politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Ladbrokes 20/1 that the Brexit Secretary, DDavis, will be

@Anna_Soubry: 1/2 .@BBCr4today #JamesBrokenshire attempts explanation of complicated untested unrealistic solution to #Brexit #NorthernIreland

@Anna_Soubry: 2/2 It doesn't hv to be like that. Staying in #singlemarket & #customsunion delivers peace & prosperity for all. It really is that simple

MikeSmithson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Mortimer said:

SouthamObserver said:

freetochoose said:

@southam

I'd like to press you on this:

Throw in her decision to embrace the Brexit right's extremism

I'd be grateful if you could give an example of this. Please bear in mind last night's conversation centred around the KKK.

I would not compare the Brexit right to the KKK. They are deluded imperialists yearning for a trade-based Empire 2.0, not white supremacists. We are nowhere near having the same breakdown the US is in the process of having.

But May embraced the No Surrender, White Cliffs of Dover, cliff-edge Brexiteers after the referendum. She's been hobbled because voters did not give her the mandate to pursue that. But her bed has been made.

Brexit bot malfunction this morning - neither swivel eyed nor willy waving mentioned.

Mrs May embraced the only form of Brexit which is actually worthwhile or achivable - so called soft Brexit would be worse than we have now (from a sovereignty POV).

Mrs May put her Brexit vision in front of the ectorate and voters said No Thank-you.

Exactly. There is NO mandate for TMay's Brexit

The mandate will be a majority in parliament.

What mandate does James Chapman have for his 'no Brexit'?

MikeSmithson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Mortimer said:

SouthamObserver said:

freetochoose said:

@southam

I'd like to press you on this:

Throw in her decision to embrace the Brexit right's extremism

I'd be grateful if you could give an example of this. Please bear in mind last night's conversation centred around the KKK.

I would not compare the Brexit right to the KKK. They are deluded imperialists yearning for a trade-based Empire 2.0, not white supremacists. We are nowhere near having the same breakdown the US is in the process of having.

But May embraced the No Surrender, White Cliffs of Dover, cliff-edge Brexiteers after the referendum. She's been hobbled because voters did not give her the mandate to pursue that. But her bed has been made.

Brexit bot malfunction this morning - neither swivel eyed nor willy waving mentioned.

Mrs May embraced the only form of Brexit which is actually worthwhile or achivable - so called soft Brexit would be worse than we have now (from a sovereignty POV).

Mrs May put her Brexit vision in front of the ectorate and voters said No Thank-you.

Exactly. There is NO mandate for TMay's Brexit

How so? Even Corbyn backed leaving the single market to end free movement. The pro single market LDs and SNP both lost voteshare at the general election

SouthamObserver said:

Mortimer said:

SouthamObserver said:

freetochoose said:

@southam

I'd like to press you on this:

Throw in her decision to embrace the Brexit right's extremism

I'd be grateful if you could give an example of this. Please bear in mind last night's conversation centred around the KKK.

I would not compare the Brexit right to the KKK. They are deluded imperialists yearning for a trade-based Empire 2.0, not white supremacists. We are nowhere near having the same breakdown the US is in the process of having.

But May embraced the No Surrender, White Cliffs of Dover, cliff-edge Brexiteers after the referendum. She's been hobbled because voters did not give her the mandate to pursue that. But her bed has been made.

Brexit bot malfunction this morning - neither swivel eyed nor willy waving mentioned.

Mrs May embraced the only form of Brexit which is actually worthwhile or achivable - so called soft Brexit would be worse than we have now (from a sovereignty POV).

Mrs May put her Brexit vision in front of the ectorate and voters said No Thank-you.

How did it differ substantially from Labour's position?

Genuine question.

The only parties I could see advocating something different were the LDs, Greens and Nats of various stripes. Oh, and UKIP of course who wanted to get the French out too.

One of the surreal features of the election was the way it was called over Brexit and yet we spent all our time discussing social care and tuition fees. That may of course be a sign that ordinary people don't give a BoJo's hobby about Brexit, but I would also suggest it is because there was general agreement between the main parties on what happens next.

Mr. Observer, how is free trade imperialist?

Interesting that the Brexiteers have shifted from "direct mandate from the referendum" to "Parliamentary mandate via the election"

Neither gives TMay a mandate for the Brexit she wanted to pursue, and they know it

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

SouthamObserver said:

It's not. But the imperial Brexiteers yearn for Empire 2.0 in which the Anglosphere moves ever-closer together to lead the world. The UK's "freedom" from the "tyranny" of Brussels is a vital part of that process.

https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/533324157510254592

Sounds good to me. What problem do you have with that?

The hypocrisy and wilfully distorted worldview that creates a false dichotomy between EU membership and closer relations with Australia and New Zealand. For example, an overarching trade deal with the whole EU would be worth far more to Australia and New Zealand than any deal with the UK alone. If we were their 'true friend' (a phrase Hannan likes to use), then we would stay in the EU and help secure that deal.

If we were able to shape the EU like that I wouldn't have wanted to leave.

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

Mortimer said:

SouthamObserver said:

freetochoose said:

@southam

I'd like to press you on this:

Throw in her decision to embrace the Brexit right's extremism

I'd be grateful if you could give an example of this. Please bear in mind last night's conversation centred around the KKK.

I would not compare the Brexit right to the KKK. They are deluded imperialists yearning for a trade-based Empire 2.0, not white supremacists. We are nowhere near having the same breakdown the US is in the process of having.

But May embraced the No Surrender, White Cliffs of Dover, cliff-edge Brexiteers after the referendum. She's been hobbled because voters did not give her the mandate to pursue that. But her bed has been made.

Brexit bot malfunction this morning - neither swivel eyed nor willy waving mentioned.

Mrs May embraced the only form of Brexit which is actually worthwhile or achivable - so called soft Brexit would be worse than we have now (from a sovereignty POV).

Mrs May put her Brexit vision in front of the ectorate and voters said No Thank-you.

How did it differ substantially from Labour's position?

Genuine question.

The only parties I could see advocating something different were the LDs, Greens and Nats of various stripes. Oh, and UKIP of course who wanted to get the French out too.

One of the surreal features of the election was the way it was called over Brexit and yet we spent all our time discussing social care and tuition fees. That may of course be a sign that ordinary people don't give a BoJo's hobby about Brexit, but I would also suggest it is because there was general agreement between the main parties on what happens next.

The evidence seems to suggest that whatever it said in the Labour manifesto, Labour's surge in support came as a result of a lot of voters believing that there would be a kinder, gentler Brexit were Labour to negotiate it. Labour's manifesto was full cake and eat it. The one area of major difference with the Tories was on EU citizens' rights.

CarlottaVance said:

Which BREXIT has a larger mandate?

This one?

https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/747000584226607104

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

SouthamObserver said:

It's not. But the imperial Brexiteers yearn for Empire 2.0 in which the Anglosphere moves ever-closer together to lead the world. The UK's "freedom" from the "tyranny" of Brussels is a vital part of that process.

https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/533324157510254592

Sounds good to me. What problem do you have with that?

The hypocrisy and wilfully distorted worldview that creates a false dichotomy between EU membership and closer relations with Australia and New Zealand. For example, an overarching trade deal with the whole EU would be worth far more to Australia and New Zealand than any deal with the UK alone. If we were their 'true friend' (a phrase Hannan likes to use), then we would stay in the EU and help secure that deal.

If we were able to shape the EU like that I wouldn't have wanted to leave.

Read Lord Cockfield's white paper on completing the single market that was achieved successfully. We can shape the EU, but we can't do it while rejecting the fundamental goals of the EU.

http://europa.eu/documents/comm/white_papers/pdf/com1985_0310_f_en.pdf

Scott_P said:

Interesting that the Brexiteers have shifted from "direct mandate from the referendum" to "Parliamentary mandate via the election"

Neither gives TMay a mandate for the Brexit she wanted to pursue, and they know it

Neither gives a mandate for Remain.

The public have voted for Leave, Parliament has voted to invoke A 50, and the Queen's Speech has been passed.

CornishJohn said:

What is abundantly clear is that staying in the EU and staying in the single market have been rejected by the public at both the referendum and at the general election.

Bollocks

At the referendum the Brexiteers said we would stay in the single market, and when Tezza put leaving in her manifesto she lost her majority

stevef said:

Tories would be making a big mistake to make Davis its leader. He is too old and weary looking, too associated with the hard Brexit right, too out of touch. They need to look to the backbenches, and I don't mean to people with posh accents.

They could only do that in opposition. May's replacement is in the cabinet and in a senior post unless she fights another election and even the Tories are not that daft.

FF43 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, how is free trade imperialist?

It isn't imperialist but Brexit isn't about free trade either. The EU is about free trade, amongst other things. When people reject the EU they reject free trade to a certain extent, in practice if not in rhetoric. As the government actually does want free trade for prosperity and tax revenues, they have a problem implementing Brexit.

Remind me of the EU common tariffs on agricultural produce and especially ground coffee?

CornishJohn said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, how is free trade imperialist?

It isn't. It makes about as much sense as calling the EU a German empire. But the diehard Remainers aren't necessarily sensible about such things. Although it is a handy signifier of whether it's a pro-European worth debating with or not.

The Anglosphere that Boris, Dan Hannan etc all obssess about is clearly an imperial throwback. Google Canzuk.

https://www.canzuk.co.uk/single-post/2017/03/10/Lilico-What-other-countries-might-eventually-join-CANZUK

foxinsoxuk said:

CornishJohn said:

foxinsoxuk said:

CornishJohn said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Scott_P said:

freetochoose said:

free trade Brexiteers want to trade with and embrace the world

By pulling out of the largest free trade agreement in the World

Delusional

While there is a substantial body of Free Traders amongst intellectual Brexiteers, I suspect that the anti-immigration protectionists have the majority of the votes. Indeed, I think that protectionist and interventionalism that will win Labour a majority, either before or after Brexit.

There is nothing contradictory about supporting more free trade and more controlled immigration. This is like claiming Labour are split between the anti-banker interventionists and the pro-gay liberals.

Sure, it is possible, but not likely.

Countries with a Free Trade policy (such as UK in 19th Century) tend to be very open to immigration too.People who want to protect their communities from incomers* also want to protect their jobs and industries.

*though actually many Leave voting areas have the problem of depopulation rather than overpopulation.

It's extremely likely, given the governing party has official policies of increasing the number of trade deals and for reducing net immigration. Both policies are supported by overwhelming majorities of the party.

But they are intellectually and practically inconsistent.

That inconsistency is where Labour gets its majority. Either the CDEs get fed up with being cannon fodder for the Free Traders, or business leaders abandon the Tory party.

The Corbynite metropolitan regurgitated quinoa eaters prevent either from happening.

SouthamObserver said:

ydoethur said:

How did it differ substantially from Labour's position?

Genuine question.

The evidence seems to suggest that whatever it said in the Labour manifesto, Labour's surge in support came as a result of a lot of voters believing that there would be a kinder, gentler Brexit were Labour to negotiate it. Labour's manifesto was full cake and eat it. The one area of major difference with the Tories was on EU citizens' rights.

So no practical difference then?

I can't help but feel that if you vote for what a party puts in its manifesto, you are supporting that manifesto, although it may be (indeed probably is!) naive of me.

Of course we all know politicians have been lying about this all the way through. Although much is made of this NHS pledge, to my mind the far more deceitful phrase was Hannan claiming nobody was suggesting we would leave the single market (which was false on every possible level).

But if people voted Labour, Labour were quite open about their wish to leave the SM and end unrestricted free movement. Therefore, it has to be considered it is supported by their voters, or at least the majority of them. I can't see that those two did not show a huge majority - and since that is in effect hard Brexit there was a mandate for it.

SouthamObserver said:

CornishJohn said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, how is free trade imperialist?

It isn't. It makes about as much sense as calling the EU a German empire. But the diehard Remainers aren't necessarily sensible about such things. Although it is a handy signifier of whether it's a pro-European worth debating with or not.

The Anglosphere that Boris, Dan Hannan etc all obssess about is clearly an imperial throwback. Google Canzuk.

That "Anglosphere" is also a curiously pale geography. No dark skinned Anglophone countries included, not even ones with strong British values like the West Indies, or India.

https://twitter.com/edwardjsault/status/897725839265210369

MikeSmithson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Mortimer said:

SouthamObserver said:

freetochoose said:

@southam

I'd like to press you on this:

Throw in her decision to embrace the Brexit right's extremism

I'd be grateful if you could give an example of this. Please bear in mind last night's conversation centred around the KKK.

I would not compare the Brexit right to the KKK. They are deluded imperialists yearning for a trade-based Empire 2.0, not white supremacists. We are nowhere near having the same breakdown the US is in the process of having.

But May embraced the No Surrender, White Cliffs of Dover, cliff-edge Brexiteers after the referendum. She's been hobbled because voters did not give her the mandate to pursue that. But her bed has been made.

Brexit bot malfunction this morning - neither swivel eyed nor willy waving mentioned.

Mrs May embraced the only form of Brexit which is actually worthwhile or achivable - so called soft Brexit would be worse than we have now (from a sovereignty POV).

Mrs May put her Brexit vision in front of the ectorate and voters said No Thank-you.

Exactly. There is NO mandate for TMay's Brexit

You don't really understand the way this democracy thing works in the UK?

The referendum created a mandate because Parliament asked a specific question to the voters and they gave an answer.

The general election does not create a mandate for any form of Brexit because the question was "who do you want to represent you in Parliament". It is up to the government to select the form of Brexit that it views as optimal (within the limits of what it can negotiate with our partners); it is up to Parliament to accept that deal or to chose a WTO exit instead. Each of those two bodies will then be held responsible for their actions by the electorate at the next general election.

I know this is too difficult a concept to squeeze into 140 characters, but you do need to try and rise above trite commentary

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

ydoethur said:

How did it differ substantially from Labour's position?

Genuine question.

The evidence seems to suggest that whatever it said in the Labour manifesto, Labour's surge in support came as a result of a lot of voters believing that there would be a kinder, gentler Brexit were Labour to negotiate it. Labour's manifesto was full cake and eat it. The one area of major difference with the Tories was on EU citizens' rights.

So no practical difference then?

I can't help but feel that if you vote for what a party puts in its manifesto, you are supporting that manifesto, although it may be (indeed probably is!) naive of me.

Of course we all know politicians have been lying about this all the way through. Although much is made of this NHS pledge, to my mind the far more deceitful phrase was Hannan claiming nobody was suggesting we would leave the single market (which was false on every possible level).

But if people voted Labour, Labour were quite open about their wish to leave the SM and end unrestricted free movement. Therefore, it has to be considered it is supported by their voters, or at least the majority of them. I can't see that those two did not show a huge majority - and since that is in effect hard Brexit there was a mandate for it.

We'll have to wait to see how Labour votes in the Commons. Labour was always very clear it opposed the No Deal is Better than a Bad Deal rhetoric that the Tories used to employ.

MikeSmithson said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

ydoethur said:

How did it differ substantially from Labour's position?

Genuine question.

The evidence seems to suggest that whatever it said in the Labour manifesto, Labour's surge in support came as a result of a lot of voters believing that there would be a kinder, gentler Brexit were Labour to negotiate it. Labour's manifesto was full cake and eat it. The one area of major difference with the Tories was on EU citizens' rights.

So no practical difference then?

I can't help but feel that if you vote for what a party puts in its manifesto, you are supporting that manifesto, although it may be (indeed probably is!) naive of me.

Of course we all know politicians have been lying about this all the way through. Although much is made of this NHS pledge, to my mind the far more deceitful phrase was Hannan claiming nobody was suggesting we would leave the single market (which was false on every possible level).

But if people voted Labour, Labour were quite open about their wish to leave the SM and end unrestricted free movement. Therefore, it has to be considered it is supported by their voters, or at least the majority of them. I can't see that those two did not show a huge majority - and since that is in effect hard Brexit there was a mandate for it.

Voting Labour was seen as way of impeding Brexit, particularly TMay's interpretation of it, as all the post election research show

Do you have a link please? A genuine request as I'd like to look at some of that data. Frankly I am baffled that anyone thought a Labour Party led by a Bennite would slow or soften Brexit.

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

CornishJohn said:

Scott_P said:

freetochoose said:

free trade Brexiteers want to trade with and embrace the world

By pulling out of the largest free trade agreement in the World

Delusional

The EU is not the largest free trade agreement in the world. NAFTA is. NAFTA also does not restrict you from joining other free trade agreements as the EU does.

Europe is a Customs Union (or Zollverein) not a Free Trade Area.

It puts up protectionist walls around itself, rather than advocating free trade

Hence the dozens of free trade agreements it has concluded, of course.

Charles didn't know or care that the EMA is an EU institution. It's fair to say his understanding of the EU is incomplete.

SouthamObserver said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

ydoethur said:

How did it differ substantially from Labour's position?

Genuine question.

The evidence seems to suggest that whatever it said in the Labour manifesto, Labour's surge in support came as a result of a lot of voters believing that there would be a kinder, gentler Brexit were Labour to negotiate it. Labour's manifesto was full cake and eat it. The one area of major difference with the Tories was on EU citizens' rights.

So no practical difference then?

I can't help but feel that if you vote for what a party puts in its manifesto, you are supporting that manifesto, although it may be (indeed probably is!) naive of me.

Of course we all know politicians have been lying about this all the way through. Although much is made of this NHS pledge, to my mind the far more deceitful phrase was Hannan claiming nobody was suggesting we would leave the single market (which was false on every possible level).

But if people voted Labour, Labour were quite open about their wish to leave the SM and end unrestricted free movement. Therefore, it has to be considered it is supported by their voters, or at least the majority of them. I can't see that those two did not show a huge majority - and since that is in effect hard Brexit there was a mandate for it.

We'll have to wait to see how Labour votes in the Commons. Labour was always very clear it opposed the No Deal is Better than a Bad Deal rhetoric that the Tories used to employ.

We don't need to wait to find that out.

It will vote in all lobbies and none. Like the Conservatives and possibly the SNP (although I'm more doubtful about that).

The only Party that isn't riven with splits on all of this is the Liberal Democrats.

FPT

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Abolish the monarchy.

Take back control from our unelected masters.

So TSE is anti monarchy and anti Brexit and anti grammar school, is there any more confirmation needed he is not really a Tory? Free market liberal maybe but Tory no

What nonsense, my views are near identical to Margaret Thatcher, are you saying she's not a Tory?

As Education Secretary she abolished so many grammar schools, and as PM she didn't open a single grammar school, she saw the evidence that grammar schools screw poor kids.

Before she retired from front line politics, she was anti-Brexit too, she campaigned for Remain in 1975 and she helped set up the single market, which was one of her finest achievements.

As for being anti-monarchy, she wasn't that keen on the Queen, as she famously said 'the problem with the Queen is that she's the sort of woman who'd vote SDP.'

williamglenn said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

CornishJohn said:

Scott_P said:

freetochoose said:

free trade Brexiteers want to trade with and embrace the world

By pulling out of the largest free trade agreement in the World

Delusional

The EU is not the largest free trade agreement in the world. NAFTA is. NAFTA also does not restrict you from joining other free trade agreements as the EU does.

Europe is a Customs Union (or Zollverein) not a Free Trade Area.

It puts up protectionist walls around itself, rather than advocating free trade

Hence the dozens of free trade agreements it has concluded, of course.

Charles didn't know or care that the EMA is an EU institution. It's fair to say his understanding of the EU is incomplete.

I was wondering what the Education Maintenance Allowance had to do with the EU, then I realised you meant the European Medicines Agency.

Fewer alphabet soups would be nice. I feel we have become fat on them.

CornishJohn said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SouthamObserver said:

CornishJohn said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, how is free trade imperialist?

It isn't. It makes about as much sense as calling the EU a German empire. But the diehard Remainers aren't necessarily sensible about such things. Although it is a handy signifier of whether it's a pro-European worth debating with or not.

The Anglosphere that Boris, Dan Hannan etc all obssess about is clearly an imperial throwback. Google Canzuk.

That "Anglosphere" is also a curiously pale geography. No dark skinned Anglophone countries included, not even ones with strong British values like the West Indies, or India.

Do Maori and African Americans not count?

They do indeed, but neither are driving this "CaNZUK" mirage.

ydoethur said:

Do you have a link please? A genuine request as I'd like to look at some of that data. Frankly I am baffled that anyone thought a Labour Party led by a Bennite would slow or soften Brexit.

http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-findings/what-was-it-all-about-the-2017-election-campaign-in-voters-own-words/#.WZP8iFUjHIU

Edit: This more shows that Brexit was a salient issue at the election, rather than saying what people thought about it... there probably is a better link somewhere...

DavidL said:

tlg86 said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/edwardjsault/status/897725839265210369

Are you trying to give us all a heart attack? All I read was Theresa May to visit Queen Elizabeth...

Me too. I thought she's had a 4 week holiday and thought sod it, enough.

Surely the 1922 committee should be notified first if she quits? After all, she would need to stay as PM until a new leader could be scraped up from whatever talent is left elected.

Scott_P said:

freetochoose said:

free trade Brexiteers want to trade with and embrace the world

By pulling out of the largest free trade agreement in the World

Delusional

It's not free trade though, we pay membership fees.

If you hang around long enough you'll get it eventually.

tlg86 said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/edwardjsault/status/897725839265210369

Are you trying to give us all a heart attack? All I read was Theresa May to visit Queen Elizabeth...

What would the queen be doing in Portsmouth?

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

tlg86 said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/edwardjsault/status/897725839265210369

Are you trying to give us all a heart attack? All I read was Theresa May to visit Queen Elizabeth...

Me too. I thought she's had a 4 week holiday and thought sod it, enough.

Surely the 1922 committee should be notified first if she quits? After all, she would need to stay as PM until a new leader could be scraped up from whatever talent is left elected.

I don't know what the etiquette is but I would have expected the Queen to be pretty high up the list. As you say when the moment comes she will remain as caretaker until her successor is elected. A bit like now really.

ydoethur said:

williamglenn said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

CornishJohn said:

Scott_P said:

freetochoose said:

free trade Brexiteers want to trade with and embrace the world

By pulling out of the largest free trade agreement in the World

Delusional

The EU is not the largest free trade agreement in the world. NAFTA is. NAFTA also does not restrict you from joining other free trade agreements as the EU does.

Europe is a Customs Union (or Zollverein) not a Free Trade Area.

It puts up protectionist walls around itself, rather than advocating free trade

Hence the dozens of free trade agreements it has concluded, of course.

Charles didn't know or care that the EMA is an EU institution. It's fair to say his understanding of the EU is incomplete.

I was wondering what the Education Maintenance Allowance had to do with the EU, then I realised you meant the European Medicines Agency.

Fewer alphabet soups would be nice. I feel we have become fat on them.

IAWEM (*)
(*) I agree with Elon Musk:
https://twitter.com/davejohnson/status/602951117413216256

Charles said:

williamglenn said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

CornishJohn said:

Scott_P said:

freetochoose said:

free trade Brexiteers want to trade with and embrace the world

By pulling out of the largest free trade agreement in the World

Delusional

The EU is not the largest free trade agreement in the world. NAFTA is. NAFTA also does not restrict you from joining other free trade agreements as the EU does.

Europe is a Customs Union (or Zollverein) not a Free Trade Area.

It puts up protectionist walls around itself, rather than advocating free trade

Hence the dozens of free trade agreements it has concluded, of course.

Charles didn't know or care that the EMA is an EU institution. It's fair to say his understanding of the EU is incomplete.

Because when I think about the EMA I am working, not playing. Its origins are utterly irrelevant.

I do find it interesting that you think a minor factual error with no wider implications is some sort of killer debating point. It really isn't.

You could apply the same logic to almost anything: "When I think about borderless trade within Europe I am working, not playing. Its origins are utterly irrelevant." Who cares about the political developments that have underpinned it? Thinking that politics is something for other people to worry about is a perfectly noble position, but it breaks down when you start commenting on it and seeking to influence others.

Even if we add Conservatives and DUP together as pro- Brexit, and the rest as anti-Brexit, (and that's a real stretch for Labour) then Brexit leads 327 to 315 in the Commons.

CarlottaVance said:

tlg86 said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/edwardjsault/status/897725839265210369

Are you trying to give us all a heart attack? All I read was Theresa May to visit Queen Elizabeth...

What would the queen be doing in Portsmouth?

Visiting HMS Queen Elizabeth?

I could spend all day talking about how James Chapman's entire strategy is utterly flawed, I hope he's just being used as a face man at Bell Pottinger because he's demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge on how to manage a campaign;

- Attacking media outlets and journalists who presumably you will want to cover your story
- Making unsubstantiated allegations against a dozen politicians and sounding spiteful while making them
- Giving an interview to GQ and then making directly contradictory statements on twitter
- Deciding to start your own political party thus transforming into muck raking politician rather than white knight whistleblower
- Announcing all of your plans through a series of tweets while on holiday rather than in a co-ordinated fashion surrounded by your campaign team
- Claiming that he has politicians lined up to join him - defections only work if kept secret
- Waiting until AFTER a general election to launch a single issue political party on an issue that will probably be done and dusted by the next general election
- Sending out hundreds of messages insulting everyone who chose to vote leave ie. those he needs to convert in the long run

I could go on and on! This is exactly the type of person that those of us who support Brexit would love to have as an opponent, it could only be better if he could just remove his mask and reveal that it is in fact Tony Blair underneath.

Sean_F said:

Even if we add Conservatives and DUP together as pro- Brexit, and the rest as anti-Brexit, (and that's a real stretch for Labour) then Brexit leads 327 to 315 in the Commons.

We're way beyond pro and anti Brexit, though. The debate is about the kind of Brexit - what concessions we can make to retain what kind of benefits, timeframes for implementation and so on.

Take the government's cake and eat it customs union position paper. What would we concede to get that accepted by the EU27?

https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/897725234777923586

And Mr Chapman has been congeniality personified.....

TOPPING said:

chrisoxon said:

I could spend all day talking about how James Chapman's entire strategy is utterly flawed, I hope he's just being used as a face man at Bell Pottinger because he's demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge on how to manage a campaign;

- Attacking media outlets and journalists who presumably you will want to cover your story
- Making unsubstantiated allegations against a dozen politicians and sounding spiteful while making them
- Giving an interview to GQ and then making directly contradictory statements on twitter
- Deciding to start your own political party thus transforming into muck raking politician rather than white knight whistleblower
- Announcing all of your plans through a series of tweets while on holiday rather than in a co-ordinated fashion surrounded by your campaign team
- Claiming that he has politicians lined up to join him - defections only work if kept secret
- Waiting until AFTER a general election to launch a single issue political party on an issue that will probably be done and dusted by the next general election
- Sending out hundreds of messages insulting everyone who chose to vote leave ie. those he needs to convert in the long run

I could go on and on! This is exactly the type of person that those of us who support Brexit would love to have as an opponent, it could only be better if he could just remove his mask and reveal that it is in fact Tony Blair underneath.

"I could go on and on!" - game, set and match to Mr Chapman.

Oh he wins troll of the year certainly, but that does not a leader make. Exhibit 1 - the current occupant of the oval office.

chrisoxon said:

TOPPING said:

chrisoxon said:

I could spend all day talking about how James Chapman's entire strategy is utterly flawed, I hope he's just being used as a face man at Bell Pottinger because he's demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge on how to manage a campaign;

- Attacking media outlets and journalists who presumably you will want to cover your story
- Making unsubstantiated allegations against a dozen politicians and sounding spiteful while making them
- Giving an interview to GQ and then making directly contradictory statements on twitter
- Deciding to start your own political party thus transforming into muck raking politician rather than white knight whistleblower
- Announcing all of your plans through a series of tweets while on holiday rather than in a co-ordinated fashion surrounded by your campaign team
- Claiming that he has politicians lined up to join him - defections only work if kept secret
- Waiting until AFTER a general election to launch a single issue political party on an issue that will probably be done and dusted by the next general election
- Sending out hundreds of messages insulting everyone who chose to vote leave ie. those he needs to convert in the long run

I could go on and on! This is exactly the type of person that those of us who support Brexit would love to have as an opponent, it could only be better if he could just remove his mask and reveal that it is in fact Tony Blair underneath.

"I could go on and on!" - game, set and match to Mr Chapman.

Oh he wins troll of the year certainly, but that does not a leader make. Exhibit 1 - the current occupant of the oval office.

https://twitter.com/DepressedDarth/status/897580909955883008

freetochoose said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SouthamObserver said:

CornishJohn said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, how is free trade imperialist?

It isn't. It makes about as much sense as calling the EU a German empire. But the diehard Remainers aren't necessarily sensible about such things. Although it is a handy signifier of whether it's a pro-European worth debating with or not.

The Anglosphere that Boris, Dan Hannan etc all obssess about is clearly an imperial throwback. Google Canzuk.

That "Anglosphere" is also a curiously pale geography. No dark skinned Anglophone countries included, not even ones with strong British values like the West Indies, or India.

The West Indies and India have strong British values?

Now I've heard it all

Democracy, English language, free judiciary, free press, parliamentary government. etc etc. Plenty of shared cultural values. Many even have our Queen as head of state.

chrisoxon said:

TOPPING said:

chrisoxon said:

I could spend all day talking about how James Chapman's entire strategy is utterly flawed, I hope he's just being used as a face man at Bell Pottinger because he's demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge on how to manage a campaign;

- Attacking media outlets and journalists who presumably you will want to cover your story
- Making unsubstantiated allegations against a dozen politicians and sounding spiteful while making them
- Giving an interview to GQ and then making directly contradictory statements on twitter
- Deciding to start your own political party thus transforming into muck raking politician rather than white knight whistleblower
- Announcing all of your plans through a series of tweets while on holiday rather than in a co-ordinated fashion surrounded by your campaign team
- Claiming that he has politicians lined up to join him - defections only work if kept secret
- Waiting until AFTER a general election to launch a single issue political party on an issue that will probably be done and dusted by the next general election
- Sending out hundreds of messages insulting everyone who chose to vote leave ie. those he needs to convert in the long run

I could go on and on! This is exactly the type of person that those of us who support Brexit would love to have as an opponent, it could only be better if he could just remove his mask and reveal that it is in fact Tony Blair underneath.

"I could go on and on!" - game, set and match to Mr Chapman.

Oh he wins troll of the year certainly, but that does not a leader make. Exhibit 1 - the current occupant of the oval office.

Huh? POTUS is not a leader? He is the most important leader on the planet.

TOPPING said:

chrisoxon said:

TOPPING said:

chrisoxon said:

I could spend all day talking about how James Chapman's entire strategy is utterly flawed, I hope he's just being used as a face man at Bell Pottinger because he's demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge on how to manage a campaign;

- Attacking media outlets and journalists who presumably you will want to cover your story
- Making unsubstantiated allegations against a dozen politicians and sounding spiteful while making them
- Giving an interview to GQ and then making directly contradictory statements on twitter
- Deciding to start your own political party thus transforming into muck raking politician rather than white knight whistleblower
- Announcing all of your plans through a series of tweets while on holiday rather than in a co-ordinated fashion surrounded by your campaign team
- Claiming that he has politicians lined up to join him - defections only work if kept secret
- Waiting until AFTER a general election to launch a single issue political party on an issue that will probably be done and dusted by the next general election
- Sending out hundreds of messages insulting everyone who chose to vote leave ie. those he needs to convert in the long run

I could go on and on! This is exactly the type of person that those of us who support Brexit would love to have as an opponent, it could only be better if he could just remove his mask and reveal that it is in fact Tony Blair underneath.

"I could go on and on!" - game, set and match to Mr Chapman.

Oh he wins troll of the year certainly, but that does not a leader make. Exhibit 1 - the current occupant of the oval office.

Huh? POTUS is not a leader? He is the most important leader on the planet.

You've been taking lessons from Chapman! You can take on a leadership role without having leadership skills...