politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » More and more punters are putting their money on a second refe

hamiltonace said:

OblitusSumMe said:

OllyT said:

AndyJS said:

"Bet365 founder paid herself an 'obscene' £265m in 2017

Denise Coates took home more than a third of the betting firm’s annual profit in record salary"

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/21/bet365-denise-coates-paid-herself-an-obscene-265m-in-2017

That story pretty much encapsulates what's wrong with modern Britain. Utterly depressing.

38% profit margin (if you treat the >£400m paid to senior directors as profit).

If, as a country, we reduced the amount of money spent on gambling - say halved it - that would surely do a lot of good.

The liberalisation of gambling laws under New Labour was one of their worst errors.

Just back from business trip to USA and listened to Robert’s video which summed up all I see. Bet 365 is a company that helps our current account deficit. We soon are going to need all such companies even if they sell guns or tobacco. There is still a wilfull arrogance about the British and especially the English which as a Scot I see as the 1966 mentality. We think we are better than we are.

I am waiting for any politician to talk about increasing business investment levels which is going the wrong way fast. I will vote for whoever first comes up with a sensible plan to address this problem

Does Bet365 help the current account deficit?

Some problem gamblers end up borrowing lots of money, either to cover living expenses when they've lost their pay gambling, or in a desperate attempt to win back their losses. Isn't a lot of this borrowed money from abroad, with interest on it leaving the country?

Well worth a read:

https://electionsetc.com/2018/11/21/in-which-theresa-may-calls-a-referendum-despite-expecting-to-lose-her-job/

TheWhiteRabbit said:

paulyork64 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Stodge, was surprised the gambling story didn't make the news.

I do wonder if that's partly driven by lootboxes in videogames. Not my kind of game so I'm not au fait with all the detail, but it seems like this:
1) you spend a small amount on a lootbox, containing a small number of randomised items
2) these vary from very common to rare and can be cosmetic or have gameplay advantages
3) they can be resold (I think) through other sites for real world
4) it smells rather like gambling...

I'm not fond of multiplayer games, DLC generally or microtransactions in particular, so it's not my area, but my understanding of it makes me less than approving.

it was lead item on our local bbc breakfast news (yorkshire). what it sounded like they were describing were games where you pay to spin a wheel to decide your prize. which they compared to a roulette wheel.

MD's got this basically right. Step (3) is only present in some games.

Games companies argue this is like buying a pack of trading cards; if there are seven cards in the pack you might get one valuable one or you might not. You might get seven you already have or you might need to buy seven packs to get the one to complete your collection - and few people would describe this as 'gambling'.

There is a bit of a backlash going over lootboxes, but the micro-transaction (where at least you know what you are getting) is here to stay.

In the game I play (*), Elite, microttransactions seem fair enough. They are purely cosmetic items, and do not affect gameplay one jot.

Microtransactions become really addictive when they involve pay-to-win: instead of playing well, you can buy your way into a good position. And the companies compound this by making it really, really hard to progress without the microtransactions.

(*) Not that I get time to at the moment ...

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jonathan said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jonathan said:

Is it possible, just maybe , that our government shares some of the responsibility for this mess. Radical thought I know. But given we, not they, created this unholy mess, the onus is on us to find a way out.

Our government, but more voters, who voted for the original bad choice and then - in a massively perverse twist - voted to make it impossible to implement.

Who called the 2017 election?

Someone who made a mistake! That doesn't absolve responsibility from the voters who perversely, and it seems mainly for trivial reasons, decided to deprive her of the mandate need to implement their previous decision.

Probably because they were asked to give her a mandate for a lot more than implementing that decision and understandably balked.

Had she gone into the election with a manifesto that stated:
- This is how we're going to implement Brexit
- Everything else is exactly as per our 2015 manifesto
- We will pass legislation to bring the next election forward to 2020, when it was originally schedule, and back on the 5-year schedule thereafter...

It would indeed have been a Brexit election.

Blaming the voters for considering all of her offering and deciding not to give it their consent as a whole, and then characterising it only from the lens of Brexit does seem a bit harsh. We know that much of the backlash was on everything else in the manifestos. As the Conservatives would certainly have taken a majority as authorising them to carry out all of that, surely that's fair enough?

Alistair said:

Pulpstar said:

If/when US gambling laws are liberalised, Bet365 should become an absolute powerhouse there.
Right now they're a bit of a nonsense, the Daily Fantasy market, which is definitely not gambling, is huge there.

Skill based Pulpstar, skil based. Wink.

Actually all gambling is skill based in the long run. The biggest skill is not participating in 99+% of markets - most of the big betting companies really know their stuff on football for instance; being able to beat them is difficult (And literally impossible in the long run on say roulette or a FOBT). Another is always going for top price. You tend to get limited if you're good though.

grabcocque said:

anothernick said:

Gallowgate said:

https://twitter.com/adamfleming/status/1065546648909201408?s=21

It will be politically dead by the end of the day.

I don't think it was ever really going to be alive, after it became clear the EU has no intention of giving way on its stupid and divisive backstop.

Both remainers and hard Brexiteers will rubbish it to death, just as they did with the withdrawal agreement. In any case it's not binding on anyone so it is hardly worth the paper it's written on.

Morning all.

Well, I am immediately to the left of Emmanuel Macron.

Make of that what you will.

Pulpstar said:

rottenborough said:

AEP this morning, basically saying May's deal is a complete disaster.

But that,

"My working assumption is that a bloc of Labour MPs will support Theresa May’s package and push it over the top in December."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/11/21/theresa-mays-culpable-naivety-means-explosive-brexit-showdown/

Well AEP is always wrong so we can quickly draw two conclusions:

a) The deal is emphatically not a disaster, unfortunately journalists do not work for exporters etc.
b) The deal will fail to get through the house.

Regardless of your (a) and (b) how he continues to be employed is a mystery. His maxim appears to be "never knowingly correct".

I assume, like Johnson, his constant "the EU is terrible and the Euro will fail tomorrow" articles hit the sweet spot for the owners.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

paulyork64 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Stodge, was surprised the gambling story didn't make the news.

I do wonder if that's partly driven by lootboxes in videogames. Not my kind of game so I'm not au fait with all the detail, but it seems like this:
1) you spend a small amount on a lootbox, containing a small number of randomised items
2) these vary from very common to rare and can be cosmetic or have gameplay advantages
3) they can be resold (I think) through other sites for real world
4) it smells rather like gambling...

I'm not fond of multiplayer games, DLC generally or microtransactions in particular, so it's not my area, but my understanding of it makes me less than approving.

it was lead item on our local bbc breakfast news (yorkshire). what it sounded like they were describing were games where you pay to spin a wheel to decide your prize. which they compared to a roulette wheel.

MD's got this basically right. Step (3) is only present in some games.

Games companies argue this is like buying a pack of trading cards; if there are seven cards in the pack you might get one valuable one or you might not. You might get seven you already have or you might need to buy seven packs to get the one to complete your collection - and few people would describe this as 'gambling'.

There is a bit of a backlash going over lootboxes, but the micro-transaction (where at least you know what you are getting) is here to stay.

In the game I play (*), Elite, microttransactions seem fair enough. They are purely cosmetic items, and do not affect gameplay one jot.

Microtransactions become really addictive when they involve pay-to-win: instead of playing well, you can buy your way into a good position. And the companies compound this by making it really, really hard to progress without the microtransactions.

(*) Not that I get time to at the moment ...

The most famous lootboxes, in CS:GO, are cosmetic only. But that didn't stop them selling for $100+ in what is effectively a speculator's market.

Fortnite certainly proves you can drown in money with cosmetic boxes !
I'm massively in favour of cosmetic boxes, subsidise the game for people who like content (I accept this is an oxymoron wrt Fortnite as an example)

Cyclefree said:

Morning all.

Well, I am immediately to the left of Emmanuel Macron.

Make of that what you will.

By Jove!

Alistair said:

Pulpstar said:

Alistair said:

Pulpstar said:

If/when US gambling laws are liberalised, Bet365 should become an absolute powerhouse there.
Right now they're a bit of a nonsense, the Daily Fantasy market, which is definitely not gambling, is huge there.

Skill based Pulpstar, skil based. Wink.

Actually all gambling is skill based in the long run. The biggest skill is not participating in 99+% of markets - most of the big betting companies really know their stuff on football for instance; being able to beat them is difficult (And literally impossible in the long run on say roulette or a FOBT). Another is always going for top price. You tend to get limited if you're good though.

Sure, I agree wit you that nonFOBT is skill based but that is the sophistry at play that makes general gambling illegal and daily fantasy sports legal in America.

I'm sure as hell glad I'm not playing for money with my team this week, Todd Gurley on a bye..; Dalvin Cook theoretically my best player...

According to Betfair, there is a 40% chance of a referendum next year and a 20% chance that we will not have left the EU by 2022. Does that imply that there is a 50% chance that the result of the referendum will be Remain?

If Remain is a better than 50% chance, given a referendum next year, is there value in betting that we will not have left the EU by 2022?

oooof

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1065557037990518784


My guardian profile match speaks..

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1065548253331107841

El_Capitano said:

http://twitter.com/SebDance/status/1065553710099693568

It’s a good point. May’s oft-repeated line that “the people have already had a vote” looks a bit silly if her response to MPs voting against her is... to have another vote.

The ERG and the rest of the stupid tory MPs really are going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory on this aren't they.

Andy_Cooke said:

El_Capitano said:

http://twitter.com/SebDance/status/1065553710099693568

It’s a good point. May’s oft-repeated line that “the people have already had a vote” looks a bit silly if her response to MPs voting against her is... to have another vote.

"The Peoples' Representatives have already had a vote..."

Besides, the British people might well have changed their mind in 3 years.
But her policy implies that MPs are prone to change their mind in 3 days.

Andrew said:

Pulpstar said:

No, that's not true in every case. Most people simply must VASTLY overestimate how good they are at gambling though, or Bet365 wouldn't make such gigantic profits.

With any British book, if they suspect you'll be a long-term winner you'll find your account closed, or limited to tiny stakes.

At least with the premium charge on Betfair you can lump on when you think you're on to a good thing.

OldKingCole said:

Pulpstar said:

grabcocque said:

Pulpstar said:

Alistair said:

Pulpstar said:

If/when US gambling laws are liberalised, Bet365 should become an absolute powerhouse there.
Right now they're a bit of a nonsense, the Daily Fantasy market, which is definitely not gambling, is huge there.

Skill based Pulpstar, skil based. Wink.

Actually all gambling is skill based in the long run. The biggest skill is not participating in 99+% of markets - most of the big betting companies really know their stuff on football for instance; being able to beat them is difficult (And literally impossible in the long run on say roulette or a FOBT). Another is always going for top price.

The only winning move is not to play.

Thanks, WOPR.

No, that's not true in every case. Most people simply must VASTLY overestimate how good they are at gambling though, or Bet365 wouldn't make such gigantic profits.

Morning ladies and gentlemen.
Surely for many people an occasional, or even daily small flutter on horses, dogs, football or even politics is harmless fun, equivalent to stopping on the way home for a pint or having a glass of wine. If they win, that is a bonus; if they lose, well they have spent a cheerful half hour or so with others of a same mind discussing chances.
Like other activities, it is only when it becomes solitary, or otherwise obsessive that trouble arises.

The problem is it's very easy to cross over from an occasional flutter to getting addicted. I'm not sure what the solution is though.

OT. I went to Liverpool yesterday and got a ferry accross the Mersey. I went to the large ticket office at the ferry terminal and was told by a man in uniform that they don't sell tickets. "You have to go down the road to a shop called 'Singhsbury' about a quarter of a mile down the road"

After a freezing walk a pleasant Asian woman in a very tiny shop said 'Yes this is the place where you buy ferry tickets. It's funny isn't it?' and then she chuckled.

Arriving back at the ticket office I was told I'd just missed the boat and the next one was in an hour. No I didn't need to show him my ticket I could show it when I get on the boat. "Ok" I said "But if you don't sell tickets and you don't take tickets do you mind if I ask what you do do in this ticket office?" "Don't ask me" He said "I'm not responsible for working out the system" and off he went to make a telephone call.

Could it be the Irish influence?

Roger said:

OT. I went to Liverpool yesterday and got a ferry accross the Mersey. I went to the large ticket office at the ferry terminal and was told by a man in uniform that they don't sell tickets. "You have to go down the road to a shop called 'Singhsbury' about a quarter of a mile down the road"

After a freezing walk a pleasant Asian woman in a very tiny shop said 'Yes this is the place where you buy ferry tickets. It's funny isn't it?' and then she chuckled.

Arriving back at the ticket office I was told I'd just missed the boat and the next one was in an hour. No I didn't need to show him my ticket I could show it when I get on the boat. "Ok" I said "But if you don't sell tickets and you don't take tickets do you mind if I ask what you do do in this ticket office?" "Don't ask me" He said "I'm not responsible for working out the system" and off he went to make a telephone call.

Could t be the Irish influence?

Liverpool. It'll be the union influence...

grabcocque said:

Looks like May caved on fishing:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DsmhP1fW0AEyVM2.jpg

I am shocked, I tell you. SHOCKED, that our glorious negotiator in chief conceded even more ground in exchange for nothing.

eh?

It looks like we gave them almost nothing.

matt said:

Slackbladder said:

OldKingCole said:

Pulpstar said:

grabcocque said:

Pulpstar said:

Alistair said:

Pulpstar said:

If/when US gambling laws are liberalised, Bet365 should become an absolute powerhouse there.
Right now they're a bit of a nonsense, the Daily Fantasy market, which is definitely not gambling, is huge there.

Skill based Pulpstar, skil based. Wink.

Actually all gambling is skill based in the long run. The biggest skill is not participating in 99+% of markets - most of the big betting companies really know their stuff on football for instance; being able to beat them is difficult (And literally impossible in the long run on say roulette or a FOBT). Another is always going for top price.

The only winning move is not to play.

Thanks, WOPR.

No, that's not true in every case. Most people simply must VASTLY overestimate how good they are at gambling though, or Bet365 wouldn't make such gigantic profits.

Morning ladies and gentlemen.
Surely for many people an occasional, or even daily small flutter on horses, dogs, football or even politics is harmless fun, equivalent to stopping on the way home for a pint or having a glass of wine. If they win, that is a bonus; if they lose, well they have spent a cheerful half hour or so with others of a same mind discussing chances.
Like other activities, it is only when it becomes solitary, or otherwise obsessive that trouble arises.

Online betting is like having a pub or an offie on tap in your house. sounds like fun, but it's a terrible temption for addiction.

One can deal with English/Scottish domiciled companies but how does one restrict an offshore company from selling? Hasn't the US tried this with varying views on success?

It's akin to the war on drugs really. Both are highly addictive, and controlled to a greater or lesse degree.

Andy_Cooke said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jonathan said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jonathan said:

Is it possible, just maybe , that our government shares some of the responsibility for this mess. Radical thought I know. But given we, not they, created this unholy mess, the onus is on us to find a way out.

Our government, but more voters, who voted for the original bad choice and then - in a massively perverse twist - voted to make it impossible to implement.

Who called the 2017 election?

Someone who made a mistake! That doesn't absolve responsibility from the voters who perversely, and it seems mainly for trivial reasons, decided to deprive her of the mandate need to implement their previous decision.

Probably because they were asked to give her a mandate for a lot more than implementing that decision and understandably balked.

Had she gone into the election with a manifesto that stated:
- This is how we're going to implement Brexit
- Everything else is exactly as per our 2015 manifesto
- We will pass legislation to bring the next election forward to 2020, when it was originally schedule, and back on the 5-year schedule thereafter...

It would indeed have been a Brexit election.

Blaming the voters for considering all of her offering and deciding not to give it their consent as a whole, and then characterising it only from the lens of Brexit does seem a bit harsh. We know that much of the backlash was on everything else in the manifestos. As the Conservatives would certainly have taken a majority as authorising them to carry out all of that, surely that's fair enough?

It's fair enough if voters don't think ensuring Brexit isn't a disaster is the priority right now. Presumably they didn't, and will have to live with the consequences unless opposition MPs come round to backing what does look like a pretty good deal by any standard.

Scrapheap_as_was said:

oooof

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1065557037990518784


My guardian profile match speaks..

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1065548253331107841

That PM statement in full:

"Look, I've tried to reason with these f*ckers. I've given what they wanted. Then they wanted more. They couldn't agree amongst themselves what more - just they wanted more.

Well' I've f*cking had it with them. I've had a word with Boris, and he's happy too take over for a bit. Good luck Boris - go stick it to Johnny Foreigner.

C****.

I'm off to walk the Appalachian Trail for a few weeks. I'll be back in time to stock up on tinned beans."

grabcocque said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

grabcocque said:

Looks like May caved on fishing:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DsmhP1fW0AEyVM2.jpg

I am shocked, I tell you. SHOCKED, that our glorious negotiator in chief conceded even more ground in exchange for nothing.

eh?

It looks like we gave them almost nothing.

Says right there that, inter alia, we agree to give EU fishing fleets access to our waters.

In exchange for which the EU has left the backstop completely unchanged.

SUCH NEGOTIATING PROWESS. Breathtaking.

Is it clause 75 you mean?

It is a world away from equal access, which is what it could say and France and the Netherlands wanted it to say.

Everyone expects European fishermen to have some access to UK waters.

grabcocque said:

So, zero changes to the WA at all.

It's all been piss and wind to pull the wool over the eyes of the cabinet, as expected.

It also means, to quote a certain catastrophically incompetent PM, that nothing has changed.

The WA is still under discussion, with another meeting scheduled for Saturday. Do keep up. (Having said that, don't expect any significant changes).

https://twitter.com/bethrigby/status/1065562331516727296?s=21

anothernick said:

Slackbladder said:

El_Capitano said:

http://twitter.com/SebDance/status/1065553710099693568

It’s a good point. May’s oft-repeated line that “the people have already had a vote” looks a bit silly if her response to MPs voting against her is... to have another vote.

The ERG and the rest of the stupid tory MPs really are going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory on this aren't they.

Yes, almost certainly.

But I think there are some on the leavers side who actually quite like playing the victim of the evil EU empire and will be quite happy to go back to their political comfort zone whilst others sort out the unholy mess that they have created. If, or rather when, Brexit implodes UKIP is likely to have something of a revival and it wouldn't be a massive surprise if a certain Mr Farage reappears as leader of a grouping, including some Tories perhaps, who will spend the rest of their lives bemoaning the betrayal of their dream.

Oh great, just what I'm going to be looking forward over the next 10 odd years, wailing and crying of 'the betrayal' of the british people....

Ah well... it'll make up for when we can no longer leave the country

Transport Secretary announces new flights between Cornwall and Heathrow

AndyJS said:

OldKingCole said:

Pulpstar said:

grabcocque said:

Pulpstar said:

Alistair said:

Pulpstar said:

If/when US gambling laws are liberalised, Bet365 should become an absolute powerhouse there.
Right now they're a bit of a nonsense, the Daily Fantasy market, which is definitely not gambling, is huge there.

Skill based Pulpstar, skil based. Wink.

Actually all gambling is skill based in the long run. The biggest skill is not participating in 99+% of markets - most of the big betting companies really know their stuff on football for instance; being able to beat them is difficult (And literally impossible in the long run on say roulette or a FOBT). Another is always going for top price.

The only winning move is not to play.

Thanks, WOPR.

No, that's not true in every case. Most people simply must VASTLY overestimate how good they are at gambling though, or Bet365 wouldn't make such gigantic profits.

Morning ladies and gentlemen.
Surely for many people an occasional, or even daily small flutter on horses, dogs, football or even politics is harmless fun, equivalent to stopping on the way home for a pint or having a glass of wine. If they win, that is a bonus; if they lose, well they have spent a cheerful half hour or so with others of a same mind discussing chances.
Like other activities, it is only when it becomes solitary, or otherwise obsessive that trouble arises.

The problem is it's very easy to cross over from an occasional flutter to getting addicted. I'm not sure what the solution is though.

I think you stop all the gambling on artificial things like simulated horse races, or digital roulette wheels. Only allow bets to be placed on real events.

Then you can think about whether to restrict advertising.

Simply reversing the New Labour liberalisation would be a good start.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Andy_Cooke said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jonathan said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jonathan said:

Is it possible, just maybe , that our government shares some of the responsibility for this mess. Radical thought I know. But given we, not they, created this unholy mess, the onus is on us to find a way out.

Our government, but more voters, who voted for the original bad choice and then - in a massively perverse twist - voted to make it impossible to implement.

Who called the 2017 election?

Someone who made a mistake! That doesn't absolve responsibility from the voters who perversely, and it seems mainly for trivial reasons, decided to deprive her of the mandate need to implement their previous decision.

Probably because they were asked to give her a mandate for a lot more than implementing that decision and understandably balked.

Had she gone into the election with a manifesto that stated:
- This is how we're going to implement Brexit
- Everything else is exactly as per our 2015 manifesto
- We will pass legislation to bring the next election forward to 2020, when it was originally schedule, and back on the 5-year schedule thereafter...

It would indeed have been a Brexit election.

Blaming the voters for considering all of her offering and deciding not to give it their consent as a whole, and then characterising it only from the lens of Brexit does seem a bit harsh. We know that much of the backlash was on everything else in the manifestos. As the Conservatives would certainly have taken a majority as authorising them to carry out all of that, surely that's fair enough?

It's fair enough if voters don't think ensuring Brexit isn't a disaster is the priority right now. Presumably they didn't, and will have to live with the consequences unless opposition MPs come round to backing what does look like a pretty good deal by any standard.

The voters can also assume that the Conservatives didn't view Brexit as the be-all and end-all even at the time, otherwise they wouldn't have tried to use the issue to leverage through an entire bunch of other changes for which they'd then claim the vote gave them a mandate.

If May had wanted a Brexit-only election with a Brexit mandate, she could have had one. Instead, she put a whole load of other things and changes in to muddy the water, and there's quite a lot of evidence that it's on those other things that the voters choked.

Especially, of course, as they'd been told by May herself that No Deal wouldn't be worse than a bad deal; in fact, it would be better. This lowers the pressure even further to make a call solely on Brexit.

RoyalBlue said:

Roger said:

OT. I went to Liverpool yesterday and got a ferry accross the Mersey. I went to the large ticket office at the ferry terminal and was told by a man in uniform that they don't sell tickets. "You have to go down the road to a shop called 'Singhsbury' about a quarter of a mile down the road"

After a freezing walk a pleasant Asian woman in a very tiny shop said 'Yes this is the place where you buy ferry tickets. It's funny isn't it?' and then she chuckled.

Arriving back at the ticket office I was told I'd just missed the boat and the next one was in an hour. No I didn't need to show him my ticket I could show it when I get on the boat. "Ok" I said "But if you don't sell tickets and you don't take tickets do you mind if I ask what you do do in this ticket office?" "Don't ask me" He said "I'm not responsible for working out the system" and off he went to make a telephone call.

Could it be the Irish influence?

That’s very reminiscent of the process for entering the People’s Palace in Bucharest. You have to visit 3 separate ticket counters for no obvious reason.

That’s a hangover from Communist full employment. I once bought a postcard and a stamp from a small postcard shop in Communist Czechoslovakia. Three different shop-workers; one to get the postcard out of the rack*, one to take the money and another to sell the stamp.

*I had to point to the one I wanted and someone took it out of the rack for me.

I see some on here are convincing themselves the deal is dead.

They may well be right but as far as I am concerned I await to see how this plays out under the full media circus both here and across Europe.

The sensible response is anything could happen rather than running the risk of getting egg on your face

The pound is rising considerably so the markets are onside

grabcocque said:

May caving in on fishing and getting nothing in return, aside from being a wonderful epilogue for May's utter failure at handling the negotiations, should be good to get a few more Tories to declare themselves against.

Can we hit a good round 100 Tories publicly opposed by the time the weekend rolls round?

One more push, Mrs May. I have complete faith in your lack of talent.

That revised Brexit agreement in full:

"So long, and thanks for all the fish...."

Harris_Tweed said:

Ah well... it'll make up for when we can no longer leave the country

Transport Secretary announces new flights between Cornwall and Heathrow

What happens when a fed up Cornwall votes for Mebyon Kernow?

MarqueeMark said:

grabcocque said:

Looks like May caved on fishing:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DsmhP1fW0AEyVM2.jpg

I am shocked, I tell you. SHOCKED, that our glorious negotiator in chief conceded even more ground in exchange for nothing.

Ball in your court, Ruthie....

Honestly, who cares about fishing? It's given far more prominence in political debate than its contribution to our GDP deserves. It's a rounding error.

grabcocque said:

Also, the fisheries deal is tied to the overall economic partnership.

Not only has May betrayed UK fisheries by agreeing preferential access to EU fleets, the trading deal has been made contingent on it!

Nice work, France. You stitched May up, like an overfished kipper.

Er, you do know that 75% of UK-caught fish is exported, almost all to the EU, I suppose? So a trading deal is kinda important in this context.

grabcocque said:

May caving in on fishing and getting nothing in return, aside from being a wonderful epilogue for May's utter failure at handling the negotiations, should be good to get a few more Tories to declare themselves against.

Can we hit a good round 100 Tories publicly opposed by the time the weekend rolls round?

One more push, Mrs May. I have complete faith in your lack of talent.

Your posts are entirely predictable

not_on_fire said:

MarqueeMark said:

grabcocque said:

Looks like May caved on fishing:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DsmhP1fW0AEyVM2.jpg

I am shocked, I tell you. SHOCKED, that our glorious negotiator in chief conceded even more ground in exchange for nothing.

Ball in your court, Ruthie....

Honestly, who cares about fishing? It's given far more prominence in political debate than its contribution to our GDP deserves. It's a rounding error.

It's an emotive issue for us, the French, the Danes, the Dutch.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I see some on here are convincing themselves the deal is dead.

They may well be right but as far as I am concerned I await to see how this plays out under the full media circus both here and across Europe.

The sensible response is anything could happen rather than running the risk of getting egg on your face

The pound is rising considerably so the markets are onside

While waiting is usually the best course sometimes things really are clear cut and saying anything could happen is how one gets egg on face. I'm unavailable rest of day so cannot judge if things are now deader than they already were but odds are good that's true because hundreds are looking for an excuse not to vote for the deal.

grabcocque said:

Also, the fisheries deal is tied to the overall economic partnership.

Not only has May betrayed UK fisheries by agreeing preferential access to EU fleets, the trading deal has been made contingent on it!

Nice work, France. You stitched May up, like an overfished kipper.

Can you please point this out - where it says in the agreement about preferential access to EU fleets ANYWHERE ?!

grabcocque said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

grabcocque said:

Also, the fisheries deal is tied to the overall economic partnership.

Not only has May betrayed UK fisheries by agreeing preferential access to EU fleets, the trading deal has been made contingent on it!

Nice work, France. You stitched May up, like an overfished kipper.

Er, you do know that 75% of UK-caught fish is exported, almost all to the EU, I suppose? So a trading deal is kinda important in this context.

But, of course, not making a fishing deal contingent on the future economic partnership was a Gang of Five red line.

You're not suggesting May knowlingly lied to her cabinet, and betrayed another red line to the EU, are you?

What has the gang of five got to do with reality?

Richard_Nabavi said:

grabcocque said:

Also, the fisheries deal is tied to the overall economic partnership.

Not only has May betrayed UK fisheries by agreeing preferential access to EU fleets, the trading deal has been made contingent on it!

Nice work, France. You stitched May up, like an overfished kipper.

Er, you do know that 75% of UK-caught fish is exported, almost all to the EU, I suppose? So a trading deal is kinda important in this context.

Don't let detail get in the way.

Andy_Cooke said:

No, it doesn't.
It says we will establish a new agreement which will contain, amongst other things, specifics on access to waters and fishing shares.
That's literally all it says.

Yes, it's just an agreement to try and reach an agreement over fishing. I'm both a leaver and a Scot, and I don't see anything objectionable in that paragraph at all. People are getting worked up over nothing.

The agreement could well be that EU boats get access to UK waters on the morning of the second Tuesday in any month ending in 'e'.