politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB Video Analysis: Who Won The Midterms? Does It Matter?
Comments
-
We need a perm anent deal, not just something for the weekend.williamglenn said:0 -
Or we need a wave of popular sentiment.Foxy said:
We need a perm anent deal, not just something for the weekend.williamglenn said:0 -
I am hoping enough Leavers will comb over to my side.Foxy said:
We need a perm anent deal, not just something for the weekend.williamglenn said:0 -
We’ve lost track of our Vidal interests.ydoethur said:
Or we need a wave of popular sentiment.Foxy said:
We need a perm anent deal, not just something for the weekend.williamglenn said:0 -
I think the direction of travel of the EU Military Service is quite clear and probably prudent. eg the recent rotary wing exercise in Portugal was exactly the sort of thing NATO used to do but this year it was organised by EUMS. We are getting to close to the end of NATO in its current form and EUMS/PESCO will be what replaces it in Europe.FF43 said:
The EU isn't really proposing an army. It's a coordinated shared capability. So Germany and Romania might have a shared battalion where Germany provides the equipment and training and Romania most of the soldiers. It is also a way bringing in the Swedes and Finns, who aren't part of NATO. It is also a symbolic, political project
Fans of sovereignty should realise that you get a hell of a lot more political and democratic control of EUMS activities than you do with NATO.0 -
Meanwhile all the SNP want to talk about is the Barnett formula.0
-
Will Angela Merkin cover the fundamentals?0
-
I'm afraid the just brush off appeals like that.Jonathan said:
I am hoping enough Leavers will comb over to my side.Foxy said:
We need a perm anent deal, not just something for the weekend.williamglenn said:0 -
Its the shear lack of progress of the PM that gets me. Negotiating is not hirsute.0
-
May is Head and Shoulders above anyone else in the Tory party0
-
Just seen that 4 Georgia counties have reported zero absentee ballots counted.
Former Congress man in Florida had his absentee ballot rejected for failing signature match.
This two are going all the way to the courts.0 -
-
I think you’re forgetting the Johnson and Johnson ‘no more tears’ formula.SquareRoot said:May is Head and Shoulders above anyone else in the Tory party
0 -
https://twitter.com/DamianGreen/status/1061164807309717504?s=20
To Adonis referendums are only “final and decisive” if he agrees with the result.0 -
Adonis inhabits a surreal fantasy land where he is sane and intelligent and everyone else is wrong. He's like Nicky Morgan only more unpopular.CarlottaVance said:https://twitter.com/DamianGreen/status/1061164807309717504?s=20
To Adonis referendums are only “final and decisive” if he agrees with the result.0 -
Fine, let’s stick with the 1975 referendum. Final and decisive.CarlottaVance said:https://twitter.com/DamianGreen/status/1061164807309717504?s=20
To Adonis referendums are only “final and decisive” if he agrees with the result.0 -
2016 referendum: democracy means being able to change your mind!Jonathan said:
Fine, let’s stick with the 1975 referendum. Final and decisive.CarlottaVance said:https://twitter.com/DamianGreen/status/1061164807309717504?s=20
To Adonis referendums are only “final and decisive” if he agrees with the result.
1975 referendum: decisive for all time. Suck it up.0 -
You can be sure it will be crap and more capitulation and grovelling than her last surrender.SquareRoot said:As a non hairy palmed person, it occurred to me that since we do not know the detail of May's deal with the Eu, all the talk both for and against is just speculation. One thing you can be sure of is that both sides are lying about the effect.
0 -
Good morning, everyone.
F1: qualifying starts at 5pm. Hopefully have the pre-qualifying ramble up shortly before then. Looks tight between Verstappen, Vettel, and Hamilton.0 -
Only way out of this is to rip up chequers and go for the Norway-style deal that was originally on offer. Much better than a second referendum, which will only exacerbate the deep divisions that TMay has miserably failed to heal.0
-
That must be why NATO has added 13 members since the end of the Cold War then.Dura_Ace said:
I think the direction of travel of the EU Military Service is quite clear and probably prudent. eg the recent rotary wing exercise in Portugal was exactly the sort of thing NATO used to do but this year it was organised by EUMS. We are getting to close to the end of NATO in its current form and EUMS/PESCO will be what replaces it in Europe.FF43 said:
The EU isn't really proposing an army. It's a coordinated shared capability. So Germany and Romania might have a shared battalion where Germany provides the equipment and training and Romania most of the soldiers. It is also a way bringing in the Swedes and Finns, who aren't part of NATO. It is also a symbolic, political project
Fans of sovereignty should realise that you get a hell of a lot more political and democratic control of EUMS activities than you do with NATO.
It’s not surprising the US dominates when it provides 75% of the budget, but actions in the NAC have to be agreed by unanimity and each nation retains full responsibility for its own decisions.0 -
Norway plus customs union needed for Northern Irish borderThomasNashe said:Only way out of this is to rip up chequers and go for the Norway-style deal that was originally on offer. Much better than a second referendum, which will only exacerbate the deep divisions that TMay has miserably failed to heal.
0 -
You guys need to get out more.Jonathan said:
I am hoping enough Leavers will comb over to my side.Foxy said:
We need a perm anent deal, not just something for the weekend.williamglenn said:0 -
Well quite. The idea that somehow ultra Remainers present unique intellectual flexibility to the outcomes of referenda is absurd.Casino_Royale said:
2016 referendum: democracy means being able to change your mind!Jonathan said:
Fine, let’s stick with the 1975 referendum. Final and decisive.CarlottaVance said:https://twitter.com/DamianGreen/status/1061164807309717504?s=20
To Adonis referendums are only “final and decisive” if he agrees with the result.
1975 referendum: decisive for all time. Suck it up.
When the facts change, we can change our minds. We’ve learned so much in the past two years there is enough new information to justify another vote IMO.0 -
Norway is a harder brexit than Chequers. It is also unimplementable currently as it either creates an Irish sea border or an Irish customs border.ThomasNashe said:Only way out of this is to rip up chequers and go for the Norway-style deal that was originally on offer. Much better than a second referendum, which will only exacerbate the deep divisions that TMay has miserably failed to heal.
Why do people keep (Sorry @ThomasNashe) giving Norway as some sort of available soft panacea Brexit option. It is not !0 -
Boris was a Eurosceptic ever since his days as a Brussels correspondent, his family are genuinely divides on the issue.IanB2 said:
Nevertheless politicians have a responsibility to speak up for the interests of the country and yet, as JJ says, have badly let us down.matt said:
Simplistic solutions attract simpletons.JosiasJessop said:
You're getting this wrong.shiney2 said:
You did that last time.rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/IsabelOakeshott/status/1060953593048715264
Ok. Let's do it.
You win big and we agree to shut up for a generation.
We're in a situation where hardcore leavers will never shut up. There will always be something to moan about, to whine about; someone else to blame for supposed ills that are, in fact, our own responsibility.
It's far easier to blame other people and scream "The EU!", "Immigrants!" than it is to take a good, long hard look at our own decisions.
So I fail to see why remainers who believe that EU membership is a positive should shut up, either. We've had decades of leavers poisoning debate; they can now expect remainers to treat them with the same contempt.
On a side issue: too many people are seeing Brexit as a panacea that will cure what they see as the country's problems. We'll be free, dammit, and everyone will do what we want!
It's a dangerous attitude, and it's deluded.
The reason Boris is held in such contempt is that he is the worst - his personal instincts are liberal and pro-European, as shared by the rest of his family, yet both as a journalist and a politician he sold out to the temptation of using the EU issue to attract attention and further his own career.
Corbyn of course basically agrees with May's plan for the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period and a Customs Union for the whole UK but will oppose it out of political advantage to try and get a general election0 -
Does that get us out of this?ThomasNashe said:Only way out of this is to rip up chequers and go for the Norway-style deal that was originally on offer. Much better than a second referendum, which will only exacerbate the deep divisions that TMay has miserably failed to heal.
No-one has sold the benefits of the Norway option since the referendum and it's now rubbished by both sides as vassalage.
Not that I disagree about the second referendum. I just don't see any way out of this situation. No good way that is.0 -
It would have to come with some sort of transitional deal to take us up to 2022 election, when we could all have a vote on properly worked-through long-term options.Pulpstar said:
Norway is a harder brexit than Chequers. It is also unimplementable currently as it either creates an Irish sea border or an Irish customs border.ThomasNashe said:Only way out of this is to rip up chequers and go for the Norway-style deal that was originally on offer. Much better than a second referendum, which will only exacerbate the deep divisions that TMay has miserably failed to heal.
Why do people keep (Sorry @ThomasNashe) giving Norway as some sort of available soft panacea Brexit option. It is not !0 -
Arguably the real problem with the referendum was that it was so very close but for leave. If it had been 60/40 leave, we wouldn't be having these discussions. If it had been 49/51 to stay, even Juncker would probably have emerged from his alcohol-fuelled haze for five minutes to understand things had to change if disaster was to be averted. If it had been 60/40 Remain, it's probable even Farage would have shut up (OK, OK, I admit 'probable' is too strong a word).Jonathan said:
Fine, let’s stick with the 1975 referendum. Final and decisive.CarlottaVance said:https://twitter.com/DamianGreen/status/1061164807309717504?s=20
To Adonis referendums are only “final and decisive” if he agrees with the result.
However, we voted to leave, and rapidly a myth has built that, 'oh, it was all about the lies Leave told,' or, 'oh, it was only about immigration,' or, 'oh, it's becuase people wanted to kick Cameron,' or 'if only Corbyn had been a better campaigner' (now there's a claim that's extremely ironic with hindsight).
The reality is, for all the hype, Remain won the campaign. They switched plenty of waverers over with their warnings of economic chaos. But that wasn't enough to make up for forty years of lies, incompetence, bureaucracy, unlawful trade embargoes, daft rulings from the CJEU that we were stupid enough not to ignore, and politicians blaming Europe for everything that was unpopular but that they wanted to do. Osborne seems to have understood that, but you have to wonder from their behaviour how many Europhiles do understand the depth of loathing for the likes of Juncker, Chretien, Delors, Prodi and Barroso.
At the moment, the polls are effectively showing that things are unchanged since the referendum. Heck, Survation shows the exact same margin it showed before the vote. So what would be the point of re-running it? Median scenario is Remain wins very narrowly and we get a Dolschstoss theory the other way. Worst case scenario, Leave wins by the same margin and we're no better off than before having seriously pissed off half the electorate.
Arguably the best case scenario at least politically is that Leave wins by a huge margin and we leave with no deal, but that would lead to economic collapse here and on the continent. (And no, there is no way any referendum could be held without No Deal as an option outwith the fantasies of not over-bright fanatics like Adonis. Otherwise the risk is of a legal challenge which given the timings would almost certainly achieve the same effect as no deal anyway.)
So why do people want one? Because they can't accept the result of the first. But running the same experiment twice in the expectation of a different result is folly.0 -
Trump is right to be offended. Sounds like Macron wishes to evoke the spirit of Compiegne 1940 rather than 1918.Dura_Ace said:
Macron is right. If the Europeans want to increase defence spending then their interests are better served by doing it an EU framework. NATO's policy objectives are always 100% aligned with US interests so why should the EU subsidse the US in that manner?dr_spyn said:Trump isn't impressed with Macron.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/10610031861258567690 -
The problem with that is that combovers blow about in the wind.Casino_Royale said:
You guys need to get out more.Jonathan said:
I am hoping enough Leavers will comb over to my side.Foxy said:
We need a perm anent deal, not just something for the weekend.williamglenn said:
But I do have to go out. Have a good morning.0 -
CarlottaVance said:
I think a referendum on remaining in the “Common Market” would win. That is what the electorate agreed to.Jonathan said:
Fine, let’s stick with the 1975 referendum. Final and decisive.CarlottaVance said:https://twitter.com/DamianGreen/status/1061164807309717504?s=20
To Adonis referendums are only “final and decisive” if he agrees with the result.0 -
This is the reportMattW said:
Is there a link for that?another_richard said:Various thoughts:
3) The most interesting UK economic stat for today was the continued increase in house building, with that and house price growth reduced to manageable levels I wonder if the Conservatives will get a boost from Generation Now Able To Buy
Thanks
https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/constructionindustry/bulletins/constructionoutputingreatbritain/september2018
with the data on the spreadsheet here:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/constructionindustry/datasets/outputintheconstructionindustry
The level of new housing is on Table 1a on the third page of the spreadsheet.0 -
Talking about national defence spending as part of a NATO ‘budget’ is perverse.Casino_Royale said:
That must be why NATO has added 13 members since the end of the Cold War then.Dura_Ace said:
I think the direction of travel of the EU Military Service is quite clear and probably prudent. eg the recent rotary wing exercise in Portugal was exactly the sort of thing NATO used to do but this year it was organised by EUMS. We are getting to close to the end of NATO in its current form and EUMS/PESCO will be what replaces it in Europe.FF43 said:
The EU isn't really proposing an army. It's a coordinated shared capability. So Germany and Romania might have a shared battalion where Germany provides the equipment and training and Romania most of the soldiers. It is also a way bringing in the Swedes and Finns, who aren't part of NATO. It is also a symbolic, political project
Fans of sovereignty should realise that you get a hell of a lot more political and democratic control of EUMS activities than you do with NATO.
It’s not surprising the US dominates when it provides 75% of the budget, but actions in the NAC have to be agreed by unanimity and each nation retains full responsibility for its own decisions.0 -
I love the “we now know more facts” argument of the p***les v*te.Jonathan said:
Well quite. The idea that somehow ultra Remainers present unique intellectual flexibility to the outcomes of referenda is absurd.Casino_Royale said:
2016 referendum: democracy means being able to change your mind!Jonathan said:
Fine, let’s stick with the 1975 referendum. Final and decisive.CarlottaVance said:https://twitter.com/DamianGreen/status/1061164807309717504?s=20
To Adonis referendums are only “final and decisive” if he agrees with the result.
1975 referendum: decisive for all time. Suck it up.
When the facts change, we can change our minds. We’ve learned so much in the past two years there is enough new information to justify another vote IMO.
What they mean, of course, is that they think they’ve been proven right on the decision they took the first time and they fail to recognise the rich seam of confirmation bias running right through the middle of it.
There are other facts too, like economic disaster and recession haven’t occurred, that the EU have behaved vindictively, whilst continuing to move in a federalising direction, that we have sight of a independent migration, agricultural and fisheries policy, and neither they or the EU have learnt a single lesson from the vote the first time around.
The tin-earedness is quite something to behold.0 -
I agree with you that the 2% GDP target is a crude and proxy measure.williamglenn said:
Talking about national defence spending as part of a NATO ‘budget’ is perverse.Casino_Royale said:
That must be why NATO has added 13 members since the end of the Cold War then.Dura_Ace said:
I think the direction of travel of the EU Military Service is quite clear and probably prudent. eg the recent rotary wing exercise in Portugal was exactly the sort of thing NATO used to do but this year it was organised by EUMS. We are getting to close to the end of NATO in its current form and EUMS/PESCO will be what replaces it in Europe.FF43 said:
The EU isn't really proposing an army. It's a coordinated shared capability. So Germany and Romania might have a shared battalion where Germany provides the equipment and training and Romania most of the soldiers. It is also a way bringing in the Swedes and Finns, who aren't part of NATO. It is also a symbolic, political project
Fans of sovereignty should realise that you get a hell of a lot more political and democratic control of EUMS activities than you do with NATO.
It’s not surprising the US dominates when it provides 75% of the budget, but actions in the NAC have to be agreed by unanimity and each nation retains full responsibility for its own decisions.
But, it broadly links a base level of military and security spending to a nation’s economic performance.
It should be ‘a’ measure but very far from the only measure.0 -
There is a ton of new information on both sides of the argument. IMO that adds to the case for a second vote. We have learned much about our EU partners. It could go either way.Casino_Royale said:
I love the “we now know more facts” argument of the p***les v*te.Jonathan said:
Well quite. The idea that somehow ultra Remainers present unique intellectual flexibility to the outcomes of referenda is absurd.Casino_Royale said:
2016 referendum: democracy means being able to change your mind!Jonathan said:
Fine, let’s stick with the 1975 referendum. Final and decisive.CarlottaVance said:https://twitter.com/DamianGreen/status/1061164807309717504?s=20
To Adonis referendums are only “final and decisive” if he agrees with the result.
1975 referendum: decisive for all time. Suck it up.
When the facts change, we can change our minds. We’ve learned so much in the past two years there is enough new information to justify another vote IMO.
What they mean, of course, is that they think they’ve been proven right on the decision they took the first time and they fail to recognise the rich seam of confirmation bias running right through the middle of it.
There are other facts too, like economic disaster and recession haven’t occurred, that the EU have behaved vindictively, whilst continuing to move in a federalising direction, that we have sight of a independent migration, agricultural and fisheries policy, and neither they or the EU have learnt a single lesson from the vote the first time around.
The tin-earedness is quite something to behold.
0 -
Trump says Europe should pay more for its collective defence, rather than rely on the USA.daodao said:
Trump is right to be offended. Sounds like Macron wishes to evoke the spirit of Compiegne 1940 rather than 1918.Dura_Ace said:
Macron is right. If the Europeans want to increase defence spending then their interests are better served by doing it an EU framework. NATO's policy objectives are always 100% aligned with US interests so why should the EU subsidse the US in that manner?dr_spyn said:Trump isn't impressed with Macron.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1061003186125856769
Macron agrees.
Trump and his apologists have a tantrum.
Where is the surprise?
0 -
Yes, but if the USA either chooses or is obliged by its position in the global system to spend a lot more than that, it isn't an argument to say they are taking an unfair share of the burden within NATO.Casino_Royale said:
I agree with you that the 2% GDP target is a crude and proxy measure.williamglenn said:
Talking about national defence spending as part of a NATO ‘budget’ is perverse.Casino_Royale said:
That must be why NATO has added 13 members since the end of the Cold War then.Dura_Ace said:
I think the direction of travel of the EU Military Service is quite clear and probably prudent. eg the recent rotary wing exercise in Portugal was exactly the sort of thing NATO used to do but this year it was organised by EUMS. We are getting to close to the end of NATO in its current form and EUMS/PESCO will be what replaces it in Europe.FF43 said:
The EU isn't really proposing an army. It's a coordinated shared capability. So Germany and Romania might have a shared battalion where Germany provides the equipment and training and Romania most of the soldiers. It is also a way bringing in the Swedes and Finns, who aren't part of NATO. It is also a symbolic, political project
Fans of sovereignty should realise that you get a hell of a lot more political and democratic control of EUMS activities than you do with NATO.
It’s not surprising the US dominates when it provides 75% of the budget, but actions in the NAC have to be agreed by unanimity and each nation retains full responsibility for its own decisions.
But, it broadly links a base level of military and security spending to a nation’s economic performance.
It should be ‘a’ measure but very far from the only measure.0 -
Trump didn't really want Europe to spend on its own defence. He wanted Europe (and Japan) to pay money to fund the US military.Foxy said:
Trump says Europe should pay more for its collective defence, rather than rely on the USA.daodao said:
Trump is right to be offended. Sounds like Macron wishes to evoke the spirit of Compiegne 1940 rather than 1918.Dura_Ace said:
Macron is right. If the Europeans want to increase defence spending then their interests are better served by doing it an EU framework. NATO's policy objectives are always 100% aligned with US interests so why should the EU subsidse the US in that manner?dr_spyn said:Trump isn't impressed with Macron.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1061003186125856769
Macron agrees.
Trump and his apologists have a tantrum.
Where is the surprise?0 -
For me, Brexit has proven Westminster/Whitehall is utterly broken and that major reform is necessary. That is a more important problem to solve than our relationship with the EU. We need a massive cultural change and a huge clear out of personnel. They are not up to the job.0
-
We'll get more bangs for our buck outside the EU.0
-
Another advantage is that EUMS doesn't share NATO's geographical limitation. Think about why we never got an Article 5 declaration for the Falklands.Casino_Royale said:
That must be why NATO has added 13 members since the end of the Cold War then.
It’s not surprising the US dominates when it provides 75% of the budget, but actions in the NAC have to be agreed by unanimity and each nation retains full responsibility for its own decisions.0 -
The only reason to have a new referendum is if it is going to settle the matter decisively either way. As of right now, there is no reason to expect that: quite the reverse.
If the polls were to move either way decisively in the short term, I'd then change my mind.
But as things stand Britain is heading for a shit Brexit on shit terms that everyone will hate. And that is, unfortunately, the least bad outcome.
Things will get worse thereafter.0 -
But, we got active help from the US without which we probably wouldn’t have won.Dura_Ace said:
Another advantage is that EUMS doesn't share NATO's geographical limitation. Think about why we never got an Article 5 declaration for the Falklands.Casino_Royale said:
That must be why NATO has added 13 members since the end of the Cold War then.
It’s not surprising the US dominates when it provides 75% of the budget, but actions in the NAC have to be agreed by unanimity and each nation retains full responsibility for its own decisions.0 -
A second vote will achieve and resolve nothing.Jonathan said:
There is a ton of new information on both sides of the argument. IMO that adds to the case for a second vote. We have learned much about our EU partners. It could go either way.Casino_Royale said:
I love the “we now know more facts” argument of the p***les v*te.Jonathan said:
Well quite. The idea that somehow ultra Remainers present unique intellectual flexibility to the outcomes of referenda is absurd.Casino_Royale said:
2016 referendum: democracy means being able to change your mind!Jonathan said:
Fine, let’s stick with the 1975 referendum. Final and decisive.CarlottaVance said:https://twitter.com/DamianGreen/status/1061164807309717504?s=20
To Adonis referendums are only “final and decisive” if he agrees with the result.
1975 referendum: decisive for all time. Suck it up.
When the facts change, we can change our minds. We’ve learned so much in the past two years there is enough new information to justify another vote IMO.
What they mean, of course, is that they think they’ve been proven right on the decision they took the first time and they fail to recognise the rich seam of confirmation bias running right through the middle of it.
There are other facts too, like economic disaster and recession haven’t occurred, that the EU have behaved vindictively, whilst continuing to move in a federalising direction, that we have sight of a independent migration, agricultural and fisheries policy, and neither they or the EU have learnt a single lesson from the vote the first time around.
The tin-earedness is quite something to behold.
The mandate of the first has to be implemented first.0 -
Indeed.Jonathan said:For me, Brexit has proven Westminster/Whitehall is utterly broken and that major reform is necessary. That is a more important problem to solve than our relationship with the EU. We need a massive cultural change and a huge clear out of personnel. They are not up to the job.
0 -
Diasagree, it has been such a botched job we need either a confirmation or a mandate to rethink.Casino_Royale said:
A second vote will achieve and resolve nothing.Jonathan said:
There is a ton of new information on both sides of the argument. IMO that adds to the case for a second vote. We have learned much about our EU partners. It could go either way.Casino_Royale said:
I love the “we now know more facts” argument of the p***les v*te.Jonathan said:
Well quite. The idea that somehow ultra Remainers present unique intellectual flexibility to the outcomes of referenda is absurd.Casino_Royale said:
2016 referendum: democracy means being able to change your mind!Jonathan said:
Fine, let’s stick with the 1975 referendum. Final and decisive.CarlottaVance said:https://twitter.com/DamianGreen/status/1061164807309717504?s=20
To Adonis referendums are only “final and decisive” if he agrees with the result.
1975 referendum: decisive for all time. Suck it up.
When the facts change, we can change our minds. We’ve learned so much in the past two years there is enough new information to justify another vote IMO.
What they mean, of course, is that they think they’ve been proven right on the decision they took the first time and they fail to recognise the rich seam of confirmation bias running right through the middle of it.
There are other facts too, like economic disaster and recession haven’t occurred, that the EU have behaved vindictively, whilst continuing to move in a federalising direction, that we have sight of a independent migration, agricultural and fisheries policy, and neither they or the EU have learnt a single lesson from the vote the first time around.
The tin-earedness is quite something to behold.
The mandate of the first has to be implemented first.0 -
% of GDP is useless. Turkey spend less than 2% GDP and, in absolute terms, about a fifth of the UK defence budget but they have an army of 300,000 and the same again in reserves. And those fuckers can fight...Casino_Royale said:
I agree with you that the 2% GDP target is a crude and proxy measure.
But, it broadly links a base level of military and security spending to a nation’s economic performance.
It should be ‘a’ measure but very far from the only measure.0 -
Certainly there is no good outcome to the Brexit fiasco, but the least damaging is a #peoplesvote to remain.AlastairMeeks said:The only reason to have a new referendum is if it is going to settle the matter decisively either way. As of right now, there is no reason to expect that: quite the reverse.
If the polls were to move either way decisively in the short term, I'd then change my mind.
But as things stand Britain is heading for a shit Brexit on shit terms that everyone will hate. And that is, unfortunately, the least bad outcome.
Things will get worse thereafter.
It may go the other way of course, but then we are no worse off than we are already.0 -
We won't know whether a new referendum will be decisive until after we hold it. Waiting for the polls to turn first is no way to run a country. We're at a fork in the road now, and given that parliament is hobbled by the 2016 mandate, only putting it back to the people will do.AlastairMeeks said:The only reason to have a new referendum is if it is going to settle the matter decisively either way. As of right now, there is no reason to expect that: quite the reverse.
If the polls were to move either way decisively in the short term, I'd then change my mind.
But as things stand Britain is heading for a shit Brexit on shit terms that everyone will hate. And that is, unfortunately, the least bad outcome.
Things will get worse thereafter.0 -
A 52:48 vote for Remain would merely replace a majoritarian Leave dynamic for a majoritarian Remain dynamic. I don't see the slightest evidence that anyone campaigning for a fresh referendum has any interest in thinking about the concerns of those who voted Leave after they have the referendum victory that they have quite unjustifiably mentally banked.Foxy said:
Certainly there is no good outcome to the Brexit fiasco, but the least damaging is a #peoplesvote to remain.AlastairMeeks said:The only reason to have a new referendum is if it is going to settle the matter decisively either way. As of right now, there is no reason to expect that: quite the reverse.
If the polls were to move either way decisively in the short term, I'd then change my mind.
But as things stand Britain is heading for a shit Brexit on shit terms that everyone will hate. And that is, unfortunately, the least bad outcome.
Things will get worse thereafter.
It may go the other way of course, but then we are no worse off than we are already.0 -
If it goes the other way and people vote for the deal then we're better off than we are now, because at least there will be a mandate for what's going to happen.Foxy said:
Certainly there is no good outcome to the Brexit fiasco, but the least damaging is a #peoplesvote to remain.AlastairMeeks said:The only reason to have a new referendum is if it is going to settle the matter decisively either way. As of right now, there is no reason to expect that: quite the reverse.
If the polls were to move either way decisively in the short term, I'd then change my mind.
But as things stand Britain is heading for a shit Brexit on shit terms that everyone will hate. And that is, unfortunately, the least bad outcome.
Things will get worse thereafter.
It may go the other way of course, but then we are no worse off than we are already.0 -
How much do they pay their soldiers, with what are they equipped, what welfare do they provide, and in what conditions do they live?Dura_Ace said:
% of GDP is useless. Turkey spend less than 2% GDP and, in absolute terms, about a fifth of the UK defence budget but they have an army of 300,000 and the same again in reserves. And those fuckers can fight...Casino_Royale said:
I agree with you that the 2% GDP target is a crude and proxy measure.
But, it broadly links a base level of military and security spending to a nation’s economic performance.
It should be ‘a’ measure but very far from the only measure.
I agree that the UK wastes a lot on procurement and management- a shocking amount - but we are two very different countries.0 -
My grandfather was an infantry private in Mesopotamia in 1917, and had a high opinion of Turkish soldiers, who fought hard but cleanly, respecting truces to collect wounded etc. After the Somme, he almost seemed to enjoy it, apart from catching malaria.Dura_Ace said:
% of GDP is useless. Turkey spend less than 2% GDP and, in absolute terms, about a fifth of the UK defence budget but they have an army of 300,000 and the same again in reserves. And those fuckers can fight...Casino_Royale said:
I agree with you that the 2% GDP target is a crude and proxy measure.
But, it broadly links a base level of military and security spending to a nation’s economic performance.
It should be ‘a’ measure but very far from the only measure.0 -
I remain of the view that the EU the better option but I’m yet to hear a wide-ranging, coherently presented argument for remaining in the EU, and an EU where the direction of travel is clear. An argument which works and convinces outside SW London.0
-
Thanks to Robert for the video. The comparison of vote totals in the Midwest is very promising for the Democrats. The voters there are open to persuasion. Can the Democrats find the candidate and the message to persuade them in 2020?0
-
A reversed outcome could lead to a properly negotiated settlement to remain in the EU but on reformed terms. Potentially a better outcome than ‘the deal’.AlastairMeeks said:
A 52:48 vote for Remain would merely replace a majoritarian Leave dynamic for a majoritarian Remain dynamic. I don't see the slightest evidence that anyone campaigning for a fresh referendum has any interest in thinking about the concerns of those who voted Leave after they have the referendum victory that they have quite unjustifiably mentally banked.Foxy said:
Certainly there is no good outcome to the Brexit fiasco, but the least damaging is a #peoplesvote to remain.AlastairMeeks said:The only reason to have a new referendum is if it is going to settle the matter decisively either way. As of right now, there is no reason to expect that: quite the reverse.
If the polls were to move either way decisively in the short term, I'd then change my mind.
But as things stand Britain is heading for a shit Brexit on shit terms that everyone will hate. And that is, unfortunately, the least bad outcome.
Things will get worse thereafter.
It may go the other way of course, but then we are no worse off than we are already.0 -
I largely agree with what you say, except the last sentence. In science we like to repeat experiments multiple times to get an idea of how reliable the result is. The LHC is set up to run the same experiment at a rate of about 600 million per second.ydoethur said:Jonathan said:
Fine, let’s stick with the 1975 referendum. Final and decisive.CarlottaVance said:https://twitter.com/DamianGreen/status/1061164807309717504?s=20
To Adonis referendums are only “final and decisive” if he agrees with the result.
[quotation reduced for reasons of space]
Arguably the best case scenario at least politically is that Leave wins by a huge margin and we leave with no deal, but that would lead to economic collapse here and on the continent. (And no, there is no way any referendum could be held without No Deal as an option outwith the fantasies of not over-bright fanatics like Adonis. Otherwise the risk is of a legal challenge which given the timings would almost certainly achieve the same effect as no deal anyway.)
So why do people want one? Because they can't accept the result of the first. But running the same experiment twice in the expectation of a different result is folly.
Unfortunately this is not normally appropriate for economics or politics as it is impossible to control the various variables0 -
It doesn't look great for Trump, then again I can't imagine it looked good for Reagen in 82.OblitusSumMe said:Thanks to Robert for the video. The comparison of vote totals in the Midwest is very promising for the Democrats. The voters there are open to persuasion. Can the Democrats find the candidate and the message to persuade them in 2020?
0 -
He is indeed. He's got that 'what I did on my holidays' vibe going on.Pulpstar said:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/10611710308011581460 -
Not entirely surprising that someone who was brought up to admire the mob should be attached to the concept of a protection racket.williamglenn said:
Trump didn't really want Europe to spend on its own defence. He wanted Europe (and Japan) to pay money to fund the US military.Foxy said:
Trump says Europe should pay more for its collective defence, rather than rely on the USA.daodao said:
Trump is right to be offended. Sounds like Macron wishes to evoke the spirit of Compiegne 1940 rather than 1918.Dura_Ace said:
Macron is right. If the Europeans want to increase defence spending then their interests are better served by doing it an EU framework. NATO's policy objectives are always 100% aligned with US interests so why should the EU subsidse the US in that manner?dr_spyn said:Trump isn't impressed with Macron.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1061003186125856769
Macron agrees.
Trump and his apologists have a tantrum.
Where is the surprise?
0 -
To validate a result requires a minimum of 3 consecutive results as set by the FDA. Given that the system will respond to the changes made since the first vote the initial referendum would be seen as development work only. Not the closeness of a result in science is important as we add statistical analysis. No drug would be launched based on the last referendum thankfullyFysics_Teacher said:
I largely agree with what you say, except the last sentence. In science we like to repeat experiments multiple times to get an idea of how reliable the result is. The LHC is set up to run the same experiment at a rate of about 600 million per second.ydoethur said:Jonathan said:
Fine, let’s stick with the 1975 referendum. Final and decisive.CarlottaVance said:https://twitter.com/DamianGreen/status/1061164807309717504?s=20
To Adonis referendums are only “final and decisive” if he agrees with the result.
[quotation reduced for reasons of space]
Arguably the best case scenario at least politically is that Leave wins by a huge margin and we leave with no deal, but that would lead to economic collapse here and on the continent. (And no, there is no way any referendum could be held without No Deal as an option outwith the fantasies of not over-bright fanatics like Adonis. Otherwise the risk is of a legal challenge which given the timings would almost certainly achieve the same effect as no deal anyway.)
So why do people want one? Because they can't accept the result of the first. But running the same experiment twice in the expectation of a different result is folly.
Unfortunately this is not normally appropriate for economics or politics as it is impossible to control the various variables0 -
Bloody hell "celebrate"Theuniondivvie said:
He is indeed. He's got that 'what I did on my holidays' vibe going on.Pulpstar said:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/10611710308011581460 -
We once put into Izmir on Invincible's med cruise. Normally a port visit is an exchange of pleasantries and souvenirs but the Turkish Navy insisted on shooting competition. As I was the ship's qualified marksman I was dispatched to the shooting range for a 15m handgun competition. I was up against some snake eater from their Naval Infantry. He went first and had two of his comrades stand to attention right next to and at either side of the target while he blazed away at it with a SIG227!Foxy said:
My grandfather was an infantry private in Mesopotamia in 1917, and had a high opinion of Turkish soldiers, who fought hard but cleanly, respecting truces to collect wounded etc. After the Somme, he almost seemed to enjoy it, apart from catching malaria.Dura_Ace said:
% of GDP is useless. Turkey spend less than 2% GDP and, in absolute terms, about a fifth of the UK defence budget but they have an army of 300,000 and the same again in reserves. And those fuckers can fight...Casino_Royale said:
I agree with you that the 2% GDP target is a crude and proxy measure.
But, it broadly links a base level of military and security spending to a nation’s economic performance.
It should be ‘a’ measure but very far from the only measure.
The scene was best summarised by our ship's Chaplain who was in attendance to provide me with moral support. His benediction was simply, "Fucking hell."0 -
I agree and there seems an unreality about what remain might mean that matches the unreality of what Leave meant. Cameron’s deal, such as it was, is off the table but what about the rebate, our various opt outs, Schengen etc. Would the EU even want such a recalcitrant and deeply divided member? The idea that all this unpleasantness would just go away as if it never happened is equally delusional.AlastairMeeks said:
A 52:48 vote for Remain would merely replace a majoritarian Leave dynamic for a majoritarian Remain dynamic. I don't see the slightest evidence that anyone campaigning for a fresh referendum has any interest in thinking about the concerns of those who voted Leave after they have the referendum victory that they have quite unjustifiably mentally banked.Foxy said:
Certainly there is no good outcome to the Brexit fiasco, but the least damaging is a #peoplesvote to remain.AlastairMeeks said:The only reason to have a new referendum is if it is going to settle the matter decisively either way. As of right now, there is no reason to expect that: quite the reverse.
If the polls were to move either way decisively in the short term, I'd then change my mind.
But as things stand Britain is heading for a shit Brexit on shit terms that everyone will hate. And that is, unfortunately, the least bad outcome.
Things will get worse thereafter.
It may go the other way of course, but then we are no worse off than we are already.0 -
I think the point that is made with the people’s vote is that for 2 years the government has had the opportunity to negotiate a departure that would swing remainers to the leave side. This has failed to happen. How long do they have before we need another vote?0
-
Jonathan said:
A reversed outcome could lead to a properly negotiated settlement to remain in the EU but on reformed terms. Potentially a better outcome than ‘the deal’.AlastairMeeks said:
A 52:48 vote for Remain would merely replace a majoritarian Leave dynamic for a majoritarian Remain dynamic. I don't see the slightest evidence that anyone campaigning for a fresh referendum has any interest in thinking about the concerns of those who voted Leave after they have the referendum victory that they have quite unjustifiably mentally banked.Foxy said:
Certainly there is no good outcome to the Brexit fiasco, but the least damaging is a #peoplesvote to remain.AlastairMeeks said:The only reason to have a new referendum is if it is going to settle the matter decisively either way. As of right now, there is no reason to expect that: quite the reverse.
If the polls were to move either way decisively in the short term, I'd then change my mind.
But as things stand Britain is heading for a shit Brexit on shit terms that everyone will hate. And that is, unfortunately, the least bad outcome.
Things will get worse thereafter.
It may go the other way of course, but then we are no worse off than we are already.
Because we are all so confident about how reasonable or even rational the EU would be in negotiations aren’t we?0 -
How did you do ?Dura_Ace said:
We once put into Izmir on Invincible's med cruise. Normally a port visit is an exchange of pleasantries and souvenirs but the Turkish Navy insisted on shooting competition. As I was the ship's qualified marksman I was dispatched to the shooting range for a 15m handgun competition. I was up against some snake eater from their Naval Infantry. He went first and had two of his comrades stand to attention right next to and at either side of the target while he blazed away at it with a SIG227!Foxy said:
My grandfather was an infantry private in Mesopotamia in 1917, and had a high opinion of Turkish soldiers, who fought hard but cleanly, respecting truces to collect wounded etc. After the Somme, he almost seemed to enjoy it, apart from catching malaria.Dura_Ace said:
% of GDP is useless. Turkey spend less than 2% GDP and, in absolute terms, about a fifth of the UK defence budget but they have an army of 300,000 and the same again in reserves. And those fuckers can fight...Casino_Royale said:
I agree with you that the 2% GDP target is a crude and proxy measure.
But, it broadly links a base level of military and security spending to a nation’s economic performance.
It should be ‘a’ measure but very far from the only measure.
The scene was best summarised by our ship's Chaplain who was in attendance to provide me with moral support. His benediction was simply, "Fucking hell."
0 -
It's such a broad issue that there'll never be a single argument that is able to meet that demand, but have you considered this one -matt said:I remain of the view that the EU the better option but I’m yet to hear a wide-ranging, coherently presented argument for remaining in the EU, and an EU where the direction of travel is clear. An argument which works and convinces outside SW London.
The UK (particularly England) is inherently London-centric, so London tends to predominate in national discourse. For people outside that world, their interests may be more aligned with people in other analogous regions of Europe. That goes for economic interests as well as cultural interests - many who voted for Brexit may have views on immigration closer to certain continental politicians than to any of the main UK parties, for example. If we took European integration more seriously, it would give a regional agenda for England much more coherence, and provide a credible counterbalance to the metropolitan interests of London.0 -
The majoritarian Leave dynamic, however, that Leavers exult in and are uninterested in doing anything about is incredibly damaging all by itself. It's also really stupid, because until Leavers start to engage with the well-founded concerns that Remain supporters have identified, there is no way on earth that Brexit is going to be embedded as a consensus and every chance that it will be reversed in just such a majoritarian countercoup.DavidL said:
I agree and there seems an unreality about what remain might mean that matches the unreality of what Leave meant. Cameron’s deal, such as it was, is off the table but what about the rebate, our various opt outs, Schengen etc. Would the EU even want such a recalcitrant and deeply divided member? The idea that all this unpleasantness would just go away as if it never happened is equally delusional.AlastairMeeks said:
A 52:48 vote for Remain would merely replace a majoritarian Leave dynamic for a majoritarian Remain dynamic. I don't see the slightest evidence that anyone campaigning for a fresh referendum has any interest in thinking about the concerns of those who voted Leave after they have the referendum victory that they have quite unjustifiably mentally banked.Foxy said:
Certainly there is no good outcome to the Brexit fiasco, but the least damaging is a #peoplesvote to remain.AlastairMeeks said:The only reason to have a new referendum is if it is going to settle the matter decisively either way. As of right now, there is no reason to expect that: quite the reverse.
If the polls were to move either way decisively in the short term, I'd then change my mind.
But as things stand Britain is heading for a shit Brexit on shit terms that everyone will hate. And that is, unfortunately, the least bad outcome.
Things will get worse thereafter.
It may go the other way of course, but then we are no worse off than we are already.0 -
Aye, but did ye win?Dura_Ace said:
We once put into Izmir on Invincible's med cruise. Normally a port visit is an exchange of pleasantries and souvenirs but the Turkish Navy insisted on shooting competition. As I was the ship's qualified marksman I was dispatched to the shooting range for a 15m handgun competition. I was up against some snake eater from their Naval Infantry. He went first and had two of his comrades stand to attention right next to and at either side of the target while he blazed away at it with a SIG227!Foxy said:
My grandfather was an infantry private in Mesopotamia in 1917, and had a high opinion of Turkish soldiers, who fought hard but cleanly, respecting truces to collect wounded etc. After the Somme, he almost seemed to enjoy it, apart from catching malaria.Dura_Ace said:
% of GDP is useless. Turkey spend less than 2% GDP and, in absolute terms, about a fifth of the UK defence budget but they have an army of 300,000 and the same again in reserves. And those fuckers can fight...Casino_Royale said:
I agree with you that the 2% GDP target is a crude and proxy measure.
But, it broadly links a base level of military and security spending to a nation’s economic performance.
It should be ‘a’ measure but very far from the only measure.
The scene was best summarised by our ship's Chaplain who was in attendance to provide me with moral support. His benediction was simply, "Fucking hell."0 -
And the bloodiest is a record it didn’t hold for very long.Pulpstar said:
Bloody hell "celebrate"Theuniondivvie said:
He is indeed. He's got that 'what I did on my holidays' vibe going on.Pulpstar said:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/10611710308011581460 -
I'd start with how confident we can be about how reasonable or even rational we would be in negotiations before putting the cart in front of Dobbin.DavidL said:Jonathan said:
A reversed outcome could lead to a properly negotiated settlement to remain in the EU but on reformed terms. Potentially a better outcome than ‘the deal’.AlastairMeeks said:
A 52:48 vote for Remain would merely replace a majoritarian Leave dynamic for a majoritarian Remain dynamic. I don't see the slightest evidence that anyone campaigning for a fresh referendum has any interest in thinking about the concerns of those who voted Leave after they have the referendum victory that they have quite unjustifiably mentally banked.Foxy said:
Certainly there is no good outcome to the Brexit fiasco, but the least damaging is a #peoplesvote to remain.AlastairMeeks said:The only reason to have a new referendum is if it is going to settle the matter decisively either way. As of right now, there is no reason to expect that: quite the reverse.
If the polls were to move either way decisively in the short term, I'd then change my mind.
But as things stand Britain is heading for a shit Brexit on shit terms that everyone will hate. And that is, unfortunately, the least bad outcome.
Things will get worse thereafter.
It may go the other way of course, but then we are no worse off than we are already.
Because we are all so confident about how reasonable or even rational the EU would be in negotiations aren’t we?0 -
The evidence would suggest that is indeed a valid consideration.Theuniondivvie said:
I'd start with how confident we can be about how reasonable or even rational we would be in negotiations before putting the cart in front of Dobbin.DavidL said:Jonathan said:
A reversed outcome could lead to a properly negotiated settlement to remain in the EU but on reformed terms. Potentially a better outcome than ‘the deal’.AlastairMeeks said:
A 52:48 vote for Remain would merely replace a majoritarian Leave dynamic for a majoritarian Remain dynamic. I don't see the slightest evidence that anyone campaigning for a fresh referendum has any interest in thinking about the concerns of those who voted Leave after they have the referendum victory that they have quite unjustifiably mentally banked.Foxy said:
Certainly there is no good outcome to the Brexit fiasco, but the least damaging is a #peoplesvote to remain.AlastairMeeks said:The only reason to have a new referendum is if it is going to settle the matter decisively either way. As of right now, there is no reason to expect that: quite the reverse.
If the polls were to move either way decisively in the short term, I'd then change my mind.
But as things stand Britain is heading for a shit Brexit on shit terms that everyone will hate. And that is, unfortunately, the least bad outcome.
Things will get worse thereafter.
It may go the other way of course, but then we are no worse off than we are already.
Because we are all so confident about how reasonable or even rational the EU would be in negotiations aren’t we?0 -
One of the interesting ‘what ifs’ of British history will be ‘If the 2016-2019 Brexit negotiations had been handled by a competent government, could Brexit have succeeded?’
Let’s say Osborne enters and wins the 2016 Tory leadership election.0 -
I agree. We need to leave. But that is all the mandate was: to leave. We leave on 29th March 2019. And we can leave without doing any damage at all to our economy. So why not do that?Casino_Royale said:
A second vote will achieve and resolve nothing.Jonathan said:
There is a ton of new information on both sides of the argument. IMO that adds to the case for a second vote. We have learned much about our EU partners. It could go either way.Casino_Royale said:
I love the “we now know more facts” argument of the p***les v*te.Jonathan said:
Well quite. The idea that somehow ultra Remainers present unique intellectual flexibility to the outcomes of referenda is absurd.Casino_Royale said:
2016 referendum: democracy means being able to change your mind!Jonathan said:
Fine, let’s stick with the 1975 referendum. Final and decisive.CarlottaVance said:https://twitter.com/DamianGreen/status/1061164807309717504?s=20
To Adonis referendums are only “final and decisive” if he agrees with the result.
1975 referendum: decisive for all time. Suck it up.
When the facts change, we can change our minds. We’ve learned so much in the past two years there is enough new information to justify another vote IMO.
What they mean, of course, is that they think they’ve been proven right on the decision they took the first time and they fail to recognise the rich seam of confirmation bias running right through the middle of it.
There are other facts too, like economic disaster and recession haven’t occurred, that the EU have behaved vindictively, whilst continuing to move in a federalising direction, that we have sight of a independent migration, agricultural and fisheries policy, and neither they or the EU have learnt a single lesson from the vote the first time around.
The tin-earedness is quite something to behold.
The mandate of the first has to be implemented first.
0 -
Not really. The conduct of the referendum campaign was such that the post-referendum government was inevitably going to be incompetent.Jonathan said:One of the interesting ‘what ifs’ of British history will be ‘If the 2016-2019 Brexit negotiations had been handled by a competent government, could Brexit have succeeded?’
0 -
Why? Surely the EU would insist on same terms of membership as before ( or more likely less rebate). They would declare “victory” and plough on regardless with ever closer integration ( like Macron’s army to fight the USA to pick one example). The fact that tens of millions in their joint second biggest member would be somewhere between sullenly resigned and seething at boiling point, would matter to them not a jot.Jonathan said:
A reversed outcome could lead to a properly negotiated settlement to remain in the EU but on reformed terms. Potentially a better outcome than ‘the deal’.AlastairMeeks said:
A 52:48 vote for Remain would merely replace a majoritarian Leave dynamic for a majoritarian Remain dynamic. I don't see the slightest evidence that anyone campaigning for a fresh referendum has any interest in thinking about the concerns of those who voted Leave after they have the referendum victory that they have quite unjustifiably mentally banked.Foxy said:
Certainly there is no good outcome to the Brexit fiasco, but the least damaging is a #peoplesvote to remain.AlastairMeeks said:The only reason to have a new referendum is if it is going to settle the matter decisively either way. As of right now, there is no reason to expect that: quite the reverse.
If the polls were to move either way decisively in the short term, I'd then change my mind.
But as things stand Britain is heading for a shit Brexit on shit terms that everyone will hate. And that is, unfortunately, the least bad outcome.
Things will get worse thereafter.
It may go the other way of course, but then we are no worse off than we are already.
We would be laying the grounds for “round three”, except people would know the ballot box is flawed, in that it can apparently only be used to generate results the likes of the FBPE ultras approve of. It’s a grim prospect.0 -
It’s a mess, no doubt about it. I am reminded of the scene in Blackadder IV where George says “I wanted to see how a war was fought so badly “ and B replies “Well you’re in luck, a war hasn’t been fought this badly since (something to do with Viking helmets and horns on the inside).AlastairMeeks said:
The majoritarian Leave dynamic, however, that Leavers exult in and are uninterested in doing anything about is incredibly damaging all by itself. It's also really stupid, because until Leavers start to engage with the well-founded concerns that Remain supporters have identified, there is no way on earth that Brexit is going to be embedded as a consensus and every chance that it will be reversed in just such a majoritarian countercoup.DavidL said:
I agree and there seems an unreality about what remain might mean that matches the unreality of what Leave meant. Cameron’s deal, such as it was, is off the table but what about the rebate, our various opt outs, Schengen etc. Would the EU even want such a recalcitrant and deeply divided member? The idea that all this unpleasantness would just go away as if it never happened is equally delusional.AlastairMeeks said:
A 52:48 vote for Remain would merely replace a majoritarian Leave dynamic for a majoritarian Remain dynamic. I don't see the slightest evidence that anyone campaigning for a fresh referendum has any interest in thinking about the concerns of those who voted Leave after they have the referendum victory that they have quite unjustifiably mentally banked.Foxy said:
Certainly there is no good outcome to the Brexit fiasco, but the least damaging is a #peoplesvote to remain.AlastairMeeks said:The only reason to have a new referendum is if it is going to settle the matter decisively either way. As of right now, there is no reason to expect that: quite the reverse.
If the polls were to move either way decisively in the short term, I'd then change my mind.
But as things stand Britain is heading for a shit Brexit on shit terms that everyone will hate. And that is, unfortunately, the least bad outcome.
Things will get worse thereafter.
It may go the other way of course, but then we are no worse off than we are already.
0 -
You could also ask 'if the 2000-2016 EU negotiations had been handled by competent governments would the UK have left the EU ?'Jonathan said:One of the interesting ‘what ifs’ of British history will be ‘If the 2016-2019 Brexit negotiations had been handled by a competent government, could Brexit have succeeded?’
0 -
It was always going to be difficult with such an evenly divided country but there are still many layers of incompetence that we might have aspired to.AlastairMeeks said:
Not really. The conduct of the referendum campaign was such that the post-referendum government was inevitably going to be incompetent.Jonathan said:One of the interesting ‘what ifs’ of British history will be ‘If the 2016-2019 Brexit negotiations had been handled by a competent government, could Brexit have succeeded?’
0 -
If the UK government had actually applied all the restrictions on free movement available to it (even ignoring transition controls) rather than saying they could do nothing and blaming the EU would the UK have left the EU?another_richard said:
You could also ask 'if the 2000-2016 EU negotiations had been handled by competent governments would the UK have left the EU ?'Jonathan said:One of the interesting ‘what ifs’ of British history will be ‘If the 2016-2019 Brexit negotiations had been handled by a competent government, could Brexit have succeeded?’
0 -
Remainers will never swing to the Leave side. You could give them decades. It's an article of faith, that Leavers Are All Just Plain Wrong.....hamiltonace said:I think the point that is made with the people’s vote is that for 2 years the government has had the opportunity to negotiate a departure that would swing remainers to the leave side. This has failed to happen. How long do they have before we need another vote?
May has tried to placate the Remainers, by delivering a deal that is BINO. Have they shown any gratitude? Have they hell.....0 -
Unless May is keeping something very quiet, that is not a thing.SouthamObserver said:
I agree. We need to leave. But that is all the mandate was: to leave. We leave on 29th March 2019. And we can leave without doing any damage at all to our economy. So why not do that?Casino_Royale said:
A second vote will achieve and resolve nothing.Jonathan said:
There is a ton of new information on both sides of the argument. IMO that adds to the case for a second vote. We have learned much about our EU partners. It could go either way.Casino_Royale said:
I love the “we now know more facts” argument of the p***les v*te.Jonathan said:
Well quite. The idea that somehow ultra Remainers present unique intellectual flexibility to the outcomes of referenda is absurd.Casino_Royale said:
2016 referendum: democracy means being able to change your mind!Jonathan said:
Fine, let’s stick with the 1975 referendum. Final and decisive.CarlottaVance said:https://twitter.com/DamianGreen/status/1061164807309717504?s=20
To Adonis referendums are only “final and decisive” if he agrees with the result.
1975 referendum: decisive for all time. Suck it up.
When the facts change, we can change our minds. We’ve learned so much in the past two years there is enough new information to justify another vote IMO.
What they mean, of course, is that they think they’ve been proven right on the decision they took the first time and they fail to recognise the rich seam of confirmation bias running right through the middle of it.
There are other facts too, like economic disaster and recession haven’t occurred, that the EU have behaved vindictively, whilst continuing to move in a federalising direction, that we have sight of a independent migration, agricultural and fisheries policy, and neither they or the EU have learnt a single lesson from the vote the first time around.
The tin-earedness is quite something to behold.
The mandate of the first has to be implemented first.
0 -
It's what winners do.Pulpstar said:
Bloody hell "celebrate"Theuniondivvie said:
He is indeed. He's got that 'what I did on my holidays' vibe going on.Pulpstar said:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1061171030801158146
The Allies "celebrated" their win by grinding Germany into the dust with the Treaty of Versailles.....0 -
With Osborne in no10. Gove in the FO. And David Davis and Boris Johnson running tills in Homebase, we would be in a much better place.AlastairMeeks said:
Not really. The conduct of the referendum campaign was such that the post-referendum government was inevitably going to be incompetent.Jonathan said:One of the interesting ‘what ifs’ of British history will be ‘If the 2016-2019 Brexit negotiations had been handled by a competent government, could Brexit have succeeded?’
0 -
Any transitional arrangements with the A8 would long since have expired and similar numbers would have come. We might not have had such a blatant example of our government’s incompetence or indifference to most people’s concerns but the numbers would have been the same. We have a very flexible job market, a very generous largely non contributory benefits system and the universal language. We were always going to be the biggest draw.Alistair said:
If the UK government had actually applied all the restrictions on free movement available to it (even ignoring transition controls) rather than saying they could do nothing and blaming the EU would the UK have left the EU?another_richard said:
You could also ask 'if the 2000-2016 EU negotiations had been handled by competent governments would the UK have left the EU ?'Jonathan said:One of the interesting ‘what ifs’ of British history will be ‘If the 2016-2019 Brexit negotiations had been handled by a competent government, could Brexit have succeeded?’
0 -
You don’t think Homebase have enough problems?Jonathan said:
With Osborne in no10. Gove in the FO. And David Davis and Boris Johnson running tills in Homebase, we would be in a much better place.AlastairMeeks said:
Not really. The conduct of the referendum campaign was such that the post-referendum government was inevitably going to be incompetent.Jonathan said:One of the interesting ‘what ifs’ of British history will be ‘If the 2016-2019 Brexit negotiations had been handled by a competent government, could Brexit have succeeded?’
0 -
I suppose “Fuck London” fits on the side of a bus.williamglenn said:
It's such a broad issue that there'll never be a single argument that is able to meet that demand, but have you considered this one -matt said:I remain of the view that the EU the better option but I’m yet to hear a wide-ranging, coherently presented argument for remaining in the EU, and an EU where the direction of travel is clear. An argument which works and convinces outside SW London.
The UK (particularly England) is inherently London-centric, so London tends to predominate in national discourse. For people outside that world, their interests may be more aligned with people in other analogous regions of Europe. That goes for economic interests as well as cultural interests - many who voted for Brexit may have views on immigration closer to certain continental politicians than to any of the main UK parties, for example. If we took European integration more seriously, it would give a regional agenda for England much more coherence, and provide a credible counterbalance to the metropolitan interests of London.0 -
The scale of the majority is material. In 1975 the result was decisive and there was no real popular demand to vote again for decades.Casino_Royale said:
2016 referendum: democracy means being able to change your mind!Jonathan said:
Fine, let’s stick with the 1975 referendum. Final and decisive.CarlottaVance said:https://twitter.com/DamianGreen/status/1061164807309717504?s=20
To Adonis referendums are only “final and decisive” if he agrees with the result.
1975 referendum: decisive for all time. Suck it up.
2016 was not clear cut and there is no consensus even on the winning side as to how to implement the result. In addition the demographics are not on Brexit's side so all in all popular demand for another vote is likely to come much sooner, within 5 years I suspect, sooner if we end up with no deal.
When even the Spectator is headlining that neither Brexit option is palatable I am starting to wonder if the game is up though I expect we might have to let people enjoy the No Deal experience first.0 -
But we still don't apply the restrictions that are available. How many EU nationals have we deported after they failed to find a job after 3 months? How many have we deported for being a burden on the benefits system?DavidL said:
Any transitional arrangements with the A8 would long since have expired and similar numbers would have come. We might not have had such a blatant example of our government’s incompetence or indifference to most people’s concerns but the numbers would have been the same. We have a very flexible job market, a very generous largely non contributory benefits system and the universal language. We were always going to be the biggest draw.Alistair said:
If the UK government had actually applied all the restrictions on free movement available to it (even ignoring transition controls) rather than saying they could do nothing and blaming the EU would the UK have left the EU?another_richard said:
You could also ask 'if the 2000-2016 EU negotiations had been handled by competent governments would the UK have left the EU ?'Jonathan said:One of the interesting ‘what ifs’ of British history will be ‘If the 2016-2019 Brexit negotiations had been handled by a competent government, could Brexit have succeeded?’
0 -
Immigration from Eastern Europe has now fallen since the Leave vote anyway and many have returned home so it is less of an issue nowDavidL said:
Any transitional arrangements with the A8 would long since have expired and similar numbers would have come. We might not have had such a blatant example of our government’s incompetence or indifference to most people’s concerns but the numbers would have been the same. We have a very flexible job market, a very generous largely non contributory benefits system and the universal language. We were always going to be the biggest draw.Alistair said:
If the UK government had actually applied all the restrictions on free movement available to it (even ignoring transition controls) rather than saying they could do nothing and blaming the EU would the UK have left the EU?another_richard said:
You could also ask 'if the 2000-2016 EU negotiations had been handled by competent governments would the UK have left the EU ?'Jonathan said:One of the interesting ‘what ifs’ of British history will be ‘If the 2016-2019 Brexit negotiations had been handled by a competent government, could Brexit have succeeded?’
0 -
Former VP Mondale led Reagan in 1982 polls much as former VP Biden leads Trump nowPulpstar said:
It doesn't look great for Trump, then again I can't imagine it looked good for Reagen in 82.OblitusSumMe said:Thanks to Robert for the video. The comparison of vote totals in the Midwest is very promising for the Democrats. The voters there are open to persuasion. Can the Democrats find the candidate and the message to persuade them in 2020?
0 -
NEW THREAD
0
