politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Trump bothers to read UK polls he won’t be pleased about ho

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

OblitusSumMe said:

rkrkrk said:

david_herdson said:

The question then is where do you draw the line (literally).

Leave aside that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia wanted to be in the EU, Nato and Eurozone - for good reason - and were accepted.

If we accept that they're really in Moscow's sphere of influence, then where else do we accept it - and to what consequences? Ukraine? The Caucasus states? Poland? Bulgaria? East Germany? As Stalin observed at Potsdam on being congratulated on the Red Army having reached Berlin, "Tsar Alexander got to Paris".

It's a good question. My view would be less on geography than on political regime.
We should act to defend democracy as far as we can.

I agree with that - and I also think we need to defend our word. If we have given a commitment to defend a place, as with other NATO members, then our word loses credibility if we step back from that commitment.

I don't disagree but the price of keeping our word may just be a lot higher if we don't have the US backing us than it was before.

And to be frank, unless France and the UK give their words and mean it, the rest are probably not going to swing it.

Being willing to defend the Baltic States does not cost us (or other NATO States) very much. The modern Russian Army is a shadow of the Red Army of 1945.

In general I'd say that not defending an ally increases the price we have to pay (in blood and money) to defend an ally in the future.

I think that the risk is that we will see a repeat of Ukraine with the largish Russian minorities "spontaneously" rebelling in a remarkably organised and well equipped way, almost as if they were trained soldiers. Will we send our soldiers into that?

The Russian minorities in the Baltic states simply aren't that big anymore.

https://thetradenews.com/esma-warns-uk-firms-planning-relocate-no-deal-brexit/

Jonathan said:

Anorak said:

Beverley_C said:

TOPPING said:

My observations so far - just read down to the Framework for mobility. Note that in financial services the UK is saying, effectively, you need us as much as if not more than we need you. We shall see how that is received.

These are all quotes from the document which I believe are noteworthy.

... Long list of cherry picks snipped...

I know someone on here was keeping track of fresh fruit at the supermarket, but it seems No 10 loves cherries and picking them.

Perhaps a solution for the strawberry harvest beckons and we can convert a bunch of useless politicans to productive members of society and keep Tescos and Sainbury stocked with fruit.

Win win win ...

Right now I think the only use for our political class is in Soylent Green.

Are you seriously advocating chowing down on Michael Gove.

That diet, consuming very little brain and no backbone, would at least avoid BSE risks.

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

OblitusSumMe said:

rkrkrk said:

david_herdson said:

The question then is where do you draw the line (literally).

Leave aside that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia wanted to be in the EU, Nato and Eurozone - for good reason - and were accepted.

If we accept that they're really in Moscow's sphere of influence, then where else do we accept it - and to what consequences? Ukraine? The Caucasus states? Poland? Bulgaria? East Germany? As Stalin observed at Potsdam on being congratulated on the Red Army having reached Berlin, "Tsar Alexander got to Paris".

It's a good question. My view would be less on geography than on political regime.
We should act to defend democracy as far as we can.

I agree with that - and I also think we need to defend our word. If we have given a commitment to defend a place, as with other NATO members, then our word loses credibility if we step back from that commitment.

I don't disagree but the price of keeping our word may just be a lot higher if we don't have the US backing us than it was before.

And to be frank, unless France and the UK give their words and mean it, the rest are probably not going to swing it.

Being willing to defend the Baltic States does not cost us (or other NATO States) very much. The modern Russian Army is a shadow of the Red Army of 1945.

In general I'd say that not defending an ally increases the price we have to pay (in blood and money) to defend an ally in the future.

I think that the risk is that we will see a repeat of Ukraine with the largish Russian minorities "spontaneously" rebelling in a remarkably organised and well equipped way, almost as if they were trained soldiers. Will we send our soldiers into that?

The Russian minorities in the Baltic states simply aren't that big anymore.

Still about 1m. And given the falls in the populations of the Baltic States anyway by FOM is it really that much less?

It was always obvious that as soon as Brexit meant something it would be rejected.

Alistair said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

From another PB, well they've ruined Livin' La Vida Loca.

Skip this post if you're eating or drinking, particularly Lucozade.

>> Drippy Martin

Between drinking Lucozade and golden showers, it's a close call as to which is more disgusting.

Iron Bru?

#LazyScottishStereotyping

It's disgusting since they changed the formula. Undrinkable.

You mean it wasn’t disgusting and undrinkable before?

DavidL said:

And that's the match. I am going to the third ODI. I hope its not a dead rubber.

I had tickets for that match and was gutted I had to miss that match because I had to go to Frankfurt for work.

Now I’m less gutted.

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

OblitusSumMe said:

rkrkrk said:

david_herdson said:

The question then is where do you draw the line (literally).

Leave aside that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia wanted to be in the EU, Nato and Eurozone - for good reason - and were accepted.

If we accept that they're really in Moscow's sphere of influence, then where else do we accept it - and to what consequences? Ukraine? The Caucasus states? Poland? Bulgaria? East Germany? As Stalin observed at Potsdam on being congratulated on the Red Army having reached Berlin, "Tsar Alexander got to Paris".

It's a good question. My view would be less on geography than on political regime.
We should act to defend democracy as far as we can.

I agree with that - and I also think we need to defend our word. If we have given a commitment to defend a place, as with other NATO members, then our word loses credibility if we step back from that commitment.

I don't disagree but the price of keeping our word may just be a lot higher if we don't have the US backing us than it was before.

And to be frank, unless France and the UK give their words and mean it, the rest are probably not going to swing it.

Being willing to defend the Baltic States does not cost us (or other NATO States) very much. The modern Russian Army is a shadow of the Red Army of 1945.

In general I'd say that not defending an ally increases the price we have to pay (in blood and money) to defend an ally in the future.

I think that the risk is that we will see a repeat of Ukraine with the largish Russian minorities "spontaneously" rebelling in a remarkably organised and well equipped way, almost as if they were trained soldiers. Will we send our soldiers into that?

The Russian minorities in the Baltic states simply aren't that big anymore.

Still about 1m. And given the falls in the populations of the Baltic States anyway by FOM is it really that much less?

The ethnic Russian population has dropped by far more than the ethnic Baltic populations.

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

OblitusSumMe said:

rkrkrk said:

david_herdson said:

The question then is where do you draw the line (literally).

Leave aside that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia wanted to be in the EU, Nato and Eurozone - for good reason - and were accepted.

If we accept that they're really in Moscow's sphere of influence, then where else do we accept it - and to what consequences? Ukraine? The Caucasus states? Poland? Bulgaria? East Germany? As Stalin observed at Potsdam on being congratulated on the Red Army having reached Berlin, "Tsar Alexander got to Paris".

It's a good question. My view would be less on geography than on political regime.
We should act to defend democracy as far as we can.

I agree with that - and I also think we need to defend our word. If we have given a commitment to defend a place, as with other NATO members, then our word loses credibility if we step back from that commitment.

I don't disagree but the price of keeping our word may just be a lot higher if we don't have the US backing us than it was before.

And to be frank, unless France and the UK give their words and mean it, the rest are probably not going to swing it.

Being willing to defend the Baltic States does not cost us (or other NATO States) very much. The modern Russian Army is a shadow of the Red Army of 1945.

In general I'd say that not defending an ally increases the price we have to pay (in blood and money) to defend an ally in the future.

I think that the risk is that we will see a repeat of Ukraine with the largish Russian minorities "spontaneously" rebelling in a remarkably organised and well equipped way, almost as if they were trained soldiers. Will we send our soldiers into that?

The Russian minorities in the Baltic states simply aren't that big anymore.

Still about 1m. And given the falls in the populations of the Baltic States anyway by FOM is it really that much less?

The ethnic Russian population has dropped by far more than the ethnic Baltic populations.

I seem to remember that proportionally more of the Baltic ethnic Russians emigrated after accession to the EU with freedom of movement.

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

And that's the match. I am going to the third ODI. I hope its not a dead rubber.

I had tickets for that match and was gutted I had to miss that match because I had to go to Frankfurt for work.

Now I’m less gutted.

Even at 10 an over from here they are going to be short. It looks more like 250. So unless they bowl the very strong Indian batting line up out they are toast.

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1017415566129127425

Anazina said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Can't stand Tennent's Lager either, but I approve this message.

https://twitter.com/TennentsLager/status/1017358186523889664

I'm taking this campaign too literally but just to point out that Trumpton is teetotal!

Is drinking Tennents lager and being teetotal incompatible?

My current heroine Stormy Daniels arrested. Trumped up charges if you'll excuse the pun. A courageous woman in my opinion and one who wont be bought off

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/12/stormy-daniels-arrested-in-columbus-ohio-while-performing-avenatti.html

Roger said:

My current heroine Stormy Daniels arrested. Trumped up charges if you'll excuse the pun. A courageous woman in my opinion and one who wont be bought off

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/12/stormy-daniels-arrested-in-columbus-ohio-while-performing-avenatti.html

I thought her whole business model was to be bought off?

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1017415566129127425

Reads like he's keen on Stayin' Alive and in a job.

TOPPING said:

Roger said:

My current heroine Stormy Daniels arrested. Trumped up charges if you'll excuse the pun. A courageous woman in my opinion and one who wont be bought off

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/12/stormy-daniels-arrested-in-columbus-ohio-while-performing-avenatti.html

I thought her whole business model was to be bought off?

Bought Off or Brought Off?

SandyRentool said:

TOPPING said:

Roger said:

My current heroine Stormy Daniels arrested. Trumped up charges if you'll excuse the pun. A courageous woman in my opinion and one who wont be bought off

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/12/stormy-daniels-arrested-in-columbus-ohio-while-performing-avenatti.html

I thought her whole business model was to be bought off?

Bought Off or Brought Off?

Yes and yes.

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1017405464345104384/photo/1

An idle musing: could we end up with a chaotic scenario, electorally?

Say May gets her "It's a proper departure, honest" deal through both the Commons and the Euroland Empire. So it happens.

And people are pissed. UKIP comes roaring back, either itself or the sentiment via a new Farage-Banks vehicle. It's not going to sweep the board but we're looking at a 2015 type scenario, with contention in some seats and strong second places elsewhere.

Cui bono?

If UKIP gobbles up the hardline sceptical vote, who does that disadvantage and who benefits? Because for all Cameron's fears, it gave Labour the biggest kicking in 2015.

Of course, Labour now is a different beast. It used to be led by an ethnic Jew, for a start. Now it's got a problem with anti-semitism and its leader is a self-declared friend of Hamas and Hezbollah, who prefers to take the word of the Russian state over his own (and the international consensus).

The Conservatives also have a very poor leader who, unlike Corbyn, is also the worst campaigner since Moltke completely buggered Schlieffen's plan for the Western Front [and yes, I am making a modern historical comparison. Behold!].

Neither main party likes their leadership. Both main parties are riven with dissent. Both are polling really highly and have been for months.

We're in a strange democratic position.

SandyRentool said:

CarlottaVance said:

Everything's going so well...

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1017403045246693376

Clearly an opportunity for a young, dynamic Macronesque LibDem leader to capture the political momentum.

Step forward..... er..... OK, never mind.

Layla Moran.

Morris_Dancer said:

An idle musing: could we end up with a chaotic scenario, electorally?

Say May gets her "It's a proper departure, honest" deal through both the Commons and the Euroland Empire. So it happens.

And people are pissed. UKIP comes roaring back, either itself or the sentiment via a new Farage-Banks vehicle. It's not going to sweep the board but we're looking at a 2015 type scenario, with contention in some seats and strong second places elsewhere.

Cui bono?

If UKIP gobbles up the hardline sceptical vote, who does that disadvantage and who benefits? Because for all Cameron's fears, it gave Labour the biggest kicking in 2015.

Of course, Labour now is a different beast. It used to be led by an ethnic Jew, for a start. Now it's got a problem with anti-semitism and its leader is a self-declared friend of Hamas and Hezbollah, who prefers to take the word of the Russian state over his own (and the international consensus).

The Conservatives also have a very poor leader who, unlike Corbyn, is also the worst campaigner since Moltke completely buggered Schlieffen's plan for the Western Front [and yes, I am making a modern historical comparison. Behold!].

Neither main party likes their leadership. Both main parties are riven with dissent. Both are polling really highly and have been for months.

We're in a strange democratic position.

The Tories won't let May fight another election.

SandyRentool said:

TOPPING said:

Roger said:

My current heroine Stormy Daniels arrested. Trumped up charges if you'll excuse the pun. A courageous woman in my opinion and one who wont be bought off

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/12/stormy-daniels-arrested-in-columbus-ohio-while-performing-avenatti.html

I thought her whole business model was to be bought off?

Bought Off or Brought Off?

Isn’t she the one doing the bringing off, or was that just the videos I saw?

Morris_Dancer said:

An idle musing: could we end up with a chaotic scenario, electorally?
...
Neither main party likes their leadership. Both main parties are riven with dissent. Both are polling really highly and have been for months.

We're in a strange democratic position.

Your scenario sounds very similar to one I posted last night.

OblitusSumMe said:

It was surprising at the last election to see both the Tories and Labour exceed 40% of the vote, the first time that had happened since 1970.

It seems outlandish now, but I'm wondering whether both parties will poll less than 30% if the next GE is in 2022.

You could have a resurgent Farage electoral vehicle. The Lib Dems might emerge from the overhang of their Coalition punishment. Die-hard Remainers would see that Corbyn had betrayed them. If both the Tories and Labour look weak the necessity to vote for either to keep the other out recedes. We might discover that much of the polling boost for Labour in 2017 was to prevent Theresa from winning a landslide to give her quasi-dictatorial power and that Corbyn is actually a mediocre campaigner.

Electoral Calculus with Labour and Tories tied on 29.5% also has them tied on 273 seats...

Anorak said:

Oh dear. I see Paul Mason has been accused of assaulting Jewish protesters in the Netherlands.

A couple of days ago he was accusing pro-EU campaigners of being a part of a covert plot to suppress the Labour vote. Complete nutter.

SandyRentool said:

CarlottaVance said:

Everything's going so well...

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1017403045246693376

Clearly an opportunity for a young, dynamic Macronesque LibDem leader to capture the political momentum.

Step forward..... er..... OK, never mind.

You obviously meant to say "Lembit Opik."

currystar said:

El_Capitano said:

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1017405464345104384/photo/1

No Deal then

Or no leaving.

david_herdson said:

currystar said:

El_Capitano said:

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1017405464345104384/photo/1

No Deal then

The 'well-placed Brussels official' is still only the servant of the European Council in this matter, if that. If the EU takes its leadership from Varadkar - and he's been instrumental in that role so far - then its directions to Barnier might yet change.

That said, I stand by my comments from my Saturday piece that the Chequers Deal, and the White Paper leading from it, are close to a straw man: it was produced in the full knowledge that Brussels was likely to knock it back. Perhaps they won't, in which case, great. But if they do then the negotiations have nowhere to go.

The Governing Body described in the White Paper looks an awful lot like "The EU". But in the WP terms, presumably each side would have one vote rather than 1/28th of a vote. Wonder what the EU will make of that.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1017427775349813248

This surely is a dog bites man story?

CarlottaVance said:

SandyRentool said:

CarlottaVance said:

Everything's going so well...

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1017403045246693376

Clearly an opportunity for a young, dynamic Macronesque LibDem leader to capture the political momentum.

Step forward..... er..... OK, never mind.

Mind you, we forget Tony Blair had a net 'satisfied' (slightly different question) of -33 in June 2004....

I don't forget. I remember that Gordon Brown came to his rescue and spent his political capital on winning the 2005 GE. Precious little thanks did he get for it from Blairites afterwards.

Edit: And there's no Gordon Brown figure to ride to Theresa May's rescue.

Recidivist said:

currystar said:

El_Capitano said:

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1017405464345104384/photo/1

No Deal then

Or no leaving.

Staying in means rescinding Article 50. As I understand, that would require the agreement of the other EU27. What will they want in return? Giving up the rebate? Adopting the Euro? Giving up NI? Giving up Gibraltar? Any government that tried that would be dragged out into the streets

currystar said:

grabcocque said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Morris_Dancer said:

An idle musing: could we end up with a chaotic scenario, electorally?

Say May gets her "It's a proper departure, honest" deal through both the Commons and the Euroland Empire. So it happens.

And people are pissed. UKIP comes roaring back, either itself or the sentiment via a new Farage-Banks vehicle. It's not going to sweep the board but we're looking at a 2015 type scenario, with contention in some seats and strong second places elsewhere.

Cui bono?

If UKIP gobbles up the hardline sceptical vote, who does that disadvantage and who benefits? Because for all Cameron's fears, it gave Labour the biggest kicking in 2015.

Of course, Labour now is a different beast. It used to be led by an ethnic Jew, for a start. Now it's got a problem with anti-semitism and its leader is a self-declared friend of Hamas and Hezbollah, who prefers to take the word of the Russian state over his own (and the international consensus).

The Conservatives also have a very poor leader who, unlike Corbyn, is also the worst campaigner since Moltke completely buggered Schlieffen's plan for the Western Front [and yes, I am making a modern historical comparison. Behold!].

Neither main party likes their leadership. Both main parties are riven with dissent. Both are polling really highly and have been for months.

We're in a strange democratic position.

The Tories won't let May fight another election.

If May survives this year she certainly won't survive the next. You don't betray your own party on this scale and expect no retribution.

The EU will not accept what she proposes despite her "betrayal" of her party hence it will be no deal anyway

Why would it be no deal? Why wouldn't May concede again and again like she already has?

grabcocque said:

One of the persistent delusions that Brexiteers had that has been brutally shattered by this process was the belief that the UK would be able to divide and conquer the national interests of member states to get a cherry picked deal.

There's not been the slightest shred of evidence of any member state in the EU27 wobbling on that. They agreed to a strategy 18 months ago and they're damn well sticking to it.

The government will get its BRINO but only when it fudges adequately on the four freedoms, the customs union and ECJ jurisdiction.

There's been no need for the 27 to budge as the UK has been divided and conquered time and again.

Mr. Scotland, my understanding is that, unlike Schengen/eurozone opt-outs, the rebate is not included in a treaty and therefore would fall by the wayside.

Philip_Thompson said:

currystar said:

grabcocque said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Morris_Dancer said:

An idle musing: could we end up with a chaotic scenario, electorally?

Say May gets her "It's a proper departure, honest" deal through both the Commons and the Euroland Empire. So it happens.

And people are pissed. UKIP comes roaring back, either itself or the sentiment via a new Farage-Banks vehicle. It's not going to sweep the board but we're looking at a 2015 type scenario, with contention in some seats and strong second places elsewhere.

Cui bono?

If UKIP gobbles up the hardline sceptical vote, who does that disadvantage and who benefits? Because for all Cameron's fears, it gave Labour the biggest kicking in 2015.

Of course, Labour now is a different beast. It used to be led by an ethnic Jew, for a start. Now it's got a problem with anti-semitism and its leader is a self-declared friend of Hamas and Hezbollah, who prefers to take the word of the Russian state over his own (and the international consensus).

The Conservatives also have a very poor leader who, unlike Corbyn, is also the worst campaigner since Moltke completely buggered Schlieffen's plan for the Western Front [and yes, I am making a modern historical comparison. Behold!].

Neither main party likes their leadership. Both main parties are riven with dissent. Both are polling really highly and have been for months.

We're in a strange democratic position.

The Tories won't let May fight another election.

If May survives this year she certainly won't survive the next. You don't betray your own party on this scale and expect no retribution.

The EU will not accept what she proposes despite her "betrayal" of her party hence it will be no deal anyway

Why would it be no deal? Why wouldn't May concede again and again like she already has?

She has no space left. She'll be no confidenced if she concedes any significant ground from here. My reading is that a lot of MPs (and cabinet ministers) are prepared to give this a shot as a last offer but won't go further.

Philip_Thompson said:

currystar said:

grabcocque said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Morris_Dancer said:

An idle musing: could we end up with a chaotic scenario, electorally?

Say May gets her "It's a proper departure, honest" deal through both the Commons and the Euroland Empire. So it happens.

And people are pissed. UKIP comes roaring back, either itself or the sentiment via a new Farage-Banks vehicle. It's not going to sweep the board but we're looking at a 2015 type scenario, with contention in some seats and strong second places elsewhere.

Cui bono?

If UKIP gobbles up the hardline sceptical vote, who does that disadvantage and who benefits? Because for all Cameron's fears, it gave Labour the biggest kicking in 2015.

Of course, Labour now is a different beast. It used to be led by an ethnic Jew, for a start. Now it's got a problem with anti-semitism and its leader is a self-declared friend of Hamas and Hezbollah, who prefers to take the word of the Russian state over his own (and the international consensus).

The Conservatives also have a very poor leader who, unlike Corbyn, is also the worst campaigner since Moltke completely buggered Schlieffen's plan for the Western Front [and yes, I am making a modern historical comparison. Behold!].

Neither main party likes their leadership. Both main parties are riven with dissent. Both are polling really highly and have been for months.

We're in a strange democratic position.

The Tories won't let May fight another election.

If May survives this year she certainly won't survive the next. You don't betray your own party on this scale and expect no retribution.

The EU will not accept what she proposes despite her "betrayal" of her party hence it will be no deal anyway

Why would it be no deal? Why wouldn't May concede again and again like she already has?

She simply can't, she would lose a confidence vote. Its either the white paper or no deal.

david_herdson said:

Ireland is, however, critical to this whole thing though and in a much more powerful position than usual because of it, partly because of its natural interests, which are way more tied up with the UK than, say, Hungary's are, and partly because the rest of the EU has a lot of other things to take their attention and so will defer to those who are more closely involved.

Yes, the Commission is leading and I expect Barnier to be negative abuot the White Paper. That's why it's essential that No 10 and the FO get round the capitals ASAP to sell the benefits of the deal, going over the heads of the Commission as necessary. As you say, the Commission is working to the EU27's agenda. This deal will only work if the EU27's agenda changes.

In the scenario where the EU27 persuade Barnier not to trash the white paper, that just leaves us with a fluffy political declaration to get past March 2019, and then we'd immediately be back up against the clock but this time excluded from the institutions, and they can then delve into the detail and salami slice it back to the full four freedoms within an Association Agreement.

Sandpit said:

we announce that we are starting to spend the £39bn at £1bn/week until a deal gets done.

on tinned goods and generators to keep the light on...

And the insanity of the "no dealers" continues

Sandpit said:

Hence my previous suggestion that unless we quickly get a deal/no-deal response, we announce that we are starting to spend the £39bn at £1bn/week until a deal gets done.

Have you already put in a bid for some of that money? How many people with DExEU connections would be in line for a few million for the No Deal war effort if we did that?

currystar said:

So what do you suggest happens now?

What should happen, or what will happen?

https://twitter.com/TheresaMEP/status/1017434800922284040

Sandpit said:

grabcocque said:

Sandpit said:

david_herdson said:

currystar said:

El_Capitano said:

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1017405464345104384/photo/1

No Deal then

The 'well-placed Brussels official' is still only the servant of the European Council in this matter, if that. If the EU takes its leadership from Varadkar - and he's been instrumental in that role so far - then its directions to Barnier might yet change.

That said, I stand by my comments from my Saturday piece that the Chequers Deal, and the White Paper leading from it, are close to a straw man: it was produced in the full knowledge that Brussels was likely to knock it back. Perhaps they won't, in which case, great. But if they do then the negotiations have nowhere to go.

With the publication of the White Paper the ball is now in the EU’s court. If they think they can work on a deal from here then great, but if they can’t then we need to agree quickly that that’s the case, so we can spend the next nine months working through the exit strategy to keep planes flying and goods moving around.

It's not in the EU's interests to move quickly on this. It's in the EU's interests to run down the clock to turn the thumbscrews on May and let the panic build.

Of course it is. Hence my previous suggestion that unless we quickly get a deal/no-deal response, we announce that we are starting to spend the £39bn at £1bn/week until a deal gets done.

Surely the deal has to be approved by the EU Parliament - that won't be quick.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/TheresaMEP/status/1017434800922284040

What is the source of those stats? On what basis were they prepared? Over what timescale? What assumptions are made about positive action taken by UK government to support business moving to WTO (Corporation Tax cuts, Investment Allowances, NI holidays, etc).

Without that, the graph is as much use as a chocolate teapot.

david_herdson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Herdson, she may end up facing such a vote anyway, but I agree if she gives more ground it becomes nigh on certain.

True - though I think that were she to have faced a VoNC based on the Chequers agreement, we'd know by now. I think the most dangerous time was between Boris' resignation and the 1922 cttee meeting. That said, if something comes out in the WP that makes it look like MPs have been duped, it's game on again.

Oddly, I think the most dangerous time was actually a couple of weeks earlier. Imagine what would have happened if Boris had regretfully resigned over Heathrow, in a dignified way which didn't look opportunistic (although it would have been, of course). He'd then have been free to lay into the White Paper from the back benches, without looking a complete shyster.

Rather pleasingly, he seems to have knifed himself in the back. What a shame.

Richard_Nabavi said:

david_herdson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Herdson, she may end up facing such a vote anyway, but I agree if she gives more ground it becomes nigh on certain.

True - though I think that were she to have faced a VoNC based on the Chequers agreement, we'd know by now. I think the most dangerous time was between Boris' resignation and the 1922 cttee meeting. That said, if something comes out in the WP that makes it look like MPs have been duped, it's game on again.

Oddly, I think the most dangerous time was actually a couple of weeks earlier. Imagine what would have happened if Boris had regretfully resigned over Heathrow, in a dignified way which didn't look opportunistic (although it would have been, of course). He'd then have been free to lay into the White Paper from the back benches, without looking a complete shyster.

Rather pleasingly, he seems to have knifed himself in the back. What a shame.

Interesting, Conservative voters are now evenly split as to whether he's an asset or liability.

Scott_P said:

currystar said:

What should happen?

Honesty from politicians.

Sanctions for dishonesty.

Public Enquiry.

Another vote, or votes.

And before the "if it goes the same way crowd" start, it can't go "the same way" because unicorns and rainbows will not be on the ballot next time.

so the remain option won't be falsely claimed as no further and ever closer union with EU?