politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Three Lions: just maybe
Comments
-
I lost my £2Casino_Royale said:Made a tidy sum trading off the highs and lows of Croatia and Russia on Betfair the last 20 minutes.
have fun with it 0 -
Is there any way either team will recover from this to face England?0
-
So do Croatia give the gloves to one of their outfield players for the shoot-out?0
-
Lets hope not.FrankBooth said:Is there any way either team will recover from this to face England?
0 -
Problem is the players are on their knees too. Anything could happen nextspire2 said:that's Russia through he cant save any penalties he can hardly move
0 -
It does not demolish the cabinet's plan - it simply confirms it. WE will be in the EU SM and CU in all but name.Floater said:Exhibit A
https://order-order.com/2018/07/07/explosive-brexiteer-legal-advice-demolishes-cabinets-plan/
Plan needs to be put in the bin0 -
Some reflections on the Chequers statement:
1. It is a conjurer's sleight of hand. Theresa May gets people to focus on the future relationship while the critical manoeuvre is the Withdrawal Agreement. The Withdrawal Agreement is a hard treaty arrangement. If we don't follow through we can be hauled in front the Court of Settlements in the Hague, whereas the "Political Declaration on the Future Relationship Framework" that the Chequers statement links to is every bit as vague as it sounds.
2. The Future Relationship Framework declaration can therefore be as fudged as we like. It's never going to be the treaty but negotiators might refer to it in post-Brexit negotiations if they feel like it.
3. Chequers tells us the government will sign the Northern Ireland backstop so the WA goes ahead. The government will hope the FRF will give cover and credibility to their claim the NI backstop will never be used.
4. The EU should welcome Chequers in its normal bland Eurospeak as a basis of of a FRF subject to blahblah if it moves the WA forward, which is what really matters. EU people are usually tactful when they are getting their way but Barnier is a bit of a loose cannon and the sheer number of parties involved increases the possibility of a row blowing up.
5. Brexiteers have weakened their position by not devising a credible alternative plan for Brexit that people can rally around. As a Remoaner I can see why they didn't. Nevertheless it's a problem for them.
6. No-one is thinking strategically: neither the Govt, the EU nor Brexiteers. The focus is entirely on staggering through to March 29 next year.
7. Theresa May is stretching the truth on her red lines. So "The UK and the EU would maintain a common rulebook" actually means the UK doing whatever is in the EU rulebook. The CJEU wouldn't rule on UK cases because it never has done, even when the UK was a member - a common misconception.
0 -
They can still waddle.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Problem is the players are on their knees too. Anything could happen nextspire2 said:that's Russia through he cant save any penalties he can hardly move
0 -
Not my best forecast. But how many times have we seen an injured batsman frustrate the opposition? It could happen again.Sandpit said:
You were saying?DavidL said:
May not be a problem. Russia look knackered.Sandpit said:
Ah, so they’d need to use one of the 10 men already on the pitch as the goalie.DavidL said:
They’ve used their 4th sub. If Russia equalise they are stuck with him.Sandpit said:
Surely they’ll sub him at the last minute if he’s genuinely injured. Or maybe he’ll do a Bruce Grobbelaar.DavidL said:So Croatia are going into a penalty shootout with a goalkeeper who has damaged his hamstring. Interesting. In a slightly delusional kind of way.
Edit: could be moot now. Croatia score.
Forgive me, it’s after midnight in the sandpit.0 -
How’d you make the jump from the Chequers statement to 3)?FF43 said:Some reflections on the Chequers statement:
1. It is a conjurer's sleight of hand. Theresa May gets people to focus on the future relationship while the critical manoeuvre is the Withdrawal Agreement. The Withdrawal Agreement is a hard treaty arrangement. If we don't follow through we can be hauled in front the Court of Settlements in the Hague, whereas the "Political Declaration on the Future Relationship Framework" that the Chequers statement links to is every bit as vague as it sounds.
2. The Future Relationship Framework declaration can therefore be as fudged as we like. It's never going to be the treaty but negotiators might refer to it in post-Brexit negotiations if they feel like it.
3. Chequers tells us the government will sign the Northern Ireland backstop so the WA goes ahead. The government will hope the FRF will give cover and credibility to their claim the NI backstop will never be used.
4. The EU should welcome Chequers in its normal bland Eurospeak as a basis of of a FRF subject to blahblah if it moves the WA forward, which is what really matters. EU people are usually tactful when they are getting their way but Barnier is a bit of a loose cannon and the sheer number of parties involved increases the possibility of a row blowing up.
5. Brexiteers have weakened their position by not devising a credible alternative plan for Brexit that people can rally around. As a Remoaner I can see why they didn't. Nevertheless it's a problem for them.
6. No-one is thinking strategically: neither the Govt, the EU nor Brexiteers. The focus is entirely on staggering through to March 29 next year.
7. Theresa May is stretching the truth on her red lines. So "The UK and the EU would maintain a common rulebook" actually means the UK doing whatever is in the EU rulebook. The CJEU wouldn't rule on UK cases because it never has done, even when the UK was a member - a common misconception.0 -
Martin Howe is a QC, but I'm still baffled as to the nature of his instruction.
"Instructing Solicitors ask that you prepare a short memo, briefly opposing everything in the Chequers note"?
It just seems so bizarre to me, as a task. No real depth of analysis, no real action points, no balanced judgments.
0 -
He’s also a pro Brexit activist - http://lawyersforbritain.orgTheWhiteRabbit said:Martin Howe is a QC, but I'm still baffled as to the nature of his instruction.
"Instructing Solicitors ask that you prepare a short memo, briefly opposing everything in the Chequers note"?
It just seems so bizarre to me, as a task. No real depth of analysis, no real action points, no balanced judgments.0 -
It says so in the statement.RobD said:
How’d you make the jump from the Chequers statement to 3)?FF43 said:Some reflections on the Chequers statement:
1. It is a conjurer's sleight of hand. Theresa May gets people to focus on the future relationship while the critical manoeuvre is the Withdrawal Agreement. The Withdrawal Agreement is a hard treaty arrangement. If we don't follow through we can be hauled in front the Court of Settlements in the Hague, whereas the "Political Declaration on the Future Relationship Framework" that the Chequers statement links to is every bit as vague as it sounds.
2. The Future Relationship Framework declaration can therefore be as fudged as we like. It's never going to be the treaty but negotiators might refer to it in post-Brexit negotiations if they feel like it.
3. Chequers tells us the government will sign the Northern Ireland backstop so the WA goes ahead. The government will hope the FRF will give cover and credibility to their claim the NI backstop will never be used.
4. The EU should welcome Chequers in its normal bland Eurospeak as a basis of of a FRF subject to blahblah if it moves the WA forward, which is what really matters. EU people are usually tactful when they are getting their way but Barnier is a bit of a loose cannon and the sheer number of parties involved increases the possibility of a row blowing up.
5. Brexiteers have weakened their position by not devising a credible alternative plan for Brexit that people can rally around. As a Remoaner I can see why they didn't. Nevertheless it's a problem for them.
6. No-one is thinking strategically: neither the Govt, the EU nor Brexiteers. The focus is entirely on staggering through to March 29 next year.
7. Theresa May is stretching the truth on her red lines. So "The UK and the EU would maintain a common rulebook" actually means the UK doing whatever is in the EU rulebook. The CJEU wouldn't rule on UK cases because it never has done, even when the UK was a member - a common misconception.0 -
If Lovren takes one Croatia are out.
He took one for Liverpool and it ended up in orbit.0 -
That they’d agree to a border in the Irish Sea? Must have missed that.williamglenn said:
It says so in the statement.RobD said:
How’d you make the jump from the Chequers statement to 3)?FF43 said:Some reflections on the Chequers statement:
1. It is a conjurer's sleight of hand. Theresa May gets people to focus on the future relationship while the critical manoeuvre is the Withdrawal Agreement. The Withdrawal Agreement is a hard treaty arrangement. If we don't follow through we can be hauled in front the Court of Settlements in the Hague, whereas the "Political Declaration on the Future Relationship Framework" that the Chequers statement links to is every bit as vague as it sounds.
2. The Future Relationship Framework declaration can therefore be as fudged as we like. It's never going to be the treaty but negotiators might refer to it in post-Brexit negotiations if they feel like it.
3. Chequers tells us the government will sign the Northern Ireland backstop so the WA goes ahead. The government will hope the FRF will give cover and credibility to their claim the NI backstop will never be used.
4. The EU should welcome Chequers in its normal bland Eurospeak as a basis of of a FRF subject to blahblah if it moves the WA forward, which is what really matters. EU people are usually tactful when they are getting their way but Barnier is a bit of a loose cannon and the sheer number of parties involved increases the possibility of a row blowing up.
5. Brexiteers have weakened their position by not devising a credible alternative plan for Brexit that people can rally around. As a Remoaner I can see why they didn't. Nevertheless it's a problem for them.
6. No-one is thinking strategically: neither the Govt, the EU nor Brexiteers. The focus is entirely on staggering through to March 29 next year.
7. Theresa May is stretching the truth on her red lines. So "The UK and the EU would maintain a common rulebook" actually means the UK doing whatever is in the EU rulebook. The CJEU wouldn't rule on UK cases because it never has done, even when the UK was a member - a common misconception.0 -
Hurrah, the poisoners are out.0
-
Poor old Vladimir, what a shame0
-
What happened the last time England played three at the back against Croatia?0
-
No it says they’ll sign the backstop. The idea is that it will never come into effect because the future relationship will supersede it, but that won’t be guaranteed until after we leave.RobD said:
That they’d agree to a border in the Irish Sea? Must have missed that.williamglenn said:
It says so in the statement.RobD said:
How’d you make the jump from the Chequers statement to 3)?FF43 said:Some reflections on the Chequers statement:
1. It is a conjurer's sleight of hand. Theresa May gets people to focus on the future relationship while the critical manoeuvre is the Withdrawal Agreement. The Withdrawal Agreement is a hard treaty arrangement. If we don't follow through we can be hauled in front the Court of Settlements in the Hague, whereas the "Political Declaration on the Future Relationship Framework" that the Chequers statement links to is every bit as vague as it sounds.
2. The Future Relationship Framework declaration can therefore be as fudged as we like. It's never going to be the treaty but negotiators might refer to it in post-Brexit negotiations if they feel like it.
3. Chequers tells us the government will sign the Northern Ireland backstop so the WA goes ahead. The government will hope the FRF will give cover and credibility to their claim the NI backstop will never be used.
4. The EU should welcome Chequers in its normal bland Eurospeak as a basis of of a FRF subject to blahblah if it moves the WA forward, which is what really matters. EU people are usually tactful when they are getting their way but Barnier is a bit of a loose cannon and the sheer number of parties involved increases the possibility of a row blowing up.
5. Brexiteers have weakened their position by not devising a credible alternative plan for Brexit that people can rally around. As a Remoaner I can see why they didn't. Nevertheless it's a problem for them.
6. No-one is thinking strategically: neither the Govt, the EU nor Brexiteers. The focus is entirely on staggering through to March 29 next year.
7. Theresa May is stretching the truth on her red lines. So "The UK and the EU would maintain a common rulebook" actually means the UK doing whatever is in the EU rulebook. The CJEU wouldn't rule on UK cases because it never has done, even when the UK was a member - a common misconception.0 -
What this game lacked in quality it more than made up with in drama.0
-
It's in the Chequers statement:RobD said:
How’d you make the jump from the Chequers statement to 3)?
Taken together, we noted that such a relationship would see the UK and the EU meet their commitments to Northern Ireland and Ireland through the overall future relationship: preserving the constitutional and economic integrity of the UK; honouring the letter and the spirit of the Belfast Agreement; and ensuring that the operational legal text the UK will nonetheless agree on the ‘backstop’ solution as part of the Withdrawal Agreement would not need to be brought into effect. In this context, we also noted that this proposal should allow both parties to resolve the remaining Withdrawal Agreement issues, including the ‘backstop’.0 -
Corbyn and Farage can breath easily now.
They won't have split loyalties on Wednesday.0 -
England play Croatia on Wednesday night!0
-
Croatia are not out!TheScreamingEagles said:If Lovren takes one Croatia are out.
He took one for Liverpool and it ended up in orbit.0 -
Ah yes, but aren’t they still negotiating it? Of course they will sign a withdrawal agreement.williamglenn said:
No it says they’ll sign the backstop. The idea is that it will never come into effect because the future relationship will supersede it, but that won’t be guaranteed until after we leave.RobD said:
That they’d agree to a border in the Irish Sea? Must have missed that.williamglenn said:
It says so in the statement.RobD said:
How’d you make the jump from the Chequers statement to 3)?FF43 said:Some reflections on the Chequers statement:
1. It is a conjurer's sleight of hand. Theresa May gets people to focus on the future relationship while the critical manoeuvre is the Withdrawal Agreement. The Withdrawal Agreement is a hard treaty arrangement. If we don't follow through we can be hauled in front the Court of Settlements in the Hague, whereas the "Political Declaration on the Future Relationship Framework" that the Chequers statement links to is every bit as vague as it sounds.
2. The Future Relationship Framework declaration can therefore be as fudged as we like. It's never going to be the treaty but negotiators might refer to it in post-Brexit negotiations if they feel like it.
3. Chequers tells us the government will sign the Northern Ireland backstop so the WA goes ahead. The government will hope the FRF will give cover and credibility to their claim the NI backstop will never be used.
4. The EU should welcome Chequers in its normal bland Eurospeak as a basis of of a FRF subject to blahblah if it moves the WA forward, which is what really matters. EU people are usually tactful when they are getting their way but Barnier is a bit of a loose cannon and the sheer number of parties involved increases the possibility of a row blowing up.
5. Brexiteers have weakened their position by not devising a credible alternative plan for Brexit that people can rally around. As a Remoaner I can see why they didn't. Nevertheless it's a problem for them.
6. No-one is thinking strategically: neither the Govt, the EU nor Brexiteers. The focus is entirely on staggering through to March 29 next year.
7. Theresa May is stretching the truth on her red lines. So "The UK and the EU would maintain a common rulebook" actually means the UK doing whatever is in the EU rulebook. The CJEU wouldn't rule on UK cases because it never has done, even when the UK was a member - a common misconception.0 -
Agree to abackstop, not necessarily the one that is currently on offer I suspect.RobD said:
That they’d agree to a border in the Irish Sea? Must have missed that.williamglenn said:
It says so in the statement.RobD said:
How’d you make the jump from the Chequers statement to 3)?FF43 said:Some reflections on the Chequers statement:
1. It is a conjurer's sleight of hand. Theresa May gets people to focus on the future relationship while the critical manoeuvre is the Withdrawal Agreement. The Withdrawal Agreement is a hard treaty arrangement. If we don't follow through we can be hauled in front the Court of Settlements in the Hague, whereas the "Political Declaration on the Future Relationship Framework" that the Chequers statement links to is every bit as vague as it sounds.
2. The Future Relationship Framework declaration can therefore be as fudged as we like. It's never going to be the treaty but negotiators might refer to it in post-Brexit negotiations if they feel like it.
3. Chequers tells us the government will sign the Northern Ireland backstop so the WA goes ahead. The government will hope the FRF will give cover and credibility to their claim the NI backstop will never be used.
4. The EU should welcome Chequers in its normal bland Eurospeak as a basis of of a FRF subject to blahblah if it moves the WA forward, which is what really matters. EU people are usually tactful when they are getting their way but Barnier is a bit of a loose cannon and the sheer number of parties involved increases the possibility of a row blowing up.
5. Brexiteers have weakened their position by not devising a credible alternative plan for Brexit that people can rally around. As a Remoaner I can see why they didn't. Nevertheless it's a problem for them.
6. No-one is thinking strategically: neither the Govt, the EU nor Brexiteers. The focus is entirely on staggering through to March 29 next year.
7. Theresa May is stretching the truth on her red lines. So "The UK and the EU would maintain a common rulebook" actually means the UK doing whatever is in the EU rulebook. The CJEU wouldn't rule on UK cases because it never has done, even when the UK was a member - a common misconception.
I just struggle to see how the government can sign up to a deal which splits the UK, even if it says it won't be needed. The backstop still needs work.0 -
Is that the match when England's Brave John Terry was injured to play for England yet was fine to play for Chelsea on Saturday?tlg86 said:What happened the last time England played three at the back against Croatia?
0 -
The Russians simply didn't have the nerve (agent) in the end ....0
-
-
Russia out. Good.0
-
Boris has labelled Mrs May's deal 'a big turd'0
-
Feel like we must have at least a 50/50 shot of getting to the final now - Croatia not a terrifying prospect, so perhaps even more like 60/40.0
-
So he is no longer in the Cabinet then? He agreed to it yesterday.TheScreamingEagles said:Boris has labelled Mrs May's deal a 'turd'
0 -
WhereTheScreamingEagles said:Boris has labelled Mrs May's deal 'a big turd'
0 -
Argentina (1990) and Croatia (2018) are the only teams to win shoot-outs twice in the same World Cup0
-
They’re only finalising the definition of which single market rules need full alignment. The UK’s alternative proposal of a UK-wide backstop was comprehensively rejected and the UK is no longer proposing a different idea.RobD said:
Ah yes, but aren’t they still negotiating it? Of course they will sign a withdrawal agreement.williamglenn said:
No it says they’ll sign the backstop. The idea is that it will never come into effect because the future relationship will supersede it, but that won’t be guaranteed until after we leave.RobD said:
That they’d agree to a border in the Irish Sea? Must have missed that.williamglenn said:
It says so in the statement.RobD said:
How’d you make the jump from the Chequers statement to 3)?FF43 said:Some reflections on the Chequers statement:
1. It is a conjurer's sleight of hand. Theresa May gets people to focus on the future relationship while the critical manoeuvre is the Withdrawal Agreement. The Withdrawal Agreement is a hard treaty arrangement. If we don't follow through we can be hauled in front the Court of Settlements in the Hague, whereas the "Political Declaration on the Future Relationship Framework" that the Chequers statement links to is every bit as vague as it sounds.
2. The Future Relationship Framework declaration can therefore be as fudged as we like. It's never going to be the treaty but negotiators might refer to it in post-Brexit negotiations if they feel like it.
3. Chequers tells us the government will sign the Northern Ireland backstop so the WA goes ahead. The government will hope the FRF will give cover and credibility to their claim the NI backstop will never be used.
4. The EU should welcome Chequers in its normal bland Eurospeak as a basis of of a FRF subject to blahblah if it moves the WA forward, which is what really matters. EU people are usually tactful when they are getting their way but Barnier is a bit of a loose cannon and the sheer number of parties involved increases the possibility of a row blowing up.
5. Brexiteers have weakened their position by not devising a credible alternative plan for Brexit that people can rally around. As a Remoaner I can see why they didn't. Nevertheless it's a problem for them.
6. No-one is thinking strategically: neither the Govt, the EU nor Brexiteers. The focus is entirely on staggering through to March 29 next year.
7. Theresa May is stretching the truth on her red lines. So "The UK and the EU would maintain a common rulebook" actually means the UK doing whatever is in the EU rulebook. The CJEU wouldn't rule on UK cases because it never has done, even when the UK was a member - a common misconception.0 -
Even Grieve wouldn’t sign up to the current one.kle4 said:
Agree to abackstop, not necessarily the one that is currently on offer I suspect.RobD said:
That they’d agree to a border in the Irish Sea? Must have missed that.williamglenn said:
It says so in the statement.RobD said:
How’d you make the jump from the Chequers statement to 3)?FF43 said:Some reflections on the Chequers statement:
1. It is a conjurer's sleight of hand. Theresa May gets people to focus on the future relationship while the critical manoeuvre is the Withdrawal Agreement. The Withdrawal Agreement is a hard treaty arrangement. If we don't follow through we can be hauled in front the Court of Settlements in the Hague, whereas the "Political Declaration on the Future Relationship Framework" that the Chequers statement links to is every bit as vague as it sounds.
2. The Future Relationship Framework declaration can therefore be as fudged as we like. It's never going to be the treaty but negotiators might refer to it in post-Brexit negotiations if they feel like it.
3. Chequers tells us the government will sign the Northern Ireland backstop so the WA goes ahead. The government will hope the FRF will give cover and credibility to their claim the NI backstop will never be used.
4. The EU should welcome Chequers in its normal bland Eurospeak as a basis of of a FRF subject to blahblah if it moves the WA forward, which is what really matters. EU people are usually tactful when they are getting their way but Barnier is a bit of a loose cannon and the sheer number of parties involved increases the possibility of a row blowing up.
5. Brexiteers have weakened their position by not devising a credible alternative plan for Brexit that people can rally around. As a Remoaner I can see why they didn't. Nevertheless it's a problem for them.
6. No-one is thinking strategically: neither the Govt, the EU nor Brexiteers. The focus is entirely on staggering through to March 29 next year.
7. Theresa May is stretching the truth on her red lines. So "The UK and the EU would maintain a common rulebook" actually means the UK doing whatever is in the EU rulebook. The CJEU wouldn't rule on UK cases because it never has done, even when the UK was a member - a common misconception.
I just struggle to see how the government can sign up to a deal which splits the UK, even if it says it won't be needed. The backstop still needs work.0 -
TheScreamingEagles said:
Boris has labelled Mrs May's deal 'a big turd'
0 -
Russia out. Hooray!0
-
-
I agree,if England had to face that home advantage crowd for russia,it could have been tricky.SeanT said:Fucking hell. Footie!
England can take Croatia. Indeed they SHOULD.0 -
-
May has just cause to fire him. One can hope....TheScreamingEagles said:Boris has labelled Mrs May's deal 'a big turd'
0 -
Croatia have at least 3 players who could walk into and improve the England team, in Modric’s case significantly so. Some of their other players are a lot more ordinary but this will not be a walk in the park.Alistair said:
If England can't beat this Croatia they should pack in playing football entirely. England are as good as in the final.SeanT said:Fucking hell. Footie!
England can take Croatia. Indeed they SHOULD.
0 -
No, it was the game where McClaren thought it was a good idea to play a back three - a formation not used by any of the Premier League teams at the time. I have a feeling that Carragher was on the left of the three and Gary Neville has used it as an example of what happens when you play someone in that position who isn't very comfortable on the ball.TheScreamingEagles said:
Is that the match when England's Brave John Terry was injured to play for England yet was fine to play for Chelsea on Saturday?tlg86 said:What happened the last time England played three at the back against Croatia?
0 -
So Boris is quoted as saying it was a turd at Chequers, and that anyone defending it would be polishing a turd, but is reported to have backed down.
So can we now ask him how he is getting on with his turd polishing?0 -
So she sacks him then?GIN1138 said:
I guess that will be the real test. If she does, the EU might believe her that this is the best the UK will offer, but if not, then they'll be going for full FOM, CJEU oversight etc.
And they'll get it.0 -
So who do we fancy playing in the 3rd / 4th playoff next weekend ;-)0
-
England can beat this Croatia side. They've been very poor in both of their knock out matches. If this was a qualifier we'd back England to win and the team look like they are playing without pressure.
Still very nervous though, there's always the random factor but I do think we have enough in the tank to win on Wednesday and get to the final, and that's anyone's game.0 -
You can’t polish a turd.kle4 said:So Boris is quoted as saying it was a turd at Chequers, and that anyone defending it would be polishing a turd, but is reported to have backed down.
So can we now ask him how he is getting on with his turd polishing?
You can, however, roll it in glitter...0 -
Give the entire England team a load of viagra between now and Wednesday.
I understand viagra helps you get past a semi.0 -
Evening all
Well, the horse racing results only helped a little as I did my proverbials on England this afternoon. I really didn't think we would beat Sweden and I thought 7/2 the Swedes with Paddy a huge price and went in strong.
I was wrong - I'm not sure it was a classic performance from England and Pickford performed heroics at valuable moments to keep the Swedes out but in truth Sweden were poor and the better side won on the day.
In the 90 minute market Paddy have Croatia at 12/5 and England at 13/10 with 21/10 the draw which I think a knocking price as I think it will be a late evening on Wednesday.
I think the France - Belgium semi-final is too close to call.
0 -
Should take a long look in the mirror if he wants to know what one really looks like.TheScreamingEagles said:Boris has labelled Mrs May's deal 'a big turd'
0 -
As I am sure has been noted before you can polish a turd, you just end up covered in shit from the attempt.RoyalBlue said:
You can’t polish a turd.kle4 said:So Boris is quoted as saying it was a turd at Chequers, and that anyone defending it would be polishing a turd, but is reported to have backed down.
So can we now ask him how he is getting on with his turd polishing?
You can, however, roll it in glitter...0 -
I’m sure this tweet will be well received on here:
https://twitter.com/martinselmayr/status/1015700068433825794?s=210 -
Agreed it is in the EU's court now but we must be ready to prepare for No Deal.kle4 said:
Whether they see sense or just accept some more pragmatism to make it work somehow despite being unacceptable in its current form, it is down to them - May is no doubt telling the EU this is as good as it gets from her, that she cannot do better, and I don't think they believe that to be the case, but she is probably not bluffing about that. Further concessions may not be possible even if May would be prepared to do that.HYUFD said:
I think you are spot on, it is up to the EU now to see senseSeanT said:
At first I thought TMay had managed to find the crap yet miracle deal everyone would grudgingly accept, as being tolerably better than even worse alternatives.Scott_P said:
Now I have severe doubts. The EU *should* say Yes immediately (it's great for them) yet I can see them overplaying their hand, asking for more, and crashing it.
And lots and lots of Tory activists and members are going to hate it. And they will tell their MPs.
Chance of No Deal must now be near 50%?
Personally I think the EU will agree enough has been done for an 18 month transition deal but not for a FTA, with further work on the latter needed until Brexit and through the transition period0 -
I saw a number of croatian players get booked - any suspended for next match do we know ?0
-
Rubbish. Either freeze it or bake it and the task is entirely feasible.kle4 said:
As I am sure has been noted before you can polish a turd, you just end up covered in shit from the attempt.RoyalBlue said:
You can’t polish a turd.kle4 said:So Boris is quoted as saying it was a turd at Chequers, and that anyone defending it would be polishing a turd, but is reported to have backed down.
So can we now ask him how he is getting on with his turd polishing?
You can, however, roll it in glitter...0 -
NEW THREAD
0 -
I'm no Foxy but imo Boris does look as if the air miles are catching up with him.Nigelb said:
Should take a long look in the mirror if he wants to know what one really looks like.TheScreamingEagles said:Boris has labelled Mrs May's deal 'a big turd'
0 -
BBC presenters’ salary report to be published on Wednesday.
A good day to bury bad news?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/07/bbc-stars-say-broadcaster-humiliating-plans-publish-salaries/0 -
France and Croatia.FrancisUrquhart said:So who do we fancy playing in the 3rd / 4th playoff next weekend ;-)
0 -
If England does make it to the final, has anything been said about whether any of our great and good will be attending?0
-
Yep.Theuniondivvie said:If England does make it to the final, has anything been said about whether any of our great and good will be attending?
Ron Liddle has indicated his acceptance to Pres.Putin.
(it's all in your Spectator subscription.)0
