This is from the London Playbook today. The government really has gone insane:
KARAOKE NEWS: It wasn’t until around midnight that the government put the latest regulations for the North-West and North-East online. Doughty Street barrister Adam Wagner has a rundown, including that in the south six people are free to sing, but in the north only one person is allowed to sing indoors, although six can sing outside. Can’t wait for the questions to the PM at this evening’s presser.
Making singing illegal is bonkers.
I think we need a comment from our PB friend, Always Singing.
He's been silenced!
He has had to move to his own forum with a maximum of five others.
Wait until she hears about the gold post box in Sheffield, honouring a BAME lady.
My view is that these will open up an unhelpful fissure.
The gold postboxes post London 2012 honoured black and white British athletes nationwide. They unified Britons.
This will end up with one side searching for reasons to post as many postboxes black as possible nationwide to demonstrate their progressiveness and anti-racism, for increasingly tenuous reasons, and then them never changing back. They will deem any opposition to a particular postbox being switched as evidence of "racism", as will those who oppose such racialising trends more broadly.
So yes, I think it's a bit mad. I'd prefer new statues to ethnic minorities who are part of our national story in the public space.
There can be no deal for as long as the Internal Market Bill contains sections 42-45 in their present form. For a deal to happen, those provisions will have to be removed or substantially amended. It is politically impossible for Johnson to do that. Everything else is just fluff.
A deal looks more likely now and of course negotiating the status of the IMB could be part of it
Let us wait and see. Not too long to go now.
The UK government negotiating the status of a piece of domestic UK legislation and agreeing to remove provisions the ERG has hailed as brilliant in order to secure a trade deal with the EU. I look forward to seeing how that may play out.
Those provisions are only necessary if there is no deal. If there is a deal they become superflous so can be removed.
What was brilliant was it showed how comfortable we were with no deal, which makes a good deal more likely.
It was always the case that the better prepared you were for no deal then the better a deal you could get.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Sometimes, I guess, you just have to laugh.
There is no deal the UK government will do that you will regard as bad. Anything it comes back with you will regard as a triumph. But you are not a member of the ERG, who has just cheered the IMB through the lobbies. They may see things differently.
But, by the same token, there is no deal the UK Government will do that many on here will regard as good, and anything it comes back with will be regarded as a disaster.
They will then move on to the next phase hoping that how the deal works in practice (which will have winners and losers) will further strengthen the "we should have Remained" or "Rejoin" case.
We know the battlelines. And we know how both sides weaponise the evidence.
It's a war without end.
All I want the government to do is deliver what they promised in their manifesto of last December - a better deal than the one we already have. Its not my measure I am applying, its theirs. Then we have the Tories on Twitter this morning saying that voting against their new bill which throws out their manifesto of last year is capitulating to the EU.
So the Tory manifesto of December 2019 was capitulation to the EU according to the same Tories who wrote said manifesto. I'm not sure its the people on here who have the problem...
Here's what we'll get from Brexit: greater domestic flexibility in regulation of our market, greater immigration control, and a more agile foreign policy.
Here's what we won't get: less influence over and within the EU, increase in barriers to trade between the UK and EU (plus NI as a special case in certain areas) and free movement.
The Deal will reflect that. Those who don't Brexit will call out the latter. Those who do the former.
[NB: there's "collateral" on top, which includes political and economic transitional fallout, which gets worse the longer it goes on and more bitter it gets, is why I favour smooth & steady transitions and pragmatism.]
I think that's fair. Though the benefits are for now some time off, and of uncertain extent. The costs, while also uncertain, will be apparent rather sooner.
Thanks. I also agree with your summary.
The biggest problem with Brexit (aside from the carcrashfuckery with which it's been done on both sides) is that the pay-off increases over time in 10-20-30 years but all the costs are upfront and frontloaded.
This is from the London Playbook today. The government really has gone insane:
KARAOKE NEWS: It wasn’t until around midnight that the government put the latest regulations for the North-West and North-East online. Doughty Street barrister Adam Wagner has a rundown, including that in the south six people are free to sing, but in the north only one person is allowed to sing indoors, although six can sing outside. Can’t wait for the questions to the PM at this evening’s presser.
Making singing illegal is bonkers.
I think we need a comment from our PB friend, Always Singing.
He's been silenced!
He has had to move to his own forum with a maximum of five others.
This is from the London Playbook today. The government really has gone insane:
KARAOKE NEWS: It wasn’t until around midnight that the government put the latest regulations for the North-West and North-East online. Doughty Street barrister Adam Wagner has a rundown, including that in the south six people are free to sing, but in the north only one person is allowed to sing indoors, although six can sing outside. Can’t wait for the questions to the PM at this evening’s presser.
Making singing illegal is bonkers.
I think we need a comment from our PB friend, Always Singing.
He's been silenced!
He has had to move to his own forum with a maximum of five others.
There can be no deal for as long as the Internal Market Bill contains sections 42-45 in their present form. For a deal to happen, those provisions will have to be removed or substantially amended. It is politically impossible for Johnson to do that. Everything else is just fluff.
A deal looks more likely now and of course negotiating the status of the IMB could be part of it
Let us wait and see. Not too long to go now.
The UK government negotiating the status of a piece of domestic UK legislation and agreeing to remove provisions the ERG has hailed as brilliant in order to secure a trade deal with the EU. I look forward to seeing how that may play out.
Those provisions are only necessary if there is no deal. If there is a deal they become superflous so can be removed.
What was brilliant was it showed how comfortable we were with no deal, which makes a good deal more likely.
It was always the case that the better prepared you were for no deal then the better a deal you could get.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Sometimes, I guess, you just have to laugh.
There is no deal the UK government will do that you will regard as bad. Anything it comes back with you will regard as a triumph. But you are not a member of the ERG, who has just cheered the IMB through the lobbies. They may see things differently.
But, by the same token, there is no deal the UK Government will do that many on here will regard as good, and anything it comes back with will be regarded as a disaster.
They will then move on to the next phase hoping that how the deal works in practice (which will have winners and losers) will further strengthen the "we should have Remained" or "Rejoin" case.
We know the battlelines. And we know how both sides weaponise the evidence.
It's a war without end.
I think you are mistaken. Most remainers want Brexit to be a success because for most they know their jobs and wealth depend on it. They don't expect it, but they want it.
I actually agree with that, and I think you're talking about the 28-33% of the electorate who are Remainers (not the 48%).
There's a hardcore of c.15-20% who actively want it to fail as a price worth paying for rapid full EU.
They are heavily overrepresented at elite level.
I don't want it to fail - but my expectations are that it's going to be a disaster and everything I look at makes that disaster look even bigger than I thought it would be.
See for example the BASF comments to the Future Relationship with the EU Committee - £1bn in additional costs for zero upside which probably just renders our chemical industry as uncompetitive.
There can be no deal for as long as the Internal Market Bill contains sections 42-45 in their present form. For a deal to happen, those provisions will have to be removed or substantially amended. It is politically impossible for Johnson to do that. Everything else is just fluff.
A deal looks more likely now and of course negotiating the status of the IMB could be part of it
Let us wait and see. Not too long to go now.
The UK government negotiating the status of a piece of domestic UK legislation and agreeing to remove provisions the ERG has hailed as brilliant in order to secure a trade deal with the EU. I look forward to seeing how that may play out.
Those provisions are only necessary if there is no deal. If there is a deal they become superflous so can be removed.
What was brilliant was it showed how comfortable we were with no deal, which makes a good deal more likely.
It was always the case that the better prepared you were for no deal then the better a deal you could get.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Sometimes, I guess, you just have to laugh.
There is no deal the UK government will do that you will regard as bad. Anything it comes back with you will regard as a triumph. But you are not a member of the ERG, who has just cheered the IMB through the lobbies. They may see things differently.
But, by the same token, there is no deal the UK Government will do that many on here will regard as good, and anything it comes back with will be regarded as a disaster.
They will then move on to the next phase hoping that how the deal works in practice (which will have winners and losers) will further strengthen the "we should have Remained" or "Rejoin" case.
We know the battlelines. And we know how both sides weaponise the evidence.
It's a war without end.
The purpose of a trade deal is to improve the trading relationship between the parties concerned. Why should it be any different for one between the UK and EU? If British businesses have better access to the Single Market in the future than they do now then that will clearly be a triumph for both the government and the PM.
You know perfectly well they won't, as do I, so why pretend otherwise and make that the test? If we wanted that we had to sign-up to the full jazz of the EU and we decided not to do so for other reasons.
Well, I know why: it's because you want a rapid return of Labour to Government and want to hang as many failures around the neck of the Tories as you can, and to frame every political milestone as such.
Both you and I know this. It's a waste of your time and mine to be sucked into debating Brexit on here again for the millionth time.
Brexit is done. The ramifications are not. We will live with those for many years to come. Clearly, the Tories will own these and will be judged against the promises they made.
Britain has offered a three-year transition period for European fishing fleets to allow them to prepare for the post-Brexit changes as part of an 11th-hour deal sweetener.
Lol, an indefinite transition that will last forever.
But we hold all the cards, will Philip and HYUFD now resign from the Tory Party?
Eminently sensible and time dated
You do need to reduce your hyperbole
Not surprised to see you eating up the Government's words.
A three year transition is code for kick the can down the road.
I presume you opposed the backstop on the same grounds or is that Johnson is in charge so now transitions are a great idea?
You are all over the place
I am happy for concessions on either side to get a deal
And if a three year fishing transition is agreed and passes the European Parliament time to move on
I see you're back to BoJo superfan status then, sad to see.
I am not and this is more hyperbole from you
And from a Keir fanboy
At least I don't pretend to "lose confidence" in the Government every day before going back to them again the next.
The boy who cried wolf comes to mind.
At least I know what I am.
One thing you need to learn is that everything HMG does is not wrong and credit applies where it is due
To be fair to CHB you did start out as a remainer who was appalled at the notion of No Deal and you did consider that Johnson was not fit to be PM.
I agree that you do regularly criticise the government but it all sounds a bit hollow because you inevitably end up falling back into line.
Personally if I felt that a party was headed by someone who is not fit to lead it and was willing to take us down a No Deal path that I believe would be a disaster then I would resign from that party - that is a path many of us took when Corbyn led Labour.
And I respect anyone taking the principled stand to resign on the basis of Corbyn or Johnson.
I can understand why people did not choose either and abstained.
There can be no deal for as long as the Internal Market Bill contains sections 42-45 in their present form. For a deal to happen, those provisions will have to be removed or substantially amended. It is politically impossible for Johnson to do that. Everything else is just fluff.
A deal looks more likely now and of course negotiating the status of the IMB could be part of it
Let us wait and see. Not too long to go now.
The UK government negotiating the status of a piece of domestic UK legislation and agreeing to remove provisions the ERG has hailed as brilliant in order to secure a trade deal with the EU. I look forward to seeing how that may play out.
Those provisions are only necessary if there is no deal. If there is a deal they become superflous so can be removed.
What was brilliant was it showed how comfortable we were with no deal, which makes a good deal more likely.
It was always the case that the better prepared you were for no deal then the better a deal you could get.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Sometimes, I guess, you just have to laugh.
There is no deal the UK government will do that you will regard as bad. Anything it comes back with you will regard as a triumph. But you are not a member of the ERG, who has just cheered the IMB through the lobbies. They may see things differently.
But, by the same token, there is no deal the UK Government will do that many on here will regard as good, and anything it comes back with will be regarded as a disaster.
They will then move on to the next phase hoping that how the deal works in practice (which will have winners and losers) will further strengthen the "we should have Remained" or "Rejoin" case.
We know the battlelines. And we know how both sides weaponise the evidence.
It's a war without end.
The purpose of a trade deal is to improve the trading relationship between the parties concerned. Why should it be any different for one between the UK and EU? If British businesses have better access to the Single Market in the future than they do now then that will clearly be a triumph for both the government and the PM.
You know perfectly well they won't, as do I, so why pretend otherwise and make that the test? If we wanted that we had to sign-up to the full jazz of the EU and we decided not to do so for other reasons.
Well, I know why: it's because you want a rapid return of Labour to Government and want to hang as many failures around the neck of the Tories as you can, and to frame every political milestone as such.
Both you and I know this. It's a waste of your time and mine to be sucked into debating Brexit on here again for the millionth time.
Brexit is done. The ramifications are not. We will live with those for many years to come. Clearly, the Tories will own these and will be judged against the promises they made.
Save the poundshop Damian McBride stuff for your Twitter account.
It insults our intelligence to flog it on here too.
The UK doesn't negotiate: Obstinate morons! Ideological nationalists! Isolationists!!
The UK does negotiate: CAPITULATION! SURRENDER!!
No it's that Brexiteers insist we hold all the cards and we'd get everything we want.
At every turn, we have got a deal because we capitulated. That is not holding all the cards - to say otherwise is just lying.
If you could pull your head out of your arse you'd note that the EU has made concessions on: insisting on the ECJ for disputes, following all its state aid rules and full dynamic alignment, and insisting on fishing quotas *exactly* as is.
We've made concessions on a single governance regime for the whole arrangement, accepting some state aid rules in principle (details TBC), and now a transition to a new fishing deal with a higher catch quota,
It's called a negotiation. I'm getting very bored of saying this: this is a negotiation where the strength of bartering power lies between 35-65 to 45-55 in the EU's favour DEPENDING on the issue/sector.
It is neither 100:0 to the EU or 0:100 to the UK.
You need to learn and accept this.
Why have we negotiated anything when we hold all the cards?
Back on topic the initial headlines were about the insane chaos of the whole thing but the enduring point is going to be Trump enabling right-wing militias.
Say people go to vote and there are nazis exercising their constitutional rights to walk around in paramilitary gear close to polling stations carrying guns. What proportion of the voters feel good about the president who brought about this situation, and what proportion of the voters feel this is sub-optimal?
I know we're used to the idea of there being a conservative base of like 40%, but the proportion of the population who goes as far as being *for right-wing militias* must be more like 20%.
Another bloody remoaner who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Why are they asking the BASF Regulatory Affairs Manager about Brexit impacts on the Chemicals industry when they could ask experts like Brexit Hard Man Steve Baker?
Assuming that the next president market is a two donkey race (i.e. neither drops out) the book with BF is less than 100%.
1.66 Biden, 2.56 Trump (99.3% book).
There is value in this market - and despite recent shortenings in price I think Biden is a good value bet. It feels to me that Trump should be significantly longer than 6/4.
Edit: BF commissions of course.
The 538 model - which is more Trump friendly than most others - gives him a 22% chance. That's way longer than 6/4. Something is still supporting his price. Just a "feeling" that it will be much closer than the polls indicate, I suppose. It appears that the possibility of the polls being out the other way is being assigned a probability of near zero. I can't see why personally.
There can be no deal for as long as the Internal Market Bill contains sections 42-45 in their present form. For a deal to happen, those provisions will have to be removed or substantially amended. It is politically impossible for Johnson to do that. Everything else is just fluff.
A deal looks more likely now and of course negotiating the status of the IMB could be part of it
Let us wait and see. Not too long to go now.
The UK government negotiating the status of a piece of domestic UK legislation and agreeing to remove provisions the ERG has hailed as brilliant in order to secure a trade deal with the EU. I look forward to seeing how that may play out.
Those provisions are only necessary if there is no deal. If there is a deal they become superflous so can be removed.
What was brilliant was it showed how comfortable we were with no deal, which makes a good deal more likely.
It was always the case that the better prepared you were for no deal then the better a deal you could get.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Sometimes, I guess, you just have to laugh.
There is no deal the UK government will do that you will regard as bad. Anything it comes back with you will regard as a triumph. But you are not a member of the ERG, who has just cheered the IMB through the lobbies. They may see things differently.
But, by the same token, there is no deal the UK Government will do that many on here will regard as good, and anything it comes back with will be regarded as a disaster.
They will then move on to the next phase hoping that how the deal works in practice (which will have winners and losers) will further strengthen the "we should have Remained" or "Rejoin" case.
We know the battlelines. And we know how both sides weaponise the evidence.
It's a war without end.
The purpose of a trade deal is to improve the trading relationship between the parties concerned. Why should it be any different for one between the UK and EU? If British businesses have better access to the Single Market in the future than they do now then that will clearly be a triumph for both the government and the PM.
You know perfectly well they won't, as do I, so why pretend otherwise and make that the test? If we wanted that we had to sign-up to the full jazz of the EU and we decided not to do so for other reasons.
Well, I know why: it's because you want a rapid return of Labour to Government and want to hang as many failures around the neck of the Tories as you can, and to frame every political milestone as such.
Both you and I know this. It's a waste of your time and mine to be sucked into debating Brexit on here again for the millionth time.
Brexit is done. The ramifications are not. We will live with those for many years to come. Clearly, the Tories will own these and will be judged against the promises they made.
Save the poundshop Damian McBride stuff for your Twitter account.
It insults our intelligence to flog it on here too.
I'm going to disagree there: this is a Conservative project and anything related to Brexit, good or bad, will be thrown at them for all time. I will be on of the ones doing it.
It didn't have to be, if somehow the Tories had set-up a GNU to do it, or even created a consulatative process on the end point then it would be a national project to one extent or another. Of course that would have triggered the hard-liners who wanted to own it and it would never have gotten of the ground. Uiltimately the E"R"G got their way and they and their party will own it, forever.
The UK doesn't negotiate: Obstinate morons! Ideological nationalists! Isolationists!!
The UK does negotiate: CAPITULATION! SURRENDER!!
No it's that Brexiteers insist we hold all the cards and we'd get everything we want.
At every turn, we have got a deal because we capitulated. That is not holding all the cards - to say otherwise is just lying.
If you could pull your head out of your arse you'd note that the EU has made concessions on: insisting on the ECJ for disputes, following all its state aid rules and full dynamic alignment, and insisting on fishing quotas *exactly* as is.
We've made concessions on a single governance regime for the whole arrangement, accepting some state aid rules in principle (details TBC), and now a transition to a new fishing deal with a higher catch quota,
It's called a negotiation. I'm getting very bored of saying this: this is a negotiation where the strength of bartering power lies between 35-65 to 45-55 in the EU's favour DEPENDING on the issue/sector.
It is neither 100:0 to the EU or 0:100 to the UK.
You need to learn and accept this.
Why have we negotiated anything when we hold all the cards?
And you wonder why he even bothered writing that comment.
There can be no deal for as long as the Internal Market Bill contains sections 42-45 in their present form. For a deal to happen, those provisions will have to be removed or substantially amended. It is politically impossible for Johnson to do that. Everything else is just fluff.
A deal looks more likely now and of course negotiating the status of the IMB could be part of it
Let us wait and see. Not too long to go now.
The UK government negotiating the status of a piece of domestic UK legislation and agreeing to remove provisions the ERG has hailed as brilliant in order to secure a trade deal with the EU. I look forward to seeing how that may play out.
Those provisions are only necessary if there is no deal. If there is a deal they become superflous so can be removed.
What was brilliant was it showed how comfortable we were with no deal, which makes a good deal more likely.
It was always the case that the better prepared you were for no deal then the better a deal you could get.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Sometimes, I guess, you just have to laugh.
There is no deal the UK government will do that you will regard as bad. Anything it comes back with you will regard as a triumph. But you are not a member of the ERG, who has just cheered the IMB through the lobbies. They may see things differently.
But, by the same token, there is no deal the UK Government will do that many on here will regard as good, and anything it comes back with will be regarded as a disaster.
They will then move on to the next phase hoping that how the deal works in practice (which will have winners and losers) will further strengthen the "we should have Remained" or "Rejoin" case.
We know the battlelines. And we know how both sides weaponise the evidence.
It's a war without end.
It will remain so until a substantial majority become convinced that Brexit was a good idea. There's no sign of that happening 4 years down the line and I am not expecting much change in the coming years.
When half the country remains convinced that we have made a grave mistake the issue is not going to melt away.
There can be no deal for as long as the Internal Market Bill contains sections 42-45 in their present form. For a deal to happen, those provisions will have to be removed or substantially amended. It is politically impossible for Johnson to do that. Everything else is just fluff.
A deal looks more likely now and of course negotiating the status of the IMB could be part of it
Let us wait and see. Not too long to go now.
The UK government negotiating the status of a piece of domestic UK legislation and agreeing to remove provisions the ERG has hailed as brilliant in order to secure a trade deal with the EU. I look forward to seeing how that may play out.
Those provisions are only necessary if there is no deal. If there is a deal they become superflous so can be removed.
What was brilliant was it showed how comfortable we were with no deal, which makes a good deal more likely.
It was always the case that the better prepared you were for no deal then the better a deal you could get.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Sometimes, I guess, you just have to laugh.
There is no deal the UK government will do that you will regard as bad. Anything it comes back with you will regard as a triumph. But you are not a member of the ERG, who has just cheered the IMB through the lobbies. They may see things differently.
But, by the same token, there is no deal the UK Government will do that many on here will regard as good, and anything it comes back with will be regarded as a disaster.
They will then move on to the next phase hoping that how the deal works in practice (which will have winners and losers) will further strengthen the "we should have Remained" or "Rejoin" case.
We know the battlelines. And we know how both sides weaponise the evidence.
It's a war without end.
The purpose of a trade deal is to improve the trading relationship between the parties concerned. Why should it be any different for one between the UK and EU? If British businesses have better access to the Single Market in the future than they do now then that will clearly be a triumph for both the government and the PM.
You know perfectly well they won't, as do I, so why pretend otherwise and make that the test? If we wanted that we had to sign-up to the full jazz of the EU and we decided not to do so for other reasons.
Well, I know why: it's because you want a rapid return of Labour to Government and want to hang as many failures around the neck of the Tories as you can, and to frame every political milestone as such.
Both you and I know this. It's a waste of your time and mine to be sucked into debating Brexit on here again for the millionth time.
Brexit is done. The ramifications are not. We will live with those for many years to come. Clearly, the Tories will own these and will be judged against the promises they made.
Save the poundshop Damian McBride stuff for your Twitter account.
It insults our intelligence to flog it on here too.
I'm going to disagree there: this is a Conservative project and anything related to Brexit, good or bad, will be thrown at them for all time. I will be on of the ones doing it.
It didn't have to be, if somehow the Tories had set-up a GNU to do it, or even created a consulatative process on the end point then it would be a national project to one extent or another. Of course that would have triggered the hard-liners who wanted to own it and it would never have gotten of the ground. Uiltimately the E"R"G got their way and they and their party will own it, forever.
I suspect even the Tories know they can't get rid of Boris at the moment because they need to ensure Boris, Gove and co are there to ensure they take all the flak and pain when reality dawns.
There can be no deal for as long as the Internal Market Bill contains sections 42-45 in their present form. For a deal to happen, those provisions will have to be removed or substantially amended. It is politically impossible for Johnson to do that. Everything else is just fluff.
A deal looks more likely now and of course negotiating the status of the IMB could be part of it
Let us wait and see. Not too long to go now.
The UK government negotiating the status of a piece of domestic UK legislation and agreeing to remove provisions the ERG has hailed as brilliant in order to secure a trade deal with the EU. I look forward to seeing how that may play out.
Those provisions are only necessary if there is no deal. If there is a deal they become superflous so can be removed.
What was brilliant was it showed how comfortable we were with no deal, which makes a good deal more likely.
It was always the case that the better prepared you were for no deal then the better a deal you could get.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Sometimes, I guess, you just have to laugh.
There is no deal the UK government will do that you will regard as bad. Anything it comes back with you will regard as a triumph. But you are not a member of the ERG, who has just cheered the IMB through the lobbies. They may see things differently.
But, by the same token, there is no deal the UK Government will do that many on here will regard as good, and anything it comes back with will be regarded as a disaster.
They will then move on to the next phase hoping that how the deal works in practice (which will have winners and losers) will further strengthen the "we should have Remained" or "Rejoin" case.
We know the battlelines. And we know how both sides weaponise the evidence.
It's a war without end.
All I want the government to do is deliver what they promised in their manifesto of last December - a better deal than the one we already have. Its not my measure I am applying, its theirs. Then we have the Tories on Twitter this morning saying that voting against their new bill which throws out their manifesto of last year is capitulating to the EU.
So the Tory manifesto of December 2019 was capitulation to the EU according to the same Tories who wrote said manifesto. I'm not sure its the people on here who have the problem...
Here's what we'll get from Brexit: greater domestic flexibility in regulation of our market, greater immigration control, and a more agile foreign policy.
Here's what we won't get: less influence over and within the EU, increase in barriers to trade between the UK and EU (plus NI as a special case in certain areas) and free movement.
The Deal will reflect that. Those who don't Brexit will call out the latter. Those who do the former.
[NB: there's "collateral" on top, which includes political and economic transitional fallout, which gets worse the longer it goes on and more bitter it gets, is why I favour smooth & steady transitions and pragmatism.]
I think that's fair. Though the benefits are for now some time off, and of uncertain extent. The costs, while also uncertain, will be apparent rather sooner.
Thanks. I also agree with your summary.
The biggest problem with Brexit (aside from the carcrashfuckery with which it's been done on both sides) is that the pay-off increases over time in 10-20-30 years but all the costs are upfront and frontloaded.
The other point, of course, is that the majority of those going to be around in 20-30 years' time voted against it. I know some regard it as unfair to point this out, but I think it matters.
We are, of course, where we are, and should try to make the best of it. But achieving a consensus on what that might be is not going to be easy at all.
Hoyle clearly p*ssed off with the govt, but not accepting amendment - but does say he'll look VERY favourably on requests for Urgent Questions requiring ministerial attendance and emergency debates......
Hoyle clearly p*ssed off with the govt, but not accepting amendment - but does say he'll look VERY favourably on requests for Urgent Questions requiring ministerial attendance and emergency debates......
Hoyle clearly p*ssed off with the govt, but not accepting amendment - but does say he'll look VERY favourably on requests for Urgent Questions requiring ministerial attendance and emergency debates......
Don;t listen to what they say. Look at what they do.
Hoyle giving the government another six months of a blank cheque, whatever bullsh8t he accompanies it with.
Now the rebels will have to vote down the act. But will they?
Assuming that the next president market is a two donkey race (i.e. neither drops out) the book with BF is less than 100%.
1.66 Biden, 2.56 Trump (99.3% book).
There is value in this market - and despite recent shortenings in price I think Biden is a good value bet. It feels to me that Trump should be significantly longer than 6/4.
Edit: BF commissions of course.
The 538 model - which is more Trump friendly than most others - gives him a 22% chance. That's way longer than 6/4. Something is still supporting his price. Just a "feeling" that it will be much closer than the polls indicate, I suppose. It appears that the possibility of the polls being out the other way is being assigned a probability of near zero. I can't see why personally.
Hoyle clearly p*ssed off with the govt, but not accepting amendment - but does say he'll look VERY favourably on requests for Urgent Questions requiring ministerial attendance and emergency debates......
Assuming that the next president market is a two donkey race (i.e. neither drops out) the book with BF is less than 100%.
1.66 Biden, 2.56 Trump (99.3% book).
There is value in this market - and despite recent shortenings in price I think Biden is a good value bet. It feels to me that Trump should be significantly longer than 6/4.
Edit: BF commissions of course.
The 538 model - which is more Trump friendly than most others - gives him a 22% chance. That's way longer than 6/4. Something is still supporting his price. Just a "feeling" that it will be much closer than the polls indicate, I suppose. It appears that the possibility of the polls being out the other way is being assigned a probability of near zero. I can't see why personally.
The 538 model seems to be rather slow to respond to changes in polling, as it builds in quite a lot of uncertainty. The effect will be significantly less as we get closer to the election, I think.
There can be no deal for as long as the Internal Market Bill contains sections 42-45 in their present form. For a deal to happen, those provisions will have to be removed or substantially amended. It is politically impossible for Johnson to do that. Everything else is just fluff.
A deal looks more likely now and of course negotiating the status of the IMB could be part of it
Let us wait and see. Not too long to go now.
The UK government negotiating the status of a piece of domestic UK legislation and agreeing to remove provisions the ERG has hailed as brilliant in order to secure a trade deal with the EU. I look forward to seeing how that may play out.
Those provisions are only necessary if there is no deal. If there is a deal they become superflous so can be removed.
What was brilliant was it showed how comfortable we were with no deal, which makes a good deal more likely.
It was always the case that the better prepared you were for no deal then the better a deal you could get.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Sometimes, I guess, you just have to laugh.
There is no deal the UK government will do that you will regard as bad. Anything it comes back with you will regard as a triumph. But you are not a member of the ERG, who has just cheered the IMB through the lobbies. They may see things differently.
But, by the same token, there is no deal the UK Government will do that many on here will regard as good, and anything it comes back with will be regarded as a disaster.
They will then move on to the next phase hoping that how the deal works in practice (which will have winners and losers) will further strengthen the "we should have Remained" or "Rejoin" case.
We know the battlelines. And we know how both sides weaponise the evidence.
It's a war without end.
All I want the government to do is deliver what they promised in their manifesto of last December - a better deal than the one we already have. Its not my measure I am applying, its theirs. Then we have the Tories on Twitter this morning saying that voting against their new bill which throws out their manifesto of last year is capitulating to the EU.
So the Tory manifesto of December 2019 was capitulation to the EU according to the same Tories who wrote said manifesto. I'm not sure its the people on here who have the problem...
Here's what we'll get from Brexit: greater domestic flexibility in regulation of our market, greater immigration control, and a more agile foreign policy.
Here's what we won't get: less influence over and within the EU, increase in barriers to trade between the UK and EU (plus NI as a special case in certain areas) and free movement.
The Deal will reflect that. Those who don't Brexit will call out the latter. Those who do the former.
[NB: there's "collateral" on top, which includes political and economic transitional fallout, which gets worse the longer it goes on and more bitter it gets, is why I favour smooth & steady transitions and pragmatism.]
I think that's fair. Though the benefits are for now some time off, and of uncertain extent. The costs, while also uncertain, will be apparent rather sooner.
Thanks. I also agree with your summary.
The biggest problem with Brexit (aside from the carcrashfuckery with which it's been done on both sides) is that the pay-off increases over time in 10-20-30 years but all the costs are upfront and frontloaded.
The other point, of course, is that the majority of those going to be around in 20-30 years' time voted against it.
The Brexit settlement, in its current configuration, isn't going to last 10 never mind 20 or 30 years. At some point there is going to be a Lab/SNP/Orange Filth government which will start reversing Brexit; probably in a stealthy and boring way.
Hoyle clearly p*ssed off with the govt, but not accepting amendment - but does say he'll look VERY favourably on requests for Urgent Questions requiring ministerial attendance and emergency debates......
Don;t listen to what they say. Look at what they do.
Hoyle giving the government another six months of a blank cheque, whatever bullsh8t he accompanies it with.
Now the rebels will have to vote down the act. But will they?
On-topic Twitter anecdote: Since I'm involved with cybercoin stuff I follow a lot of people who spend time in alt-right / intellectual-dark-web / paranoid-libertarian circles, and a few people have been saying they were surprised that Biden wasn't in fact senile. I don't know how widespread that is, but it's definitely a thing, people actually believed these claims and no longer do.
But, by the same token, there is no deal the UK Government will do that many on here will regard as good, and anything it comes back with will be regarded as a disaster.
They will then move on to the next phase hoping that how the deal works in practice (which will have winners and losers) will further strengthen the "we should have Remained" or "Rejoin" case.
We know the battlelines. And we know how both sides weaponise the evidence.
It's a war without end.
I think you are mistaken. Most remainers want Brexit to be a success because for most they know their jobs and wealth depend on it. They don't expect it, but they want it.
I don't think it's a case of want versus expect failure. Speaking for myself, I have known to a high certainty that Brexit will not be a success since the referendum. That's not due any insight or sour grapes on my part. I don't actually think wanting to be masters of your own ship is a particularly stupid idea.
Brexit was bound to fail because it was, and is, premised on assumptions that are either patently false or at best implausible.
In short, Brexit is a big mistake for the UK. It doesn't get any less big because you plough on regardless. OK, so we are we are, we are leaving the EU. The sensible thing when stuck with an unavoidable mistake, is to try and mitigate the damage. So we hit the next big problem. You can't limit damage unless you accept there is damage to be limited. Remainers can try to make the best of a bad situation; Leavers cannot. Leavers did not vote intending to make things worse than they need be, nor are they interested in damage limitation.
The end result is a mistake where the damage gets compounded.
Hoyle clearly p*ssed off with the govt, but not accepting amendment - but does say he'll look VERY favourably on requests for Urgent Questions requiring ministerial attendance and emergency debates......
But govt ministers who are routinely and regularly dragged into the HoC to answer Urgent Questions or respond to Emergency debates won't be too happy.....
Britain has offered a three-year transition period for European fishing fleets to allow them to prepare for the post-Brexit changes as part of an 11th-hour deal sweetener.
Lol, an indefinite transition that will last forever.
But we hold all the cards, will Philip and HYUFD now resign from the Tory Party?
Eminently sensible and time dated
You do need to reduce your hyperbole
Not surprised to see you eating up the Government's words.
A three year transition is code for kick the can down the road.
I presume you opposed the backstop on the same grounds or is that Johnson is in charge so now transitions are a great idea?
You are all over the place
I am happy for concessions on either side to get a deal
And if a three year fishing transition is agreed and passes the European Parliament time to move on
I see you're back to BoJo superfan status then, sad to see.
I am not and this is more hyperbole from you
And from a Keir fanboy
At least I don't pretend to "lose confidence" in the Government every day before going back to them again the next.
The boy who cried wolf comes to mind.
At least I know what I am.
One thing you need to learn is that everything HMG does is not wrong and credit applies where it is due
To be fair to CHB you did start out as a remainer who was appalled at the notion of No Deal and you did consider that Johnson was not fit to be PM.
I agree that you do regularly criticise the government but it all sounds a bit hollow because you inevitably end up falling back into line.
Personally if I felt that a party was headed by someone who is not fit to lead it and was willing to take us down a No Deal path that I believe would be a disaster then I would resign from that party - that is a path many of us took when Corbyn led Labour.
Big_G is the type who enjoys sitting in the corner of the bar sounding off about how he's going to do this and going to do that, while those sitting around who know him just nod and smile.
Assuming that the next president market is a two donkey race (i.e. neither drops out) the book with BF is less than 100%.
1.66 Biden, 2.56 Trump (99.3% book).
There is value in this market - and despite recent shortenings in price I think Biden is a good value bet. It feels to me that Trump should be significantly longer than 6/4.
Edit: BF commissions of course.
The 538 model - which is more Trump friendly than most others - gives him a 22% chance. That's way longer than 6/4. Something is still supporting his price. Just a "feeling" that it will be much closer than the polls indicate, I suppose. It appears that the possibility of the polls being out the other way is being assigned a probability of near zero. I can't see why personally.
Yes, Nate reckons he should be 7/2 so depending how you do the math the price is out by something approaching 20%. I think the explanation is that for the ordinary punter the idea of lumping on Biden even at a generous 4/6 is like kissing your sister - nice, but doesn't exactly get the pulse racing.
Most odds on chances should be shorter, but who has the funds, the patience and the balls to keep backing them?
I'm unpersuaded that categorising people by their gender, sexual orientation, or race is a good thing. Identity politics, judging people according to demographic characteristics, is far inferior to viewing people as individuals and judging them according to what they say and do.
A while ago (I've mentioned this before so apologies to long term members who've heard it) I had a joyous Twitter spat when some right-on types chastised me for the impertinence of suggesting books should be judged according to how good they are, rather than celebrating (as they were) specifically reading books that weren't by white men.
A fixation on race, gender, and sexual orientation is not a good thing. I don't care if someone's gay. I'm more concerned whether they're competent, or witty, or a bit of a twat.
Britain has offered a three-year transition period for European fishing fleets to allow them to prepare for the post-Brexit changes as part of an 11th-hour deal sweetener.
Lol, an indefinite transition that will last forever.
But we hold all the cards, will Philip and HYUFD now resign from the Tory Party?
Eminently sensible and time dated
You do need to reduce your hyperbole
Not surprised to see you eating up the Government's words.
A three year transition is code for kick the can down the road.
I presume you opposed the backstop on the same grounds or is that Johnson is in charge so now transitions are a great idea?
You are all over the place
I am happy for concessions on either side to get a deal
And if a three year fishing transition is agreed and passes the European Parliament time to move on
I see you're back to BoJo superfan status then, sad to see.
I am not and this is more hyperbole from you
And from a Keir fanboy
At least I don't pretend to "lose confidence" in the Government every day before going back to them again the next.
The boy who cried wolf comes to mind.
At least I know what I am.
One thing you need to learn is that everything HMG does is not wrong and credit applies where it is due
To be fair to CHB you did start out as a remainer who was appalled at the notion of No Deal and you did consider that Johnson was not fit to be PM.
I agree that you do regularly criticise the government but it all sounds a bit hollow because you inevitably end up falling back into line.
Personally if I felt that a party was headed by someone who is not fit to lead it and was willing to take us down a No Deal path that I believe would be a disaster then I would resign from that party - that is a path many of us took when Corbyn led Labour.
Big_G is the type who enjoys sitting in the corner of the bar sounding off about how he's going to do this and going to do that, while those sitting around who know him just nod and smile.
Alok Sharma, the thinking man's Gillian Keegan is on Radio 4 now. A bit tetchy with Martha Kearney.
If one needs to know the rules, go on line, is Mr Sharma's go to statement.
Actually that is the best advice any politician can give
Here in Conwy CBC we were instructed to go into lockdown tonight and everyone I know and on social media spoke about Conwy web site that provides all the information that is necessary
We are not allowed to cross into another authority's area apart from for work, we are not allowed to leave to go away on holiday, and those on holiday here must go home
My hometown of Llandudno was just recovering and now Mark Drakeford has slammed the door on our hotels and guest houses
I have relations with a holiday caravan on Anglesey. They live in Lancashire. I assume that the caravan is now inaccessible by road. After all one cannot, without an enormous detour get from just N of Manchester to Beaumaris by road without going through Conwy. AIUI they're intending to visit next week.
There was a similar question on 5 live yesterday. Apparently Anglesey is not in the restricted area, so fine to go and stay. At least it was fine yesterday...🙄
They cannot get there as most authorities from the border are closed to traffic coming in from England
I didn't see that on the M4 - maybe the case for minor roads? And as you can still travel for work, I doubt this it true.
You do realise this comes in at 6.00pm tonight in North Wales
I went through areas ALREADY under these rules last week. There was no barrier. I know during the first lockdown there were police checks in areas - I am sceptical that that is the case now. Or indeed in Conwy when the new measures come into place.
Hoyle clearly p*ssed off with the govt, but not accepting amendment - but does say he'll look VERY favourably on requests for Urgent Questions requiring ministerial attendance and emergency debates......
Don;t listen to what they say. Look at what they do.
Hoyle giving the government another six months of a blank cheque, whatever bullsh8t he accompanies it with.
Now the rebels will have to vote down the act. But will they?
No.
Precisely. So the whole thing is boll8cks....six more months of arbitrary rule.
Meanwhile in the Caucauses. This is no longer a 'skirmish' but a war. It is escalating and thousands have died. I'm sure that if there's not an intervention soon attacks will start on essential infrastructure outside of the disputed region.
On-topic Twitter anecdote: Since I'm involved with cybercoin stuff I follow a lot of people who spend time in alt-right / intellectual-dark-web / paranoid-libertarian circles, and a few people have been saying they were surprised that Biden wasn't in fact senile. I don't know how widespread that is, but it's definitely a thing, people actually believed these claims and no longer do.
His mannerisms make it very easy to produce short video clips that suggest he is senile but he clearly isnt.
sks weak today and Johnson's "sniping" stuff has a tiny bit of traction for once.
No, it sounded like a desperate man grasping at any crappy Britain first crap he could grab as his covid "strategy" spirals completely out of his control.
Britain has offered a three-year transition period for European fishing fleets to allow them to prepare for the post-Brexit changes as part of an 11th-hour deal sweetener.
Lol, an indefinite transition that will last forever.
But we hold all the cards, will Philip and HYUFD now resign from the Tory Party?
Eminently sensible and time dated
You do need to reduce your hyperbole
Not surprised to see you eating up the Government's words.
A three year transition is code for kick the can down the road.
I presume you opposed the backstop on the same grounds or is that Johnson is in charge so now transitions are a great idea?
You are all over the place
I am happy for concessions on either side to get a deal
And if a three year fishing transition is agreed and passes the European Parliament time to move on
I see you're back to BoJo superfan status then, sad to see.
I am not and this is more hyperbole from you
And from a Keir fanboy
At least I don't pretend to "lose confidence" in the Government every day before going back to them again the next.
The boy who cried wolf comes to mind.
At least I know what I am.
One thing you need to learn is that everything HMG does is not wrong and credit applies where it is due
To be fair to CHB you did start out as a remainer who was appalled at the notion of No Deal and you did consider that Johnson was not fit to be PM.
I agree that you do regularly criticise the government but it all sounds a bit hollow because you inevitably end up falling back into line.
Personally if I felt that a party was headed by someone who is not fit to lead it and was willing to take us down a No Deal path that I believe would be a disaster then I would resign from that party - that is a path many of us took when Corbyn led Labour.
Big_G is the type who enjoys sitting in the corner of the bar sounding off about how he's going to do this and going to do that, while those sitting around who know him just nod and smile.
That is just nasty
To be honest, you do open yourself for this kind of characterisation.
If you want to talk about nasty, then talk about our odious Prime Minister - a dirty rotten scoundrel that you support / have supported.
There can be no deal for as long as the Internal Market Bill contains sections 42-45 in their present form. For a deal to happen, those provisions will have to be removed or substantially amended. It is politically impossible for Johnson to do that. Everything else is just fluff.
A deal looks more likely now and of course negotiating the status of the IMB could be part of it
Let us wait and see. Not too long to go now.
The UK government negotiating the status of a piece of domestic UK legislation and agreeing to remove provisions the ERG has hailed as brilliant in order to secure a trade deal with the EU. I look forward to seeing how that may play out.
Those provisions are only necessary if there is no deal. If there is a deal they become superflous so can be removed.
What was brilliant was it showed how comfortable we were with no deal, which makes a good deal more likely.
It was always the case that the better prepared you were for no deal then the better a deal you could get.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Sometimes, I guess, you just have to laugh.
There is no deal the UK government will do that you will regard as bad. Anything it comes back with you will regard as a triumph. But you are not a member of the ERG, who has just cheered the IMB through the lobbies. They may see things differently.
But, by the same token, there is no deal the UK Government will do that many on here will regard as good, and anything it comes back with will be regarded as a disaster.
They will then move on to the next phase hoping that how the deal works in practice (which will have winners and losers) will further strengthen the "we should have Remained" or "Rejoin" case.
We know the battlelines. And we know how both sides weaponise the evidence.
It's a war without end.
The purpose of a trade deal is to improve the trading relationship between the parties concerned. Why should it be any different for one between the UK and EU? If British businesses have better access to the Single Market in the future than they do now then that will clearly be a triumph for both the government and the PM.
You know perfectly well they won't, as do I, so why pretend otherwise and make that the test? If we wanted that we had to sign-up to the full jazz of the EU and we decided not to do so for other reasons.
Well, I know why: it's because you want a rapid return of Labour to Government and want to hang as many failures around the neck of the Tories as you can, and to frame every political milestone as such.
Both you and I know this. It's a waste of your time and mine to be sucked into debating Brexit on here again for the millionth time.
Brexit is done. The ramifications are not. We will live with those for many years to come. Clearly, the Tories will own these and will be judged against the promises they made.
Save the poundshop Damian McBride stuff for your Twitter account.
It insults our intelligence to flog it on here too.
I'm going to disagree there: this is a Conservative project and anything related to Brexit, good or bad, will be thrown at them for all time. I will be on of the ones doing it.
It didn't have to be, if somehow the Tories had set-up a GNU to do it, or even created a consulatative process on the end point then it would be a national project to one extent or another. Of course that would have triggered the hard-liners who wanted to own it and it would never have gotten of the ground. Uiltimately the E"R"G got their way and they and their party will own it, forever.
I suspect even the Tories know they can't get rid of Boris at the moment because they need to ensure Boris, Gove and co are there to ensure they take all the flak and pain when reality dawns.
The trouble is that the "let them take all the flack" theory assumes that there is a window where the situation is bad enough for the Boris et cetera to take the pain, but not so bad that it can't be retrieved in time for the next election. It's certainly the window that Rishi fans are hoping their boy can get through.
There can be no deal for as long as the Internal Market Bill contains sections 42-45 in their present form. For a deal to happen, those provisions will have to be removed or substantially amended. It is politically impossible for Johnson to do that. Everything else is just fluff.
A deal looks more likely now and of course negotiating the status of the IMB could be part of it
Let us wait and see. Not too long to go now.
The UK government negotiating the status of a piece of domestic UK legislation and agreeing to remove provisions the ERG has hailed as brilliant in order to secure a trade deal with the EU. I look forward to seeing how that may play out.
Those provisions are only necessary if there is no deal. If there is a deal they become superflous so can be removed.
What was brilliant was it showed how comfortable we were with no deal, which makes a good deal more likely.
It was always the case that the better prepared you were for no deal then the better a deal you could get.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Sometimes, I guess, you just have to laugh.
There is no deal the UK government will do that you will regard as bad. Anything it comes back with you will regard as a triumph. But you are not a member of the ERG, who has just cheered the IMB through the lobbies. They may see things differently.
But, by the same token, there is no deal the UK Government will do that many on here will regard as good, and anything it comes back with will be regarded as a disaster.
They will then move on to the next phase hoping that how the deal works in practice (which will have winners and losers) will further strengthen the "we should have Remained" or "Rejoin" case.
We know the battlelines. And we know how both sides weaponise the evidence.
It's a war without end.
All I want the government to do is deliver what they promised in their manifesto of last December - a better deal than the one we already have. Its not my measure I am applying, its theirs. Then we have the Tories on Twitter this morning saying that voting against their new bill which throws out their manifesto of last year is capitulating to the EU.
So the Tory manifesto of December 2019 was capitulation to the EU according to the same Tories who wrote said manifesto. I'm not sure its the people on here who have the problem...
Here's what we'll get from Brexit: greater domestic flexibility in regulation of our market, greater immigration control, and a more agile foreign policy.
Here's what we won't get: less influence over and within the EU, increase in barriers to trade between the UK and EU (plus NI as a special case in certain areas) and free movement.
The Deal will reflect that. Those who don't Brexit will call out the latter. Those who do the former.
[NB: there's "collateral" on top, which includes political and economic transitional fallout, which gets worse the longer it goes on and more bitter it gets, is why I favour smooth & steady transitions and pragmatism.]
I think that's fair. Though the benefits are for now some time off, and of uncertain extent. The costs, while also uncertain, will be apparent rather sooner.
Thanks. I also agree with your summary.
The biggest problem with Brexit (aside from the carcrashfuckery with which it's been done on both sides) is that the pay-off increases over time in 10-20-30 years but all the costs are upfront and frontloaded.
It might have tangible benefits in the long term but there is no way to know that with any confidence at all. Far too many unknowns. Far too many interdependencies. Whether it pays off over 25 years will have to wait for the books written in 50 years.
But not to worry because there IS an immediate benefit and it's a big one. Covid is rather getting in the way but nevertheless there are millions of people in this country who wanted to leave the EU and voted to leave (for whatever reason) who feel empowered and that bit more happy with their lot. Their voice was listened to. They feel more sovereign. How long will it last? I don't know. I suspect for quite a while.
On-topic Twitter anecdote: Since I'm involved with cybercoin stuff I follow a lot of people who spend time in alt-right / intellectual-dark-web / paranoid-libertarian circles, and a few people have been saying they were surprised that Biden wasn't in fact senile. I don't know how widespread that is, but it's definitely a thing, people actually believed these claims and no longer do.
But do such people actually vote, or even inhabit the same universe as normal humans?
Assuming that the next president market is a two donkey race (i.e. neither drops out) the book with BF is less than 100%.
1.66 Biden, 2.56 Trump (99.3% book).
There is value in this market - and despite recent shortenings in price I think Biden is a good value bet. It feels to me that Trump should be significantly longer than 6/4.
Edit: BF commissions of course.
The 538 model - which is more Trump friendly than most others - gives him a 22% chance. That's way longer than 6/4. Something is still supporting his price. Just a "feeling" that it will be much closer than the polls indicate, I suppose. It appears that the possibility of the polls being out the other way is being assigned a probability of near zero. I can't see why personally.
The polls being out the other way doesn't change the result. If the polls this far out are reasonably predictive of the result, then Biden wins. If they are out one way by any amount, he still wins. If they are out enough the other way, Trump wins.
It's still 5 weeks to go. Biden is effectively about 4 points ahead in the polling averages, given Trump's likely electoral college advantage. 5 weeks is the entire length of a UK general election campaign.
Still, the polls haven't moved outside of a range where Biden wins since he secured the Democratic nomination over 4 months ago, so it would take something for Trump to win now - either a bigger than normal polling error in his favour, or something happening to persuade people to vote for him. Or people in Dem-leaning areas being too scared to vote because of neo-Nazis aiming guns at them near the polling stations...
But, by the same token, there is no deal the UK Government will do that many on here will regard as good, and anything it comes back with will be regarded as a disaster.
They will then move on to the next phase hoping that how the deal works in practice (which will have winners and losers) will further strengthen the "we should have Remained" or "Rejoin" case.
We know the battlelines. And we know how both sides weaponise the evidence.
It's a war without end.
I think you are mistaken. Most remainers want Brexit to be a success because for most they know their jobs and wealth depend on it. They don't expect it, but they want it.
I don't think it's a case of want versus expect failure. Speaking for myself, I have known to a high certainty that Brexit will not be a success since the referendum. That's not due any insight or sour grapes on my part. I don't actually think wanting to be masters of your own ship is a particularly stupid idea.
Brexit was bound to fail because it was, and is, premised on assumptions that are either patently false or at best implausible.
In short, Brexit is a big mistake for the UK. It doesn't get any less big because you plough on regardless. OK, so we are we are, we are leaving the EU. The sensible thing when stuck with an unavoidable mistake, is to try and mitigate the damage. So we hit the next big problem. You can't limit damage unless you accept there is damage to be limited. Remainers can try to make the best of a bad situation; Leavers cannot. Leavers did not vote intending to make things worse than they need be, nor are they interested in damage limitation.
The end result is a mistake where the damage gets compounded.
Plenty of ideas are founded on assumptions that are patently false but turn out to be successful due to circumstances or things that were not taken into consideration. They are not likely to, but it happens. Absolutists saying Brexit cannot be a success are not living in reality. It is very unlikely to be, I would put the chances somewhere between 1-10% but it is certainly plausible.
One plausible scenario would be the EU collapsing internally and disastrously within the next generation - this is very unlikely but it is in for some non zero chance.
sks weak today and Johnson's "sniping" stuff has a tiny bit of traction for once.
No, it sounded like a desperate man grasping at any crappy Britain first crap he could grab as his covid "strategy" spirals completely out of his control.
It sounded less like that than it usually does.
Good bit of fox shooting by BJ on black history month.
Strange that thus far this morning Sporting Index has failed to open its spread market on Trump/Biden ECVs. Not very helpful for those of us with open positions who might wish to trade them out.
Britain has offered a three-year transition period for European fishing fleets to allow them to prepare for the post-Brexit changes as part of an 11th-hour deal sweetener.
Lol, an indefinite transition that will last forever.
But we hold all the cards, will Philip and HYUFD now resign from the Tory Party?
Eminently sensible and time dated
You do need to reduce your hyperbole
Not surprised to see you eating up the Government's words.
A three year transition is code for kick the can down the road.
I presume you opposed the backstop on the same grounds or is that Johnson is in charge so now transitions are a great idea?
You are all over the place
I am happy for concessions on either side to get a deal
And if a three year fishing transition is agreed and passes the European Parliament time to move on
I see you're back to BoJo superfan status then, sad to see.
I am not and this is more hyperbole from you
And from a Keir fanboy
At least I don't pretend to "lose confidence" in the Government every day before going back to them again the next.
The boy who cried wolf comes to mind.
At least I know what I am.
One thing you need to learn is that everything HMG does is not wrong and credit applies where it is due
To be fair to CHB you did start out as a remainer who was appalled at the notion of No Deal and you did consider that Johnson was not fit to be PM.
I agree that you do regularly criticise the government but it all sounds a bit hollow because you inevitably end up falling back into line.
Personally if I felt that a party was headed by someone who is not fit to lead it and was willing to take us down a No Deal path that I believe would be a disaster then I would resign from that party - that is a path many of us took when Corbyn led Labour.
Big_G is the type who enjoys sitting in the corner of the bar sounding off about how he's going to do this and going to do that, while those sitting around who know him just nod and smile.
That is just nasty
It isn't nasty, just true. You spent most of 2019 doing just that, and now you are at it again.
Boris on form today, seems a lot more confident and on top of his game than he has most of the time since his illness.
Passing the Internal Markets Bill at Third Reading without a single Conservative vote against was a political triumph for the PM (however much I view it as a disaster for the country). That would plausibly explain extra buoyancy from him today.
Assuming that the next president market is a two donkey race (i.e. neither drops out) the book with BF is less than 100%.
1.66 Biden, 2.56 Trump (99.3% book).
There is value in this market - and despite recent shortenings in price I think Biden is a good value bet. It feels to me that Trump should be significantly longer than 6/4.
Edit: BF commissions of course.
The 538 model - which is more Trump friendly than most others - gives him a 22% chance. That's way longer than 6/4. Something is still supporting his price. Just a "feeling" that it will be much closer than the polls indicate, I suppose. It appears that the possibility of the polls being out the other way is being assigned a probability of near zero. I can't see why personally.
The 538 model seems to be rather slow to respond to changes in polling, as it builds in quite a lot of uncertainty. The effect will be significantly less as we get closer to the election, I think.
It's very mechanistic, and reflects Nate's background in and orientation to statistics. This in turn causes it to be less responsive to changes. Compared to, say, the Economist it's more like a supertanker changing course.
Doesn't make it better or worse, just different.
Sporting still haven't reopened their ECV market. I have the impression there is a single trader specialising in Politics and nobody else is allowed to touch it.
Assuming that the next president market is a two donkey race (i.e. neither drops out) the book with BF is less than 100%.
1.66 Biden, 2.56 Trump (99.3% book).
There is value in this market - and despite recent shortenings in price I think Biden is a good value bet. It feels to me that Trump should be significantly longer than 6/4.
Edit: BF commissions of course.
The 538 model - which is more Trump friendly than most others - gives him a 22% chance. That's way longer than 6/4. Something is still supporting his price. Just a "feeling" that it will be much closer than the polls indicate, I suppose. It appears that the possibility of the polls being out the other way is being assigned a probability of near zero. I can't see why personally.
A question: I know the various models (538, Economist) take a number of factors into account in their modelling. Do they factor in vote suppression? If they don't, they are bound to underestimate the chance of Trump winning, and maybe punters are being more realistic in estimating the effect of suppression.
But, by the same token, there is no deal the UK Government will do that many on here will regard as good, and anything it comes back with will be regarded as a disaster.
They will then move on to the next phase hoping that how the deal works in practice (which will have winners and losers) will further strengthen the "we should have Remained" or "Rejoin" case.
We know the battlelines. And we know how both sides weaponise the evidence.
It's a war without end.
I think you are mistaken. Most remainers want Brexit to be a success because for most they know their jobs and wealth depend on it. They don't expect it, but they want it.
I don't think it's a case of want versus expect failure. Speaking for myself, I have known to a high certainty that Brexit will not be a success since the referendum. That's not due any insight or sour grapes on my part. I don't actually think wanting to be masters of your own ship is a particularly stupid idea.
Brexit was bound to fail because it was, and is, premised on assumptions that are either patently false or at best implausible.
In short, Brexit is a big mistake for the UK. It doesn't get any less big because you plough on regardless. OK, so we are we are, we are leaving the EU. The sensible thing when stuck with an unavoidable mistake, is to try and mitigate the damage. So we hit the next big problem. You can't limit damage unless you accept there is damage to be limited. Remainers can try to make the best of a bad situation; Leavers cannot. Leavers did not vote intending to make things worse than they need be, nor are they interested in damage limitation.
The end result is a mistake where the damage gets compounded.
Plenty of ideas are founded on assumptions that are patently false but turn out to be successful due to circumstances or things that were not taken into consideration. They are not likely to, but it happens. Absolutists saying Brexit cannot be a success are not living in reality. It is very unlikely to be, I would put the chances somewhere between 1-10% but it is certainly plausible.
One plausible scenario would be the EU collapsing internally and disastrously within the next generation - this is very unlikely but it is in for some non zero chance.
I did say "high certainty" of failure because I was focusing on the 80% case, not the 20% case (I would put the known and unknown knowns a bit higher than you do). But your point needs to be said. None of this is particularly surprising to anyone who is slightly objective and informed. We don't have to be manic Remainers to know Brexit wasn't going to work.
Alok Sharma, the thinking man's Gillian Keegan is on Radio 4 now. A bit tetchy with Martha Kearney.
If one needs to know the rules, go on line, is Mr Sharma's go to statement.
Actually that is the best advice any politician can give
Here in Conwy CBC we were instructed to go into lockdown tonight and everyone I know and on social media spoke about Conwy web site that provides all the information that is necessary
We are not allowed to cross into another authority's area apart from for work, we are not allowed to leave to go away on holiday, and those on holiday here must go home
My hometown of Llandudno was just recovering and now Mark Drakeford has slammed the door on our hotels and guest houses
I have relations with a holiday caravan on Anglesey. They live in Lancashire. I assume that the caravan is now inaccessible by road. After all one cannot, without an enormous detour get from just N of Manchester to Beaumaris by road without going through Conwy. AIUI they're intending to visit next week.
There was a similar question on 5 live yesterday. Apparently Anglesey is not in the restricted area, so fine to go and stay. At least it was fine yesterday...🙄
They cannot get there as most authorities from the border are closed to traffic coming in from England
I didn't see that on the M4 - maybe the case for minor roads? And as you can still travel for work, I doubt this it true.
You do realise this comes in at 6.00pm tonight in North Wales
I went through areas ALREADY under these rules last week. There was no barrier. I know during the first lockdown there were police checks in areas - I am sceptical that that is the case now. Or indeed in Conwy when the new measures come into place.
On-topic Twitter anecdote: Since I'm involved with cybercoin stuff I follow a lot of people who spend time in alt-right / intellectual-dark-web / paranoid-libertarian circles, and a few people have been saying they were surprised that Biden wasn't in fact senile. I don't know how widespread that is, but it's definitely a thing, people actually believed these claims and no longer do.
The intellectual dark web sounds like a contradiction in terms.
Meanwhile in the Caucauses. This is no longer a 'skirmish' but a war. It is escalating and thousands have died. I'm sure that if there's not an intervention soon attacks will start on essential infrastructure outside of the disputed region.
This must be the first war between nations where drones and anti-drone technology have become vital. Without it things like this are happening...
We saw some of this in the gulf war when only the Americans had that sort of technology but clearly it is now more generally available. Troops on the ground without an anti-drone shield really have no chance, its a matter of time.
PS I am the same as the old fencesitter, couldn't log in with the old account for some reason. I did think about changing my name, since there is no way I will be voting Conservative for the foreseeable future - but then I thought, hey, there are other fences to sit on.
Britain has offered a three-year transition period for European fishing fleets to allow them to prepare for the post-Brexit changes as part of an 11th-hour deal sweetener.
Lol, an indefinite transition that will last forever.
But we hold all the cards, will Philip and HYUFD now resign from the Tory Party?
Eminently sensible and time dated
You do need to reduce your hyperbole
Not surprised to see you eating up the Government's words.
A three year transition is code for kick the can down the road.
I presume you opposed the backstop on the same grounds or is that Johnson is in charge so now transitions are a great idea?
You are all over the place
I am happy for concessions on either side to get a deal
And if a three year fishing transition is agreed and passes the European Parliament time to move on
I see you're back to BoJo superfan status then, sad to see.
I am not and this is more hyperbole from you
And from a Keir fanboy
At least I don't pretend to "lose confidence" in the Government every day before going back to them again the next.
The boy who cried wolf comes to mind.
At least I know what I am.
One thing you need to learn is that everything HMG does is not wrong and credit applies where it is due
To be fair to CHB you did start out as a remainer who was appalled at the notion of No Deal and you did consider that Johnson was not fit to be PM.
I agree that you do regularly criticise the government but it all sounds a bit hollow because you inevitably end up falling back into line.
Personally if I felt that a party was headed by someone who is not fit to lead it and was willing to take us down a No Deal path that I believe would be a disaster then I would resign from that party - that is a path many of us took when Corbyn led Labour.
Big_G is the type who enjoys sitting in the corner of the bar sounding off about how he's going to do this and going to do that, while those sitting around who know him just nod and smile.
That is just nasty
It isn't nasty, just true. You spent most of 2019 doing just that, and now you are at it again.
PS I am the same as the old fencesitter, couldn't log in with the old account for some reason. I did think about changing my name, since there is no way I will be voting Conservative for the foreseeable future - but then I thought, hey, there are other fences to sit on.
Strange that thus far this morning Sporting Index has failed to open its spread market on Trump/Biden ECVs. Not very helpful for those of us with open positions who might wish to trade them out.
At one time it was Spreadex who appeared to be the scaredy cats in terms of taking down their markets but that's no longer so. This morning in terms of ECV spreads they currently go: Biden ..... 298-306 Trump .... 232-240
Comments
The gold postboxes post London 2012 honoured black and white British athletes nationwide. They unified Britons.
This will end up with one side searching for reasons to post as many postboxes black as possible nationwide to demonstrate their progressiveness and anti-racism, for increasingly tenuous reasons, and then them never changing back. They will deem any opposition to a particular postbox being switched as evidence of "racism", as will those who oppose such racialising trends more broadly.
So yes, I think it's a bit mad. I'd prefer new statues to ethnic minorities who are part of our national story in the public space.
The biggest problem with Brexit (aside from the carcrashfuckery with which it's been done on both sides) is that the pay-off increases over time in 10-20-30 years but all the costs are upfront and frontloaded.
See for example the BASF comments to the Future Relationship with the EU Committee - £1bn in additional costs for zero upside which probably just renders our chemical industry as uncompetitive.
I can understand why people did not choose either and abstained.
It insults our intelligence to flog it on here too.
If the choice was between rejoin and Johnson's thingy I would not vote.
Say people go to vote and there are nazis exercising their constitutional rights to walk around in paramilitary gear close to polling stations carrying guns. What proportion of the voters feel good about the president who brought about this situation, and what proportion of the voters feel this is sub-optimal?
I know we're used to the idea of there being a conservative base of like 40%, but the proportion of the population who goes as far as being *for right-wing militias* must be more like 20%.
It didn't have to be, if somehow the Tories had set-up a GNU to do it, or even created a consulatative process on the end point then it would be a national project to one extent or another. Of course that would have triggered the hard-liners who wanted to own it and it would never have gotten of the ground. Uiltimately the E"R"G got their way and they and their party will own it, forever.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1311255716548747265?s=20
When half the country remains convinced that we have made a grave mistake the issue is not going to melt away.
I know some regard it as unfair to point this out, but I think it matters.
We are, of course, where we are, and should try to make the best of it. But achieving a consensus on what that might be is not going to be easy at all.
Hoyle giving the government another six months of a blank cheque, whatever bullsh8t he accompanies it with.
Now the rebels will have to vote down the act. But will they?
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1311260566179196928?s=20
The effect will be significantly less as we get closer to the election, I think.
Brexit was bound to fail because it was, and is, premised on assumptions that are either patently false or at best implausible.
In short, Brexit is a big mistake for the UK. It doesn't get any less big because you plough on regardless. OK, so we are we are, we are leaving the EU. The sensible thing when stuck with an unavoidable mistake, is to try and mitigate the damage. So we hit the next big problem. You can't limit damage unless you accept there is damage to be limited. Remainers can try to make the best of a bad situation; Leavers cannot. Leavers did not vote intending to make things worse than they need be, nor are they interested in damage limitation.
The end result is a mistake where the damage gets compounded.
..is a great line for the networks. Debate looked shite but that piece to camera worked.
PM didn't answer as he has no idea. Just blather about local lockdowns and illness being localised.
Are we zero-covid, flattening the cases, saving the NHS? What is it?
Most odds on chances should be shorter, but who has the funds, the patience and the balls to keep backing them?
A while ago (I've mentioned this before so apologies to long term members who've heard it) I had a joyous Twitter spat when some right-on types chastised me for the impertinence of suggesting books should be judged according to how good they are, rather than celebrating (as they were) specifically reading books that weren't by white men.
A fixation on race, gender, and sexual orientation is not a good thing. I don't care if someone's gay. I'm more concerned whether they're competent, or witty, or a bit of a twat.
Totally out of touch.
Now trying more culture war stuff by going on about supporting Britain.
https://twitter.com/wwwmodgovaz/status/1311250796265299968
This must be the first war between nations where drones and anti-drone technology have become vital. Without it things like this are happening...
If you want to talk about nasty, then talk about our odious Prime Minister - a dirty rotten scoundrel that you support / have supported.
That's not a strategy that is a goal.
It's not obvious that such a window exists.
But not to worry because there IS an immediate benefit and it's a big one. Covid is rather getting in the way but nevertheless there are millions of people in this country who wanted to leave the EU and voted to leave (for whatever reason) who feel empowered and that bit more happy with their lot. Their voice was listened to. They feel more sovereign. How long will it last? I don't know. I suspect for quite a while.
It's still 5 weeks to go. Biden is effectively about 4 points ahead in the polling averages, given Trump's likely electoral college advantage. 5 weeks is the entire length of a UK general election campaign.
Still, the polls haven't moved outside of a range where Biden wins since he secured the Democratic nomination over 4 months ago, so it would take something for Trump to win now - either a bigger than normal polling error in his favour, or something happening to persuade people to vote for him. Or people in Dem-leaning areas being too scared to vote because of neo-Nazis aiming guns at them near the polling stations...
One plausible scenario would be the EU collapsing internally and disastrously within the next generation - this is very unlikely but it is in for some non zero chance.
Good bit of fox shooting by BJ on black history month.
https://twitter.com/robdelaney/status/1311047853285036034?s=20
Doesn't make it better or worse, just different.
Sporting still haven't reopened their ECV market. I have the impression there is a single trader specialising in Politics and nobody else is allowed to touch it.
Must be having a lie in.
I know the various models (538, Economist) take a number of factors into account in their modelling. Do they factor in vote suppression? If they don't, they are bound to underestimate the chance of Trump winning, and maybe punters are being more realistic in estimating the effect of suppression.
https://gov.wales/conwy-county-borough-lockdown-frequently-asked-questions
Johnson is right that he is all over the place.
And to be fair Johnson is a World Beating Expert in that regard.
Biden ..... 298-306
Trump .... 232-240