politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » And so the “meaningful vote” issue gets put back into the bill

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

You will of course be dead before you find out what your wife will be like when she grows up.

Thats a bit cruel to say the least

Ever the gent, eh, Big_G?



Hope so !!

Did you enjoy (or endure) the football?

.................................................................................

It was poor and rather funny with the penalty and I doubt it heralds and all conquering England march to the final

Indeed but at least depression is delayed by a few more days.

They will get through the group but that is when they wlll be tested

The_Apocalypse said:

GIN1138 said:

The_Apocalypse said:

I’m only a few years older than your wife, and 22 is a millennial so she’s in ‘my generation’. I don’t know how old you thought I was, lol.
18-24 year olds voted for Corbyn a year ago, so it turns out you don’t know much about your wife’s generation at all. They also voted for Remain as well, so they are traitors by your assertions as well.

Someone aged 22 would be Gen-Z - The generation after the Milennials.

Gen-Z is generally regarded to be the children on Gen-X and they're born from the mid-1990's to mid-2000's (although there is no clearly defined end date for Gen-Z yet)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Z

So a 22 year old would be born around 1996 making them very early Gen-Z.

Someone 22 isn’t necessarily born in 1996, it depends on birthday - it can be someone born in either 1995/96 - and SeanT’s just said his wife is born in 1995.

Gen Z doesn’t have a determined start date, let alone a determined end state. The earliest start dates are mainly placed at 1996, but others - such a as Pew Research - place the start date at 1997/8. Some place it at 2000. It’s very rare that it gets placed at 1995 - which is when SeanT’s wife is born.

TGOHF said:

Looking forward to Mr Meek’s piece tomorrow about how Harry Kane’s late goal means Scottish Independence is inevitable.

Benpointer said:

Maybe someone could do a thread header on the relationship (if any) between the World Cup and domestic politics? Wasn't Wilson supposed to have got a boost from 1966?

If England exceed expectations will it help TMay? Or would an unprecidented early German exit do for Merkel?

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TGOHF said:

Looking forward to Mr Meek’s piece tomorrow about how Harry Kane’s late goal means Scottish Independence is inevitable.

No! Harry Kane scored twice DESPITE Brexit

The_Apocalypse said:

Anyway, tonight was a great result for England, so hopefully we can do well against Panamana and not have too many worries going into the last game against Belgium. Given how many of the big sides have struggled so far, I think England can be pretty happy with that result and performance.

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

You will of course be dead before you find out what your wife will be like when she grows up.

Thats a bit cruel to say the least

Ever the gent, eh, Big_G?



Hope so !!

Did you enjoy (or endure) the football?

.................................................................................

It was poor and rather funny with the penalty and I doubt it heralds and all conquering England march to the final

Indeed but at least depression is delayed by a few more days.

They will get through the group but that is when they wlll be tested

Probably. Still at least we didn't withdraw, eh?

No and it seems to be going well which is no bad thing bearing in mind the longer term view of Russia rejoining the G8 (one of the few things I agree with Trump on)

You've changed your tone from the immediate post-Salisbury days!

MarqueeMark said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Anyway, tonight was a great result for England, so hopefully we can do well against Panamana and not have too many worries going into the last game against Belgium. Given how many of the big sides have struggled so far, I think England can be pretty happy with that result and performance.

Is Panamana where the Muppets live?

"Panamana, do do be doobie......"

MarqueeMark said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Anyway, tonight was a great result for England, so hopefully we can do well against Panamana and not have too many worries going into the last game against Belgium. Given how many of the big sides have struggled so far, I think England can be pretty happy with that result and performance.

Is Panamana where the Muppets live?

"Panamana, do do be doobie......"

The_Taxman said:

brendan16 said:

Benpointer said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Benpointer said:

SeanT said:

News at Ten.

Prince Harry supports Brexit, "It's just something we have to try".

That's Harry Kane and Harry Windsor.

Possibly the two most popular men in the Kingdom,

Eat crow, you europedophile losers.

He's gonna be disappointed then when we end up with BINO

It’s according to Thomas Markle - this is what Markle said:

TM: It was just a loose conversation about something we have to try. There was no real commitment to it.
PM: Do you think he was in favour of it?
TM: I think he was open to the experiment.
I mean, if it’s true (that’s a big if), it’s not really a massive Pro Brexit stance. Reminds me a lot of The Sun’s claim the Queen supported Brexit a few years earlier.

Indeed. It's about as reliable and worthwhile as any of SeanT's rants.

Most of the country are now open to Brexit as they have accepted the result and just want to get on with it. It doesn't mean Harry has turned into Jacob Rees Mogg.

Given the Royal family's obvious links to the Anglosphere and the Commonwealth it's inevitable they have had conflicted loyalties since 1973 when we essentially turned our back on the latter for Brussels. Whether Prince William or George eventually become Kings of Jamaica, Australia, NZ and Canada of course is harder to say.

lol - The Royal family changed their name around the time of the 1st World War because the existing name was too Germanic! The Royal Family, whilst it is true has become more British in its appearance in recent generations has an ancestry that has its roots in Europe. Indeed, I would say only the Hapsburg challenge the British for having their blood in other European royal bloodlines. Just think of Russia, Germany, Spain all of which have links back to Queen Victoria.

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

Maybe someone could do a thread header on the relationship (if any) between the World Cup and domestic politics? Wasn't Wilson supposed to have got a boost from 1966?

If England exceed expectations will it help TMay? Or would an unprecidented early German exit do for Merkel?

Merkel and her Grand Coalition with the SPD to be dumped for tough on immigration Seehoffer propped up by the AfD and FDP after Germany crash out and May wins a 100 seat landslide after England triumph at the World Cup would certainly change the Brexit scene by the late autumn

Well if that all happens we'll have to have a parade of unicorns up the Mall to celebrate.

brendan16 said:

The_Taxman said:

brendan16 said:

Benpointer said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Benpointer said:

SeanT said:

News at Ten.

Prince Harry supports Brexit, "It's just something we have to try".

That's Harry Kane and Harry Windsor.

Possibly the two most popular men in the Kingdom,

Eat crow, you europedophile losers.

He's gonna be disappointed then when we end up with BINO

It’s according to Thomas Markle - this is what Markle said:

TM: It was just a loose conversation about something we have to try. There was no real commitment to it.
PM: Do you think he was in favour of it?
TM: I think he was open to the experiment.
I mean, if it’s true (that’s a big if), it’s not really a massive Pro Brexit stance. Reminds me a lot of The Sun’s claim the Queen supported Brexit a few years earlier.

Indeed. It's about as reliable and worthwhile as any of SeanT's rants.

Given the Royal family's obvious links to the Anglosphere and the Commonwealth it's inevitable they have had conflicted loyalties since 1973 when we essentially turned our back on the latter for Brussels. Whether Prince William or George eventually become Kings of Jamaica, Australia, NZ and Canada of course is harder to say.

lol - The Royal family changed their name around the time of the 1st World War because the existing name was too Germanic! The Royal Family, whilst it is true has become more British in its appearance in recent generations has an ancestry that has its roots in Europe. Indeed, I would say only the Hapsburg challenge the British for having their blood in other European royal bloodlines. Just think of Russia, Germany, Spain all of which have links back to Queen Victoria.

I don't deny the historic links - but their regular all expenses paid trips to the Australia, Canada, NZ and various beautiful Pacific islands, probably trump the fact they are descended from the House of Saxe Coburg!

The_Taxman said:

brendan16 said:

The_Taxman said:

brendan16 said:

Benpointer said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Benpointer said:

SeanT said:

News at Ten.

Prince Harry supports Brexit, "It's just something we have to try".

That's Harry Kane and Harry Windsor.

Possibly the two most popular men in the Kingdom,

Eat crow, you europedophile losers.

He's gonna be disappointed then when we end up with BINO

It’s according to Thomas Markle - this is as any of SeanT's rants.

Given the Royal family's obvious links to the Anglosphere and the Commonwealth it's inevitable they have had conflicted loyalties since 1973 when we essentially turned our back on the latter for Brussels. Whether Prince William or George eventually become Kings of Jamaica, Australia, NZ and Canada of course is harder to say.

lol - Theia.

I don't deny the historic links - but their regular all expenses paid trips to the Australia, Canada, NZ and various beautiful Pacific islands, probably trump the fact they are descended from the House of Saxe Coburg!

I think they have to go to these places you mention to stay relevant in the Countries you list.

The problem with fashioning policy in this way is that it is just a reflection of the past, not of the future. Australia, Canada, NZ and various beautiful Pacific islands economic interests are NOT with Britain in the future. Australia and NZ will be trying to forge ever closer links with China and other economies in South East Asia, where as Canada will be looking South, to the USA and Mexico with the caveat of post Trump!

I think the major flaw in Brexit is that it ignores the fact our nearest economic neighbour is Europe. Whilst some areas may look more dynamic, the logistics of trade may be made impractical by distance.

Except most Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians (outside Quebec) are descended from or have relatives in the British isles. In the Trump era Canadians probably feel closer to the British than they do to the Americans and Australia and NZ are both concerned about migration from South Asia even if they want to trade with Asia much as Brexit was motivated by concerns about migrants from Eastern and Southern Europe even though we wanted to trade with Europe.

The_Apocalypse said:

@SeanT Most agencies don’t see millennials ending at 1994-95, 1994 is in fact an especially rare end date. 1996 is a more frequent end date. Wiki ironically backs that up - the millennials page shows only two agencies ending it at 1994, and another two ending it at 1995 (even one of those is 1995/96). Many others use 1996, 1997, 1998 and 2000 as the start date - see here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials

18-35 pretty much covers millennials, mostly so I don’t know why you’re using that time frame to cover for Gen Z. 18-24 year olds voted to Remain by 73%, so you’re splitting hairs by asserting that the generation is massively different in perspective because it wasn’t an extra 7 points more for Remain. Ironically it was split 60:40 for 25-34 year olds, so much more eurosceptic 18-24 year olds, yet that same group of voters swung significantly to Corbyn last year, so the measurement of using EU ref as a gage is a bit flawed.

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2016-eu-referendum

I’m someone who knows both millennials and Zers as friends/family and so far there aren’t any major political differences. Especially since those who are the earliest Zers are apart of the most Pro Corbyn age group. A lot of the pro Jordan Peterson crew on YouTube HATE those like Corbyn.

RoyalBlue said:

@Mortimer - you seem tremendously confident that the Government will win on Wednesday. Why? Do you think Grieve talking about bringing down the government will have brought some Tory rebels back? I worry it will reduce the number of Labour rebels.

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

oxfordsimon said:

I really do not see how Grieve can in all good conscience continue to push his line. He is an intelligent man, he knows the law, he knows how our constitution works, he knows how Parliament works.

He knows that it is not for Parliament to negotiate with any external body. He knows that it is for the Government to do that. There is no possible mechanism for Parliament to engage in any negotiation with the EU or to set the ground rules for any such negotiation.

All it can do it for yes or no and then the Government has to act accordingly.

Continuing to push this ridiculous notion of parliamentary oversight of or involvement in negotiations with the EU (or anyone else) is just utterly bizarre.

It flies in the face of the legal realities - and I am sure he knows that.

Yes but forget the legal realities, if Parliament doesn't take control then we may actual Brexit for real and not in name only. We might leave the single market like all sides in the debate pre-referendum said we would if we voted to leave and Grieve knows better than us.

The Commons has only just voted by a majority of around 200 to leave the single market so whether Parliament takes control or not it will not be soft Brexit it will just be a case of moving towards a FTA or WTO terms

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

oxfordsimon said:

I really do not see how Grieve can in all good conscience continue to push his line. He is an intelligent man, he knows the law, he knows how our constitution works, he knows how Parliament works.

He knows that it is not for Parliament to negotiate with any external body. He knows that it is for the Government to do that. There is no possible mechanism for Parliament to engage in any negotiation with the EU or to set the ground rules for any such negotiation.

All it can do it for yes or no and then the Government has to act accordingly.

Continuing to push this ridiculous notion of parliamentary oversight of or involvement in negotiations with the EU (or anyone else) is just utterly bizarre.

It flies in the face of the legal realities - and I am sure he knows that.

Yes but forget the legal realities, if Parliament doesn't take control then we may actual Brexit for real and not in name only. We might leave the single market like all sides in the debate pre-referendum said we would if we voted to leave and Grieve knows better than us.

The Commons has only just voted by a majority of around 200 to leave the single market so whether Parliament takes control or not it will not be soft Brexit it will just be a case of moving towards a FTA or WTO terms

Nothing is certain yet, if the EU refuses to agree to a FTA and it becomes a choice of WTO terms or BINO then there is absolutely no guarantee that Parliament will go for WTO.

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

oxfordsimon said:

I really do not see how Grieve can in all good conscience continue to push his line. He is an intelligent man, he knows the law, he knows how our constitution works, he knows how Parliament works.

He knows that it is not for Parliament to negotiate with any external body. He knows that it is for the Government to do that. There is no possible mechanism for Parliament to engage in any negotiation with the EU or to set the ground rules for any such negotiation.

All it can do it for yes or no and then the Government has to act accordingly.

Continuing to push this ridiculous notion of parliamentary oversight of or involvement in negotiations with the EU (or anyone else) is just utterly bizarre.

It flies in the face of the legal realities - and I am sure he knows that.

Yes but forget the legal realities, if Parliament doesn't take control then we may actual Brexit for real and not in name only. We might leave the single market like all sides in the debate pre-referendum said we would if we voted to leave and Grieve knows better than us.

The Commons has only just voted by a majority of around 200 to leave the single market so whether Parliament takes control or not it will not be soft Brexit it will just be a case of moving towards a FTA or WTO terms

Nothing is certain yet, if the EU refuses to agree to a FTA and it becomes a choice of WTO terms or BINO then there is absolutely no guarantee that Parliament will go for WTO.

archer101au said:

What makes you think a withdrawal agreement where we pay the EU 40bn, agree a backstop and get no agreement on trade will make it through the HoC. Labour are almost certain to oppose as they will not want to take any responsibility for a Tory deal. I am not sure the DUP will support. It would require only a handful of Brexiteers to vote against to reject it. Don't you think that there are at least 10 hardcore leavers who will vote against?

Perhaps May realises that this is the real risk, not the pointless discussion about a meaningful vote. The vote she has to have will be meaningful enough.

archer101au said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

oxfordsimon said:

I really do not see how Grieve can in all good conscience continue to push his line. He is an intelligent man, he knows the law, he knows how our constitution works, he knows how Parliament works.

He knows that it is not for Parliament to negotiate with any external body. He knows that it is for the Government to do that. There is no possible mechanism for Parliament to engage in any negotiation with the EU or to set the ground rules for any such negotiation.

All it can do it for yes or no and then the Government has to act accordingly.

Continuing to push this ridiculous notion of parliamentary oversight of or involvement in negotiations with the EU (or anyone else) is just utterly bizarre.

It flies in the face of the legal realities - and I am sure he knows that.

Yes but forget the legal realities, if Parliament doesn't take control then we may actual Brexit for real and not in name only. We might leave the single market like all sides in the debate pre-referendum said we would if we voted to leave and Grieve knows better than us.

The Commons has only just voted by a majority of around 200 to leave the single market so whether Parliament takes control or not it will not be soft Brexit it will just be a case of moving towards a FTA or WTO terms

Nothing is certain yet, if the EU refuses to agree to a FTA and it becomes a choice of WTO terms or BINO then there is absolutely no guarantee that Parliament will go for WTO.

There is given the number of Labour rebels who opposed the single market as it requires freedom of movement which would be political suicide in their heavily Leave seats plus of course Corbyn refused to back the single market even if he did not vote against the EEA.

Of course there is near zero chance of a FTA by next March anyway given it took Canada 7 years to negotiate one with the EU, the best that can be hoped for is an exit deal on the exit bill, citizens' rights, the Irish border and a transition period

YOUR supreme leader promised us that this would never happen. NO transition to nowhere. NO money without a trade deal. NO backstop without knowing the final customs arrangement.

No, No, No!

williamglenn said:

archer101au said:

What makes you think a withdrawal agreement where we pay the EU 40bn, agree a backstop and get no agreement on trade will make it through the HoC. Labour are almost certain to oppose as they will not want to take any responsibility for a Tory deal. I am not sure the DUP will support. It would require only a handful of Brexiteers to vote against to reject it. Don't you think that there are at least 10 hardcore leavers who will vote against?

Perhaps May realises that this is the real risk, not the pointless discussion about a meaningful vote. The vote she has to have will be meaningful enough.

There's still every reason to believe Brexit won't happen. It's just a question of the precise choreography by which it's stopped. I've recently come to think that an extension of Article 50 is becoming more likely and this will be the precursor to the whole thing unravelling.

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

archer101au said:

What makes you think a withdrawal agreement where we pay the EU 40bn, agree a backstop and get no agreement on trade will make it through the HoC. Labour are almost certain to oppose as they will not want to take any responsibility for a Tory deal. I am not sure the DUP will support. It would require only a handful of Brexiteers to vote against to reject it. Don't you think that there are at least 10 hardcore leavers who will vote against?

Perhaps May realises that this is the real risk, not the pointless discussion about a meaningful vote. The vote she has to have will be meaningful enough.

There's still every reason to believe Brexit won't happen. It's just a question of the precise choreography by which it's stopped. I've recently come to think that an extension of Article 50 is becoming more likely and this will be the precursor to the whole thing unravelling.

No Tory leader would survive if we have not left the EU by next April and Corbyn also backs Brexit too anyway

The_Taxman said:

williamglenn said:

archer101au said:

What makes you think a withdrawal agreement where we pay the EU 40bn, agree a backstop and get no agreement on trade will make it through the HoC. Labour are almost certain to oppose as they will not want to take any responsibility for a Tory deal. I am not sure the DUP will support. It would require only a handful of Brexiteers to vote against to reject it. Don't you think that there are at least 10 hardcore leavers who will vote against?

Perhaps May realises that this is the real risk, not the pointless discussion about a meaningful vote. The vote she has to have will be meaningful enough.

There's still every reason to believe Brexit won't happen. It's just a question of the precise choreography by which it's stopped. I've recently come to think that an extension of Article 50 is becoming more likely and this will be the precursor to the whole thing unravelling.

I think that the level of integration with the EU is too great for Brexit to be completed. I think the Brexit advocates know this and I doubt the sincerity of some politicians seeing it to the bitter end. The nefarious Boris Johnson will no doubt flounce at some point and blame his erstwhile Brexit proponents for not executing the will of the people. I actually wonder if it would have been better if Johnson had been the Sec. of State for Brexit as he would have owned the failure.

archer101au said:

HYUFD said:

archer101au said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

oxfordsimon said:

I really do not see how Grieve can in all good conscience continue to push his line. He is an intelligent man, he knows the law, he knows how our constitution works, he knows how Parliament works.

He knows that it is not for Parliament to negotiate with any external body. He knows that it is for the Government to do that. There is no possible mechanism for Parliament to engage in any negotiation with the EU or to set the ground rules for any such negotiation.

All it can do it for yes or no and then the Government has to act accordingly.

Continuing to push this ridiculous notion of parliamentary oversight of or involvement in negotiations with the EU (or anyone else) is just utterly bizarre.

It flies in the face of the legal realities - and I am sure he knows that.

Yes but forget the legal realities, if Parliament doesn't take control then we may actual Brexit for real and not in name only. We might leave the single market like all sides in the debate pre-referendum said we would if we voted to leave and Grieve knows better than us.

The Commons has only just voted by a majority of around 200 to leave the single market so whether Parliament takes control or not it will not be soft Brexit it will just be a case of moving towards a FTA or WTO terms

Nothing is certain yet, if the EU refuses to agree to a FTA and it becomes a choice of WTO terms or BINO then there is absolutely no guarantee that Parliament will go for WTO.

There is given the number of Labour rebels who opposed the single market as it requires freedom of movement which would be political suicide in their heavily Leave seats plus of course Corbyn refused to back the single market even if he did not vote against the EEA.

Of course there is near zero chance of a FTA by next March anyway given it took Canada 7 years to negotiate one with the EU, the best that can be hoped for is an exit deal on the exit bill, citizens' rights, the Irish border and a transition period

YOUR supreme leader promised us that this would never happen. NO transition to nowhere. NO money without a trade deal. NO backstop without knowing the final customs arrangement.

No, No, No!

Exploratory FTA talks have now begun after the completion of the Phase 1 stage in December

So are you in favour of signing a withdrawal agreement without having the future framework agreed or not? Because you earlier post seemed to suggest you were happy to do so.

archer101au said:

HYUFD said:

archer101au said:

HYUFD said:

archer101au said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Yes but forget the legal realities, if Parliament doesn't take control then we may actual Brexit for real and not in name only. We might leave the single market like all sides in the debate pre-referendum said we would if we voted to leave and Grieve knows better than us.

The Commons has only just voted by a majority of around 200 to leave the single market so whether Parliament takes control or not it will not be soft Brexit it will just be a case of moving towards a FTA or WTO terms

Nothing is certain yet, if the EU refuses to agree to a FTA and it becomes a choice of WTO terms or BINO then there is absolutely no guarantee that Parliament will go for WTO.

There is given the number of Labour rebels who opposed the single market as it requires freedom of movement which would be political suicide in their heavily Leave seats plus of course Corbyn refused to back the single market even if he did not vote against the EEA.

Of course there is near zero chance of a FTA by next March anyway given it took Canada 7 years to negotiate one with the EU, the best that can be hoped for is an exit deal on the exit bill, citizens' rights, the Irish border and a transition period

YOUR supreme leader promised us that this would never happen. NO transition to nowhere. NO money without a trade deal. NO backstop without knowing the final customs arrangement.

No, No, No!

Exploratory FTA talks have now begun after the completion of the Phase 1 stage in December

So are you in favour of signing a withdrawal agreement without having the future framework agreed or not? Because you earlier post seemed to suggest you were happy to do so.

Of course, as I said a FTA will take 7 years to complete based on Canada

Good to see you Tories selling out, and Theresa's red lines all meaningless.

So why did Theresa write to her own MPs only a week ago promising that she would never agree to the backstop unless the future customs framework is agreed?

The_Taxman said:

williamglenn said:

archer101au said:

What makes you think a withdrawal agreement where we pay the EU 40bn, agree a backstop and get no agreement on trade will make it through the HoC. Labour are almost certain to oppose as they will not want to take any responsibility for a Tory deal. I am not sure the DUP will support. It would require only a handful of Brexiteers to vote against to reject it. Don't you think that there are at least 10 hardcore leavers who will vote against?

Perhaps May realises that this is the real risk, not the pointless discussion about a meaningful vote. The vote she has to have will be meaningful enough.

There's still every reason to believe Brexit won't happen. It's just a question of the precise choreography by which it's stopped. I've recently come to think that an extension of Article 50 is becoming more likely and this will be the precursor to the whole thing unravelling.

I think that the level of integration with the EU is too great for Brexit to be completed. I think the Brexit advocates know this and I doubt the sincerity of some politicians seeing it to the bitter end. The nefarious Boris Johnson will no doubt flounce at some point and blame his erstwhile Brexit proponents for not executing the will of the people. I actually wonder if it would have been better if Johnson had been the Sec. of State for Brexit as he would have owned the failure.

RobD said:

Barmy, but that’s where we are.

Sean_F said:

Recidivist said:

justin124 said:

GIN1138 said:

Just think, if England hadn't been defeated in the 1970 World Cup we might not be leaving the EU now... As Heath might never have become PM in the 1970 UK General Election and so we might never have joined the EEC in the first place...

I think we would . Harold Wilson was already negotiating to gain entry following De Gaulle's resignation in 1969.

It is really hard to see how the UK could have stayed out. The mistake was not getting in at the beginning.

The mistake was joining.

Sean_F said:

Recidivist said:

justin124 said:

GIN1138 said:

Just think, if England hadn't been defeated in the 1970 World Cup we might not be leaving the EU now... As Heath might never have become PM in the 1970 UK General Election and so we might never have joined the EEC in the first place...

I think we would . Harold Wilson was already negotiating to gain entry following De Gaulle's resignation in 1969.

It is really hard to see how the UK could have stayed out. The mistake was not getting in at the beginning.

The mistake was joining.

The_Taxman said:

brendan16 said:

The_Taxman said:

brendan16 said:

Benpointer said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Benpointer said:

SeanT said:

News at Ten.

Prince Harry supports Brexit, "It's just something we have to try".

That's Harry Kane and Harry Windsor.

Possibly the two most popular men in the Kingdom,

Eat crow, you europedophile losers.

He's gonna be disappointed then when we end up with BINO

It’s according to Thomas Markle - this is what Markle said:

TM: It was just a loose conversation about something we have to try. There was no real commitment to it.
PM: Do you think he was in favour of it?
TM: I think he was open to the experiment.
I mean, if it’s true (that’s a big if), it’s not really a massive Pro Brexit stance. Reminds me a lot of The Sun’s claim the Queen supported Brexit a few years earlier.

Indeed. It's about as reliable and worthwhile as any of SeanT's rants.

Given .

lol -.

I don't deny the historic links - but their regular all expenses paid trips to the Australia, Canada, NZ and various beautiful Pacific islands, probably trump the fact they are descended from the House of Saxe Coburg!

I think they have to go to these places you mention to stay relevant in the Countries you list.

The problem with fashioning policy in this way is that it is just a reflection of the past, not of the future. Australia, Canada, NZ and various beautiful Pacific islands economic interests are NOT with Britain in the future. Australia and NZ will be trying to forge ever closer links with China and other economies in South East Asia, where as Canada will be looking South, to the USA and Mexico with the caveat of post Trump!

I think the major flaw in Brexit is that it ignores the fact our nearest economic neighbour is Europe. Whilst some areas may look more dynamic, the logistics of trade may be made impractical by distance.

ydoethur said:

rcs1000 said:

Has anyone seen the slightly odd Wilbur Ross (US Commerce Secretary) stories:

It turns out that he failed to divest his assets, as he said he had.

But perhaps more bizarrely, he short sold (i.e. bet on the price going lower) of a shipping firm just before its Russia ties were revealed. Now, I don't want to suggest that the Commerce Secretary was privy to inside information: but what the f*ck was he doing shorting shares anyway? This wasn't a case of "Hey, I'm buying blue chip US companies for my portfolio", it was a case of the Commerce Secretary making a personal bet against a company's share price.

The US answer to the Marconi scandal?

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Recidivist said:

justin124 said:

GIN1138 said:

Just think, if England hadn't been defeated in the 1970 World Cup we might not be leaving the EU now... As Heath might never have become PM in the 1970 UK General Election and so we might never have joined the EEC in the first place...

I think we would . Harold Wilson was already negotiating to gain entry following De Gaulle's resignation in 1969.

It is really hard to see how the UK could have stayed out. The mistake was not getting in at the beginning.

The mistake was joining.

A mistake was not stopping the moves to federalism in the late 1980s and, if the writing really was on the wall, not carving out the UK as an associate to the EU in Maastricht, rather than a full member of it.

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

People keep saying this, but it’s bollocks. There’s a far greater British diaspora in NZ, Australia and Canada, and both nations have or are looking to conclude free trade deals with both the UK and EU.

Further, our security and military cooperation is growing and - as the world economy and geopolitics globalises - that will become ever more important.

Europe is not the future, and the trade proximity argument is a tired and out of date one disproven by even the most cursory look at trade pattern trends.

While Europe - thanks to demographics if nothing else - is not going to be driving export growth for the UK going forward, proximity does matter. There are no automotive supply chains that involve stuff going between Australia and the UK, because the cost of carrying inventory is too high. The EU is on our doorstep, and will likely be larger than the EU, China, the US or our former Empire, as a market for the foreseeable future.

That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.

OldKingCole said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Recidivist said:

justin124 said:

GIN1138 said:

Just think, if England hadn't been defeated in the 1970 World Cup we might not be leaving the EU now... As Heath might never have become PM in the 1970 UK General Election and so we might never have joined the EEC in the first place...

I think we would . Harold Wilson was already negotiating to gain entry following De Gaulle's resignation in 1969.

It is really hard to see how the UK could have stayed out. The mistake was not getting in at the beginning.

The mistake was joining.

A mistake was not stopping the moves to federalism in the late 1980s and, if the writing really was on the wall, not carving out the UK as an associate to the EU in Maastricht, rather than a full member of it.

I suspect that it started to go wrong, especially for the UK, when the East European countries were admitted as full members instead of as ‘associates’ while their economies got up to speed.

kle4 said:

I'm not surprised their Lordships decided to give this particular one another try given what went down in the Commons last week.

For all the outrage some will have at this. if the Commons do indeed accept it this time, which seems to be at least possible, then parliament's will will have been done, in unorthodox fashion. If it is the will of the Commons to say no to this then they will say no again. If it they say yes, then the will of the Commons will have changed.

The questions are if the Commons rebels will take on the government this time, and if they don't (or it is not enough) how much more will the Lords push it?

NickPalmer said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Looks like the options are likely to be no deal, or retaining the costs of membership with few of the benefits. Both would cause ructions.

No, I think the most likely is impenetrable fudge, with the details to be sorted during a transitional period with no legally-binding duration.

Charles said:

The_Apocalypse said:

FPT:

Anazina said:

Casino_Royale said:

SeanT said:

HHAHAHAHAHAH Good to see lots of depressed Remoaners on here tonight, hoping England would lose and we'd all collapse and accept a 2nd referendum, policed by Belgians with watercannons outside the voting booths.

Heh.

Cry God for Harry, Brexit and St George, you treacherous europhile wankers.

+1

Stop being a fucking twat. I have been following England - win or lose - for 35 years.

As I said before, ignore him. Some on this site have been calling Remainers ‘traitors’ now for sometime so this is unsurprising in some respects. I guess behaviour such as what we’ve seen tonight provides yet explanation as why so many of my generation don’t have a good image of the Conservative Party.

Nah - much simpler. Some luck @MaxPB actually believe it when they call you a “traitor”.

@seant is having fun, yanking your chain and probably drunk. Or maybe all three. Enjoy his hyperbole for what it is - until @seant insults you, you’ve not graduated to being a full member of PB..

Mortimer said:

RoyalBlue said:

@Mortimer - you seem tremendously confident that the Government will win on Wednesday. Why? Do you think Grieve talking about bringing down the government will have brought some Tory rebels back? I worry it will reduce the number of Labour rebels.

The partial amendment last week bought a few rebels off - it also makes Grieve look unreasonable, now.

There will be many Labour MPs who don’t want to bring this government down at the moment