinton-2020-whisper-campaign-hits-new-heights"

    I`ve been quietly backing Hillary for a while now but up to now haven`t admitted it for fear of you taking the piss and calling me a mug punter.

    Me too! Got on at 80. But only for peanuts and only on the vague idea that I knew she would LOVE to go for it.
    That Hillary's name gets mentioned at all is just an acknowledgment that the Democrat field for 2020 is seriously underwhelming.....
    Or a function of the Republican desperation to stir shit, and the credulity of their supporters ?
    But mine is the correct reason!
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    Macron apparently just wants 15 day extension . However it’s not clear if he would agree to a longer one for an election .

    It would seem strange for him to rule out the latter as that would be seen as even more political interference which the EU didn’t want .
  • johnt said:

    johnt said:



    The vote was Remain or Leave. Any form of Leave which officially removes us from the EU organisation is fulfilling the mandate of the referendum. That could be SM and CU or it could be No Deal - or anything imbetween.

    I have two problems with that argument Richard. Firstly, to allow the government of the day to deliver a form of Brexit which is clearly a million miles from what people thought they were voting for would be hugely damaging for democracy. We have (unfortunately) become very familiar with politicians lying to get elected and failing to deliver on their manifesto promises. But this referendum is different. Politicians can be removed at the next election. The damage done by the lies of vote leave will never be undone, they will just get worse. The second problem I have is that it is a logic which only seems to apply to 48% of the population. The 52% claim frequently that this is 'BINO' or that is 'not what we voted for' but the 48% are shouted down if they say a Brexit deal is unacceptable saying the referendum must be honoured. Really they cannot have it both ways.
    No one is wanting it both ways except you Remainers. You are happy to tell us that as Leavers we didn't vote for this or that sort of Brexit and therefore we should not leave. But the one thing that we absolutely did vote for above all else was to Leave. Of course there will be disagreements about what form that leave should take but the one thing that is clear is that Remaining does not satisfy any form of Leave.

    I am afraid that all these comments from Remainers about 'the wrong sort of Leave' are just a smokescreen for the one truly undemocratic thing they want to do which is to stop Brexit.

    .
    Oh dear that seemed to touch a nerve. Look let's be clear shall we. For all the endless moaning to the contrary it was the ERG and the DUP who blocked the UK leaving the EU earlier in the year. The leavers blocked us leaving. So the endless going on about how undemocratic remainer MPs have been seems to me to be completely pointless.
    Again complete nonsense. The responsibility for blocking Brexit so far lies with every MP who has voted against a Deal, whichever side of the debate they are on. To claim it is all the fault of the ERG and DUP is as idiotic as claiming it is all the fault of the Remainers.

    There should be a particular place in hell reserved for any MP who stood at election promising to enact Brexit and then voted against when they had the chance. That includes the ERG mob - and Boris - just as much as it does Corbyn or any of the Tory defectors like Soubry or Wollaston.
  • StreeterStreeter Posts: 684
    nico67 said:

    Macron apparently just wants 15 day extension . However it’s not clear if he would agree to a longer one for an election .

    It would seem strange for him to rule out the latter as that would be seen as even more political interference which the EU didn’t want .

    Still, it’s comforting we’ve taken back control, isn’t it?

    Just think of the enormous pile of shit we’d be at the bottom of if we hadn’t.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Streeter said:

    nico67 said:

    Macron apparently just wants 15 day extension . However it’s not clear if he would agree to a longer one for an election .

    It would seem strange for him to rule out the latter as that would be seen as even more political interference which the EU didn’t want .

    Still, it’s comforting we’ve taken back control, isn’t it?

    Just think of the enormous pile of shit we’d be at the bottom of if we hadn’t.
    MPs have taken back control from the public on the matter of leaving the EU, that’s for sure
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,236
    Re Hillary:

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    In 2016, Hillary owned the DNC. She locked up the superdelegates. Her people were in positions of control throughout the party.

    Now, they're all gone.

    She is the woman who lost to Donald Trump. She is aged and increasingly infirm, and wouldn't want to put herself through a bruising election campaign again. She's hated by a substantial minority in the Democratic Party. She has no organisation in Iowa or New Hampshire. She has no money.

    She would get null delegates in Iowa. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

    Anyone who is backing her - even at 80-1 - is throwing their money down the toilet.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    nico67 said:

    Macron apparently just wants 15 day extension . However it’s not clear if he would agree to a longer one for an election .

    It would seem strange for him to rule out the latter as that would be seen as even more political interference which the EU didn’t want .

    Well clearly if it’s only 15 days then the only sane response is to revoke, the WA has significant problems, the WAIB is even worse so time to revoke to avoid making a stupid set of decisions which will impact the UK for years to come.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    Streeter said:

    nico67 said:

    Macron apparently just wants 15 day extension . However it’s not clear if he would agree to a longer one for an election .

    It would seem strange for him to rule out the latter as that would be seen as even more political interference which the EU didn’t want .

    Still, it’s comforting we’ve taken back control, isn’t it?

    Just think of the enormous pile of shit we’d be at the bottom of if we hadn’t.
    Lol! True . Apparently the EU ambassadors all agreed the need for an extension , no veto threats and preferably a written procedure .
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,236
    rcs1000 said:

    Re Hillary:

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    In 2016, Hillary owned the DNC. She locked up the superdelegates. Her people were in positions of control throughout the party.

    Now, they're all gone.

    She is the woman who lost to Donald Trump. She is aged and increasingly infirm, and wouldn't want to put herself through a bruising election campaign again. She's hated by a substantial minority in the Democratic Party. She has no organisation in Iowa or New Hampshire. She has no money.

    She would get null delegates in Iowa. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

    Anyone who is backing her - even at 80-1 - is throwing their money down the toilet.

    Tulsi Gabbard would wipe the floor with Hillary. Bernie Sanders would wipe the floor with Hillary. Pete Buttigieg and Kamala Harris would wipe the floor with Hillary. And even Biden might run her close.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    MV to pass in 2019 still available at 3.1 …...
  • DougSeal said:

    johnt said:

    It is certainly true that Corbyn and the Labour Party have been a major factor in Brexit and the damage it has done and will continue to do to the country. I have always felt that Brexit should be implemented as long as the government of the day can do a deal which looks 90 plus percent like the arrangements which Vote Leave said they would get in the referendum of 2016. Delivering no Brexit or delivering a Brexit which delivered some, but not all the major commitments of the Vote Leave campaign are both exactly the same for me. Neither has a democratic mandate. It was obvious 18 months ago that the Vote Leave deal was not going to happen and that was the time when Corbyn and Labour should have said that the referendum result of 2016 was no longer sound enough to be safe. Personally I suspect that had he done that a way would have been found to pass May's deal at the start of the year subject to a referendum and we would now be moving forward. He failed to have a policy, parliament failed to have an effective opposition and MPs failed to find an option they could agree. The rest, as they say, is history.

    The vote was Remain or Leave. Any form of Leave which officially removes us from the EU organisation is fulfilling the mandate of the referendum. That could be SM and CU or it could be No Deal - or anything imbetween.
    I agree Richard, but you know as well as I that one of the many poisons in this debate is that many/most Brexiteers consider that SM and/or CU isn’t “real” Brexit and does not therefore fulfil the referendum’s mandate. You and I agree it is but, as you know, disagree on much else. The mess we are in is that even on the same “side” there are such wide differences in what the referendum “meant”. As a piece of legal drafting, therefore, it was terrible. The failure to specify an end state is what has done for this process.
    I think all stems from the arrogance of Cameron and his team. They simply could not envisage of a situation where they lost and so really paid very little attention to the potential confusion if Leave won.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,038
    I see that the BBC now accepts that Priti was simpering in her interview with Marr.

    She always simpers. That's what makes her [REDACTED].
  • StreeterStreeter Posts: 684
    isam said:

    Streeter said:

    nico67 said:

    Macron apparently just wants 15 day extension . However it’s not clear if he would agree to a longer one for an election .

    It would seem strange for him to rule out the latter as that would be seen as even more political interference which the EU didn’t want .

    Still, it’s comforting we’ve taken back control, isn’t it?

    Just think of the enormous pile of shit we’d be at the bottom of if we hadn’t.
    MPs have taken back control from the public on the matter of leaving the EU, that’s for sure
    French MPs, yes.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    nichomar said:

    nico67 said:

    Macron apparently just wants 15 day extension . However it’s not clear if he would agree to a longer one for an election .

    It would seem strange for him to rule out the latter as that would be seen as even more political interference which the EU didn’t want .

    Well clearly if it’s only 15 days then the only sane response is to revoke, the WA has significant problems, the WAIB is even worse so time to revoke to avoid making a stupid set of decisions which will impact the UK for years to come.
    If you want sane best leave the country! I’m afraid sanity ended in 2016.

    The transition period gives you a chance to plan your escape route , just as I’m doing with getting my dual nationality.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,491
    rcs1000 said:

    Re Hillary:

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    In 2016, Hillary owned the DNC. She locked up the superdelegates. Her people were in positions of control throughout the party.

    Now, they're all gone.

    She is the woman who lost to Donald Trump. She is aged and increasingly infirm, and wouldn't want to put herself through a bruising election campaign again. She's hated by a substantial minority in the Democratic Party. She has no organisation in Iowa or New Hampshire. She has no money.

    She would get null delegates in Iowa. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

    Anyone who is backing her - even at 80-1 - is throwing their money down the toilet.

    Does take two to make a market, though.

    I think some people are assuming that because she fought Obama in 2008, and lost, and fought Trump in 2016, and lost, she’s a bit obsessed by it, crazy and arrogant enough to want to run again and, y’know, third time lucky and all that.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,215
    nico67 said:

    Macron apparently just wants 15 day extension . However it’s not clear if he would agree to a longer one for an election .

    It would seem strange for him to rule out the latter as that would be seen as even more political interference which the EU didn’t want .

    The Benn letter did specify that we had to agree whatever the EU said I think ! I think that letter has definitely by hook and crook helped Brexit along.
  • nichomar said:

    nico67 said:

    Macron apparently just wants 15 day extension . However it’s not clear if he would agree to a longer one for an election .

    It would seem strange for him to rule out the latter as that would be seen as even more political interference which the EU didn’t want .

    Well clearly if it’s only 15 days then the only sane response is to revoke, the WA has significant problems, the WAIB is even worse so time to revoke to avoid making a stupid set of decisions which will impact the UK for years to come.
    Revoke IS a stupid decision which will impact the UK for years to come.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468

    nichomar said:

    nico67 said:

    Macron apparently just wants 15 day extension . However it’s not clear if he would agree to a longer one for an election .

    It would seem strange for him to rule out the latter as that would be seen as even more political interference which the EU didn’t want .

    Well clearly if it’s only 15 days then the only sane response is to revoke, the WA has significant problems, the WAIB is even worse so time to revoke to avoid making a stupid set of decisions which will impact the UK for years to come.
    Brexit IS a stupid decision which will impact the UK for years to come.
    Fixed your message for you.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,605

    Sky confirming split in EU leaders

    It only needs one hold out - and Parliament is working Saturday and Sunday to get this over the line for the 31st....

    Or No Deal.
    Johnson does not want No Deal. It would wreck his premiership and the Tory Party for years to come.

    I would call his bluff. I know Letwin and others are terrified of No Deal but I would leave it in Johnson's hands. If it came to the crunch, he'd either have to ask for another extension or revoke or go over the cliff. I don't care which.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468
    Labour just need to back an election ffs. Stop fannying about.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,215

    nichomar said:

    nico67 said:

    Macron apparently just wants 15 day extension . However it’s not clear if he would agree to a longer one for an election .

    It would seem strange for him to rule out the latter as that would be seen as even more political interference which the EU didn’t want .

    Well clearly if it’s only 15 days then the only sane response is to revoke, the WA has significant problems, the WAIB is even worse so time to revoke to avoid making a stupid set of decisions which will impact the UK for years to come.
    Brexit IS a stupid decision which will impact the UK for years to come.
    Fixed your message for you.
    One might think the same about electing Corbyn but to block him from entering No 10 after an election if he had the confidence of the commons would be abhorrent.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    nico67 said:

    nichomar said:

    nico67 said:

    Macron apparently just wants 15 day extension . However it’s not clear if he would agree to a longer one for an election .

    It would seem strange for him to rule out the latter as that would be seen as even more political interference which the EU didn’t want .

    Well clearly if it’s only 15 days then the only sane response is to revoke, the WA has significant problems, the WAIB is even worse so time to revoke to avoid making a stupid set of decisions which will impact the UK for years to come.
    If you want sane best leave the country! I’m afraid sanity ended in 2016.

    The transition period gives you a chance to plan your escape route , just as I’m doing with getting my dual nationality.
    As I’m sure Mr Tyndall will be along shortly to tell you I have already escaped but in reality my escape depends entirely on how the UK treats EU citizens and it’s governments ability to agree a whole host of reciprocal deals to ensure health care and other ‘minor’ details. Apparently my escaping no longer gives me the right to have a view on what happens in the UK regardless to how it affects me.
This discussion has been closed.