politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Leading constitutional expert and Cameron’s former tutor think

Blimey, even the Sun's Political Editor agrees - that's surprising!

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/893097806478618625

Benpointer said:

Blimey, even the Sun's Political Editor agrees - that's surprising!

The Sun's political journalists on Twitter seem remarkably impervious to swivel-eyed Brexititis. The Telegraph on the other hand...

If Murdoch decides supporting Brexit is flogging a dead horse, I would expect the Sun to be absolutely brutal in skewering the Brexiteers in government.

Afternoon all

It's no real surprise but a second referendum has exactly the same problems as the original EU Referendum. All those opposed to being in the EU could coalesce around LEAVE - all those opposed to the May deal can coalesce around NO but what then ?

There will be various reasons why people vote NO so we can't just have a binary option. There have to be other choices - leave without a deal, remain in the EU, seek further negotiation and we need to decide if the referendum is going to be merely consultative or binding in advance.

A ballot paper with four options means 25.1% could win but it wouldn't be like that. I suspect the more options the better for the Government as they will only be campaigning in support of the agreement (presumably).

Morris_Dancer said:

FPT: cheers, Mr. Pointer. Worst stuff was vicarious, and hoping things will improve in the next couple of months.

Glad to hear it

rottenborough said:

From pt:

Hands up who thinks the independence of Bank of England will be reversed on day 1 of Corbyn's government?

This is the thing.

And to answer a question posed on the other thread - my concern isn't the Lab manifesto. Whilst I disagree with it, if they implemented it (full stop) I don't think I would need to think about leaving the country.

My concern is about a spiral out of control - heading in the direction of a Venezuela. Obviously that would be very extreme and it would take a long time to get anywhere remotely near that bad.

But reversing BoE independence would be the sort of thing not in the manifesto which could be a precursor to wild policies which could start us at least heading in that direction.

That Vernon Bogdanor speech was made before Jezza sacked the dissenters. "Labours's 'soft Brexit' policy"? You must be joking.

MikeL said:

rottenborough said:

From pt:

Hands up who thinks the independence of Bank of England will be reversed on day 1 of Corbyn's government?

This is the thing.

And to answer a question posed on the other thread - my concern isn't the Lab manifesto. Whilst I disagree with it, if they implemented it (full stop) I don't think I would need to think about leaving the country.

My concern is about a spiral out of control - heading in the direction of a Venezuela. Obviously that would be very extreme and it would take a long time to get anywhere remotely near that bad.

But reversing BoE independence would be the sort of thing not in the manifesto which could be a precursor to wild policies which could start us at least heading in that direction.

Precisely. They wont be able to print money if they haven't got their hands on the printers.

Vernon Bogdanor's article is quite bizarre. He starts with some good analysis, but then suddenly concludes, with no intervening reasoning, that the outcome could be a second referendum.

A second referendum about what, exactly?

You can only have a referendum about something which is the UK's control. So it can't be a referendum on which Brexit deal we should go for: there will only be one on offer, and that will have been hammered out in tense and difficult negotiations, so it won't be alterable. If we reject the deal, there's no deal, and we'll crash out in total chaos.

Perhaps he means a referendum on whether we should accept the Brexit deal, with the alternative being remaining in the EU. But that makes no sense either. Remain on what terms, and by what mechanism? Although the legal position isn't completely clear, it seems most likely that there is no legal way of the UK unilaterally withdrawing the Article 50 notification. So that means getting the unanimous consent of at least 27 other countries, plus probably the EU parliament and perhaps various oddball regional parliaments as well. How on earth could anyone know whether that is an option which might be available, and in what timescale? In any case, by then preparations for Brexit on both sides will be well advanced; in practical terms, how do you reverse them?

In other words, the distinguished professor seems to be out with the fairies.

rottenborough said:

MikeL said:

rottenborough said:

From pt:

Hands up who thinks the independence of Bank of England will be reversed on day 1 of Corbyn's government?

This is the thing.

And to answer a question posed on the other thread - my concern isn't the Lab manifesto. Whilst I disagree with it, if they implemented it (full stop) I don't think I would need to think about leaving the country.

My concern is about a spiral out of control - heading in the direction of a Venezuela. Obviously that would be very extreme and it would take a long time to get anywhere remotely near that bad.

But reversing BoE independence would be the sort of thing not in the manifesto which could be a precursor to wild policies which could start us at least heading in that direction.

Precisely. They wont be able to print money if they haven't got their hands on the printers.

Just think of it as returning power to the UK's government from unelected bureaucrats. That sort of thing is quite popular in certain quarters these days,

Richard_Nabavi said:

So that means getting the unanimous consent of at least 27 other countries, plus probably the EU parliament and perhaps various oddball regional parliaments as well. How on earth could anyone know whether that is an option which might be available, and in what timescale?

Ask them

On topic, Bogdanor is wrong. Not for the first time, he's limiting his thinking too much to process. The political reality is that pretty much no-one in the Tory Party wants a second referendum and for good reason: it'd be bad politics and bad government.

I would imagine that there are plenty in the Labour Party who wouldn't want one either - though they might want to call for one as long as they don't get it. It would be hard for Corbyn to hide his way through another referendum which could divide Labour as much as, if not more than, the Tories.

But the biggest problem is what would Britain be voting on? If it's the deal, what happens if it's a No, as it probably would be (there are always more reasons to vote against something than for it). Remaining in the EU would very probably not be an option, restarting negotiations would probably not be a meaningful option, and crashing out having rejected a deal would not be a happy option.

Bogdanor is right when he says that the deal the government negotiates might not make it through parliament (though I very much doubt that the Lords will block it). He's wrong when he looks to a referendum to break the deadlock in such a scenario.

What is interesting and noteworthy is that Bogdanor implicitly now accepts the principle of popular democracy: that parliament is not sovereign de facto and whatever the constitutional theory might be, a decision of the people overrides one from parliament.

stodge said:

MikeL said:

This is the thing.

And to answer a question posed on the other thread - my concern isn't the Lab manifesto. Whilst I disagree with it, if they implemented it (full stop) I don't think I would need to think about leaving the country.

My concern is about a spiral out of control - heading in the direction of a Venezuela. Obviously that would be very extreme and it would take a long time to get anywhere remotely near that bad.

But reversing BoE independence would be the sort of thing not in the manifesto which could be a precursor to wild policies which could start us at least heading in that direction.

I have very little sympathy for those who swallowed the Daily Mail's dystopic imaginings about a Corbyn Government but they use Dominic Sandbrook who's a right-wing polemicist not a historian.

To bring it back to basics, a Government only has to ensure two things happen - the administration of law and the distribution of food. As long as the supply of food remains unchanged and there is enough law enforcement to maintain social order and cohesion, it doesn't really matter which party is in charge.

I wouldn't expect Britain to become Venezuela under Corbyn.

I just think it would be quite unpleasant for people like me.

Sean_F said:

I wouldn't expect Britain to become Venezuela under Corbyn.

I just think it would be quite unpleasant for people like me.

Britain wouldn't become like Venezuela, but Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne would be trying their hardest to make it so.

stodge said:

MikeL said:

This is the thing.

And to answer a question posed on the other thread - my concern isn't the Lab manifesto. Whilst I disagree with it, if they implemented it (full stop) I don't think I would need to think about leaving the country.

My concern is about a spiral out of control - heading in the direction of a Venezuela. Obviously that would be very extreme and it would take a long time to get anywhere remotely near that bad.

But reversing BoE independence would be the sort of thing not in the manifesto which could be a precursor to wild policies which could start us at least heading in that direction.

I have very little sympathy for those who swallowed the Daily Mail's dystopic imaginings about a Corbyn Government but they use Dominic Sandbrook who's a right-wing polemicist not a historian.

To bring it back to basics, a Government only has to ensure two things happen - the administration of law and the distribution of food. As long as the supply of food remains unchanged and there is enough law enforcement to maintain social order and cohesion, it doesn't really matter which party is in charge.

I don't read the Daily Mail and have never heard of Dominic Sandbrook.

I'm not interested in political banter.

And I'm not posting for "political campaigning purposes".

Thanks.

FPT:

rottenborough said:

"Labour's backbench would be the key constraint."

LOL. They'll be living in constant fear of attack from the hard left's henchmen.

Most of them have already given up the fight for a social democratic Labour party and are sucking up to Jezza as much as they can.

Because there have been so many deselections?

If Corbyn runs a bad government - Labour MPs will ditch him.

It's their duty to do so, they tried in opposition already, and most of them don't particularly like him.

They're on board now because he did quite well in the campaign. If he does badly in government he would be gone very quickly.

stodge said:

MikeL said:

I don't read the Daily Mail and have never heard of Dominic Sandbrook.

I'm not interested in political banter.

And I'm not posting for "political campaigning purposes".

Thanks.

That wasn't a dig at you at all but you've annoyed me by assuming it was.

Well it certainly came across as a dig.

But sorry if I annoyed you - I didn't intend to.

I've posted - usually occasionally - on here for 12 years.

I am not - and have never - attempted to pursue an agenda.

I'm well aware that many on here basically post to campaign - they are expressing their view in an attempt to influence others.

I have no interest in any of that.

What I do appreciate is that many on here are highly knowledgeable. So if I have a question, it makes sense to ask it here - rather than to have to pay a large amount to get advice from a professional adviser - who may not be very good or have a product to sell.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. rkrkrk, that's optimistic. It's even harder to ditch a Labour PM than a Labour Leader of the Opposition, and they haven't even managed the latter.

I think it would be easier if anything.

At least half of Labour MPs would choose Chukka over Corbyn today I suspect - never mind in the hypothetical disaster scenario we are discussing.

And I'm sure a few Tories could be persuaded to join a unity government.

Morris_Dancer said:

popularity doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea.

Hold that thought.

MikeL said:

Well it certainly came across as a dig.

But sorry if I annoyed you - I didn't intend to.

I've posted - usually occasionally - on here for 12 years.

I am not - and have never - attempted to pursue an agenda.

I'm well aware that many on here basically post to campaign - they are expressing their view in an attempt to influence others.

I have no interest in any of that.

What I do appreciate is that many on here are highly knowledgeable. So if I have a question, it makes sense to ask it here - rather than to have to pay a large amount to get advice from a professional adviser - who may not be very good or have a product to sell.

What it was a dig at was those who assumed the election of a Corbyn Government would inevitably to a British dystopia and you may not be surprised to hear the Mail has put together a couple of "future histories" suggesting a Corbyn Government would lead to riots, disorder and Britain becoming an international pariah or laughing stock.

These "histories" were not a serious attempt at political analysis but a mechanism for frightening the often elderly Mail readership into sticking with the Conservatives.

If you want to take advice from anyone who posts on here, well, that's a different matter. I'd rather seek advice from my valet as someone once said than anyone posting on here.

Even if there was a 2nd referendum, rejecting the deal, and electing to re-Remain in the EU instead, by, say, 54%-46% , I'm not sure that would solve anything.

The terms and the mandate wouldn't be clear, and the argument would continue unfettered, just the other way round.

The events of the last 18 months can't simply be wiped clean, and a sullen, divided UK inside the EU is likely to cause more trouble than its worth.

AlastairMeeks said:

I essentially agree with @RichardNabavi - Professor Bogdanor takes a leap without intervening steps. If there is no majority in Parliament for any Brexit deal, Britain will not have a second referendum, there will be nothing to vote on. Britain will simply crash out of the EU with no deal.

I have for some time thought this the most likely outcome.

If there is no majority for any particular Brexit deal (about which you may very well be right), surely the government falls.

Does this lead to us immediately departing the EU in a disorderly manner? Or does it lead to the EU deciding to pass a one month extension while we have an election?

I think the lesson of Greece is that the EU would grant an extension. Don't forget that the EU loses too from us crashing out. It has a big budget hole, and means less demand from one of its biggest export markets. My guess is there's a 90% chance that they'd extend to the far side of the election.

Now, the question is what happens in the event of (say) the Labour Party winning on a manifesto pledge of "renegotiating" the deal? Or if there's another hung parliament?

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Glenn, like an increasing guest list for a dinner party at Lucrecia Borgia's home, that popularity doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea.

Mr. rkrkrk, I'll believe that when I see it.

Any PM leading the country into the kind of disaster we were discussing would be under enormous pressure. Corbyn would have to rely on a PLP who voted overwhelmingly to ditch him.

rkrkrk said:

FPT:

rottenborough said:

"Labour's backbench would be the key constraint."

LOL. They'll be living in constant fear of attack from the hard left's henchmen.

Most of them have already given up the fight for a social democratic Labour party and are sucking up to Jezza as much as they can.

Because there have been so many deselections?

If Corbyn runs a bad government - Labour MPs will ditch him.

It's their duty to do so, they tried in opposition already, and most of them don't particularly like him.

They're on board now because he did quite well in the campaign. If he does badly in government he would be gone very quickly.

By what mechanism?

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

Even if there was a 2nd referendum, rejecting the deal, and electing to re-Remain in the EU instead, by, say, 54%-46% , I'm not sure that would solve anything.

The terms and the mandate wouldn't be clear, and the argument would continue unfettered, just the other way round.

The events of the last 18 months can't simply be wiped clean, and a sullen, divided UK inside the EU is likely to cause more trouble than its worth.

One side or the other will win the argument decisively and definitively over the next 18 months. Second referendum or no second referendum, Brexit or no Brexit. I know which side my money's on.

Yes, but you're a fruitcake.

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

Even if there was a 2nd referendum, rejecting the deal, and electing to re-Remain in the EU instead, by, say, 54%-46% , I'm not sure that would solve anything.

The terms and the mandate wouldn't be clear, and the argument would continue unfettered, just the other way round.

The events of the last 18 months can't simply be wiped clean, and a sullen, divided UK inside the EU is likely to cause more trouble than its worth.

One side or the other will win the argument decisively and definitively over the next 18 months. Second referendum or no second referendum, Brexit or no Brexit. I know which side my money's on.

Yes, but you're a fruitcake.

Whereas you are a model of disinterested, rational analysis ?

rcs1000 said:

Now, the question is what happens in the event of (say) the Labour Party winning on a manifesto pledge of "renegotiating" the deal? Or if there's another hung parliament?

The same problem simply recurs. If there's a new government elected on the basis of negotiating some different deal, or of remaining in the EU, we still need the consent of the EU27, which couldn't be attainable in advance of the election (and might not be after the election).

Utter chaos, in other words.

Biden leaves the door open for 2020:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/03/democrats-quietly-getting-act-together-can-smell-republican/

david_herdson said:

rkrkrk said:

FPT:

rottenborough said:

"Labour's backbench would be the key constraint."

LOL. They'll be living in constant fear of attack from the hard left's henchmen.

Most of them have already given up the fight for a social democratic Labour party and are sucking up to Jezza as much as they can.

Because there have been so many deselections?

If Corbyn runs a bad government - Labour MPs will ditch him.

It's their duty to do so, they tried in opposition already, and most of them don't particularly like him.

They're on board now because he did quite well in the campaign. If he does badly in government he would be gone very quickly.

By what mechanism?

They vote with the Tories that they have no confidence in the government.

Then they could form a new government backed by MPs from different parties.
Chuka or Yvette Cooper could take over perhaps.

Edit - I should add because I snipped from earlier - we were discussing why Corbyn couldn't turn the UK into a total disaster, where people on this board have to flee the country etc...

It's perfectly possible Labour MPs would prop up a poor government - but if it really got that bad they would do something.

edmundintokyo said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

edmundintokyo said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

So that means getting the unanimous consent of at least 27 other countries, plus probably the EU parliament and perhaps various oddball regional parliaments as well. How on earth could anyone know whether that is an option which might be available, and in what timescale?

Ask them

But they won't be able to answer. That is precisely the problem.

Sure they would. Prime Minister Rees-Mogg says he would like to offer his voters the chance to think again, but he can only do if the other people in the room will assure him they would agree to this if his voters voted for it. 27 national leaders and the heads of 3 parliamentary groups breath an exasperated sigh of relief and say ffs but yeah, we'd let you stay if you voted for it.

The problem isn't there, it's how the PM avoids getting strung uo from a lamppost by their own MPs.

Well, quite. No Tory leader is going to advocate a reversal of Brexit and Remaining in the next decade, at least. And no Labour leader is going to advocate it while Corbyn's there.

So how and why would a British PM make such a request?

rottenborough said:

Biden leaves the door open for 2020:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/03/democrats-quietly-getting-act-together-can-smell-republican/

He'd be 78... doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

rkrkrk said:

It's perfectly possible Labour MPs would prop up a poor government - but if it really got that bad they would do something.

I think you are rather over-optimistic there. In the late sixties and through until 1979 we endured things being really bad; MPs didn't do anything about it then. Labour MPs in particular would find lots of reasons why chaos and poverty would be the fault of the IMF, large companies, wicked capitalists, landlords, banks, hedge funds, etc etc before they finally and reluctantly got round to addressing the real cause of the chaos: their own policies. It could easily be a decade or two of disaster.

FrancisUrquhart said:

What’s different about China’s approach is the content of the propaganda. The government doesn’t refute critics or defend policies; instead, it overwhelms the population with positive news (what the researchers call “cheerleading” content) in order to eclipse bad news and divert attention away from actual problems.

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/8/2/16019562/china-internet-freedom-dissent-twitter-facebook

And of course they do also jail more journalists than just about any other nation (Turkey pipped them to the title last year).

Which tends to dampen the enthusiasm of critics of the regime.

david_herdson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

edmundintokyo said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

So that means getting the unanimous consent of at least 27 other countries, plus probably the EU parliament and perhaps various oddball regional parliaments as well. How on earth could anyone know whether that is an option which might be available, and in what timescale?

Ask them

But they won't be able to answer. That is precisely the problem.

Sure they would. Prime Minister Rees-Mogg says he would like to offer his voters the chance to think again, but he can only do if the other people in the room will assure him they would agree to this if his voters voted for it. 27 national leaders and the heads of 3 parliamentary groups breath an exasperated sigh of relief and say ffs but yeah, we'd let you stay if you voted for it.

The problem isn't there, it's how the PM avoids getting strung uo from a lamppost by their own MPs.

Well, quite. No Tory leader is going to advocate a reversal of Brexit and Remaining in the next decade, at least. And no Labour leader is going to advocate it while Corbyn's there.

So how and why would a British PM make such a request?

The "why" would be:
1) They thought it was in the national interest
2) They thought it would avoid short-term economic damage that would harm their chances of reelection
3) Having the referendum forces the populist right to defend the exit deal they'd just cut, rather than demagoguing it as a traitorous betrayal

The "how" would presumably involve making a speech of some kind, followed by a vote in parliament. But the choreography is tricky, and some Conservative MPs would be dissatisfied, to put it mildly.

edmundintokyo said:

david_herdson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

edmundintokyo said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

So that means getting the unanimous consent of at least 27 other countries, plus probably the EU parliament and perhaps various oddball regional parliaments as well. How on earth could anyone know whether that is an option which might be available, and in what timescale?

Ask them

But they won't be able to answer. That is precisely the problem.

Sure they would. Prime Minister Rees-Mogg says he would like to offer his voters the chance to think again, but he can only do if the other people in the room will assure him they would agree to this if his voters voted for it. 27 national leaders and the heads of 3 parliamentary groups breath an exasperated sigh of relief and say ffs but yeah, we'd let you stay if you voted for it.

The problem isn't there, it's how the PM avoids getting strung uo from a lamppost by their own MPs.

Well, quite. No Tory leader is going to advocate a reversal of Brexit and Remaining in the next decade, at least. And no Labour leader is going to advocate it while Corbyn's there.

So how and why would a British PM make such a request?

The "why" would be:
1) They thought it was in the national interest
2) They thought it would avoid short-term economic damage that would harm their chances of reelection
3) Having the referendum forces the populist right to defend the exit deal they'd just cut, rather than demagoguing it as a traitorous betrayal

The "how" would presumably involve making a speech of some kind, followed by a vote in parliament. But the choreography is tricky, and some Conservative MPs would be dissatisfied, to put it mildly.

Not just the Con MPs but the membership too. If May or any successor tried it, he or she would find themselves on the losing side of a VoNC within a week.

I can accept (1), though I can't see how it would override either the practicalities or the constitutional difficulty of ignoring the referendum; (2) is also possible though it'd be a grotesque political misjudgement, but (3) would also be wrong: the Brexiteers in government would be hamstrung but those on the outsides, whether backbench MPs, Kippers or the likes of Arron Banks, would have no difficulty denouncing the sell-out / thin gruel etc.

FrancisUrquhart said:

What’s different about China’s approach is the content of the propaganda. The government doesn’t refute critics or defend policies; instead, it overwhelms the population with positive news (what the researchers call “cheerleading” content) in order to eclipse bad news and divert attention away from actual problems.

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/8/2/16019562/china-internet-freedom-dissent-twitter-facebook

That's interesting, thanks. There's a danger that, like Russia in the 1960s and 1970s, the Chinese leaders start believing the propaganda they feed their own people. In which case they might have a very rude awakening.

There's also a possibility that external observers might be taking their propaganda at face value and over-egging the Chinese economic miracle.

Mr. Jessop, also, rapidly expanding economies tend to have spikier growth paths than developed nations.

ThreeQuidder said:

What it doesn't say is how a second referendum would happen or what the question in it would be.

From the very beginning this was the problem with a second referendum. As mooted by the LDs, all it would have done is to give the public the right to vote down any deal and make us crash out on WTO terms. They didn't seem to get that.

Could it be framed to say: "the deal we negotiated or stay in"? Not sure. Possibly. But that would be bad also because, without Dave's deal, staying in would put us at a disadvantage.

Could it say: "the deal as negotiated or go back and renegotiate"? Well there wouldn't be any time plus the EU27 would rightly say they weren't budging so that would only allow us to get a worse deal. Or WTO.

Really, a second referendum makes no sense at all.

A referendum to rejoin would, as @freetochoose says, be an option to campaign for, but I can't see the appetite for that for another 20 years or so.

Morris_Dancer said:

Well, that run of good luck lasted a long time.

....

Mr. Glenn, touche (although it's worth noting the EU seemed a lot more popular until people actually had a vote on it).

https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/893018811212976128

Where is MrT? I haven't seen him post for a while.

ThreeQuidder said:

david_herdson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

edmundintokyo said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

So that means getting the unanimous consent of at least 27 other countries, plus probably the EU parliament and perhaps various oddball regional parliaments as well. How on earth could anyone know whether that is an option which might be available, and in what timescale?

Ask them

But they won't be able to answer. That is precisely the problem.

Sure they would. Prime Minister Rees-Mogg says he would like to offer his voters the chance to think again, but he can only do if the other people in the room will assure him they would agree to this if his voters voted for it. 27 national leaders and the heads of 3 parliamentary groups breath an exasperated sigh of relief and say ffs but yeah, we'd let you stay if you voted for it.

The problem isn't there, it's how the PM avoids getting strung uo from a lamppost by their own MPs.

Well, quite. No Tory leader is going to advocate a reversal of Brexit and Remaining in the next decade, at least. And no Labour leader is going to advocate it while Corbyn's there.

So how and why would a British PM make such a request?

Given what's happening in Venezuela at the moment, I'm struggling even more than before to understand why some people are happy to establish the principle that a democratic decision can be ignored.

Given that we have invoked Article 50 and are currently negotiating our exit, regardless of what happens in the future to argue that the referendum will have been ignored should we end up remaining would be thoroughly dishonest demagoguery.

edmundintokyo said:

TOPPING said:

Could it be framed to say: "the deal we negotiated or stay in"? Not sure. Possibly. But that would be bad also because, without Dave's deal, staying in would put us at a disadvantage.

Dave's deal is a face-saver that didn't work called by a Prime Minister who has long since resigned. Nobody was impressed when he got it and nobody would miss it if it was gone.

so another one that fundamentally misunderstood it.

Fair enough.

I suppose an extra reason not to have a second referendum: the public isn't bright enough to understand the issues.

Mr. Monksfield, working on his latest bestseller, I think.

F1: it'll be a while before the Belgian markets go up but I've got a couple of early ideas to check. Whilst the weekend bets (admittedly with some bad luck) have been poor at the last two races, the early bets have been reasonable.

Robert Hardy's died, aged 91.

RIP

Edit:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40818839

It seems a little off that, givenhis bast body of work, the BBC call him "Harry Potter star"

A few years back I watched a documentary about the raising of the Mary Rose, and was surprised to discover that Hardy was an acclaimed expert on the Longbow, and had been called in to look at the ones they recovered from the wreck.

Mr. Topping, be fair. Both campaigns were bloody abysmal.

Mr. Jessop, I used to watch All Creatures Great and Small as a child. Couldn't remember a damned thing about it, except the Doctor was in it, and the theme tune (which sounds like nostalgia personified).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4NHqu64bvw

ThreeQuidder said:

What it doesn't say is how a second referendum would happen or what the question in it would be.

Regardless of your pro / anti EU position, it is hard to understand how Referendum Mk II will work.

Unless there is prior agreement with the EU, there isn't a single question that you can ask that it is within our capability to deliver, with the exceptions of accepting the deal on offer (which may be Brexit in anything from an ultra soft form to the hard as nails version), or to reject the deal and crash out to WTO.

I think the starting point of a referendum has to be that it asks a question that it is possible to deliver. (Some may say David Camerons referendum failed that test, as Brexit is undeliverable!)

williamglenn said:

TOPPING said:

edmundintokyo said:

TOPPING said:

Could it be framed to say: "the deal we negotiated or stay in"? Not sure. Possibly. But that would be bad also because, without Dave's deal, staying in would put us at a disadvantage.

Dave's deal is a face-saver that didn't work called by a Prime Minister who has long since resigned. Nobody was impressed when he got it and nobody would miss it if it was gone.

so another one that fundamentally misunderstood it.

Fair enough.

I suppose an extra reason not to have a second referendum: the public isn't bright enough to understand the issues.

Being at a potential disadvantage without Dave's deal wouldn't be an issue if we joined the Euro.

Thank god we never did.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4756248/ISIS-inspired-terrorists-bomb-discovered-minute.html

Another terrorist attack only foiled because those trying to carry them out are total morons.

Cyclefree said:

OK - completely off topic but a question for the PB brains trust and/pr Stodge's valet.

I want to upgrade my computer (my Apple Mac being ca a decade old). A laptop would be good. I will have a website and be creating documents and presentations. It needs to be reliable. I don't need super fast gaming. It needs to be easy to use - as I will be my own IT department. And to have plenty of storage.

So Apple or not. What is Chrome? Etc etc. Any recommendations?

Thanks in advance.

A vm will do.

For laptop, dell xps can't really be beaten on price, build quality etc. Also with laptops, buy the best model you can afford* as little ability to upgrade and will maximise length it is useful to you.

* just don't get a 4k screen on a laptop.