Mr. (Miss?) Kirk, "The second is that the formula to adopt with regard to likelihoods is a single question: What is the best option for keeping Boris being PM right now?"
The thing is that the vast majority of people have no interest whatsoever in the detail of these negotiations.
People who voted Leave did so for cultural / psychological reasons - they just wanted to "Leave". They couldn't care less about the details of trade negotiations - indeed most were quite happy with the Common Market - they are expecting the UK to continue trading with the EU. The precise terms are completely outside their knowledge / thinking.
So there is no point in Boris dying in a ditch - he just needs to get a deal, literally any deal, say we've Left, it's job done and move on.
We have already left.
That's true, but in theory the implementation period could be extended and amended in nature.
Yes, there's a hell of a lot to sort out, and a settled future still looks contested. But I'm really quite bored of those who were on the leave side who say we haven't left yet and dismayed by those who weren't on the leave side who indulge that fiction. It's profoundly harmful.
We are in a situation now where the UK is not part of the EU, and there are choices to be made about the future relationship. There is not remain/leave divide any more. There are those who would have no formal relationship, through shades of grey all the way to Norway-style relationships, and then onto those who would rejoin the EU at the first opportunity. Every single one of those positions starts with the predicate that we are outside the EU, because that is the cold hard reality. Some of those who say we haven't left are trying to argue that only their purist vision of Brexit is true Leave, and since that has not been fulfilled the vote has been betrayed yadda yadda. What they are doing is trying to short circuit the proper debate which should include everyone and be conducted on a rational, factual basis. The fact that some people still dismiss "remainers" as not legitimate participants in this debate and (worse) dismiss those who campaigned for leave as crypto-remainers is frightening. The language of we've-not-really-left-yet is one of the primary exports of that mindset, and everyone who doesn't want to see politics done in that way -- which ought to be all of us -- should refuse to legitimise that mindset by sticking with reality.
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
The problem is lack of clarity in the rules. If they had said this betting market will be settled on the day the college actually meets to sign off on the ECV vote from the individual states then we wouldn't be bothered.
But it doesn't. It talks about "projected".
I read "projected" purely to mean that they will settle based on how the EC members are supposed to vote, rather than how any who switch sides actually vote?
Indeed. The rules specifically rule out "faithless" ECV voters.
I am getting pretty fed up now. It is clear Biden has won. There is no doubt that the networks settled projection is correct. No legal challenge has got out of first base and indeed lawyers are refusing to continue to work on the pointless actions.
Pay up BF.
The problem for them will be the people on the other side of the bet who would argue that they still have a chance of winning, however slim.
Can the UK and the Council just agree an extension to the transition or would that take a new treaty that everybody and their dog has to ratify?
The WA has a process within it for the joint committee to amend it "to address omissions or other deficiencies, or to address situations unforeseen when this Agreement was signed". They just need to decide to waive the deadline for an extension in the light of the pandemic.
The backbench loons will smell a rat, but yes extension is now the most likely outcome.
Explains why Frost was said to be “considering resigning”.
Boris doesn’t really have any choice. It’s the less shite of the three options on the table.
I'd be quite relieved by extension, but I would have thought it was the one option most likely to lead to Cabinet resignations and sufficient letters to Brady to trigger the end of Johnson's Ministry.
He needs a Deal, so that Brexit is Done. The deal needs to have an extension, because we're not ready for anything else. He needs to be able to sell it as a victory over the EU.
Those are the fundamental imperatives for Johnson. I've no idea how that translates to the fundamental imperatives for the EU.
I do wonder whether it would have been easier for Johnson to sell a deal with Cummings in place than without him. The space for a deal may have narrowed, even if the willingness to make one has increased.
Surely the deal is:
a) a list of the things that have already been agreed in the negotiations b) in respect of everything else, the current status quo continues c) a review to revisit the items listed at b in a year's time
plus perhaps
d) some waffle signed off by the EU noting various UK aspirations, which Bozo can point to in order to fend off criticism of b)
I think there are two major difficulties with thinking the odds for No Deal are too long. The first, and less important, is that even a thin deal of some sort (single sector, transition extension etc) is none the less a deal.
The second is that the formula to adopt with regard to likelihoods is a single question: What is the best option for keeping Boris being PM right now?
The short term effect of a No Deal on many industries (10% tariff, logistics of just in time, delay and all that) is so destructive with immediate effect that no PM's position could be safe.
So a deal is easily the most likely outcome, with compromises under the protective cover of pandemic emergency and public incomprehension.
That's my reading too. Johnson is not a details man or, especially, a Brexit fanatic - he'll weigh up the cost of obscure concessions that make it hard to do some things differently from the EU vs public outrage if we see chaos after Jan 1. On fish I can see the can being kicked down the road - current arrangements for a few years with a "wide-ranging review" or some such phrase at the end of it. Will that make it harder to subsidise something in 2022? Will it annoy some hardliners? Whatever.
Could Biden reach 80 million votes in the end? Currently nearing 78.2 million, with 97% counted according to the Wikipedia results page. The NYT state details have California at 97% as well, but a few of the north eastern states apparently have more left, particularly New York at 84%.
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
The problem is lack of clarity in the rules. If they had said this betting market will be settled on the day the college actually meets to sign off on the ECV vote from the individual states then we wouldn't be bothered.
But it doesn't. It talks about "projected".
I read "projected" purely to mean that they will settle based on how the EC members are supposed to vote, rather than how any who switch sides actually vote?
Indeed. The rules specifically rule out "faithless" ECV voters.
I am getting pretty fed up now. It is clear Biden has won. There is no doubt that the networks settled projection is correct. No legal challenge has got out of first base and indeed lawyers are refusing to continue to work on the pointless actions.
Pay up BF.
The problem for them will be the people on the other side of the bet who would argue that they still have a chance of winning, however slim.
Why should BF indulge that view? It's completely detached from reality. If I were to complain that my bet on Man City winning the 2019-20 Premier League shouldn't be settled yet because who knows maybe Liverpool will be retrospectively disqualified for some imagined breach of rules, should I be taken seriously? Of course not.
Morning all. You already know what I think will happen so I won't post it again. What is worth remembering is that Shagger is an expert liar. He said that no Tory PM would put a border down the Irish Sea, then put a border down the Irish Sea, then lied that he hadn't, then got on with instructing the civil service to get setting one up then repeated that there would be no border.
So his capitulation to Europe will be masked by him proclaiming victory - and by much of the party going along with it. That's his other advantage - so many of the 2019 Tory intake have demonstrated their moral cowardice by going along with whatever he says even if that changes from week to week.
It will be his greatest triumph when we agree a continuation deal, and how unpatriotic of anyone to question it.
And to think some people still struggle with the suggestion that he has much in common with Trump....
It's not that there are no similarities its that people lazily overegg the similarities ignoring Boris' greater flexibility and deviousness. The Trump thing gets overplayed as a comfort blanket.
Focusing too much on the superficial similarities enables Boris to get away with stuff when he doesn't then act just like Trump, for example whilst we've had plenty of covid problems and debates behind the scenes, Boris hasn't been virtually war with top scientists so when people say hes trump like on that issue it doesn't land and makes a bad situation seem less bad.
That's the point. It doesn't help to get a good chuckle on pretending they are just the same, it makes it harder to take him on because he can easily show a way he is different and suggest other claims against are bollocks, even when it's not.
But no, let's keep acting like the superficial stuff is more important. He has a similar visual look too hurr hurr Trump clone.
Can the UK and the Council just agree an extension to the transition or would that take a new treaty that everybody and their dog has to ratify?
The WA has a process within it for the joint committee to amend it "to address omissions or other deficiencies, or to address situations unforeseen when this Agreement was signed". They just need to decide to waive the deadline for an extension in the light of the pandemic.
The backbench loons will smell a rat, but yes extension is now the most likely outcome.
Explains why Frost was said to be “considering resigning”.
Boris doesn’t really have any choice. It’s the less shite of the three options on the table.
I'd be quite relieved by extension, but I would have thought it was the one option most likely to lead to Cabinet resignations and sufficient letters to Brady to trigger the end of Johnson's Ministry.
He needs a Deal, so that Brexit is Done. The deal needs to have an extension, because we're not ready for anything else. He needs to be able to sell it as a victory over the EU.
Those are the fundamental imperatives for Johnson. I've no idea how that translates to the fundamental imperatives for the EU.
I do wonder whether it would have been easier for Johnson to sell a deal with Cummings in place than without him. The space for a deal may have narrowed, even if the willingness to make one has increased.
Surely the deal is:
a) a list of the things that have already been agreed in the negotiations b) in respect of everything else, the current status quo continues c) a review to revisit the items listed at b in a year's time
plus perhaps
d) some waffle signed off by the EU noting various UK aspirations, which Bozo can point to in order to fend off criticism of b)
Yes. The critical part is (d) because we will be Free and we will be Sovereign. If we're choosing to carry on with a customs union and participating in a free market that will be our choice and not dictated by Europe. We are now free to go and negotiate our own deals and we will get to those in the future at the time of our choosing which isn't right now.
We cannot impose customs so we will continue in a de facto customs union. We cannot check standards so we will continue in a de facto free market.
Could Biden reach 80 million votes in the end? Currently nearing 78.2 million, with 97% counted according to the Wikipedia results page. The NYT state details have California at 97% as well, but a few of the north eastern states apparently have more left, particularly New York at 84%.
I'd say there's an outside chance he could top 81M.
During one of the contentious votes he was a rebel leader who was offered what he wanted and cried in the Commons that it was 'too late'.
Turns out refusing compromises specifically requested and refusing to back anything like May's softer departure made things harder to achieve, not easier. Now we have a situation approaching with no deal or capitulation the only two seeming alternatives (and the latter would be the perfect start for a new Faragian political vehicle).
In the US voters have tired of Trump and want steadiness and normality back. Maybe we here in the UK are similarly becoming less susceptible to Farage's uncompromising stance on the EU.
Going back to a normal machine politician will be such a relief, in contrast to someone who - perhaps arguably - is psychiatrically ill.
There are lesser evils. As a lifelong politician Biden will have plenty. I'd bet plenty of donors will get some nice ambassador gigs, that always seems true of both sides.
Can the UK and the Council just agree an extension to the transition or would that take a new treaty that everybody and their dog has to ratify?
The WA has a process within it for the joint committee to amend it "to address omissions or other deficiencies, or to address situations unforeseen when this Agreement was signed". They just need to decide to waive the deadline for an extension in the light of the pandemic.
The backbench loons will smell a rat, but yes extension is now the most likely outcome.
Explains why Frost was said to be “considering resigning”.
Boris doesn’t really have any choice. It’s the less shite of the three options on the table.
I'd be quite relieved by extension, but I would have thought it was the one option most likely to lead to Cabinet resignations and sufficient letters to Brady to trigger the end of Johnson's Ministry.
He needs a Deal, so that Brexit is Done. The deal needs to have an extension, because we're not ready for anything else. He needs to be able to sell it as a victory over the EU.
Those are the fundamental imperatives for Johnson. I've no idea how that translates to the fundamental imperatives for the EU.
I do wonder whether it would have been easier for Johnson to sell a deal with Cummings in place than without him. The space for a deal may have narrowed, even if the willingness to make one has increased.
Surely the deal is:
a) a list of the things that have already been agreed in the negotiations b) in respect of everything else, the current status quo continues c) a review to revisit the items listed at b in a year's time
plus perhaps
d) some waffle signed off by the EU noting various UK aspirations, which Bozo can point to in order to fend off criticism of b)
I think the problem is that the EU appears to have lost the jostling on timing of compromises. They now have nothing left to offer in return for the UK agreeing to their demands on the level playing field and fish, except for the existence of the Deal as a whole.
So if they explicitly decouple the two as you suggest then they've lost. It's why we keep hearing nonsense about the electricity market.
I think it means that, with time short, and attention diverted by the pandemic, the potential for a miscalculation leading to no deal is high.
The UK side believe they've been clever-clever with holding out on negotiations on LPF/fish to the last minute, and that the EU will be forced to offer major concessions.
The EU side believe that the departure of Cummings is a signal for capitulation by London.
Mr. B, yep, because at no stage did May lose any votes for a softer departure more to the liking of pro-EU MPs....
They have a big majority now, they should be less afraid of taking risks if they think it necessary. Its also a very different time.
I do agree in general on the comments on Grieve. Very intelligent man, but even for his side his rigidity and unwillingness to compromise was ignored despite being the sort of closed mind usually criticised and risking, well, what happened.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
Can the UK and the Council just agree an extension to the transition or would that take a new treaty that everybody and their dog has to ratify?
The WA has a process within it for the joint committee to amend it "to address omissions or other deficiencies, or to address situations unforeseen when this Agreement was signed". They just need to decide to waive the deadline for an extension in the light of the pandemic.
The backbench loons will smell a rat, but yes extension is now the most likely outcome.
Explains why Frost was said to be “considering resigning”.
Boris doesn’t really have any choice. It’s the less shite of the three options on the table.
I'd be quite relieved by extension, but I would have thought it was the one option most likely to lead to Cabinet resignations and sufficient letters to Brady to trigger the end of Johnson's Ministry.
He needs a Deal, so that Brexit is Done. The deal needs to have an extension, because we're not ready for anything else. He needs to be able to sell it as a victory over the EU.
Those are the fundamental imperatives for Johnson. I've no idea how that translates to the fundamental imperatives for the EU.
I do wonder whether it would have been easier for Johnson to sell a deal with Cummings in place than without him. The space for a deal may have narrowed, even if the willingness to make one has increased.
Surely the deal is:
a) a list of the things that have already been agreed in the negotiations b) in respect of everything else, the current status quo continues c) a review to revisit the items listed at b in a year's time
plus perhaps
d) some waffle signed off by the EU noting various UK aspirations, which Bozo can point to in order to fend off criticism of b)
Don't never ending transition arrangements risk inviting a complaint of violation of the MFN principle? As I understand it under WTO rules you can deviate from MFN if you have an FTA lodged with the WTO or if you are negotiating a deal, but I doubt that negotiation can go on indefinitely without inviting a complaint from a third country. The broader issue is that if there was a good Brexit deal that delivered on the promises of the Leave campaign then it would have been negotiated already.
I think there are two major difficulties with thinking the odds for No Deal are too long. The first, and less important, is that even a thin deal of some sort (single sector, transition extension etc) is none the less a deal.
The second is that the formula to adopt with regard to likelihoods is a single question: What is the best option for keeping Boris being PM right now?
The short term effect of a No Deal on many industries (10% tariff, logistics of just in time, delay and all that) is so destructive with immediate effect that no PM's position could be safe.
So a deal is easily the most likely outcome, with compromises under the protective cover of pandemic emergency and public incomprehension.
That's my reading too. Johnson is not a details man or, especially, a Brexit fanatic - he'll weigh up the cost of obscure concessions that make it hard to do some things differently from the EU vs public outrage if we see chaos after Jan 1. On fish I can see the can being kicked down the road - current arrangements for a few years with a "wide-ranging review" or some such phrase at the end of it. Will that make it harder to subsidise something in 2022? Will it annoy some hardliners? Whatever.
EU fudge almost always works, albeit it doesn't please anyone. Boris pulled the same trick last time and it worked, even though he himself now complains about parts of it.
Of course, since most expect last minute fudge with the EU there's always the chance they all back themselves into a corner and mess up preventing agreeing a fudge.
But at every turn people keep changing their minds if Boris wants no deal or wants one but is crap so will fail. If it's the latter then there's a high chance of a deal even if it means capitulation and party upset, since hes set on a deal.
For those wondering about how the Labour NEC elections have changed Starmer's ability to push things through, here's a summary. I'll concentrate on the posts for which ordinary members had an input - the councillors representation was unchanged and the Treasurer post wasn't seriously contested.
At the previous full round of elections in 2018, Momentum had secured a rule change to increase the CLP representatives from 6 to 9 to bolster Corbyn's position, all elected by FPTP. The result: Momentum had 9 CLP, plus 1 youth plus 1 Wales (appointed by Drakeford). Total 11 Momentum, Others nil.
After the Spring 2000 by elections, LTW picked up 2 Constituency seats, largely because the far left couldn't agree on candidates and split their vote. So Momentum had 7 CLP, plus 1 youth plus 1 Wales appointed. Total 9 Momentum, 2 LTW. But with Starmer's election, the leadership and front bench appointees to the NEC also changed. Even so, Starmer could at that point rely on no more than a narrow NEC majority of about 2, which would have fallen to 1 had one of the Momentum CLP reps (Willsman) not been suspended.
That narrow majority was however enough for Starmer to push through a crucial change to the NEC constituency voting from FPTP to STV for November's elections. After the latest round of voting, the results in the above seats are: CLP: Momentum 5, LTW 3, Open Labour 1 (Black). Youth: Momentum 1. Wales: LTW 1 Disabled (new seat): Momentum 1
So compared to the Spring, Momentum are down from a total of 9 to 7, LTW up from 2 to 4 and Open Labour up from 0 to 1 (Black). On key votes, I think that Black will act in a way that is critical but supportive of Starmer's leadership, and she was instrumental in promoting the change in the voting system that diluted Momentum's grip. She'll at least consider things on their merits, rather than from a partisan far left factional line. So Momentum down 2, Non-Momentum up 3.
That's a net shift since the Spring in Starmer's favour of 5, bringing his minimum working majority up from 1 to 6. The switch in Wales is a notable bonus to what might have been expected.
Leonard in the meanwhile has insisted that the Scotland NEC seat should remain reserved for the Scottish leader. In 2021, Leonard seems sure to be replaced, so at that point I would expect Starmer's minimum majority to increase further to 8.
Overall, I'm sure that Starmer will be very pleased at the practical outcome of a much strengthened hand. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried, parliament was seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
The problem is lack of clarity in the rules. If they had said this betting market will be settled on the day the college actually meets to sign off on the ECV vote from the individual states then we wouldn't be bothered.
But it doesn't. It talks about "projected".
I read "projected" purely to mean that they will settle based on how the EC members are supposed to vote, rather than how any who switch sides actually vote?
Indeed. The rules specifically rule out "faithless" ECV voters.
I am getting pretty fed up now. It is clear Biden has won. There is no doubt that the networks settled projection is correct. No legal challenge has got out of first base and indeed lawyers are refusing to continue to work on the pointless actions.
Pay up BF.
The problem for them will be the people on the other side of the bet who would argue that they still have a chance of winning, however slim.
Why should BF indulge that view? It's completely detached from reality. If I were to complain that my bet on Man City winning the 2019-20 Premier League shouldn't be settled yet because who knows maybe Liverpool will be retrospectively disqualified for some imagined breach of rules, should I be taken seriously? Of course not.
The practical problem is the sheer volume of bets still going on Trump.
I understand your logic but as long as people are betting on Trump in substantial amounts it suggests that they think there is a material chance he can still win. I am buggered if I can think how and why that might be but the fact remains considerable numbers think he can. They don't have to give a reason and Betfair would be taking a big risk if they proclaimed that there is none.
They are entitled to think that as long as there are such punters around, they are providing the likes of you and me the opportunty to pick up easy money. So what's the problem? If the Trump backers are manifestly wrong then take them to the cleaners. He'll be gone soon enough. No need for them to pre-empt matters.
I think there is a substantial weight of well-financed opinion that believes that somehow the Orange Goon is going to pull a rabbit out of the hat at the eleventh hour. As long as that remains a possibility, no way are Betfair going to settle.
I think there are two major difficulties with thinking the odds for No Deal are too long. The first, and less important, is that even a thin deal of some sort (single sector, transition extension etc) is none the less a deal.
The second is that the formula to adopt with regard to likelihoods is a single question: What is the best option for keeping Boris being PM right now?
The short term effect of a No Deal on many industries (10% tariff, logistics of just in time, delay and all that) is so destructive with immediate effect that no PM's position could be safe.
So a deal is easily the most likely outcome, with compromises under the protective cover of pandemic emergency and public incomprehension.
That's my reading too. Johnson is not a details man or, especially, a Brexit fanatic - he'll weigh up the cost of obscure concessions that make it hard to do some things differently from the EU vs public outrage if we see chaos after Jan 1. On fish I can see the can being kicked down the road - current arrangements for a few years with a "wide-ranging review" or some such phrase at the end of it. Will that make it harder to subsidise something in 2022? Will it annoy some hardliners? Whatever.
Largely agree. Politically the impasse Boris is in is not between UK and EU but the rival politics of a (rapidly diminishing) Brexit electorate whose only concern in truth was FoM and the flag, and on the other hand Brexit politics geeks, symbolised by the ERG, whose desire for Brexit was a deeply felt economic and political project.
The FoM and flag brigade can of course, being merely voters, change their mind at any point about what they believe now and what they believed in the past. And a messy Brexit will rapidly diminish their numbers if you can't buy tomatoes for three days or their are no staff in mum's care home because they are all in Estonia.
I think Boris has to disappoint one of those groups and that Cummings and friends have decided that he is going to do so as PM while they are off running Policy Wonk Institute explaining how they would have done it perfectly.
The Greek tragedians knew a thing or two about life. Maybe Boris is reading the Oresteian trilogy right now.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
Where we are at is that many Remainers here are still at the anger stage of grief, having just about moved on from denial. Acceptance is still a long way away.
Mr. B, yep, because at no stage did May lose any votes for a softer departure more to the liking of pro-EU MPs....
They have a big majority now, they should be less afraid of taking risks if they think it necessary. Its also a very different time.
I do agree in general on the comments on Grieve. Very intelligent man, but even for his side his rigidity and unwillingness to compromise was ignored despite being the sort of closed mind usually criticised and risking, well, what happened.
Relevant, from the Guardian analysis:
The [former] adviser [to Mrs May] said that a confrontational approach “can work in a campaign, but in the daily grind of government, you’re bound to need quite a transactional relationship with the media”.
And with MPs widely celebrating the news of Cummings’ exit, they added drily: “[The minority May government] was always going to have problems with party management. What is interesting, without any schadenfreude, is that they are having some of the same problems with a majority of 80.”
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
Betfair are not going to pay out a minute before the result is officially and legally ratified in all 50 states.
This argument gets had after every US election, when the weird system that it takes weeks to count the votes but the media ‘call’ the result within a day or two.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
Where we are at is that many Remainers here are still at the anger stage of grief, having just about moved on from denial. Acceptance is still a long way away.
Genuine question, what form of acceptance are you looking for?
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
Where we are at is that many Remainers here are still at the anger stage of grief, having just about moved on from denial. Acceptance is still a long way away.
Much of the debate four years ago revolved around how damaging Brexit would be, with the Remain campaign arguing it would lead to the end of the world as we know it, and the Leave campaign claiming it would all be super-easy, preserve all the current benefits, and we would barely notice; indeed, it would unlock tremendous benefits such as hospitals with no queues.
Until the consequences actually land, starting in a couple of months' time, it is hardly surprising that the debate continues.
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
There is a paradox Betfair should be mindful of. Their rules say (at least in some markets) that settlement will be on the basis of projections from the election results, notwithstanding later developments. That is fine, and how bookmakers have settled. The trouble is the longer Betfair waits to see what happens, the more they are susceptible to being sued for not acting on a black swan event that happens *before* they settle.
A fair point. I’m not defending their tardiness in settling, just trying to work out what they are doing. Those who are being allowed, some might say encouraged, still to place bets on Trump might feel aggrieved once they lose.
There is a principle in betting that you cant bet after the result is known, or the bet doesnt stand.
Therefore the fact that the market is open and matching millions per day is very important for those who want to understand how it will be settled rather than how they think it should be settled.
Settling on projected EC votes after state certification is certainly within their reasonable discretion and seems to be their plan.
That is a very good point. One might take issue with their approach (it doesn’t delight me, FWIW), but given they’ve left the market open for further betting, its logic is inescapable.
Off topic, just thinking that Nicola has played a blinder over lockdown. Basically dodged it by waiting for the university cases to burn themselves out rather than being panicked into it by the scientists. She deserves a lot of credit for for not being bounced into it with scary looking graphs with no actual data on them.
Edited extra bit: a tasty Christmas gift indeed. If they have room for it.
Is there a pack of Lego lions and Christians, so you can play with it when it’s finished?
I used to build my own fabulous Lego fighting androids and smash them together until one was in less pieces than the other. I grew out of that when I was about 38. I could market that same idea as Brexit Lego? 😶
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
They had chance after chance to vote Mrs May's deal through and refused. Your analogy is disgusting.
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
The problem is lack of clarity in the rules. If they had said this betting market will be settled on the day the college actually meets to sign off on the ECV vote from the individual states then we wouldn't be bothered.
But it doesn't. It talks about "projected".
I read "projected" purely to mean that they will settle based on how the EC members are supposed to vote, rather than how any who switch sides actually vote?
Indeed. The rules specifically rule out "faithless" ECV voters.
I am getting pretty fed up now. It is clear Biden has won. There is no doubt that the networks settled projection is correct. No legal challenge has got out of first base and indeed lawyers are refusing to continue to work on the pointless actions.
Pay up BF.
The problem for them will be the people on the other side of the bet who would argue that they still have a chance of winning, however slim.
Why should BF indulge that view? It's completely detached from reality. If I were to complain that my bet on Man City winning the 2019-20 Premier League shouldn't be settled yet because who knows maybe Liverpool will be retrospectively disqualified for some imagined breach of rules, should I be taken seriously? Of course not.
The practical problem is the sheer volume of bets still going on Trump.
I understand your logic but as long as people are betting on Trump in substantial amounts it suggests that they think there is a material chance he can still win. I am buggered if I can think how and why that might be but the fact remains considerable numbers think he can. They don't have to give a reason and Betfair would be taking a big risk if they proclaimed that there is none.
They are entitled to think that as long as there are such punters around, they are providing the likes of you and me the opportunty to pick up easy money. So what's the problem? If the Trump backers are manifestly wrong then take them to the cleaners. He'll be gone soon enough. No need for them to pre-empt matters.
I think there is a substantial weight of well-financed opinion that believes that somehow the Orange Goon is going to pull a rabbit out of the hat at the eleventh hour. As long as that remains a possibility, no way are Betfair going to settle.
Yes, Under their rules they should have settled on the PA call at which point there was a winner who had "a majority of the projected votes in the electoral college". Having failed to do that, they are now in a no man's land with no clear and obvious future event to hang the settlement on. But they won't care for the reasons you say. And I don't care either. I'm content to wait a little longer for my money.
Disagree 100% with the Header. Deal is certain. Always has been. Eat my shorts if I'm wrong.
I hope you are wrong on this. But fear you are right.
My hunch is that Cummings was prepared to play hard-ball more than Johnson is - and the PM is now freer to sign up to a poor deal for the UK. Cummings couldn`t stomach this, so has gone. Johnson will herald a pile of crap as a great victory.
I have never been convinced that a deal with EU was possible ( one that would be good for UK), so for me the order of preference was: 1) stay in EU and agitate from within, 2) leave with no deal, 3) a deal but a bad one.
Edited extra bit: a tasty Christmas gift indeed. If they have room for it.
Is there a pack of Lego lions and Christians, so you can play with it when it’s finished?
I used to build my own fabulous Lego fighting androids and smash them together until one was in less pieces than the other. I grew out of that when I was about 38. I could market that same idea as Brexit Lego? 😶
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
Wow, you can't read. I say right at the start its not the case it was the remainers fault, then say it again for good measure at the start of the second paragraph.
Thise who take the decisions always bear the responsibility. What I said, which you seem to have missed even though I stated twice it wasn't the remainers fault, was the remainers in parliament messed up.
I was on their side by that point in their general aims, but it's not blaming them to note they took control from May, then failed to do anything with it. That will be a major historical debate, what could they have done.
One of the only pleasures of leaving the EU is that Johnson owns it completely. His last crutches have now gone. It crucial that as the problems of leaving pile up it's not forgotten that this is his doing. The 17 million he and his bus shafted haven't gone away. I don't care much what deal is made as long as it's a mess. The Referendum unearthed a pretty nasty underbelly in this country- prejudices newspaper owners opportunist politicians-and if they aren't exposed now then it's all been for nothing
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
Where we are at is that many Remainers here are still at the anger stage of grief, having just about moved on from denial. Acceptance is still a long way away.
Yes. That scale is about how people process disaster, which possibly undermines your point. The brighter Leavers have grasped that the days of trying to be clever and funny about this are long, long gone.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
No. 2017-19 Remainers and Soft Brexiteers had a substantial majority of the Parliament. Hardcore Brexiteers were a tiny small minority.
Politics is a numbers game. If a tiny small minority get what they want and the substantial majority don't then the minority have outclassed and outplayed the majority who have screwed up somehow to enable their being defeated.
You don't blame the victors for why they won in a sport, you question why the losers were outclassed.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
The problem is lack of clarity in the rules. If they had said this betting market will be settled on the day the college actually meets to sign off on the ECV vote from the individual states then we wouldn't be bothered.
But it doesn't. It talks about "projected".
I read "projected" purely to mean that they will settle based on how the EC members are supposed to vote, rather than how any who switch sides actually vote?
Indeed. The rules specifically rule out "faithless" ECV voters.
I am getting pretty fed up now. It is clear Biden has won. There is no doubt that the networks settled projection is correct. No legal challenge has got out of first base and indeed lawyers are refusing to continue to work on the pointless actions.
Pay up BF.
The problem for them will be the people on the other side of the bet who would argue that they still have a chance of winning, however slim.
Why should BF indulge that view? It's completely detached from reality. If I were to complain that my bet on Man City winning the 2019-20 Premier League shouldn't be settled yet because who knows maybe Liverpool will be retrospectively disqualified for some imagined breach of rules, should I be taken seriously? Of course not.
The practical problem is the sheer volume of bets still going on Trump.
I understand your logic but as long as people are betting on Trump in substantial amounts it suggests that they think there is a material chance he can still win. I am buggered if I can think how and why that might be but the fact remains considerable numbers think he can. They don't have to give a reason and Betfair would be taking a big risk if they proclaimed that there is none.
They are entitled to think that as long as there are such punters around, they are providing the likes of you and me the opportunty to pick up easy money. So what's the problem? If the Trump backers are manifestly wrong then take them to the cleaners. He'll be gone soon enough. No need for them to pre-empt matters.
I think there is a substantial weight of well-financed opinion that believes that somehow the Orange Goon is going to pull a rabbit out of the hat at the eleventh hour. As long as that remains a possibility, no way are Betfair going to settle.
It’s not quite as simple as that, since the market rules are specifically for the winner based on projected EV totals, not next President, but I think @noneoftheabove ’s formulation seems correct.
Argentina just beat the All Blacks. Anyone know what the odds were on that?
Fake news.
How many legal points did the Pumas score?
Drop the goals?
The referee should have stopped counting when the All Blacks were ahead. [I can see this meme has got plenty of mileage. I am thinking to writing to all major bookmakers about the horses that illegally finished in front of the ones I backed.]
The Leaver movement was all about opposition, to the EU and then to remainers etc. Four years on, and they are still acting as if they are in opposition rather than taking full responsibility for the situation they have created.
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
The problem is lack of clarity in the rules. If they had said this betting market will be settled on the day the college actually meets to sign off on the ECV vote from the individual states then we wouldn't be bothered.
But it doesn't. It talks about "projected".
I read "projected" purely to mean that they will settle based on how the EC members are supposed to vote, rather than how any who switch sides actually vote?
Indeed. The rules specifically rule out "faithless" ECV voters.
I am getting pretty fed up now. It is clear Biden has won. There is no doubt that the networks settled projection is correct. No legal challenge has got out of first base and indeed lawyers are refusing to continue to work on the pointless actions.
Pay up BF.
The problem for them will be the people on the other side of the bet who would argue that they still have a chance of winning, however slim.
Why should BF indulge that view? It's completely detached from reality. If I were to complain that my bet on Man City winning the 2019-20 Premier League shouldn't be settled yet because who knows maybe Liverpool will be retrospectively disqualified for some imagined breach of rules, should I be taken seriously? Of course not.
The practical problem is the sheer volume of bets still going on Trump.
I understand your logic but as long as people are betting on Trump in substantial amounts it suggests that they think there is a material chance he can still win. I am buggered if I can think how and why that might be but the fact remains considerable numbers think he can. They don't have to give a reason and Betfair would be taking a big risk if they proclaimed that there is none.
They are entitled to think that as long as there are such punters around, they are providing the likes of you and me the opportunty to pick up easy money. So what's the problem? If the Trump backers are manifestly wrong then take them to the cleaners. He'll be gone soon enough. No need for them to pre-empt matters.
I think there is a substantial weight of well-financed opinion that believes that somehow the Orange Goon is going to pull a rabbit out of the hat at the eleventh hour. As long as that remains a possibility, no way are Betfair going to settle.
You say "The practical problem is the sheer volume of bets still going on Trump", how do you know this (or is this an assumption)? Is there a link you can provide?
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
You can easily swap the analogy around by making it a case where the keeper is remain wanting to stop something and it's not their fault the kicker scored, if you wanted.
Lots of things contributed to the situation we have. The recalcitrance of some remainers and unwillingness of hardliners on both sides to back May's deal both played into that. But ultimately responsibility rests with those who made a decision.
It's why i dont blame Cameron for this either. He told us not to do it and unlike others fought hard to convince us, and failed. Any failure now is those who voted like me more than him.
Disagree 100% with the Header. Deal is certain. Always has been. Eat my shorts if I'm wrong.
I wouldn't call it certain but I would give it a very high probability. You can't rule out total incompetence screwing it up (from either side) but self interest will very probably prevail. Like you, I think David has called this wrong.
The reality is that both the UK government and the EU have lists as long as your arm of more important things to think about and deal with. The idea of another extension and having this wasting more time and energy over the next few months would be deeply unappealing. Its an annoying distraction.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Yes it is (it seems) Hard Leavers getting what they wanted, so need to judge what happens on them.
But if you're questioning why Hard Leavers are getting what they wanted when they lacked the numbers in the Commons then need to address the fact that the Remain/Soft MPs messed up to let them win.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
Where we are at is that many Remainers here are still at the anger stage of grief, having just about moved on from denial. Acceptance is still a long way away.
Yes. That scale is about how people process disaster, which possibly undermines your point. The brighter Leavers have grasped that the days of trying to be clever and funny about this are long, long gone.
To be fair I hadn't noticed any Leavers being clever or funny at any point.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
I don’t think that’s what @kle4 is saying. I’m not quite sure what he means by a ‘soft Brexit’ that was apparently there for the taking, as anything other than May’s deal simply wasn’t. But I agree (and agreed at the time), that May’s deal was greatly preferable to the ongoing shitshow.
Supporters of the government certainly didn’t, and it’s utterly dishonest of them to pretend or imply that somehow the full responsibility for what they voted for - both Brexit and this government - isn’t theirs.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
No. 2017-19 Remainers and Soft Brexiteers had a substantial majority of the Parliament. Hardcore Brexiteers were a tiny small minority.
Politics is a numbers game. If a tiny small minority get what they want and the substantial majority don't then the minority have outclassed and outplayed the majority who have screwed up somehow to enable their being defeated.
You don't blame the victors for why they won in a sport, you question why the losers were outclassed.
I am not blaming the victors. You won, now take your spoils. If that means no deal or BINO that is up to you.
Like I say you won, but don't blame me if your win turns into a hollow victory.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
They had chance after chance to vote Mrs May's deal through and refused. Your analogy is disgusting.
It's not simply disgusting it completely ignores that I said the opposite so it's just nonsensical.
I do have much criticism of both remainers and ERGers for their tactics across that period and consequences of that, but I don't think it impossible or unreasonable to distinguish between criticism of actions contributing toward something and criticising those responsible for taking a decision. Theres criticism to spare, but responsibility is a distinct issue.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Yes it is (it seems) Hard Leavers getting what they wanted, so need to judge what happens on them.
But if you're questioning why Hard Leavers are getting what they wanted when they lacked the numbers in the Commons then need to address the fact that the Remain/Soft MPs messed up to let them win.
Ideological zeal and a PM prepared to sell out rather than stand up to the hard nuts. Boris chose Rees Mogg over Clarke.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
Wow, you can't read. I say right at the start its not the case it was the remainers fault, then say it again for good measure at the start of the second paragraph.
Thise who take the decisions always bear the responsibility. What I said, which you seem to have missed even though I stated twice it wasn't the remainers fault, was the remainers in parliament messed up.
I was on their side by that point in their general aims, but it's not blaming them to note they took control from May, then failed to do anything with it. That will be a major historical debate, what could they have done.
You explicitly said it wasn't Remainers' fault, then blamed Remainers for where we are now.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
No. 2017-19 Remainers and Soft Brexiteers had a substantial majority of the Parliament. Hardcore Brexiteers were a tiny small minority.
Politics is a numbers game. If a tiny small minority get what they want and the substantial majority don't then the minority have outclassed and outplayed the majority who have screwed up somehow to enable their being defeated.
You don't blame the victors for why they won in a sport, you question why the losers were outclassed.
I am not blaming the victors. You won, now take your spoils. If that means no deal or BINO that is up to you.
Like I say you won, but don't blame me if your win turns into a hollow victory.
It’s as if Leavers still need Remainers to validate them or to contribute to the success of their plans. Really odd.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
You can easily swap the analogy around by making it a case where the keeper is remain wanting to stop something and it's not their fault the kicker scored, if you wanted.
Lots of things contributed to the situation we have. The recalcitrance of some remainers and unwillingness of hardliners on both sides to back May's deal both played into that. But ultimately responsibility rests with those who made a decision.
It's why i dont blame Cameron for this either. He told us not to do it and unlike others fought hard to convince us, and failed. Any failure now is those who voted like me more than him.
Indeed those who rejected May's deal need to own it. I rejected May's deal and though not an MP am happy to stand by that 100%.
For the MPs though there were two classes of MPs who rejected her deal.
The smaller number were those who rejected her deal because they wanted a harder deal - they have it seems got what they wanted. Well done them, to the victor goes the spoils.
The larger number though were those who rejected her deal because they wanted a soft deal or no Brexit. Well they seem to have scored an own goal and enabled the hard Brexiteers. Oops.
Disagree 100% with the Header. Deal is certain. Always has been. Eat my shorts if I'm wrong.
I hope you are wrong on this. But fear you are right.
My hunch is that Cummings was prepared to play hard-ball more than Johnson is - and the PM is now freer to sign up to a poor deal for the UK. Cummings couldn`t stomach this, so has gone. Johnson will herald a pile of crap as a great victory.
I have never been convinced that a deal with EU was possible ( one that would be good for UK), so for me the order of preference was: 1) stay in EU and agitate from within, 2) leave with no deal, 3) a deal but a bad one.
We`re heading towards 3).
It's all very well musing on what anyone might have preferred, but given the level of incompetence seen from the government so far this year, what level of carnage would there be if we left with no deal?
It would have been bad enough a year ago, but with the pandemic quite possibly reaching new heights in January it doesn't bear thinking about.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
I don’t think that’s what @kle4 is saying. I’m not quite sure what he means by a ‘soft Brexit’ that was apparently there for the taking, as anything other than May’s deal simply wasn’t. But I agree (and agreed at the time), that May’s deal was greatly preferable to the ongoing shitshow.
Supporters of the government certainly didn’t, and it’s utterly dishonest of them to pretend or imply that somehow the full responsibility for what they voted for - both Brexit and this government - isn’t theirs.
Soft and hard brexit never meant crap, people disputed and dispute what would count as either.
What mexicanpete was unable to grasp despite me stating it openly twice was that criticism of the actions of the remainer side and indeed the ERG side can be very real and relevant but doesn't take away the responsibility from the government.
Indeed, a failure to criticise their tactics means the governments actions are not considered in the proper context, for good and Ill.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
Where we are at is that many Remainers here are still at the anger stage of grief, having just about moved on from denial. Acceptance is still a long way away.
Yes. That scale is about how people process disaster, which possibly undermines your point. The brighter Leavers have grasped that the days of trying to be clever and funny about this are long, long gone.
To be fair I hadn't noticed any Leavers being clever or funny at any point.
As I said in all seriousness, we're not past anger, which is why the insults are still flying.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
There is a paradox Betfair should be mindful of. Their rules say (at least in some markets) that settlement will be on the basis of projections from the election results, notwithstanding later developments. That is fine, and how bookmakers have settled. The trouble is the longer Betfair waits to see what happens, the more they are susceptible to being sued for not acting on a black swan event that happens *before* they settle.
A fair point. I’m not defending their tardiness in settling, just trying to work out what they are doing. Those who are being allowed, some might say encouraged, still to place bets on Trump might feel aggrieved once they lose.
There is a principle in betting that you cant bet after the result is known, or the bet doesnt stand.
Therefore the fact that the market is open and matching millions per day is very important for those who want to understand how it will be settled rather than how they think it should be settled.
Settling on projected EC votes after state certification is certainly within their reasonable discretion and seems to be their plan.
This is plausible.
But remember that Biden has 227 EC votes from states that Betfair have already settled. It would be illogical for settlement of the overall winner to be delayed until those states have now certified. They are done in Betfair world.
They should only wait until a further 43 EC votes have been certified from the 6 states they are still trading - AZ, GA, NV, MI, WI, PA.
Therefore knowing the EC size of each of the above, and also the cert timetable, we can deduce the date on which settlement of the overall market will take place per your theory.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
Where we are at is that many Remainers here are still at the anger stage of grief, having just about moved on from denial. Acceptance is still a long way away.
Yes. That scale is about how people process disaster, which possibly undermines your point. The brighter Leavers have grasped that the days of trying to be clever and funny about this are long, long gone.
To be fair I hadn't noticed any Leavers being clever or funny at any point.
As I said in all seriousness, we're not past anger, which is why the insults are still flying.
Well said. And why we are still at the point that criticism if one side is presumed to mean total agreement with everything of the side, when in fact you can criticise without doing so
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Yes it is (it seems) Hard Leavers getting what they wanted, so need to judge what happens on them.
But if you're questioning why Hard Leavers are getting what they wanted when they lacked the numbers in the Commons then need to address the fact that the Remain/Soft MPs messed up to let them win.
Fine, but it is the real world consequences of a hard leave that will matter, and how these match up to the promises these very same people made during the campaign.
The opposition has so far been very quiet about the alleged "oven ready deal", doubtless because they, like everyone else, suspect something will emerge from the talks at the last minute. The public might have tuned out since, but I'd expect many people remember the oven-ready deal they were promised and it's a phrase we'll be hearing a lot more of, should it all prove to be yet more Brexiter lies.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
Nonsense. May's deal was never a compromise and it was entirely reasonable to reject it.
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
There is a paradox Betfair should be mindful of. Their rules say (at least in some markets) that settlement will be on the basis of projections from the election results, notwithstanding later developments. That is fine, and how bookmakers have settled. The trouble is the longer Betfair waits to see what happens, the more they are susceptible to being sued for not acting on a black swan event that happens *before* they settle.
A fair point. I’m not defending their tardiness in settling, just trying to work out what they are doing. Those who are being allowed, some might say encouraged, still to place bets on Trump might feel aggrieved once they lose.
There is a principle in betting that you cant bet after the result is known, or the bet doesnt stand.
Therefore the fact that the market is open and matching millions per day is very important for those who want to understand how it will be settled rather than how they think it should be settled.
Settling on projected EC votes after state certification is certainly within their reasonable discretion and seems to be their plan.
This is plausible.
But remember that Biden has 227 EC votes from states that Betfair have already settled. It would be illogical for settlement of the overall winner to be delayed until those states have now certified. They are done in Betfair world.
They should only wait until a further 43 EC votes have been certified from the 6 states they are still trading - AZ, GA, NV, MI, WI, PA.
Therefore knowing the EC size of each of the above, and also the cert timetable, we can deduce the date on which settlement of the overall market will take place per your theory.
A lot seems to hang on the word "projected".
noneoftheabove writes "projected EC votes after state certification" - but surely once a state has certified the result it is no longer projected.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
Whatever you do, don’t leave the poor girl with Roger.
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
There is a paradox Betfair should be mindful of. Their rules say (at least in some markets) that settlement will be on the basis of projections from the election results, notwithstanding later developments. That is fine, and how bookmakers have settled. The trouble is the longer Betfair waits to see what happens, the more they are susceptible to being sued for not acting on a black swan event that happens *before* they settle.
A fair point. I’m not defending their tardiness in settling, just trying to work out what they are doing. Those who are being allowed, some might say encouraged, still to place bets on Trump might feel aggrieved once they lose.
There is a principle in betting that you cant bet after the result is known, or the bet doesnt stand.
Therefore the fact that the market is open and matching millions per day is very important for those who want to understand how it will be settled rather than how they think it should be settled.
Settling on projected EC votes after state certification is certainly within their reasonable discretion and seems to be their plan.
This is plausible.
But remember that Biden has 227 EC votes from states that Betfair have already settled. It would be illogical for settlement of the overall winner to be delayed until those states have now certified. They are done in Betfair world.
They should only wait until a further 43 EC votes have been certified from the 6 states they are still trading - AZ, GA, NV, MI, WI, PA.
Therefore knowing the EC size of each of the above, and also the cert timetable, we can deduce the date on which settlement of the overall market will take place per your theory.
Yes, I am just recycling money from the state bets back into Biden at 1.07. There's still half a million waiting to be matched.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
What if they didn’t want to vote for it because they believed it to be wrong?
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
I don’t think that’s what @kle4 is saying. I’m not quite sure what he means by a ‘soft Brexit’ that was apparently there for the taking, as anything other than May’s deal simply wasn’t. But I agree (and agreed at the time), that May’s deal was greatly preferable to the ongoing shitshow.
Supporters of the government certainly didn’t, and it’s utterly dishonest of them to pretend or imply that somehow the full responsibility for what they voted for - both Brexit and this government - isn’t theirs.
There are two questions, which it's important not to mix up- whether by accident or design,
First- could those opposed to a hard Brexit have stopped it in the 2017-19 Parliament? Perhaps they could, but it would have required TM the then PM to get her plan through with opposition votes against a large chunk of her own party. Maybe she could have got away with that, but it's not clear why the ERG wouldn't have deposed her faster than you could say "vassal state".
Second- if hard-to-no-deal Brexit happens, who gets the credit / blame for what happens next? Easy. The people who argued, campaigned, cajoled, backstabbed and used all the political arts to get to this situation. The people in charge when it happens. Claiming that "we wanted to do this but it's their fault for not stopping us" is absurd, as is "we didn't really want to do this, but we were forced into it by the people we outwitted".
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
Nonsense. May's deal was never a compromise and it was entirely reasonable to reject it.
May's deal kept us on Single Market and Customs Union terms while we were in the backstop. It was as soft as you could get.
It was reasonable for hard Brexiteers to reject it. Soft Brexiteers got a harder Brexit from rejecting it. Oh well what a shame.
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
There is a paradox Betfair should be mindful of. Their rules say (at least in some markets) that settlement will be on the basis of projections from the election results, notwithstanding later developments. That is fine, and how bookmakers have settled. The trouble is the longer Betfair waits to see what happens, the more they are susceptible to being sued for not acting on a black swan event that happens *before* they settle.
A fair point. I’m not defending their tardiness in settling, just trying to work out what they are doing. Those who are being allowed, some might say encouraged, still to place bets on Trump might feel aggrieved once they lose.
There is a principle in betting that you cant bet after the result is known, or the bet doesnt stand.
Therefore the fact that the market is open and matching millions per day is very important for those who want to understand how it will be settled rather than how they think it should be settled.
Settling on projected EC votes after state certification is certainly within their reasonable discretion and seems to be their plan.
This is plausible.
But remember that Biden has 227 EC votes from states that Betfair have already settled. It would be illogical for settlement of the overall winner to be delayed until those states have now certified. They are done in Betfair world.
They should only wait until a further 43 EC votes have been certified from the 6 states they are still trading - AZ, GA, NV, MI, WI, PA.
Therefore knowing the EC size of each of the above, and also the cert timetable, we can deduce the date on which settlement of the overall market will take place per your theory.
A lot seems to hang on the word "projected".
noneoftheabove writes "projected EC votes after state certification" - but surely once a state has certified the result it is no longer projected.
It is, in the sense that we are simply projecting how the EC members will vote based on the election result. How they actually vote isnt known until the college gets to meet.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
Nonsense. May's deal was never a compromise and it was entirely reasonable to reject it.
The point about May’s deal was it left room for compromise. It could easily have been used for a Norway solution later on, or a pivot to Canada later.
Johnson’s deal by contrast is so bad that even he has admitted it’s unworkable and he has no time to come up with a solution.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
As a further point, you Brexiteers seem to think that "Remainers" would bite your hand off for May's deal right now. The fact is that isn't true.
I couldn't care less if we have May's deal or if we have no deal. They are both a hard Brexit, and I want a soft Brexit with close EU alignment. I want Britain to be part of the single market.
So we are where we are. I'm looking forward to these promised sunlit uplands.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
Nonsense. May's deal was never a compromise and it was entirely reasonable to reject it.
May's deal kept us on Single Market and Customs Union terms while we were in the backstop. It was as soft as you could get.
It was reasonable for hard Brexiteers to reject it. Soft Brexiteers got a harder Brexit from rejecting it. Oh well what a shame.
I don't care if we got a "harder Brexit" instead of a hard Brexit. It doesn't make a difference.
Like I said, I look forward to these sunlit uplands.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
Nonsense. May's deal was never a compromise and it was entirely reasonable to reject it.
The point about May’s deal was it left room for compromise. It could easily have been used for a Norway solution later on, or a pivot to Canada later.
Johnson’s deal by contrast is so bad that even he has admitted it’s unworkable and he has no time to come up with a solution.
If anything Johnson's deal might ultimately herald our return to the Single Market. Who knows.
This really is not the flu, irrespective of death rates.
Multi-organ impairment in low-risk individuals with long COVID https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.14.20212555v1.full.pdf ... Between April and September 2020, 201 individuals (mean age 44 (SD 11.0) years, 70% female, 87% white, 31% healthcare workers) completed assessments following SARS-CoV-2 infection (median 140, IQR 105-160 days after initial symptoms). The prevalence of pre-existing conditions (obesity: 20%, hypertension: 6%; diabetes: 2%; heart disease: 4%) was low, and only 18% of individuals had been hospitalised with COVID-19. Fatigue (98%), muscle aches (88%), breathlessness (87%), and headaches (83%) were the most frequently reported symptoms. Ongoing cardiorespiratory (92%) and gastrointestinal (73%) symptoms were common, and 42% of individuals had ten or more symptoms. There was evidence of mild organ impairment in heart (32%), lungs (33%), kidneys (12%), 63 liver (10%), pancreas (17%), and spleen (6%). Single (66%) and multi-organ (25%) impairment was observed, and was significantly associated with risk of prior COVID-19 hospitalisation (p<0.05).
Interpretation: In a young, low-risk population with ongoing symptoms, almost 70% of individuals have impairment in one or more organs four months after initial symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection. There are implications not only for burden of long COVID but also public health approaches which have assumed low risk in young people with no comorbidities...</i>
Comments
Spot on.
We are in a situation now where the UK is not part of the EU, and there are choices to be made about the future relationship. There is not remain/leave divide any more. There are those who would have no formal relationship, through shades of grey all the way to Norway-style relationships, and then onto those who would rejoin the EU at the first opportunity. Every single one of those positions starts with the predicate that we are outside the EU, because that is the cold hard reality.
Some of those who say we haven't left are trying to argue that only their purist vision of Brexit is true Leave, and since that has not been fulfilled the vote has been betrayed yadda yadda. What they are doing is trying to short circuit the proper debate which should include everyone and be conducted on a rational, factual basis. The fact that some people still dismiss "remainers" as not legitimate participants in this debate and (worse) dismiss those who campaigned for leave as crypto-remainers is frightening. The language of we've-not-really-left-yet is one of the primary exports of that mindset, and everyone who doesn't want to see politics done in that way -- which ought to be all of us -- should refuse to legitimise that mindset by sticking with reality.
a) a list of the things that have already been agreed in the negotiations
b) in respect of everything else, the current status quo continues
c) a review to revisit the items listed at b in a year's time
plus perhaps
d) some waffle signed off by the EU noting various UK aspirations, which Bozo can point to in order to fend off criticism of b)
Edit - apart from the unlucky postie, who will hopefully accept the hernia as one for the nation.
Focusing too much on the superficial similarities enables Boris to get away with stuff when he doesn't then act just like Trump, for example whilst we've had plenty of covid problems and debates behind the scenes, Boris hasn't been virtually war with top scientists so when people say hes trump like on that issue it doesn't land and makes a bad situation seem less bad.
That's the point. It doesn't help to get a good chuckle on pretending they are just the same, it makes it harder to take him on because he can easily show a way he is different and suggest other claims against are bollocks, even when it's not.
But no, let's keep acting like the superficial stuff is more important. He has a similar visual look too hurr hurr Trump clone.
We cannot impose customs so we will continue in a de facto customs union. We cannot check standards so we will continue in a de facto free market.
So if they explicitly decouple the two as you suggest then they've lost. It's why we keep hearing nonsense about the electricity market.
I think it means that, with time short, and attention diverted by the pandemic, the potential for a miscalculation leading to no deal is high.
The UK side believe they've been clever-clever with holding out on negotiations on LPF/fish to the last minute, and that the EU will be forced to offer major concessions.
The EU side believe that the departure of Cummings is a signal for capitulation by London.
I do agree in general on the comments on Grieve. Very intelligent man, but even for his side his rigidity and unwillingness to compromise was ignored despite being the sort of closed mind usually criticised and risking, well, what happened.
The broader issue is that if there was a good Brexit deal that delivered on the promises of the Leave campaign then it would have been negotiated already.
Of course, since most expect last minute fudge with the EU there's always the chance they all back themselves into a corner and mess up preventing agreeing a fudge.
But at every turn people keep changing their minds if Boris wants no deal or wants one but is crap so will fail. If it's the latter then there's a high chance of a deal even if it means capitulation and party upset, since hes set on a deal.
At the previous full round of elections in 2018, Momentum had secured a rule change to increase the CLP representatives from 6 to 9 to bolster Corbyn's position, all elected by FPTP. The result: Momentum had 9 CLP, plus 1 youth plus 1 Wales (appointed by Drakeford). Total 11 Momentum, Others nil.
After the Spring 2000 by elections, LTW picked up 2 Constituency seats, largely because the far left couldn't agree on candidates and split their vote. So Momentum had 7 CLP, plus 1 youth plus 1 Wales appointed. Total 9 Momentum, 2 LTW. But with Starmer's election, the leadership and front bench appointees to the NEC also changed. Even so, Starmer could at that point rely on no more than a narrow NEC majority of about 2, which would have fallen to 1 had one of the Momentum CLP reps (Willsman) not been suspended.
That narrow majority was however enough for Starmer to push through a crucial change to the NEC constituency voting from FPTP to STV for November's elections. After the latest round of voting, the results in the above seats are:
CLP: Momentum 5, LTW 3, Open Labour 1 (Black).
Youth: Momentum 1.
Wales: LTW 1
Disabled (new seat): Momentum 1
So compared to the Spring, Momentum are down from a total of 9 to 7, LTW up from 2 to 4 and Open Labour up from 0 to 1 (Black). On key votes, I think that Black will act in a way that is critical but supportive of Starmer's leadership, and she was instrumental in promoting the change in the voting system that diluted Momentum's grip. She'll at least consider things on their merits, rather than from a partisan far left factional line. So Momentum down 2, Non-Momentum up 3.
That's a net shift since the Spring in Starmer's favour of 5, bringing his minimum working majority up from 1 to 6. The switch in Wales is a notable bonus to what might have been expected.
Leonard in the meanwhile has insisted that the Scotland NEC seat should remain reserved for the Scottish leader. In 2021, Leonard seems sure to be replaced, so at that point I would expect Starmer's minimum majority to increase further to 8.
Overall, I'm sure that Starmer will be very pleased at the practical outcome of a much strengthened hand. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried, parliament was seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
I understand your logic but as long as people are betting on Trump in substantial amounts it suggests that they think there is a material chance he can still win. I am buggered if I can think how and why that might be but the fact remains considerable numbers think he can. They don't have to give a reason and Betfair would be taking a big risk if they proclaimed that there is none.
They are entitled to think that as long as there are such punters around, they are providing the likes of you and me the opportunty to pick up easy money. So what's the problem? If the Trump backers are manifestly wrong then take them to the cleaners. He'll be gone soon enough. No need for them to pre-empt matters.
I think there is a substantial weight of well-financed opinion that believes that somehow the Orange Goon is going to pull a rabbit out of the hat at the eleventh hour. As long as that remains a possibility, no way are Betfair going to settle.
The FoM and flag brigade can of course, being merely voters, change their mind at any point about what they believe now and what they believed in the past. And a messy Brexit will rapidly diminish their numbers if you can't buy tomatoes for three days or their are no staff in mum's care home because they are all in Estonia.
I think Boris has to disappoint one of those groups and that Cummings and friends have decided that he is going to do so as PM while they are off running Policy Wonk Institute explaining how they would have done it perfectly.
The Greek tragedians knew a thing or two about life. Maybe Boris is reading the Oresteian trilogy right now.
How many legal points did the Pumas score?
The [former] adviser [to Mrs May] said that a confrontational approach “can work in a campaign, but in the daily grind of government, you’re bound to need quite a transactional relationship with the media”.
And with MPs widely celebrating the news of Cummings’ exit, they added drily: “[The minority May government] was always going to have problems with party management. What is interesting, without any schadenfreude, is that they are having some of the same problems with a majority of 80.”
This argument gets had after every US election, when the weird system that it takes weeks to count the votes but the media ‘call’ the result within a day or two.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
New Zealand (3) 15
Tries: Cane, Clarke Con: Mo'unga Pen: Mo'unga
Argentina (16) 25
Con: Sanchez Pens: Sanchez 6
Until the consequences actually land, starting in a couple of months' time, it is hardly surprising that the debate continues.
One might take issue with their approach (it doesn’t delight me, FWIW), but given they’ve left the market open for further betting, its logic is inescapable.
My hunch is that Cummings was prepared to play hard-ball more than Johnson is - and the PM is now freer to sign up to a poor deal for the UK. Cummings couldn`t stomach this, so has gone. Johnson will herald a pile of crap as a great victory.
I have never been convinced that a deal with EU was possible ( one that would be good for UK), so for me the order of preference was: 1) stay in EU and agitate from within, 2) leave with no deal, 3) a deal but a bad one.
We`re heading towards 3).
Bozo fires Cum, but was it Carrie or Allegra who finished him off?
Thise who take the decisions always bear the responsibility. What I said, which you seem to have missed even though I stated twice it wasn't the remainers fault, was the remainers in parliament messed up.
I was on their side by that point in their general aims, but it's not blaming them to note they took control from May, then failed to do anything with it. That will be a major historical debate, what could they have done.
Politics is a numbers game. If a tiny small minority get what they want and the substantial majority don't then the minority have outclassed and outplayed the majority who have screwed up somehow to enable their being defeated.
You don't blame the victors for why they won in a sport, you question why the losers were outclassed.
Paid but not troubled with too much work, and certainly no decisions, at a guess.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Lots of things contributed to the situation we have. The recalcitrance of some remainers and unwillingness of hardliners on both sides to back May's deal both played into that. But ultimately responsibility rests with those who made a decision.
It's why i dont blame Cameron for this either. He told us not to do it and unlike others fought hard to convince us, and failed. Any failure now is those who voted like me more than him.
How do you have a conversion without a try?
The reality is that both the UK government and the EU have lists as long as your arm of more important things to think about and deal with. The idea of another extension and having this wasting more time and energy over the next few months would be deeply unappealing. Its an annoying distraction.
https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1327549501259849728
But if you're questioning why Hard Leavers are getting what they wanted when they lacked the numbers in the Commons then need to address the fact that the Remain/Soft MPs messed up to let them win.
I’m not quite sure what he means by a ‘soft Brexit’ that was apparently there for the taking, as anything other than May’s deal simply wasn’t.
But I agree (and agreed at the time), that May’s deal was greatly preferable to the ongoing shitshow.
Supporters of the government certainly didn’t, and it’s utterly dishonest of them to pretend or imply that somehow the full responsibility for what they voted for - both Brexit and this government - isn’t theirs.
Like I say you won, but don't blame me if your win turns into a hollow victory.
I do have much criticism of both remainers and ERGers for their tactics across that period and consequences of that, but I don't think it impossible or unreasonable to distinguish between criticism of actions contributing toward something and criticising those responsible for taking a decision. Theres criticism to spare, but responsibility is a distinct issue.
The rest is bang on and what I’ve been saying for literally years. Funny how many people in the media are agreeing with my analysis...
"Just look at what you Remainers have made me do"
Shrugs. Nothing to do with me, I votes against. Take responsibility for your own shit.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
For the MPs though there were two classes of MPs who rejected her deal.
The smaller number were those who rejected her deal because they wanted a harder deal - they have it seems got what they wanted. Well done them, to the victor goes the spoils.
The larger number though were those who rejected her deal because they wanted a soft deal or no Brexit. Well they seem to have scored an own goal and enabled the hard Brexiteers. Oops.
It would have been bad enough a year ago, but with the pandemic quite possibly reaching new heights in January it doesn't bear thinking about.
What mexicanpete was unable to grasp despite me stating it openly twice was that criticism of the actions of the remainer side and indeed the ERG side can be very real and relevant but doesn't take away the responsibility from the government.
Indeed, a failure to criticise their tactics means the governments actions are not considered in the proper context, for good and Ill.
I'm.very grateful for them voting as they did.
But remember that Biden has 227 EC votes from states that Betfair have already settled. It would be illogical for settlement of the overall winner to be delayed until those states have now certified. They are done in Betfair world.
They should only wait until a further 43 EC votes have been certified from the 6 states they are still trading - AZ, GA, NV, MI, WI, PA.
Therefore knowing the EC size of each of the above, and also the cert timetable, we can deduce the date on which settlement of the overall market will take place per your theory.
The opposition has so far been very quiet about the alleged "oven ready deal", doubtless because they, like everyone else, suspect something will emerge from the talks at the last minute. The public might have tuned out since, but I'd expect many people remember the oven-ready deal they were promised and it's a phrase we'll be hearing a lot more of, should it all prove to be yet more Brexiter lies.
noneoftheabove writes "projected EC votes after state certification" - but surely once a state has certified the result it is no longer projected.
First- could those opposed to a hard Brexit have stopped it in the 2017-19 Parliament?
Perhaps they could, but it would have required TM the then PM to get her plan through with opposition votes against a large chunk of her own party. Maybe she could have got away with that, but it's not clear why the ERG wouldn't have deposed her faster than you could say "vassal state".
Second- if hard-to-no-deal Brexit happens, who gets the credit / blame for what happens next?
Easy. The people who argued, campaigned, cajoled, backstabbed and used all the political arts to get to this situation. The people in charge when it happens. Claiming that "we wanted to do this but it's their fault for not stopping us" is absurd, as is "we didn't really want to do this, but we were forced into it by the people we outwitted".
Hard Brexiteers- you won. Get over it.
It was reasonable for hard Brexiteers to reject it. Soft Brexiteers got a harder Brexit from rejecting it. Oh well what a shame.
Johnson’s deal by contrast is so bad that even he has admitted it’s unworkable and he has no time to come up with a solution.
I couldn't care less if we have May's deal or if we have no deal. They are both a hard Brexit, and I want a soft Brexit with close EU alignment. I want Britain to be part of the single market.
So we are where we are. I'm looking forward to these promised sunlit uplands.
Like I said, I look forward to these sunlit uplands.
Let's regroup in 5 years time.
Multi-organ impairment in low-risk individuals with long COVID
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.14.20212555v1.full.pdf
... Between April and September 2020, 201 individuals (mean age 44 (SD 11.0) years, 70% female, 87% white, 31% healthcare workers) completed assessments following SARS-CoV-2 infection (median 140, IQR 105-160 days after initial symptoms). The prevalence of pre-existing conditions (obesity: 20%, hypertension: 6%; diabetes: 2%; heart disease: 4%) was low, and only 18% of individuals had been hospitalised with COVID-19.
Fatigue (98%), muscle aches (88%), breathlessness (87%), and headaches (83%) were the most frequently reported symptoms. Ongoing cardiorespiratory (92%) and gastrointestinal (73%) symptoms were common, and 42% of individuals had ten or more symptoms. There was evidence of mild organ impairment in heart (32%), lungs (33%), kidneys (12%),
63 liver (10%), pancreas (17%), and spleen (6%). Single (66%) and multi-organ (25%) impairment was observed, and was significantly associated with risk of prior COVID-19 hospitalisation (p<0.05).
Interpretation: In a young, low-risk population with ongoing symptoms, almost 70% of individuals have impairment in one or more organs four months after initial symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection. There are implications not only for burden of long COVID but also public health approaches which have assumed low risk in young people with no comorbidities...</i>