politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tick Tock Two. There is more than one countdown taking place

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

...and the Irish question will be fudged as Irish questions usually are.

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/966214471571202049

The political imperative for fudge is absolutely overwhelming, Ireland has more to lose than anyone, and for the EU as a whole Ireland is tiny and peripheral anyway. So fudge it will be.

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

...and the Irish question will be fudged as Irish questions usually are.

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/966214471571202049

The political imperative for fudge is absolutely overwhelming, Ireland has more to lose than anyone, and for the EU as a whole Ireland is tiny and peripheral anyway. So fudge it will be.

I think you'll find the fudge factory has been relocated to Britain. A win for Brexit!

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/966257279606632448

What's the point of that when;

1. Nobody believe's it after Project Fear.

2. The referendum was held 19 months ago, we voted to leave and we're leaving?

MarqueeMark said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

On topic: The BBC is running wall-to-wall Brexit doom-mongering (a bit late, TBH). But in fact the negotiations are going rather well, and we seem to be headed for quite a good deal, inshallah. It's even looking as though the City won't be much affected. The economy is a bit damaged, but not so badly that anyone really notices. Planes will keep flying, EU workers will continue coming but in slightly lower numbers (partly because the Eurozone economy is going great guns now, taking away one of the push factors), we'll still follow EU regulations de facto if not de jure, and the Irish question will be fudged as Irish questions usually are.

So a bit of a damp squib, really. In two or three years' time, it's not going to be the massive issue which it seems to be now. Never underestimate the power of boredom in politics. The circus will move on.

Spot on. I would be happy to place very large wagers that Rejoining will not happen in my lifetime. (After that, you can do what you like, Britain!)

Yeah, the idea that anyone is going to want to reopen this tedious and divisive debate is cloud-cuckoo land. It will one of those 'don't go there' issues. What is much more likely is that we gradually re-align more with the EU anyway, through bilateral agreements on specific issues and for convenience.

Theuniondivvie said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Soor plooms for those parroting Guido & piously demanding that Corbyn give permission for his Stasi file to be released.

'New blow to spy smears as German authorities reveal there isn’t a Stasi file on Jeremy Corbyn'

https://tinyurl.com/ycwa663z

Oh shucks, I was so looking forward to reading all the romantic details of the motorcycle tour.

Wouldn't float my boat, but chacun à son goût.

You'll always have Jan 'Live Aid' Sarkocy.

You mean you don’t want to know who was ridden more, the bike or Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott?

Come on, we were all thinking it.

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

On topic: The BBC is running wall-to-wall Brexit doom-mongering (a bit late, TBH). But in fact the negotiations are going rather well, and we seem to be headed for quite a good deal, inshallah. It's even looking as though the City won't be much affected. The economy is a bit damaged, but not so badly that anyone really notices. Planes will keep flying, EU workers will continue coming but in slightly lower numbers (partly because the Eurozone economy is going great guns now, taking away one of the push factors), we'll still follow EU regulations de facto if not de jure, and the Irish question will be fudged as Irish questions usually are.

So a bit of a damp squib, really. In two or three years' time, it's not going to be the massive issue which it seems to be now. Never underestimate the power of boredom in politics. The circus will move on.

Pretty much what I have been saying for ages. We face a significant range of economic challenges. I wouldn't put Brexit in the top 5, probably not even in the top 10.

The reason it seems that way is because some people take the extreme hyperbole seriously, when actually it's either skillful lobbying, or meant to signal extreme distaste of and individual for the values they caricature Brexit as representing.

MarqueeMark said:

Met loses Worboys case: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43140827

That case has set a very important precedent that go wider than Worboys.

Richard_Nabavi said:

MarqueeMark said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

On topic: The BBC is running wall-to-wall Brexit doom-mongering (a bit late, TBH). But in fact the negotiations are going rather well, and we seem to be headed for quite a good deal, inshallah. It's even looking as though the City won't be much affected. The economy is a bit damaged, but not so badly that anyone really notices. Planes will keep flying, EU workers will continue coming but in slightly lower numbers (partly because the Eurozone economy is going great guns now, taking away one of the push factors), we'll still follow EU regulations de facto if not de jure, and the Irish question will be fudged as Irish questions usually are.

So a bit of a damp squib, really. In two or three years' time, it's not going to be the massive issue which it seems to be now. Never underestimate the power of boredom in politics. The circus will move on.

Spot on. I would be happy to place very large wagers that Rejoining will not happen in my lifetime. (After that, you can do what you like, Britain!)

Yeah, the idea that anyone is going to want to reopen this tedious and divisive debate is cloud-cuckoo land. It will one of those 'don't go there' issues. What is much more likely is that we gradually re-align more with the EU anyway, through bilateral agreements on specific issues and for convenience.

Thereby, effectively getting us back to the EEC.

Sound as a pound!

GIN1138 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/966257279606632448

What's the point of that when;

1. Nobody believe's it after Project Fear.

2. The referendum was held 19 months ago, we voted to leave and we're leaving?

Woo, someone can afford a publicity stunt for a referendum that happened a year and a half ago.

The time for the Remainers to make a positive case for the EU was before we voted on the subject. They didn’t, preferring instead to threaten us with doom if we decided to leave. We decided to leave, and the doom hasn’t happened. So we don’t believe what they say now.

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/966266342985912321

MarqueeMark said:

John_M said:

I'm not sure I buy that argument. Let me be a contrarian for a moment. Consider, even a full fat membership would be less than 1% of UK GDP, i.e. round about a 0.4% rise over our current contribution. Assume that's around £10bn, it's still less than a fifth of our debt servicing costs and I don't hear many people complaining about that.

There's no particular issue with an EU common foreign policy, an EU military (pooling defence spending makes sense, if the level was set high enough). European specialisation in different areas would makes sense; the Belgian military is a joke, but we'd probably make better use of their defence contribution. Some countries have an issue with NATO's mission creep, and a defensive force a la Japan probably suits the EU psyche better.

If you look at EU country economic performance, the A8 and A2 countries are going gangbusters; the economic differential between (say) Poland and the UK is much narrower than it was and this would naturally moderate immigration flows over time.

If the UK modified its absurdly and indiscriminately generous health and welfare systems towards EU norms, the flow would drop even further. The next batch of accession countries would attract transitional controls (I assume we've learned our lesson).

For me the issue is that we'd need to give up the pound if we weren't to simply recapitulate a lot of our current issues; the EU is, and will increasingly be, a Euro club. The direction of travel is very clear - the French and Germans are now pushing for a harmonised corporate tax regime and Macron will doubtless want his other proposals pushed through too. Moisovici has already told Ireland that their veto cannot hold up the EZ indefinitely.

An interesting argument, but you are comparing apples and oranges. I am talking about rejoining the EU, whereas what you outline is effectively joining an EU superstate. And I just don't see that getting anywhere near 50% support in a futher referendum. Not unless the direst Remainer predictions prove to be overly optimistic - and the pound gets replaced by worn strings of seashells as currency....

A year let alone a decade is a long time in politics. The period coming up could end up repeating mistakes that happened within the lifetime of older PBers.

1950s: The UK snootily ignores a new rival club of ~200 million people. France writes most of the new club's rules.

1960s: Noting its poor economic performance, the UK decides to quit the small club it set up, i.e. EFTA, and join its rival.

Voted remain because, on balance, the tangible costs and risks outweighed the intangible benefits of sovereignty and, as yet unspecified, global trading opportunities that were not previously there.

However, fairly sanguine after the vote for one, simple reason: we have a capitalist economy, where entrepreneurs are very good at redirecting and risking capital where value is to be found. It may take some time, but the capitalists will seek out and create value in a post-Brexit UK. New and different products and services will exploit opportunities at home and abroad: creating value, meeting consumers needs, paying taxes, funding welfare and the NHS and, yes, retaining some of that value for themselves - it’s what capitalists do and always have done.

So that’s why the Brexit vote will, in time, be forgotten - our economy will heal itself. Unless, of course, we decide that this is the time for an experiment in socialism. It may happen, especially if the schismatics on the Tory right choose to bring the walls tumbling down around their own party.

TheScreamingEagles said:

bigjohnowls said:

'New blow to spy smears as German authorities reveal there isn’t a Stasi file on Jeremy Corbyn'

But what about his Czech intelligence file?

We all know the Commies targeted and turned Labour politicians from Tom Driberg and Harold Wilson.

Although in Corbyn’s defence he didn’t attend the nest of traitors that is the University of Oxford like those two or the other Commie traitor Roger Hollis.

His Czech file says he wasn't a spy as far as I understand the reporting.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/966266342985912321

Oh, weren't people asking why he wasn't suing earlier?

Recidivist said:

Rexel56 said:

Voted remain because, on balance, the tangible costs and risks outweighed the intangible benefits of sovereignty and, as yet unspecified, global trading opportunities that were not previously there.

However, fairly sanguine after the vote for one, simple reason: we have a capitalist economy, where entrepreneurs are very good at redirecting and risking capital where value is to be found. It may take some time, but the capitalists will seek out and create value in a post-Brexit UK. New and different products and services will exploit opportunities at home and abroad: creating value, meeting consumers needs, paying taxes, funding welfare and the NHS and, yes, retaining some of that value for themselves - it’s what capitalists do and always have done.

So that’s why the Brexit vote will, in time, be forgotten - our economy will heal itself. Unless, of course, we decide that this is the time for an experiment in socialism. It may happen, especially if the schismatics on the Tory right choose to bring the walls tumbling down around their own party.

I agree, and it is sort of common sense as well. Most countries are outside the EU and are obviously doing fine. The problem though is the timescale. If we left steadily over say a 10 year timescale we would lose relatively little apart from the benefits of those agencies that were based here and obviously our admin and regulatory costs going up a bit. It's trying to get it all done in 2 years that is going to cost us.

Indeed, anyone challenging the need for as long a transition/translation/implementation period as we can negotiate is one of the schismatics referred to.

Recidivist said:

Rexel56 said:

Voted remain because, on balance, the tangible costs and risks outweighed the intangible benefits of sovereignty and, as yet unspecified, global trading opportunities that were not previously there.

However, fairly sanguine after the vote for one, simple reason: we have a capitalist economy, where entrepreneurs are very good at redirecting and risking capital where value is to be found. It may take some time, but the capitalists will seek out and create value in a post-Brexit UK. New and different products and services will exploit opportunities at home and abroad: creating value, meeting consumers needs, paying taxes, funding welfare and the NHS and, yes, retaining some of that value for themselves - it’s what capitalists do and always have done.

So that’s why the Brexit vote will, in time, be forgotten - our economy will heal itself. Unless, of course, we decide that this is the time for an experiment in socialism. It may happen, especially if the schismatics on the Tory right choose to bring the walls tumbling down around their own party.

I agree, and it is sort of common sense as well. Most countries are outside the EU and are obviously doing fine. The problem though is the timescale. If we left steadily over say a 10 year timescale we would lose relatively little apart from the benefits of those agencies that were based here and obviously our admin and regulatory costs going up a bit. It's trying to get it all done in 2 years that is going to cost us.

Opinion polling in the recent past has shown the public believe Brexit to have increasing benefits over a 20, 30, 40 year time horizon, but not much over a 5 year one.

https://twitter.com/brunobrussels/status/966266414293307394

Mr. Pubgoer, that did spring to my mind. Although the word 'more' may need adding...

Barring a complete and obvious disaster It will not be possible to judge whether Brexit has worked for us because we will not have the comparison of knowing how things would have panned out if we had stayed in the EU. So it could be that it happens and then over the years we just kind of get used to it. It becomes our new normal and we focus on other things. Not hard or soft, not a triumph or a grevious error, more of a 'mundane Brexit' we could term this.

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarqueeMark said:

Met loses Worboys case: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43140827

That case has set a very important precedent that go wider than Worboys.

Hmm, I'm not too impressed by this. Although the police behaved with quite spectacular incompetence, with disastrous results, this seems to be activists judges twisting the Human Rights Act to create a completely new branch of compensation entitlement never intended by parliament. If parliament wanted to make the taxpayer liable for police cocking up investigations, they could have done so.

Pulpstar said:

Alistair said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/966266342985912321

Oh, weren't people asking why he wasn't suing earlier?

Ben Bradley must be feeling a bit sick this morning - an MP's salary won't go too far towards Corbyn's legal costs and a "substantial" payment to a charity of his choice. And that's the cheaper route out for him now...
Otherwise he's taking a six figure chance on rolling a six, where he'll just about break even if he wins.
An invidious position to be in.

On the bright side though, perhaps some more people will get the message about using social media with abandon and not thinking about the defamation laws.

rottenborough said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/966266342985912321

Oxfam need some money...

As to the Presidents Club.

Richard_Nabavi said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarqueeMark said:

Met loses Worboys case: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43140827

That case has set a very important precedent that go wider than Worboys.

Hmm, I'm not too impressed by this. Although the police behaved with quite spectacular incompetence, with disastrous results, this seems to be activists judges twisting the Human Rights Act to create a completely new branch of compensation entitlement never intended by parliament. If parliament wanted to make the taxpayer liable for police cocking up investigations, they could have done so.

Do judges ever consider the taxpayer in their rulings ?

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/966273238883078144

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-may-could-lose-in-three-of-her-flagship-london-boroughs-a3772026.html?amp&__twitter_impression=true

Britain Elects
‏ @britainelects
12m12 minutes ago

London local election voting intention:

LAB: 54% (+16)
CON: 28% (+2)
LDEM: 11% (-)
GRN: 4% (-6)
UKIP: 2% (-7)

via @YouGov, 12 - 15 Feb

Barnesian said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/966257279606632448

I'm meeting it in Hammersmith later this afternoon.

The number isn't spurious. It is based on the hard Brexit (but not the WTO Brexit) that results in a GDP after 15 years that is 5% less than it would have been had we stayed in the EU. 5% of £2 trillion is £100 billion pa which is £2,000 million a week.

For source see https://www.isitworthit.org.uk/

There are a lot of hypotheticals in that number.

Mr. Pubgoer, my bank balance might dispute your optimistic use of the word 'professional'

Richard_Nabavi said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Soor plooms for those parroting Guido & piously demanding that Corbyn give permission for his Stasi file to be released.

'New blow to spy smears as German authorities reveal there isn’t a Stasi file on Jeremy Corbyn'

https://tinyurl.com/ycwa663z

Oh shucks, I was so looking forward to reading all the romantic details of the motorcycle tour.

Wouldn't float my boat, but chacun à son goût.

You'll always have Jan 'Live Aid' Sarkocy.

You mean you don’t want to know who was ridden more, the bike or Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott?

Come on, we were all thinking it.

I was hoping to get transcripts of bugged conversations over romantic dinners of bratwurst and sauerkraut, with the lovely Miss Abbott gazing in admiration as dashing young Jeremy dazzles her with tractor production statistics and praises the emancipation of women in the DDR.

I thought these Stasi guys were supposed to be thorough, but it seems they failed miserably in tracking what must have been a hugely unusual trip.

Well, if he was already one of theirs....

calum said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/966273238883078144

Another step on the path to walking back on Brexit.

TheScreamingEagles said:

marke09 said:

Britain Elects
‏ @britainelects
12m12 minutes ago

London local election voting intention:

LAB: 54% (+16)
CON: 28% (+2)
LDEM: 11% (-)
GRN: 4% (-6)
UKIP: 2% (-7)

via @YouGov, 12 - 15 Feb

7% Con to Lab swing there!

Jezza is squeezing Green vote mightily.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/966275358709506048

Richard_Nabavi said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

marke09 said:

Britain Elects
‏ @britainelects
12m12 minutes ago

London local election voting intention:

LAB: 54% (+16)
CON: 28% (+2)
LDEM: 11% (-)
GRN: 4% (-6)
UKIP: 2% (-7)

via @YouGov, 12 - 15 Feb

7% Con to Lab swing there!

What is the comparison against?

2014 vote I believe

rottenborough said:

woody662 said:

Pulpstar said:

Alistair said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/966266342985912321

Oh, weren't people asking why he wasn't suing earlier?

Ben Bradley must be feeling a bit sick this morning - an MP's salary won't go too far towards Corbyn's legal costs and a "substantial" payment to a charity of his choice. And that's the cheaper route out for him now...
Otherwise he's taking a six figure chance on rolling a six, where he'll just about break even if he wins.
An invidious position to be in.

It's a bluff, let it go to Court and stay in the news for months. Party should cover Bradley's legal bills.

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/966266983204474880

Scary looking legal letters are mostly bluff trying to scare the recipient. This is a clear bluff.

In his inner London heartland the swing from Conservative to Labour is a decisive 13.4 per cent. Even in outer London, where the Conservatives are stronger, the swing is 4.2 per cent.

The shift to Labour suggests a series of Tory citadels are no longer safe, including three that once seemed impregnable.

Wandsworth, which was Margaret Thatcher’s favourite council because of its zero poll tax and mould-breaking efficiencies, would fall from Tory control if the swing was even across inner London.

Westminster, which was hailed as a model of local government efficiency in John Major’s day, would also

Barnet, where the Conservatives have an overall majority of just one, looks certain to change hands.

Hillingdon in outer London looks safe for now, but would be vulnerable if the Labour swing increases in the run-up to polling day.

Any Brexit backlash on the night would add to Mrs May’s woes, the poll suggests. Remain voters split by an overwhelming 65 per cent to Labour and just 15 per cent to the Conservatives.

Moreover, Brexit is listed as one of the most important issues by 21 per cent of Londoners.

Richard_Nabavi said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarqueeMark said:

Met loses Worboys case: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43140827

That case has set a very important precedent that go wider than Worboys.

Hmm, I'm not too impressed by this. Although the police behaved with quite spectacular incompetence, with disastrous results, this seems to be activists judges twisting the Human Rights Act to create a completely new branch of compensation entitlement never intended by parliament. If parliament wanted to make the taxpayer liable for police cocking up investigations, they could have done so.

I'm a bit ambivalent. On the one hand there have been numerous cases where the level of police incompetence was such that the failure to hold someone to account was unconscionable. On the other this risks even more weak cases being brought to Court to fail but protect both the police and the prosecuting authorities from complaints about failing to act. There are enough of these weak cases already. The High Court in Scotland looks at the odd drugs case or murder as a bit of light relief these days. Its wall to wall historic sex cases, often with very poor evidence.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

marke09 said:

Britain Elects
‏ @britainelects
12m12 minutes ago

London local election voting intention:

LAB: 54% (+16)
CON: 28% (+2)
LDEM: 11% (-)
GRN: 4% (-6)
UKIP: 2% (-7)

via @YouGov, 12 - 15 Feb

7% Con to Lab swing there!

What is the comparison against?

The 2014 results.

where Labour underperformed relative to UKIP if memory served.

I don't really trust You Gov as any more accurate than the fortune teller on the pier.Since the famously wrong poll in the Scottish indyref,I see only the political purpose behind the poll and not the figures it produces.In the case of the London poll,it is to lower Tory expectations and raise Labour ones,all designed to strenthen TMay post May.

woody662 said:

Pulpstar said:

Alistair said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/966266342985912321

Oh, weren't people asking why he wasn't suing earlier?

Ben Bradley must be feeling a bit sick this morning - an MP's salary won't go too far towards Corbyn's legal costs and a "substantial" payment to a charity of his choice. And that's the cheaper route out for him now...
Otherwise he's taking a six figure chance on rolling a six, where he'll just about break even if he wins.
An invidious position to be in.

It's a bluff, let it go to Court and stay in the news for months. Party should cover Bradley's legal bills.

If it goes to Court then how is it a bluff?
That BB deleted the tweet suggests he doesn't think he has much of a case.

Sean_F said:

rural_voter said:

MarqueeMark said:

John_M said:

An interesting argument, but you are comparing apples and oranges. I am talking about rejoining the EU, whereas what you outline is effectively joining an EU superstate. And I just don't see that getting anywhere near 50% support in a futher referendum. Not unless the direst Remainer predictions prove to be overly optimistic - and the pound gets replaced by worn strings of seashells as currency....

A year let alone a decade is a long time in politics. The period coming up could end up repeating mistakes that happened within the lifetime of older PBers.

1950s: The UK snootily ignores a new rival club of ~200 million people. France writes most of the new club's rules.

1960s: Noting its poor economic performance, the UK decides to quit the small club it set up, i.e. EFTA, and join its rival.

Ironically enough, the year that the UK joined the EU, 1973, is the year that economic growth ceased to be higher in the EU than the UK.

Inevitably. Just like the Chancellor finally writing out assumptions of productivity growth from his forecasts seems to have been exactly timed to match...a rise in productivity.

stevef said:

Its good to see Remoaners recognising that time is running out for them. By the end of 2018, however I am sure they will still be whingeing.

We've got all the time in the world.
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/966274816411144192

John_M said:

Barnesian said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/966257279606632448

I'm meeting it in Hammersmith later this afternoon.

The number isn't spurious. It is based on the hard Brexit (but not the WTO Brexit) that results in a GDP after 15 years that is 5% less than it would have been had we stayed in the EU. 5% of £2 trillion is £100 billion pa which is £2,000 million a week.

For source see https://www.isitworthit.org.uk/

So you're quoting, as fact, a number from a 15 year forecast. Christ, and I thought the £350m for the NHS was mendacious. At least that had some vague grounding in reality.

LOL.

You can imagine the meeting.

'So, Ideas guys? Nothing is too barmy. Just shout it out'
*SILENCE"
'Well, what worked for them before the referendum?'
'A Bus! We could have a bus. Because no-one likes novelty in the politics, right?'
'Don't you worry that having a bus drive around when there isn't a campaign on might look a bit, well, churlish? A bit juvenile? A bit unoriginal?'
'Nah, the people, they love a bus. And they hate Brexit. A bus is the answer to all our problems. A Bus, and Vince Cable calling for an exit from Brexit. Winning combo.'

Absolutely unspoofable.

https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/966270792408453121

rkrkrk said:

woody662 said:

Pulpstar said:

Alistair said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/966266342985912321

Oh, weren't people asking why he wasn't suing earlier?

Ben Bradley must be feeling a bit sick this morning - an MP's salary won't go too far towards Corbyn's legal costs and a "substantial" payment to a charity of his choice. And that's the cheaper route out for him now...
Otherwise he's taking a six figure chance on rolling a six, where he'll just about break even if he wins.
An invidious position to be in.

It's a bluff, let it go to Court and stay in the news for months. Party should cover Bradley's legal bills.

If it goes to Court then how is it a bluff?
That BB deleted the tweet suggests he doesn't think he has much of a case.

People often delete text from draft articles because the author or publication is afraid of being sued for libel. Armstrong & Maxwell both sued for libel but the S. Times and Private Eye respectively were telling the truth. It'll be the same with Twitter.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarqueeMark said:

Met loses Worboys case: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43140827

That case has set a very important precedent that go wider than Worboys.

Could SYP be in deep doo doo over Rotherham etc given this ruling?

Let’s hope so.

Leavers won the referendum and are implementing a Brexit which respects the two key reasons voters voted Leave ie regaining sovereignty and control of immigration.

It is up to Remainers to make the case to reverse Brexit

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rkrkrk said:

woody662 said:

Pulpstar said:

Alistair said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/966266342985912321

Oh, weren't people asking why he wasn't suing earlier?

Ben Bradley must be feeling a bit sick this morning - an MP's salary won't go too far towards Corbyn's legal costs and a "substantial" payment to a charity of his choice. And that's the cheaper route out for him now...
Otherwise he's taking a six figure chance on rolling a six, where he'll just about break even if he wins.
An invidious position to be in.

It's a bluff, let it go to Court and stay in the news for months. Party should cover Bradley's legal bills.

If it goes to Court then how is it a bluff?
That BB deleted the tweet suggests he doesn't think he has much of a case.

Based on the information published in the Sun, Ben Bradley hasn't got a ghost of a case. What he claimed went far beyond what the documents showed. So unless he's got access to some as-yet unpublished evidence, he should apologise profusely and pay up.

I'd love to know what he said but I don't want Mike to get into trouble...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-demands-apology-and-damages-from-tory-vice-chairman-ben-bradley-over-communist-spy-slur-twitter-charity_uk_5a8d4b02e4b00a30a250fc16?7kp

Sean_F said:

Barnesian said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/966257279606632448

I'm meeting it in Hammersmith later this afternoon.

The number isn't spurious. It is based on the hard Brexit (but not the WTO Brexit) that results in a GDP after 15 years that is 5% less than it would have been had we stayed in the EU. 5% of £2 trillion is £100 billion pa which is £2,000 million a week.

For source see https://www.isitworthit.org.uk/

There are a lot of hypotheticals in that number.

Yes. There always are with forecasts. And forecasts are always wrong. But forecasts are needed to guide the quantitative impact of policy options because otherwise it is just guesswork.

Although forecast are always wrong, generally they are broadly correct and the assumptions are generally explicit and so provide a better basis that an ideologically driven guess.