politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why I’m expecting Boris to fail in his bid to be Theresa May’s

another_richard said:

DavidL said:

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

hamiltonace said:

Been searching for comments on Apple becoming a trillion dollar company. I guess this event may not be seen as political but maybe it should. The world is changing and our government doesn't really seem to have a plan.

The average age of my staff is dropping fast as we adopt more technology at my company. I am not sure we realise how dependent we are on the youth of the country. Yet we virtually ignore them politically

I made a couple but personally I found Amazon UK's derisory tax bill more inflammatory and political. The power of the FAAMGs is indeed a concern for all governments. They make Standard Oil in its pomp look like a corner shop.

Whilst a company can legally claim it has one corporate structure to country A and a different structure to company B these kind of shenanigans will continue.

Not even country-by-country reporting can stop this, only global harmonisation/info sharing on declared corporate structures.

£8bn of UK sales being booked in Luxemburg seems to me an obvious place to start. Profits are being diverted from where they are generated to our very considerable cost. Amazon's bill should have been 100x what it was.

New law - for every ten migrant workers a business employs it has to fund a new house being built.

For multinationals reduce to every five workers, for workers being paid under average earnings reduce to every two workers.

Philip_Thompson said:

another_richard said:

DavidL said:

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

hamiltonace said:

Been searching for comments on Apple becoming a trillion dollar company. I guess this event may not be seen as political but maybe it should. The world is changing and our government doesn't really seem to have a plan.

The average age of my staff is dropping fast as we adopt more technology at my company. I am not sure we realise how dependent we are on the youth of the country. Yet we virtually ignore them politically

I made a couple but personally I found Amazon UK's derisory tax bill more inflammatory and political. The power of the FAAMGs is indeed a concern for all governments. They make Standard Oil in its pomp look like a corner shop.

Whilst a company can legally claim it has one corporate structure to country A and a different structure to company B these kind of shenanigans will continue.

Not even country-by-country reporting can stop this, only global harmonisation/info sharing on declared corporate structures.

£8bn of UK sales being booked in Luxemburg seems to me an obvious place to start. Profits are being diverted from where they are generated to our very considerable cost. Amazon's bill should have been 100x what it was.

New law - for every ten migrant workers a business employs it has to fund a new house being built.

For multinationals reduce to every five workers, for workers being paid under average earnings reduce to every two workers.

What's that got to do with profits being booked overseas?

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/euanmccolm/status/1026040495137611776

archer101au said:

Barnesian said:

A good explanation of the position of a hard Brexiteer. It makes sense from that point of view. But a hard Brexit (or a no deal) does not have the numbers in Parliament.

I suspect many Brexiteers are concerned that Brexit is losing momentum, that there is a growing chance of a second referendum and staying in, and that anything that gets us over the line on 29 March next year (even a BINO) is preferable to that. So they will support May. I think there are more of this type of Brexiteer among Tory MPs than the hard type.

It has been said before - no deal does not need any numbers in Parliament. No other deal has the numbers either, and no deal is what happens if nothing else takes its place. Parliament cannot negotiate nor approve a deal that does not exist. I simply don’t believe that Labour will suddenly decide to come together and support some kind of EEA dream deal - they have no reason to and Corbyn doesn’t want it.

There is only going to be May’s deal (eg a much sold out version of Chequers) and a vote for or against. I think she will lose this vote. When she does she will resign.

ydoethur said:

bigjohnowls said:

Surely Tom Watson should have brought up Corbyn murdering the non existent pet rabbit.

We're talking about Brexit (like bloody always) and suddenly go to pet rabbits being killed.

That seems a strange non-sequitur BJO.

Is it a reference to that Venezuelan campaign by Maduro getting people to farm rabbits for food?

archer101au said:

The public will be livid if she pays that sort of money and does not get a trade deal.

archer101au said:

Foxy said:

archer101au said:

Barnesian said:

A good explanation of the position of a hard Brexiteer. It makes sense from that point of view. But a hard Brexit (or a no deal) does not have the numbers in Parliament.

I suspect many Brexiteers are concerned that Brexit is losing momentum, that there is a growing chance of a second referendum and staying in, and that anything that gets us over the line on 29 March next year (even a BINO) is preferable to that. So they will support May. I think there are more of this type of Brexiteer among Tory MPs than the hard type.

It has been said before - no deal does not need any numbers in Parliament. No other deal has the numbers either, and no deal is what happens if nothing else takes its place. Parliament cannot negotiate nor approve a deal that does not exist. I simply don’t believe that Labour will suddenly decide to come together and support some kind of EEA dream deal - they have no reason to and Corbyn doesn’t want it.

There is only going to be May’s deal (eg a much sold out version of Chequers) and a vote for or against. I think she will lose this vote. When she does she will resign.

The other likely possibility is Transition to be agreed as per last December, but with no agreed final destination. This kicks the can down the road for 21 extra monthe of gripping PB discussions.

I call this Limbo Brexit, and it could be agreed by EEA Leavers, and No Dealers as it keeps both options open, but with time for the latter to finally pull their finger out over preparations.

No, doesn’t work for Leavers at all. This involves accepting the NI Backstop which makes any FTA impossible as well as paying 40bn for nothing. There is no way the EU will ever agree an FTA when they have the money and the backstop. The public will be livid if she pays that sort of money and does not get a trade deal.

bigjohnowls said:

ydoethur said:

bigjohnowls said:

Surely Tom Watson should have brought up Corbyn murdering the non existent pet rabbit.

We're talking about Brexit (like bloody always) and suddenly go to pet rabbits being killed.

That seems a strange non-sequitur BJO.

Is it a reference to that Venezuelan campaign by Maduro getting people to farm rabbits for food?

https://twitter.com/thesundaysport/status/863487783590961153?lang=en

ydoethur said:

bigjohnowls said:

ydoethur said:

bigjohnowls said:

Surely Tom Watson should have brought up Corbyn murdering the non existent pet rabbit.

We're talking about Brexit (like bloody always) and suddenly go to pet rabbits being killed.

That seems a strange non-sequitur BJO.

Is it a reference to that Venezuelan campaign by Maduro getting people to farm rabbits for food?

https://twitter.com/thesundaysport/status/863487783590961153?lang=en

Ah, I see. I am intrigued though;

1) Given it is the Sunday Sport, is this some kind of euphemism, and if so for what?

2) I would not have thought a gentleman of taste, intelligence and wit - such as yourself - would read the Sunday Sport. How the f*** did you come across it?

Dura_Ace said:

archer101au said:

The public will be livid if she pays that sort of money and does not get a trade deal.

Most of the public have had their cognitive faculties rotted by SSRIs, reality TV and refined sugar. They neither know nor care to find out about trade deals, backstops and all the rest of the bollocks. As long there is a perception that FoM is halted that will be enough Brexit for the great unsoaped.

Benpointer said:

Beverley_C said:

grabcocque said:

... so Newton has just gone down in history as genius and massive pain in the arse.

Which, of course, is exactly what he was.

Genuises are often very, very driven people and I suspect that a high proportion of them are/were autistic in some way (and I say that as someone with a daughter who has Aspergers)

He may have been a massive PITA but must be a contender for the (subjective) title of greatest ever scientist?

[Stands back an awaits the howls of protest...]

bigjohnowls said:

ydoethur said:

bigjohnowls said:

ydoethur said:

bigjohnowls said:

Surely Tom Watson should have brought up Corbyn murdering the non existent pet rabbit.

We're talking about Brexit (like bloody always) and suddenly go to pet rabbits being killed.

That seems a strange non-sequitur BJO.

Is it a reference to that Venezuelan campaign by Maduro getting people to farm rabbits for food?

https://twitter.com/thesundaysport/status/863487783590961153?lang=en

Ah, I see. I am intrigued though;

1) Given it is the Sunday Sport, is this some kind of euphemism, and if so for what?

2) I would not have thought a gentleman of taste, intelligence and wit - such as yourself - would read the Sunday Sport. How the f*** did you come across it?

I am Freddie Stars nutritionist!!

David_Evershed said:

HYUFD said:

Indigo1 said:

kle4 said:

Rexel56 said:

Boris last attempt at the leadership ended in farce and exposed the fragility of his ego... he didn’t even make the starting line. However, soundings over the weekend confirm what @HYUFD is saying... activists are being told to shut up whilst May gets it “over the line” on March 29th after which it’s game on to campaign for what should happen during the transition period, including g one assumes a change of leader

Yes, that is likely (assuming a deal to get over the line can be had, which seems doubtful, since future contenders like Boris will probably need to say the deal is crap and how can they then back it), and Boris has been maneuvering himself for it. But he has the same problems as before, only more so. He does still have his positives. But if the time wasn't right last time for him, for all manner of reasons, there's certainly no guarantee the time will be right for him next time either.

What is there to get over the line ? Barnier just jumped up and down on the torn up shreds of the Chequers offer, and Macron just told her to piss off when she tried to go over Barnier's head. The Chequers offer is dead, and in September Tory MPs are going to come back from their constituencies having had a month of ear bashing from their constituency associations and from mailbags and surgeries to tell her there isn't the faintest stomach for it in the voluntary party or much of the electorate.

Actually Barnier said he could work with the Chequers Deal, the only thing he and the EU are holding put for is more regulatory alignment on services to match the regulatory alignment May has already proposed on goods

Plus free movement and the Customs Union.

ydoethur said:

bigjohnowls said:

ydoethur said:

bigjohnowls said:

ydoethur said:

bigjohnowls said:

Surely Tom Watson should have brought up Corbyn murdering the non existent pet rabbit.

We're talking about Brexit (like bloody always) and suddenly go to pet rabbits being killed.

That seems a strange non-sequitur BJO.

Is it a reference to that Venezuelan campaign by Maduro getting people to farm rabbits for food?

https://twitter.com/thesundaysport/status/863487783590961153?lang=en

Ah, I see. I am intrigued though;

1) Given it is the Sunday Sport, is this some kind of euphemism, and if so for what?

2) I would not have thought a gentleman of taste, intelligence and wit - such as yourself - would read the Sunday Sport. How the f*** did you come across it?

I am Freddie Stars nutritionist!!

Are you saying there is not even a gerbil of truth in this story?

(Edit - I suppose if it were true, which BTW seems unlikely, the most embarrassing thing for Corbyn would be how upper-class it all sounds.)

bigjohnowls said:

ydoethur said:

bigjohnowls said:

ydoethur said:

bigjohnowls said:

ydoethur said:

bigjohnowls said:

Surely Tom Watson should have brought up Corbyn murdering the non existent pet rabbit.

We're talking about Brexit (like bloody always) and suddenly go to pet rabbits being killed.

That seems a strange non-sequitur BJO.

Is it a reference to that Venezuelan campaign by Maduro getting people to farm rabbits for food?

https://twitter.com/thesundaysport/status/863487783590961153?lang=en

Ah, I see. I am intrigued though;

1) Given it is the Sunday Sport, is this some kind of euphemism, and if so for what?

2) I would not have thought a gentleman of taste, intelligence and wit - such as yourself - would read the Sunday Sport. How the f*** did you come across it?

I am Freddie Stars nutritionist!!

Are you saying there is not even a gerbil of truth in this story?

(Edit - I suppose if it were true, which BTW seems unlikely, the most embarrassing thing for Corbyn would be how upper-class it all sounds.)

In the last bit of the article the sister says she never had a rabbit!!

Was it upper class to get a pogo stick for Christmas!!

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

The regulatory alignment proposed for goods largely resolves the Customs Union issue

No it doesn't.

matt said:

another_richard said:

Philip_Thompson said:

another_richard said:

DavidL said:

Alistair said:

Whilst a company can legally claim it has one corporate structure to country A and a different structure to company B these kind of shenanigans will continue.

Not even country-by-country reporting can stop this, only global harmonisation/info sharing on declared corporate structures.

£8bn of UK sales being booked in Luxemburg seems to me an obvious place to start. Profits are being diverted from where they are generated to our very considerable cost. Amazon's bill should have been 100x what it was.

New law - for every ten migrant workers a business employs it has to fund a new house being built.

For multinationals reduce to every five workers, for workers being paid under average earnings reduce to every two workers.

What's that got to do with profits being booked overseas?

Its a way of getting businesses which are dependent upon cheap migrant labour to contribute towards the housing and public services costs consequent to it.

It would be especially useful for those companies which have operations in this country but avoid paying corporation tax here by booking their profits in low tax countries.

What evidence do you have that Amazon is dependant on cheap migrant labour? Multiple sources which are more than just anecdote please.

archer101au said:

HYUFD said:

David_Evershed said:

HYUFD said:

Indigo1 said:

kle4 said:

Rexel56 said:

Boris last attempt at the leadership ended in farce and exposed the fragility of his ego... he didn’t even make the starting line. However, soundings over the weekend confirm what @HYUFD is saying... activists are being told to shut up whilst May gets it “over the line” on March 29th after which it’s game on to campaign for what should happen during the transition period, including g one assumes a change of leader

Yes, that is likely (assuming a deal to get over the line can be had, which seems doubtful, since future contenders like Boris will probably need to say the deal is crap and how can they then back it), and Boris has been maneuvering himself for it. But he has the same problems as before, only more so. He does still have his positives. But if the time wasn't right last time for him, for all manner of reasons, there's certainly no guarantee the time will be right for him next time either.

What is there to get over the line ? Barnier just jumped up and down on the torn up shreds of the .

Actually Barnier said he could work with the Chequers Deal, the only thing he and the EU are holding put for is more regulatory alignment on services to match the regulatory alignment May has already proposed on goods

Plus free movement and the Customs Union.

No that was not a requirement. The regulatory alignment proposed for goods largely resolves the Customs Union issue and Barnier has had no issues with the mobility framework replacing free movement given we will still technically be leaving the single market but he does want more regulatory alignment on services before agreeing the transition period

I don’t think either of these are correct. The EU has pretty much rejected the customs partnership. I expect they will tell May that she can have Chequers only with a full CU - which means the pretence of an independent trade policy is dead. They will want a form of FOM although disguised at a change.

Regulatory alignment on services plus a CU is no different than EEA plus CU. No way May can sell that to her party.

HYUFD said:

The EU has largely accepted the goods regulation alignment, they just don't want us collecting customs levies on behalf of the EU.

We will likely end up with regulatory alignment on services plus the Customs Partnership with the mobility framework replacing free movement.

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

The EU has largely accepted the goods regulation alignment, they just don't want us collecting customs levies on behalf of the EU.

We will likely end up with regulatory alignment on services plus the Customs Partnership with the mobility framework replacing free movement.

If the customs partnership has been rejected, by what logic is that what we're likely to end up with?

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

The EU has largely accepted the goods regulation alignment, they just don't want us collecting customs levies on behalf of the EU.

We will likely end up with regulatory alignment on services plus the Customs Partnership with the mobility framework replacing free movement.

If the customs partnership has been rejected, by what logic is that what we're likely to end up with?

It has not been rejected, the EU has welcomed the regulatory alignment on goods they just do not want the UK accepting customs levies on behalf of the EU

archer101au said:

williamglenn said:

archer101au said:

williamglenn said:

archer101au said:

There is only going to be May’s deal (eg a much sold out version of Chequers) and a vote for or against. I think she will lose this vote. When she does she will resign.

For the sake of argument assume your analysis is correct. Why would May not throw in a game changer before that point?

Such as?

A second referendum. If you think she's a goner if the Withdrawal Agreement goes to parliament, that's the best way to preempt it.

What possible basis would she have for proposing one? ‘Please lets have a referendum on my crap deal because it is so bad that my own party won’t support it, but Olly says that it would be a good idea if we just Remained?’ If she tried a stunt like that I can imagine the Leavers no-confidencing their own Government. These people have spent their whole political lives fighting to leave the EU.

There is not going to be another referendum. It doesn’t solve anything and there would not be time. The only way to heal the EU division in the UK is to let the Leavers have their way and see if it works. That is what the people voted for. If it doesn’t work, you can always campaign to rejoin.

I think the reason that Remainers are terrified of No Deal is not because they really think it will damage the UK. They are worried that if it doesn’t, they will be proven totally wrong about the benefits of membership and the UK will never, ever rejoin.

Mortimer said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

The EU has largely accepted the goods regulation alignment, they just don't want us collecting customs levies on behalf of the EU.

We will likely end up with regulatory alignment on services plus the Customs Partnership with the mobility framework replacing free movement.

If the customs partnership has been rejected, by what logic is that what we're likely to end up with?

It has not been rejected, the EU has welcomed the regulatory alignment on goods they just do not want the UK accepting customs levies on behalf of the EU

That is a rejection of the partnership HYUFD....

logical_song said:

archer101au said:

williamglenn said:

archer101au said:

williamglenn said:

archer101au said:

There is only going to be May’s deal (eg a much sold out version of Chequers) and a vote for or against. I think she will lose this vote. When she does she will resign.

For the sake of argument assume your analysis is correct. Why would May not throw in a game changer before that point?

Such as?

A second referendum. If you think she's a goner if the Withdrawal Agreement goes to parliament, that's the best way to preempt it.

What possible basis would she have for proposing one? ‘Please lets have a referendum on my crap deal because it is so bad that my own party won’t support it, but Olly says that it would be a good idea if we just Remained?’ If she tried a stunt like that I can imagine the Leavers no-confidencing their own Government. These people have spent their whole political lives fighting to leave the EU.

There is not going to be another referendum. It doesn’t solve anything and there would not be time. The only way to heal the EU division in the UK is to let the Leavers have their way and see if it works. That is what the people voted for. If it doesn’t work, you can always campaign to rejoin.

I think the reason that Remainers are terrified of No Deal is not because they really think it will damage the UK. They are worried that if it doesn’t, they will be proven totally wrong about the benefits of membership and the UK will never, ever rejoin.

The Government don't have a plan that would work, there are too many contradictions.
The ONLY way they can resolve it is to have a 'People's Vote' on the possible proposals. Then the people really will have spoken.
God help us if the choose 'Crash out to WTO'.

HYUFD said:

logical_song said:

HYUFD said:

archer101au said:

HYUFD said:

David_Evershed said:

HYUFD said:

Indigo1 said:

kle4 said:

Rexel56 said:

Boris last attempt at the leadership ended in farce and exposed the fragility of his ego... he didn’t even make the starting line. However, soundings over the weekend confirm what @HYUFD is saying... activists are being told to shut up whilst May gets it “over the line” on March 29th after which it’s game on to campaign for what should happen during the transition period, including g one assumes a change of leader

But if the time wasn't right last time for him, for all manner of reasons, there's certainly no guarantee the time will be right for him next time either.

What is there to get over the line ? Barnier just jumped up and down on the torn up shreds of the .

Actually Barnier said he could work with the Chequers Deal, the only thing he and the EU are holding put for is more regulatory alignment on services to match the regulatory alignment May has already proposed on goods

Plus free movement and the Customs Union.

No that was not a requirement. The regulatory alignment proposed ansition period

I don’t think either of these are correct. The EU has pretty much rejected the customs partnership. I expect they will tell May that she can have Chequers only with a full CU - which means the pretence of an independent trade policy is dead. They will want a form of FOM although disguised at a change.

Regulatory alignment on services plus a CU is no different than EEA plus CU. No way May can sell that to her party.

The EU has largely accepted the goods regulation alignment, they just don't want us collecting customs levies on behalf of the EU.

We will likely end up with regulatory alignment on services plus the Customs Partnership with the mobility framework replacing free movement. The ERG and Boris and Davis etc will vote against it as will Corbyn Labour but May might get it through with the bulk of Tory votes plus the LDs and SNP and the DUP and maybe Umunna and a few anti hard Brexit Labour rebels

"plus the LDs and SNP and the DUP and maybe Umunna and a few anti hard Brexit Labour rebels"
Sounds optimistic.

Even without Umunna and allies and the SNP she could likely get it through with the LDs and DUP

Essentially the vote will be a choice between voting with May for a transition deal or voting with Mogg and Boris for No Deal

HYUFD said:

Even without Umunna and allies and the SNP she could likely get it through with the LDs and DUP

Essentially the vote will be a choice between voting with May for a transition deal or voting with Mogg and Boris for No Deal

logical_song said:

HYUFD said:

logical_song said:

HYUFD said:

archer101au said:

HYUFD said:

David_Evershed said:

HYUFD said:

Indigo1 said:

kle4 said:

Rexel56 said:

Boris last attempt at the leadership ended in farce and exposed the fragility of his ego... he didn’t even make the starting line. However, soundings over the weekend confirm what @HYUFD is saying... activists are being told to shut up whilst May gets it “over the line” on March 29th after which it’s game on to campaign for what should happen during the transition period, including g one assumes a change of leader

But if the time wasn't right last time for him, for all manner of reasons, there's certainly no guarantee the time will be right for him next time either.

What is there to get over the line ? Barnier just jumped up and down on the torn up shreds of the .

Actually Barnier said he could work with the Chequers Deal, the only thing he and the EU are holding put for is more regulatory alignment on services to match the regulatory alignment May has already proposed on goods

Plus free movement and the Customs Union.

No that was not a requirement. The regulatory alignment proposed ansition period

I don’t think either of these are correct. The EU has pretty much rejected the customs

The EU has largely accepted the goods regulation alignment, they just don't want us collecting customs levies on behalf of the EU.

We will likely end up with regulatory alignment on services plus the Customs Partnership with the mobility framework replacing free movement. The ERG and Boris and Davis etc will vote against it as will Corbyn Labour but May might get it through with the bulk of Tory votes plus the LDs and SNP and the DUP and maybe Umunna and a few anti hard Brexit Labour rebels

"plus the LDs and SNP and the DUP and maybe Umunna and a few anti hard Brexit Labour rebels"
Sounds optimistic.

Even without Umunna and allies and the SNP she could likely get it through with the LDs and DUP

Essentially the vote will be a choice between voting with May for a transition deal or voting with Mogg and Boris for No Deal

Would the LibDems see it as that? Surely a government defeat and new GE would suit them better?

hamiltonace said:

Watching BBC news last night. They were discussing project fear except now by brexiters. At the start the idea of a hard brexit was considered project fear. Now it is a likely option according to fox. Talk of stockpiling drugs was considered project fear now it is considered necessary to negotiate with the EC. Slow down in economy was considered project fear now it is happening but just part of the cost of transition. What is left of project fear?

kle4 said:

logical_song said:

archer101au said:

williamglenn said:

archer101au said:

williamglenn said:

archer101au said:

There is only going to be May’s deal (eg a much sold out version of Chequers) and a vote for or against. I think she will lose this vote. When she does she will resign.

For the sake of argument assume your analysis is correct. Why would May not throw in a game changer before that point?

Such as?

A second referendum. If you think she's a goner if the Withdrawal Agreement goes to parliament, that's the best way to preempt it.

What possible basis would she have for proposing one? ‘Please lets have a referendum on my crap deal because it is so bad that my own party won’t support it, but Olly says that it would be a good idea if we just Remained?’ If she tried a stunt like that I can imagine the Leavers no-confidencing their own Government. These people have spent their whole political lives fighting to leave the EU.

There is not going to be another referendum. It doesn’t solve anything and there would not be time. The only way to heal the EU division in the UK is to let the Leavers have their way and see if it works. That is what the people voted for. If it doesn’t work, you can always campaign to rejoin.

I think the reason that Remainers are terrified of No Deal is not because they really think it will damage the UK. They are worried that if it doesn’t, they will be proven totally wrong about the benefits of membership and the UK will never, ever rejoin.

The Government don't have a plan that would work, there are too many contradictions.
The ONLY way they can resolve it is to have a 'People's Vote' on the possible proposals. Then the people really will have spoken.
God help us if the choose 'Crash out to WTO'.

Agreed. Not sure how we get one since no dealers won't want remain as an option on the ballot, and continuity remainers won't want it NOT to be on the ballot, so I guess it depends on Labour? Who I do think will pivot to a vote despite various people saying otherwise - I don't think they will want to share in the responsibility of no deal by voting down the government's plans, but equally won't want to to share in responsibility for a crappy deal by voting for it.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Does anyone have a link to any recent polling on party leader approval ratings? Both with the general public and their own parties voters?

The only polls I can find from Google are months old.

All voters here

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/political-monitor-archive

and by own party support here

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/satisfaction-leaders-amongst-party-supporters

RoyalBlue said:

kle4 said:

logical_song said:

archer101au said:

williamglenn said:

archer101au said:

williamglenn said:

archer101au said:

There is only going to be May’s deal (eg a much sold out version of Chequers) and a vote for or against. I think she will lose this vote. When she does she will resign.

For the sake of argument assume your analysis is correct. Why would May not throw in a game changer before that point?

Such as?

A second referendum. If you think she's a goner if the Withdrawal Agreement goes to parliament, that's the best way to preempt it.

What possible basis would she have for proposing one? ‘Please lets have a referendum on
There is not going to be another referendum. It doesn’t solve anything and there would not be time. The only way to heal the EU division in the UK is to let the Leavers have their way and see if it works. That is what the people voted for. If it doesn’t work, you can always campaign to rejoin.

I think the reason that Remainers are terrified of No Deal is not because they really think it will damage the UK. They are worried that if it doesn’t, they will be proven totally wrong about the benefits of membership and the UK will never, ever rejoin.

The Government don't have a plan that would work, there are too many contradictions.
The ONLY way they can resolve it is to have a 'People's Vote' on the possible proposals. Then the people really will have spoken.
God help us if the choose 'Crash out to WTO'.

Agreed. Not sure how we get one since no dealers won't want remain as an option on the ballot, and continuity remainers won't want it NOT to be on the ballot, so I guess it ting for it.

Surely Corbyn’s best outcome is a no deal Brexit that Labour doesn’t vote for? I don’t think people will blame Labour for rejecting the Tory deal, in the same way that voters didn’t punish the Tories for voting for Iraq II.

A chaotic no deal Brexit could catapult Corbyn into office, and give him the tools to irreversibly change this country.

HYUFD said:

The polling evidence actually suggests the Tories would do better with No Deal at the next general election than a Deal as it would bring back Tory to UKIP defectors.

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

Mortimer said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

The EU has largely accepted the goods regulation alignment, they just don't want us collecting customs levies on behalf of the EU.

We will likely end up with regulatory alignment on services plus the Customs Partnership with the mobility framework replacing free movement.

If the customs partnership has been rejected, by what logic is that what we're likely to end up with?

It has not been rejected, the EU has welcomed the regulatory alignment on goods they just do not want the UK accepting customs levies on behalf of the EU

That is a rejection of the partnership HYUFD....

The customs partnership was basically the Customs Union in all but name bar the levy collection and that is what we will end up with minus the levy collection which will stay with the EU

So it will be a customs union?

In all but name during the transition period yes

Are you deliberately obfuscating? The transition period will be the full status quo minus political representation. The question is what will be negotiated after that.

DecrepitJohnL said:

OT I've just noticed, on logging out of the ERS web site after confirming my right to vote, that the links to online help and the ERS policy statement are both in Welsh: Help Ar-lein and Datganiad Polisi.

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

Even without Umunna and allies and the SNP she could likely get it through with the LDs and DUP

Essentially the vote will be a choice between voting with May for a transition deal or voting with Mogg and Boris for No Deal

Plenty of people no deal means either no brexit, somehow, or we will rejoin all the sooner, I cannot see the LDs voting for any deal. And given how unpopular the action is I don't see how more Tories don't break ranks on it. Fox is underestimating no deal chances.

Oh no, no deal does not mean no Brexit or rejoin. No Deal means hard Brexit for the best part of a decade at least

It doesn't matter what no deal means, it matters what people think it means or what politicians say it means. As your take on a Tory leader goes, it doesn't really matter in that contest if Boris would help people retain their seats, it matters whether enough people think he would. Some, on here and elsewhere, are saying that no deal will be so disastrous rejoining is much more likely. It doesn't matter if that is a correct assumption. The point is that plenty of people who might genuinely think no deal is bad still might not vote for a deal of any kind - they will also still all blame the Tories in any case.

Charles said:

hamiltonace said:

Watching BBC news last night. They were discussing project fear except now by brexiters. At the start the idea of a hard brexit was considered project fear. Now it is a likely option according to fox. Talk of stockpiling drugs was considered project fear now it is considered necessary to negotiate with the EC. Slow down in economy was considered project fear now it is happening but just part of the cost of transition. What is left of project fear?

Mass unemployment, a house price collapse, war and the total destruction of the British economy

CarlottaVance said:

.......the consequences of Brexit have compromised the entire EMA, which will affect all remaining member states. Not only will this make it more complicated for European life science companies to reach regulatory approval for their treatments, it also mitigates the EU’s active role in addressing global public health issues.

https://labiotech.eu/policy-legal-finance/ema-prepares-brexit/

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

Mortimer said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

The EU has largely accepted the goods regulation alignment, they just don't want us collecting customs levies on behalf of the EU.

We will likely end up with regulatory alignment on services plus the Customs Partnership with the mobility framework replacing free movement.

If the customs partnership has been rejected, by what logic is that what we're likely to end up with?

It has not been rejected, the EU has welcomed the regulatory alignment on goods they just do not want the UK accepting customs levies on behalf of the EU

That is a rejection of the partnership HYUFD....

The customs partnership was basically the Customs Union in all but name bar the levy collection and that is what we will end up with minus the levy collection which will stay with the EU

So it will be a customs union?

In all but name during the transition period yes

Are you deliberately obfuscating? The transition period will be the full status quo minus political representation. The question is what will be negotiated after that.

I have not argued with that. As I said if a FTA is agreed during the transition period and before the next general election fine, otherwise rather than an indefinite transition the Tories will go to No Deal by the end date of the proposed transition in December 2020 and before the next general election

another_richard said:

matt said:

another_richard said:

Philip_Thompson said:

another_richard said:

DavidL said:

Alistair said:

Whilst a company can legally claim it has one corporate structure to country A and a different structure to company B these kind of shenanigans will continue.

Not even country-by-country reporting can stop this, only global harmonisation/info sharing on declared corporate structures.

£8bn of UK sales being booked in Luxemburg seems to me an obvious place to start. Profits are being diverted from where they are generated to our very considerable cost. Amazon's bill should have been 100x what it was.

New law - for every ten migrant workers a business employs it has to fund a new house being built.

For multinationals reduce to every five workers, for workers being paid under average earnings reduce to every two workers.

What's that got to do with profits being booked overseas?

Its a way of getting businesses which are dependent upon cheap migrant labour to contribute towards the housing and public services costs consequent to it.

It would be especially useful for those companies which have operations in this country but avoid paying corporation tax here by booking their profits in low tax countries.

What evidence do you have that Amazon is dependant on cheap migrant labour? Multiple sources which are more than just anecdote please.

' The recruitment agencies that supplied eastern Europeans to Amazon warned their workers that, if they made a fuss about their conditions, there was a reserve army of their fellow countrymen ready to take their place. Bloodworth and his colleagues made about £250 a week. The average weekly wage in Romania was a little over £100. One migrant told Bloodworth he worked like an animal and was a nobody in the UK. But in Romania he would be a nobody without enough to eat. '

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/mar/11/hired-six-months-undercover-in-low-wage-britain-zero-hours-review-james-bloodworth

Do you think that Amazon DON'T make use of cheap migrant labour ???

kle4 said:

anothernick said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

Even without Umunna and allies and the SNP she could likely get it through with the LDs and DUP

Essentially the vote will be a choice between voting with May for a transition deal or voting with Mogg and Boris for No Deal

Plenty of people no deal means either no brexit, somehow, or we will rejoin all the sooner, I cannot see the LDs voting for any deal. And given how unpopular the action is I don't see how more Tories don't break ranks on it. Fox is underestimating no deal chances.

Yes that's the key factor pushing toward no deal - remainer MPs now think no deal would be so disruptive that the whole Brexit process would collapse. Hence the opposition of Mandelson, Greening etc to the Chequers proposals. They think that as the cliff edge approaches there will be panic and the government will be forced to backtrack by extending or even revoking article 50. And they could be right.

I don't know if it is the key factor - I think that is the significant though not majority faction who favour no deal - but I think it is an important one. People are going all or nothing, but it seems a riskier game to me for the continuity remainers than the no deal leavers - the former have to hope in the chaos a series of steps occur which help prevent Brexit at all, which is fraught with issues hard to control, while the latter just have to hope they can obstruct things long enough that they win by default, and collectively prevent remain becoming an option.

Either could be right, there is that possibility, but I think the no deal leavers have the simpler path to their goal, and failure for them is more likely to be that a deal is reached rather than remain. Failure for the continuity remainers is more likely to be no deal than we leave with a BINO deal.

another_richard said:

Charles said:

hamiltonace said:

Watching BBC news last night. They were discussing project fear except now by brexiters. At the start the idea of a hard brexit was considered project fear. Now it is a likely option according to fox. Talk of stockpiling drugs was considered project fear now it is considered necessary to negotiate with the EC. Slow down in economy was considered project fear now it is happening but just part of the cost of transition. What is left of project fear?

Mass unemployment, a house price collapse, war and the total destruction of the British economy

Don't forget no strawberries:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3948109/humiliation-for-lib-dems-as-their-claim-of-a-brexit-strawberry-shortage-is-branded-fake-news/

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

anothernick said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

Even without Umunna and allies and the SNP she could likely get it through with the LDs and DUP

Essentially the vote will be a choice between voting with May for a transition deal or voting with Mogg and Boris for No Deal

Plenty of people no deal means either no brexit, somehow, or we will rejoin all the sooner, I cannot see the LDs voting for any deal. And given how unpopular the action is I don't see how more Tories don't break ranks on it. Fox is underestimating no deal chances.

Yes that's the key factor pushing toward no deal - remainer MPs now think no deal would be so disruptive that the whole Brexit process would collapse. Hence the opposition of Mandelson, Greening etc to the Chequers proposals. They think that as the cliff edge approaches there will be panic and the government will be forced to backtrack by extending or even revoking article 50. And they could be right.

I don't know if it is the key factor - I think that is the significant though not majority faction who favour no deal - but I think it is an important one. People are going all or nothing, but it seems a riskier game to me for the continuity remainers than the no deal leavers - the former have to hope in the chaos a series of steps occur which help prevent Brexit at all, which is fraught with issues hard to control, while the latter just have to hope they can obstruct things long enough that they win by default, and collectively prevent remain becoming an option.

Either could be right, there is that possibility, but I think the no deal leavers have the simpler path to their goal, and failure for them is more likely to be that a deal is reached rather than remain. Failure for the continuity remainers is more likely to be no deal than we leave with a BINO deal.

Yes the choice is deal with May or hard Brexit no deal with Boris or Mogg not deal or Remain/2nd referendum if no deal

kle4 said:

anothernick said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

Even without Umunna and allies and the SNP she could likely get it through with the LDs and DUP

Essentially the vote will be a choice between voting with May for a transition deal or voting with Mogg and Boris for No Deal

Plenty of people no deal means either no brexit, somehow, or we will rejoin all the sooner, I cannot see the LDs voting for any deal. And given how unpopular the action is I don't see how more Tories don't break ranks on it. Fox is underestimating no deal chances.

Yes that's the key factor pushing toward no deal - remainer MPs now think no deal would be so disruptive that the whole Brexit process would collapse. Hence the opposition of Mandelson, Greening etc to the Chequers proposals. They think that as the cliff edge approaches there will be panic and the government will be forced to backtrack by extending or even revoking article 50. And they could be right.

I don't know if it is the key factor - I think that is the significant though not majority faction who favour no deal - but I think it is an important one. People are going all or nothing, but it seems a riskier game to me for the continuity remainers than the no deal leavers - the former have to hope in the chaos a series of steps occur which help prevent Brexit at all, which is fraught with issues hard to control, while the latter just have to hope they can obstruct things long enough that they win by default, and collectively prevent remain becoming an option.

Either could be right, there is that possibility, but I think the no deal leavers have the simpler path to their goal, and failure for them is more likely to be that a deal is reached rather than remain. Failure for the continuity remainers is more likely to be no deal than we leave with a BINO deal.

edmundintokyo said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

anothernick said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

Even without Umunna and allies and the SNP she could likely get it through with the LDs and DUP

Essentially the vote will be a choice between voting with May for a transition deal or voting with Mogg and Boris for No Deal

Plenty of people no deal means either no brexit, somehow, or we will rejoin all the sooner, I cannot see the LDs voting for any deal. And given how unpopular the action is I don't see how more Tories don't break ranks on it. Fox is underestimating no deal chances.

Yes that's the key factor pushing toward no deal - remainer MPs now think no deal would be so disruptive that the whole Brexit process would collapse. Hence the opposition of Mandelson, Greening etc to the Chequers proposals. They think that as the cliff edge approaches there will be panic and the government will be forced to backtrack by extending or even revoking article 50. And they could be right.

I don't know if it is the key factor - I think that is the significant though not majority faction who favour no deal - but I think it is an important one. People are going all or nothing, but it seems a riskier game to me for the continuity remainers than the no deal leavers - the former have to hope in the chaos a series of steps occur which help prevent Brexit at all, which is fraught with issues hard to control, while the latter just have to hope they can obstruct things long enough that they win by default, and collectively prevent remain becoming an option.

Either could be right, there is that possibility, but I think the no deal leavers have the simpler path to their goal, and failure for them is more likely to be that a deal is reached rather than remain. Failure for the continuity remainers is more likely to be no deal than we leave with a BINO deal.

Yes the choice is deal with May or hard Brexit no deal with Boris or Mogg not deal or Remain/2nd referendum if no deal

Boris would totally do a deal. He'd run against it, knife TMay, lead his supporters in a patriotic song then go back and sign on the dotted line. He's probably already practising the Tsipras shrug.

anothernick said:

kle4 said:

anothernick said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

Even without Umunna and allies and the SNP she could likely get it through with the LDs and DUP

Essentially the vote will be a choice between voting with May for a transition deal or voting with Mogg and Boris for No Deal

Plenty of people no deal means either no brexit, somehow, or we will rejoin all the sooner, I cannot see the LDs voting for any deal. And given how unpopular the action is I don't see how more Tories don't break ranks on it. Fox is underestimating no deal chances.

Yes that's the key factor pushing toward no deal - remainer MPs now think no deal would be so disruptive that the whole Brexit process would collapse. Hence the opposition of Mandelson, Greening etc to the Chequers proposals. They think that as the cliff edge approaches there will be panic and the government will be forced to backtrack by extending or even revoking article 50. And they could be right.

I don't knowO deal.

I agree it's probably more risky for remainers tha hard leavers. But I think the likelihood is that there WILL be panic in the months leading up to no deal Brexit (if that is what happens). The failure of project fear to materialise up to now has lulled people into a false sense of security - remainers have cried wolf far too often. But the wolf fable ends when the animal really does appear and devours the unfortunate boy, whose warnings are not believed. A no deal Brexit, for which the government has done zero preparation, could well do the same to the UK.