politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Survation-Daily Mail poll finds growing support for TMay’s Bre
Comments
-
0
-
Nope.ydoethur said:
Googling 'Enemies of the People' brings up the relevant judgment. By all means do it yourself.edmundintokyo said:
Citation neededydoethur said:
A court has effectively ruled it can't do that, because it undermines Parliamentary sovereignty.edmundintokyo said:
It passes legislation saying the deal is subject to the referendum, sillyydoethur said:
If Parliament passed the deal, there would be nothing to have a referendum on.edmundintokyo said:
1) Parliament votes down dealJosiasJessop said:
So you want a second referendum. By what route do we realistically get one?OldKingCole said:The Beeb says that 'Treasury to publish economic impact analysis'. The tone of the report suggests that publication is imminent, but there's no timescale.
TBH, as a Remainer, I hope that it's soon, as, while many people will say the worst won't happen....... and they'll probably be right........a bit of spelling out could tip more Leavers over into the Second Referendum and Remain camp.
Meanwhile, Maclaren suggests there could easily be problems for Formula 1. I know from people involved that it's a LOT easier shipping the kit for the races to places in the EU as opposed to elsewhere.
2) SNP/LD/Lab-Remainists say they'll vote for it but only with a referendum, PM takes the deal
3) EU grant an extension for this purpose
4) Parliament passes deal+referendum legislation
5) Have referendum
Not *probable* I know, but I don't think there's anything in there that's *unrealistic*. And that's not the only route that gets you there.
Duh
Basically, the law as it stands is that referendums are advisory. They cannot therefore ratify ex post facto, or indeed be used for any strictly legal purpose.
Advisory referendums are advisory.
Confirmatory referendums are binding.
We've had examples of both the latter UK-wide this decade:
- The Brexit referendum was advisory - it was not attached to a Bill mandating its enforcement.
- The AV referendum was confirmatory - it was attached to a Bill mandating its enforcement (it was passed through Parliament "subject to a referendum", exactly as @edmundintokyo suggests for this)0 -
At this point, good. We will have just as bitter and horrible politics as now, but if too many fellow leavers stand in The way of leaving that's what will happen.Casino_Royale said:
It shows how retarded the ERG are.SouthamObserver said:MPs will also see the other responses in the poll, though: the ones that show Remain and No Deal are preferred options to May's Deal.
https://twitter.com/SpaJw/status/1067550310833373185
Their actions will lead to us Remaining in the EU.0 -
Or it was the best anyone could do, given the constraints.kle4 said:
No one would. It's a conspiracy theory with no basis. She enjoys political turmoil? Come on. The most likely explanation is she negotiates as best she could, she's just not very good at it.JosiasJessop said:
It was mainly predicted by people such as yourself, who routinely bat down any deal.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Thompson, indeed, deliberately negotiating a terrible deal then presenting us with the choice of remaining after all or having something definitively worse was a course predicted by various people, at least one of whom is renowned for lacy menswear.
That brings us to the interesting question of the question that might be posed by a second referendum. It's also why I think that May's Deal versus Remain is the way likeliest to result in us staying after all.
And I'm unsure how you can claim she 'deliberately' negotiated a terrible deal.0 -
Us returning with tail between our legs would be quite a filip for the EU. Of course rather humiloating for our government, but that will pass. Would it be worse than the humiliation of being a vassal state or the self destruction of unprepared No Deal Brexit? Probably not, there are worse things than wounded pride.JosiasJessop said:
Personally I think it's incredibly unlikely that they would agree to it. We've been troublesome to their project for decades, and we're mucking them about something rotten at the moment. Frankly, I wouldn't blame them if they felt better off without us, especially as anything other than a stonking remain win would not staunch British euroscepticism.edmundintokyo said:Sure, there are difficulties, life is full of difficulties.
I think you'd really want to get the rest of the member states to agree ahead of time that the UK could come back in without changing its status. The idea that a bunch of countries that are having all kinds of problems with the Eurozone are suddenly going to try to forcibly recruit a country that doesn't want to join is ludicrously bonkers, but the voters don't know this, and the Leave campaign(s) would certainly claim it. I also think the other member states would agree to make an assurance like this, as they like it when problems go away, but it's not 100% certain.
What it solves is getting an arrangement that doesn't blow up the economy into law. It's true that it doesn't solve the problem of getting people who disagree with each other about EU to stop arguing on the internet, but that's not a sensible or achievable goal, as the previous referendum should have shown.0 -
leaving aside the legality of that what would be the point? If our sovereign parliament thinks the deal should pass there's no need to ask us again. If they want us to make the call they should ask us first.edmundintokyo said:
It passes legislation saying the deal is subject to the referendum, sillyydoethur said:
If Parliament passed the deal, there would be nothing to have a referendum on.edmundintokyo said:
1) Parliament votes down dealJosiasJessop said:
So you want a second referendum. By what route do we realistically get one?OldKingCole said:The Beeb says that 'Treasury to publish economic impact analysis'. The tone of the report suggests that publication is imminent, but there's no timescale.
TBH, as a Remainer, I hope that it's soon, as, while many people will say the worst won't happen....... and they'll probably be right........a bit of spelling out could tip more Leavers over into the Second Referendum and Remain camp.
Meanwhile, Maclaren suggests there could easily be problems for Formula 1. I know from people involved that it's a LOT easier shipping the kit for the races to places in the EU as opposed to elsewhere.
2) SNP/LD/Lab-Remainists say they'll vote for it but only with a referendum, PM takes the deal
3) EU grant an extension for this purpose
4) Parliament passes deal+referendum legislation
5) Have referendum
Not *probable* I know, but I don't think there's anything in there that's *unrealistic*. And that's not the only route that gets you there.
0 -
That's interesting. It's my preferred option. I am quite pragmatic. There are three possible scenarios for after March next year. The Deal, Leaving without a deal and Remain. Since parliament is unable to decide, it needs to be put to the people. I prefer Remain, but would be satisfied with the outcome of that vote.HYUFD said:
Chuka Umunnna said he would support a 3 way referendum Remain, Deal or No Deal on Good Morning BritainJonathan said:
A three way or two way vote could go in any direction. The British electorate are hard to call on this.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Thompson, indeed, deliberately negotiating a terrible deal then presenting us with the choice of remaining after all or having something definitively worse was a course predicted by various people, at least one of whom is renowned for lacy menswear.
That brings us to the interesting question of the question that might be posed by a second referendum. It's also why I think that May's Deal versus Remain is the way likeliest to result in us staying after all.
Excluding one option from a vote, a pointless GE or forcing something through the HoC feels inferior.
We have to choose one of the three and the other two options need to be seen to be defeated.0 -
Ashcroft had the Deal preferred to No Deal and Remain even with Survation beats No Deal by more than it beats the Deal.SouthamObserver said:MPs will also see the other responses in the poll, though: the ones that show Remain and No Deal are preferred options to May's Deal.
https://twitter.com/SpaJw/status/1067550310833373185
That confirms No Deal is the best route back to Remain and the ERG are committing hari kiri0 -
Possibly. All is a matter of opinion of course but ultimately those thinking deliberately bad deals were done are relying on May and co being in more control of events than I think is the case.JosiasJessop said:
Or it was the best anyone could do, given the constraints.kle4 said:
No one would. It's a conspiracy theory with no basis. She enjoys political turmoil? Come on. The most likely explanation is she negotiates as best she could, she's just not very good at it.JosiasJessop said:
It was mainly predicted by people such as yourself, who routinely bat down any deal.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Thompson, indeed, deliberately negotiating a terrible deal then presenting us with the choice of remaining after all or having something definitively worse was a course predicted by various people, at least one of whom is renowned for lacy menswear.
That brings us to the interesting question of the question that might be posed by a second referendum. It's also why I think that May's Deal versus Remain is the way likeliest to result in us staying after all.
And I'm unsure how you can claim she 'deliberately' negotiated a terrible deal.0 -
That you are mentally preparing for a second referendum shows how far the debate has shifted since June 2016. Back then it was inconceivable that we wouldn't be leaving. I for one assumed that support for Brexit would go up following the vote and was envisaging a UKIP style long term campaign to get back in.CD13 said:On the humiliation aspect, which I've mentioned earlier, some Remainers haven't even considered this. It would loom very large in the unlikely event of a second referendum. "Do you bend the knee to Barnier and the French by begging to be allowed back?" is a nice visceral question. The Eurofan answer may be 'Yes, pretty please, and we'll be ever so good in the future,' but will the voters wear this?
The deal question for the Leavers was always going to be 'Do you trust Mrs May?' She may be incompetent and out of her depth, but when she says it's the first step on the road to Brexit, does she mean it?
She may only be a woman, but on trust that's probably a plus.
Look where we are now. Remaining is now still unlikely but is nonetheless on the table. A second vote early next year is still not on the cards but has been talked about so much it has become part of the story. And while leaving is still the most likely outcome, it will take place in an atmosphere where it will not seem remotely final. And the deal as it stands is a great place to rejoin from.
And remember, we don't need a referendum to rejoin. We only need a party to win a general election with rejoining in its manifesto.0 -
Nobody in the EU is proposing we join the Euro but even if they did voters would still prefer single market and customs union but not full EU to No Deal ie still more BINO than the DealJosiasJessop said:
Aren't there added difficulties about which options are given in the referendum, and whether the EU would agree to whatever outcome (after the way we've acted, they'd be perfectly within their rights to say: "You're too much bother, piss off!", or "You must fully join the EU, including Euro and have no rebates"). All this should be known and agreed before any referendum, otherwise we'll just get into the same mess of the public not knowing what they voted for.edmundintokyo said:
1) Parliament votes down dealJosiasJessop said:
So you want a second referendum. By what route do we realistically get one?OldKingCole said:The Beeb says that 'Treasury to publish economic impact analysis'. The tone of the report suggests that publication is imminent, but there's no timescale.
TBH, as a Remainer, I hope that it's soon, as, while many people will say the worst won't happen....... and they'll probably be right........a bit of spelling out could tip more Leavers over into the Second Referendum and Remain camp.
Meanwhile, Maclaren suggests there could easily be problems for Formula 1. I know from people involved that it's a LOT easier shipping the kit for the races to places in the EU as opposed to elsewhere.
2) SNP/LD/Lab-Remainists say they'll vote for it but only with a referendum, PM takes the deal
3) EU grant an extension for this purpose
4) Parliament passes deal+referendum legislation
5) Have referendum
Not *probable* I know, but I don't think there's anything in there that's *unrealistic*. And that's not the only route that gets you there.
I also fail to see how a close referendum result, especially if an option such as 'remain' or 'leave' is left off, will not solve anything.0 -
Mr Pioneers,
"May's deal will be demolished by the Commons and isn't going to pass."
That may well be so, and we already know that Parliament and voters were out of sync. But it's a dangerous road for MPs to take.
Mrs May has a sympathy vote with many - the "She was handed a poisoned parcel and has done her best with it. No one else would have done better." Jezza's "We would have negotiated a better deal." is hogwash and I suspect even he knows it - the voters do.
The EU will cobble together a form of words at the last minute but there will no substantial changes. They remain 27 separate countries united by self-interest. That's the problem with the EU - it's only half-complete and the eventual destination is out of sight. They'd have reached their destination by now, if it hadn't been for those pesky voters.0 -
Yes. And if people believe the forecasts they should be more worried at risking No deal and they aren't.JosiasJessop said:
This was said and known before the referendum. Even honest leavers on here admitted there would be short-term pain, with hopefully medium- and long-term gain.Scott_P said:
Despite this, people still voted to leave.0 -
Yes and a compromise ie the Deal has to be there over Remain or No Deal which will infuriate 40% of the population whichever winsJonathan said:
That's interesting. It's my preferred option. I am quite pragmatic. There are three possible scenarios for after March next year. The Deal, Leaving without a deal and Remain. Since parliament is unable to decide, it needs to be put to the people. I prefer Remain, but would be satisfied with the outcome of that vote.HYUFD said:
Chuka Umunnna said he would support a 3 way referendum Remain, Deal or No Deal on Good Morning BritainJonathan said:
A three way or two way vote could go in any direction. The British electorate are hard to call on this.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Thompson, indeed, deliberately negotiating a terrible deal then presenting us with the choice of remaining after all or having something definitively worse was a course predicted by various people, at least one of whom is renowned for lacy menswear.
That brings us to the interesting question of the question that might be posed by a second referendum. It's also why I think that May's Deal versus Remain is the way likeliest to result in us staying after all.
Excluding one option from a vote, a pointless GE or forcing something through the HoC feels inferior.
We have to choose one of the three and the other two options need to be seen to be defeated.0 -
I thought the issue was that everyone politically said it was binding but that has no standing in the law, but legislation could include making one binding. You just need to be explicit in statute about it.ydoethur said:
Googling 'Enemies of the People' brings up the relevant judgment. By all means do it yourself.edmundintokyo said:
Citation neededydoethur said:
A court has effectively ruled it can't do that, because it undermines Parliamentary sovereignty.edmundintokyo said:
It passes legislation saying the deal is subject to the referendum, sillyydoethur said:
If Parliament passed the deal, there would be nothing to have a referendum on.edmundintokyo said:
1) Parliament votes down dealJosiasJessop said:
So you want a second referendum. By what route do we realistically get one?OldKingCole said:The Beeb says that 'Treasury to publish economic impact analysis'. The tone of the report suggests that publication is imminent, but there's no timescale.
TBH, as a Remainer, I hope that it's soon, as, while many people will say the worst won't happen....... and they'll probably be right........a bit of spelling out could tip more Leavers over into the Second Referendum and Remain camp.
Meanwhile, Maclaren suggests there could easily be problems for Formula 1. I know from people involved that it's a LOT easier shipping the kit for the races to places in the EU as opposed to elsewhere.
2) SNP/LD/Lab-Remainists say they'll vote for it but only with a referendum, PM takes the deal
3) EU grant an extension for this purpose
4) Parliament passes deal+referendum legislation
5) Have referendum
Not *probable* I know, but I don't think there's anything in there that's *unrealistic*. And that's not the only route that gets you there.
Duh
Basically, the law as it stands is that referendums are advisory. They cannot therefore ratify ex post facto, or indeed be used for any strictly legal purpose.0 -
A GE would not answer the question to be asked. If the Deal fails to pass the Commons*, then a #peoplesvote with 3 possibilities is needed.Jonathan said:
That's interesting. It's my preferred option. I am quite pragmatic. There are three possible scenarios for after March next year. The Deal, Leaving without a deal and Remain. Since parliament is unable to decide, it needs to be put to the people. I prefer Remain, but would be satisfied with the outcome of that vote.HYUFD said:
Chuka Umunnna said he would support a 3 way referendum Remain, Deal or No Deal on Good Morning BritainJonathan said:
A three way or two way vote could go in any direction. The British electorate are hard to call on this.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Thompson, indeed, deliberately negotiating a terrible deal then presenting us with the choice of remaining after all or having something definitively worse was a course predicted by various people, at least one of whom is renowned for lacy menswear.
That brings us to the interesting question of the question that might be posed by a second referendum. It's also why I think that May's Deal versus Remain is the way likeliest to result in us staying after all.
Excluding one option from a vote, a pointless GE or forcing something through the HoC feels inferior.
We have to choose one of the three and the other two options need to be seen to be defeated.
*I think that it will most likely pass. Tory backbenchers will dine on crow. Some Labour MPs may also support it too. The damage done to the Tories by their policy being passed by Labour MPs over their own backbenchers may well be on a level with Blair and the Labour party over Iraq.0 -
Treasury forecasts predict £150 billion wiped off UK output and the UK economy with No Deal compared to just £40 billion with May's Deal over the next 15 years.
Hammond also says No Deal means higher food prices in the shops
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-463661620 -
That's very true. I don't think there is any point in trying to game the result if a referendum is held.HYUFD said:
Yes and a compromise ie the Deal has to be there over Remain or No Deal which will infuriate 40% of the population whichever winsJonathan said:
That's interesting. It's my preferred option. I am quite pragmatic. There are three possible scenarios for after March next year. The Deal, Leaving without a deal and Remain. Since parliament is unable to decide, it needs to be put to the people. I prefer Remain, but would be satisfied with the outcome of that vote.HYUFD said:
Chuka Umunnna said he would support a 3 way referendum Remain, Deal or No Deal on Good Morning BritainJonathan said:
A three way or two way vote could go in any direction. The British electorate are hard to call on this.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Thompson, indeed, deliberately negotiating a terrible deal then presenting us with the choice of remaining after all or having something definitively worse was a course predicted by various people, at least one of whom is renowned for lacy menswear.
That brings us to the interesting question of the question that might be posed by a second referendum. It's also why I think that May's Deal versus Remain is the way likeliest to result in us staying after all.
Excluding one option from a vote, a pointless GE or forcing something through the HoC feels inferior.
We have to choose one of the three and the other two options need to be seen to be defeated.0 -
Shirt term maybe. But not in the medium- or long-term if the 'cancer' of Euroscepticism (from their POV) is not removed, as we'll just be fucking them about again in a few years.Foxy said:
Us returning with tail between our legs would be quite a filip for the EU. Of course rather humiloating for our government, but that will pass. Would it be worse than the humiliation of being a vassal state or the self destruction of unprepared No Deal Brexit? Probably not, there are worse things than wounded pride.JosiasJessop said:
Personally I think it's incredibly unlikely that they would agree to it. We've been troublesome to their project for decades, and we're mucking them about something rotten at the moment. Frankly, I wouldn't blame them if they felt better off without us, especially as anything other than a stonking remain win would not staunch British euroscepticism.edmundintokyo said:Sure, there are difficulties, life is full of difficulties.
I think you'd really want to get the rest of the member states to agree ahead of time that the UK could come back in without changing its status. The idea that a bunch of countries that are having all kinds of problems with the Eurozone are suddenly going to try to forcibly recruit a country that doesn't want to join is ludicrously bonkers, but the voters don't know this, and the Leave campaign(s) would certainly claim it. I also think the other member states would agree to make an assurance like this, as they like it when problems go away, but it's not 100% certain.
What it solves is getting an arrangement that doesn't blow up the economy into law. It's true that it doesn't solve the problem of getting people who disagree with each other about EU to stop arguing on the internet, but that's not a sensible or achievable goal, as the previous referendum should have shown.0 -
The point is any conditions need to be known beforehand.HYUFD said:
Nobody in the EU is proposing we join the Euro but even if they did voters would still prefer single market and customs union but not full EU to No Deal ie still more BINO than the DealJosiasJessop said:
Aren't there added difficulties about which options are given in the referendum, and whether the EU would agree to whatever outcome (after the way we've acted, they'd be perfectly within their rights to say: "You're too much bother, piss off!", or "You must fully join the EU, including Euro and have no rebates"). All this should be known and agreed before any referendum, otherwise we'll just get into the same mess of the public not knowing what they voted for.edmundintokyo said:
1) Parliament votes down dealJosiasJessop said:
So you want a second referendum. By what route do we realistically get one?OldKingCole said:The Beeb says that 'Treasury to publish economic impact analysis'. The tone of the report suggests that publication is imminent, but there's no timescale.
TBH, as a Remainer, I hope that it's soon, as, while many people will say the worst won't happen....... and they'll probably be right........a bit of spelling out could tip more Leavers over into the Second Referendum and Remain camp.
Meanwhile, Maclaren suggests there could easily be problems for Formula 1. I know from people involved that it's a LOT easier shipping the kit for the races to places in the EU as opposed to elsewhere.
2) SNP/LD/Lab-Remainists say they'll vote for it but only with a referendum, PM takes the deal
3) EU grant an extension for this purpose
4) Parliament passes deal+referendum legislation
5) Have referendum
Not *probable* I know, but I don't think there's anything in there that's *unrealistic*. And that's not the only route that gets you there.
I also fail to see how a close referendum result, especially if an option such as 'remain' or 'leave' is left off, will not solve anything.0 -
Mr. Jessop, nobody forced her to sign up to the backstop, or to proceed on the basis of staying as close as possible to the EU rather than trying to maximise the advantages of leaving. Her great concern for the Irish border led her to nod through regulatory annexation of Northern Ireland in the backstop, which we cannot leave without EU agreement. Despite the Commons voting against a customs union, that's what she's also agreed.
There was pressure to trigger Article 50 early but she could've tried to actually put together a basic position beforehand. Not only that, agreeing to EU sequencing (even though resolving the Irish border requires knowing what the trading terms will be) and prevaricating so much that the EU put forward proposals rather than us, then just nodding along, was not to the advantage of the UK.
Maybe you're right. Maybe she's just incompetent. It's certainly believable. By clinging to the EU as much as possible, playing short term tactical politics at home, she's managed to unite the Commons against the deal.
I remain very surprised at the 48% pro-deal finding in the poll.
Mr. Recidivist, ha. A second referendum was something at least some handsome men with well-oiled wiffle sticks predicted.0 -
Of course. Deal wouldn't be backed by left or right so it would get smashed and votes like mine would transfer to remain.HYUFD said:
Chuka Umunnna said he would support a 3 way referendum Remain, Deal or No Deal on Good Morning BritainJonathan said:
A three way or two way vote could go in any direction. The British electorate are hard to call on this.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Thompson, indeed, deliberately negotiating a terrible deal then presenting us with the choice of remaining after all or having something definitively worse was a course predicted by various people, at least one of whom is renowned for lacy menswear.
That brings us to the interesting question of the question that might be posed by a second referendum. It's also why I think that May's Deal versus Remain is the way likeliest to result in us staying after all.0 -
In such circumstances the eurosceptics would be a busted flush and completely discredited. Indeed watching Brexit has already shifted european eurosceptics to more pro EU and pro Euro positions.JosiasJessop said:
Shirt term maybe. But not in the medium- or long-term if the 'cancer' of Euroscepticism (from their POV) is not removed, as we'll just be fucking them about again in a few years.Foxy said:
Us returning with tail between our legs would be quite a filip for the EU. Of course rather humiloating for our government, but that will pass. Would it be worse than the humiliation of being a vassal state or the self destruction of unprepared No Deal Brexit? Probably not, there are worse things than wounded pride.JosiasJessop said:
Personally I think it's incredibly unlikely that they would agree to it. We've been troublesome to their project for decades, and we're mucking them about something rotten at the moment. Frankly, I wouldn't blame them if they felt better off without us, especially as anything other than a stonking remain win would not staunch British euroscepticism.edmundintokyo said:Sure, there are difficulties, life is full of difficulties.
I think you'd really want to get the rest of the member states to agree ahead of time that the UK could come back in without changing its status. The idea that a bunch of countries that are having all kinds of problems with the Eurozone are suddenly going to try to forcibly recruit a country that doesn't want to join is ludicrously bonkers, but the voters don't know this, and the Leave campaign(s) would certainly claim it. I also think the other member states would agree to make an assurance like this, as they like it when problems go away, but it's not 100% certain.
What it solves is getting an arrangement that doesn't blow up the economy into law. It's true that it doesn't solve the problem of getting people who disagree with each other about EU to stop arguing on the internet, but that's not a sensible or achievable goal, as the previous referendum should have shown.0 -
Only this time it will be Tommy Robinson EDL type EuroscepticismJosiasJessop said:
Shirt term maybe. But not in the medium- or long-term if the 'cancer' of Euroscepticism (from their POV) is not removed, as we'll just be fucking them about again in a few years.Foxy said:
Us returning with tail between our legs would be quite a filip for the EU. Of course rather humiloating for our government, but that will pass. Would it be worse than the humiliation of being a vassal state or the self destruction of unprepared No Deal Brexit? Probably not, there are worse things than wounded pride.JosiasJessop said:
Personally I think it's incredibly unlikely that they would agree to it. We've been troublesome to their project for decades, and we're mucking them about something rotten at the moment. Frankly, I wouldn't blame them if they felt better off without us, especially as anything other than a stonking remain win would not staunch British euroscepticism.edmundintokyo said:Sure, there are difficulties, life is full of difficulties.
I think you'd really want to get the rest of the member states to agree ahead of time that the UK could come back in without changing its status. The idea that a bunch of countries that are having all kinds of problems with the Eurozone are suddenly going to try to forcibly recruit a country that doesn't want to join is ludicrously bonkers, but the voters don't know this, and the Leave campaign(s) would certainly claim it. I also think the other member states would agree to make an assurance like this, as they like it when problems go away, but it's not 100% certain.
What it solves is getting an arrangement that doesn't blow up the economy into law. It's true that it doesn't solve the problem of getting people who disagree with each other about EU to stop arguing on the internet, but that's not a sensible or achievable goal, as the previous referendum should have shown.0 -
Not if a Deal v No Deal first round necessarily, winner faces Remainkle4 said:
Of course. Deal wouldn't be backed by left or right so it would get smashed and votes like mine would transfer to remain.HYUFD said:
Chuka Umunnna said he would support a 3 way referendum Remain, Deal or No Deal on Good Morning BritainJonathan said:
A three way or two way vote could go in any direction. The British electorate are hard to call on this.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Thompson, indeed, deliberately negotiating a terrible deal then presenting us with the choice of remaining after all or having something definitively worse was a course predicted by various people, at least one of whom is renowned for lacy menswear.
That brings us to the interesting question of the question that might be posed by a second referendum. It's also why I think that May's Deal versus Remain is the way likeliest to result in us staying after all.0 -
The second referendum won't happen because it makes a mockery of democracy, Parliament agreed a referendum and agreed to honour the result, Did it do so? No, it faffed about, let the EU get away with delays and finally ordered us to think again, exactly as the conspiracy theorists predicted.
I thought, no, they won't do that because it would look too bleeding obvious.
Perhaps they don't care how obvious it looks because hubris reigns. I'm not even bothering to predict a result - a narrow win for Leave would not be honoured in those circumstances and a narrow win for Remain would be greeted with a sigh of relief from the establishment. But permanent disillusionment from voters would follow.0 -
Goodness. When even Isabel Oakeshott is trashing the Mail...
http://twitter.com/IsabelOakeshott/status/10677019907283763200 -
Mr. CD13, conspiracy theorist?
Me miserum!0 -
He is more Islamophobic than eurosceptic, indeed many of his followers show an affinity for strong German leaders. Like the BNP their maximum vote would be 10%.HYUFD said:
Only this time it will be Tommy Robinson EDL type EuroscepticismJosiasJessop said:
Shirt term maybe. But not in the medium- or long-term if the 'cancer' of Euroscepticism (from their POV) is not removed, as we'll just be fucking them about again in a few years.Foxy said:
Us returning with tail between our legs would be quite a filip for the EU. Of course rather humiloating for our government, but that will pass. Would it be worse than the humiliation of being a vassal state or the self destruction of unprepared No Deal Brexit? Probably not, there are worse things than wounded pride.JosiasJessop said:
Personally I think it's incredibly unlikely that they would agree to it. We've been troublesome to their project for decades, and we're mucking them about something rotten at the moment. Frankly, I wouldn't blame them if they felt better off without us, especially as anything other than a stonking remain win would not staunch British euroscepticism.edmundintokyo said:Sure, there are difficulties, life is full of difficulties.
I think you'd really want to get the rest of the member states to agree ahead of time that the UK could come back in without changing its status. The idea that a bunch of countries that are having all kinds of problems with the Eurozone are suddenly going to try to forcibly recruit a country that doesn't want to join is ludicrously bonkers, but the voters don't know this, and the Leave campaign(s) would certainly claim it. I also think the other member states would agree to make an assurance like this, as they like it when problems go away, but it's not 100% certain.
What it solves is getting an arrangement that doesn't blow up the economy into law. It's true that it doesn't solve the problem of getting people who disagree with each other about EU to stop arguing on the internet, but that's not a sensible or achievable goal, as the previous referendum should have shown.
Indeed most Britons concerns re immigration are about non-european migration.0 -
I'm probably missing something totally obvious with some Leavers' angst about the backstop "causing Northern Ireland to be annexed" and that the EU could simply refuse to co-operate in the further trade treaty, and hold us to it in bad faith.
What's to stop us saying "Nope"?
There's a clause about good faith and sincere co-operation really early on in the Withdrawal Agreement. If the EU does what they fear, what's to stop us saying, "Well, now you're clear in violation of Article 5, it's obviously bad faith and certainly not sincere co-operation, we're withdrawing from this treaty under Article 60 of the Vienna Law on Treaties, kthxbai"?
[or whatever the relevant international law is].
Even if it's arguable, that's all we need to remain legitimate enough for others to be willing to hold to treaties with us.0 -
The GE is a complete non-starter now because the parties are unable to deliver on Brexit. Clearly we would need a general election after the referendum. There is no way May could implement anything but the deal. Corbyn, could probably implement all three. I wonder if a Tory leader could implement Remain.Foxy said:
A GE would not answer the question to be asked. If the Deal fails to pass the Commons*, then a #peoplesvote with 3 possibilities is needed.Jonathan said:
That's interesting. It's my preferred option. I am quite pragmatic. There are three possible scenarios for after March next year. The Deal, Leaving without a deal and Remain. Since parliament is unable to decide, it needs to be put to the people. I prefer Remain, but would be satisfied with the outcome of that vote.HYUFD said:
Chuka Umunnna said he would support a 3 way referendum Remain, Deal or No Deal on Good Morning BritainJonathan said:
A three way or two way vote could go in any direction. The British electorate are hard to call on this.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Thompson, indeed, deliberately negotiating a terrible deal then presenting us with the choice of remaining after all or having something definitively worse was a course predicted by various people, at least one of whom is renowned for lacy menswear.
That brings us to the interesting question of the question that might be posed by a second referendum. It's also why I think that May's Deal versus Remain is the way likeliest to result in us staying after all.
Excluding one option from a vote, a pointless GE or forcing something through the HoC feels inferior.
We have to choose one of the three and the other two options need to be seen to be defeated.
*I think that it will most likely pass. Tory backbenchers will dine on crow. Some Labour MPs may also support it too. The damage done to the Tories by their policy being passed by Labour MPs over their own backbenchers may well be on a level with Blair and the Labour party over Iraq.0 -
It'll be interesting to see the latest circulation figures for the Mail.El_Capitano said:Goodness. When even Isabel Oakeshott is trashing the Mail...
http://twitter.com/IsabelOakeshott/status/10677019907283763200 -
Went to McDonnell's Guardian talk last night (with a LibDem friend, who thought him much more impressive than she thinks of Corbyn, and was persuaded to lean Labour afterwards) - very very dry but impressive. Some take-away points:
* He spent almost no time attacking the Tories - the discussion was 95% about what a Labour government ought to do and the relative priorities of helping the desperately poor, restructuring the economy and giving a greater sense of joint purpose and ownership
* He was explicitly and repeatedly a Remainer, but said it was essential to respect people's feelings and try first to get May to get a better deal, second to get an election and try to get a better deal ourselves, and only third to have a referendum - but he was pretty explicit that the referendum on Remain vs best available deal would be their next choice if the others failed
* Something I've not heard before - he indicated that if Labour took power and did manage to get a different deal, it might be best to put it to a referendum anyway, to get popular consent to the revised deal.
It wasn't intended as a romantic evening, but we chuckled over the idea that it might have been the ultimate awful date - "it's pouring with rain, come and hear the shadow chancellor debate Brexit". But it actually was good - especially the absence of the usual party mud-slinging, just a serious discussion of the dilemmas facing any government. A Hammond-McDonnell debate would be quite enlightening as they're both essentially serious.0 -
It would have to be an AV referendum, since it's likely no single one of those would get 50%.HYUFD said:
Chuka Umunnna said he would support a 3 way referendum Remain, Deal or No Deal on Good Morning BritainJonathan said:
A three way or two way vote could go in any direction. The British electorate are hard to call on this.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Thompson, indeed, deliberately negotiating a terrible deal then presenting us with the choice of remaining after all or having something definitively worse was a course predicted by various people, at least one of whom is renowned for lacy menswear.
That brings us to the interesting question of the question that might be posed by a second referendum. It's also why I think that May's Deal versus Remain is the way likeliest to result in us staying after all.0 -
Mr Dancer,
You're a betting man - hence you have no morals!0 -
Well, listen to what they say. AFAIK zero leaders have said it's a good thing the British are leaving, but a bunch of leaders of member states and Commission bigwigs have said that Brexit hurts everybody and they'd much rather it didn't happen.JosiasJessop said:
Personally I think it's incredibly unlikely that they would agree to it. We've been troublesome to their project for decades, and we're mucking them about something rotten at the moment. Frankly, I wouldn't blame them if they felt better off without us, especially as anything other than a stonking remain win would not staunch British euroscepticism.
Why? Well, Brexit hurts their citizens, who lose the ability to live and work in as wide an area as they'd like, and their businesses, that lose the ability to trade as frictionlessly as they'd like, and it puts them at risk of their environmental and labour standards getting undermined by the UK competing with lower standards. And they lose the money, since the UK is a net contributor, and the soft power.
Doubtless the whole thing is exasperating. But they're politicians in democracies, so they know that there's a thing called a voter, and sometimes voters get bullshat by bullshitters and vote for things that are bad ideas, and the politicians have to work out a way to minimize the damage. And if they were asked to sign a bit of paper at no cost to themselves to minimize this particular damage, that's what they'd do. [ * ]
[*] That said, 27 is a lot of countries and they all have local politics, so you can't *quite* be sure that nobody would play silly buggers.0 -
Mr. Cooke, you have a faith in our political class I lack.
Mr. CD13, no. But I do get a warm, fuzzy feeling whenever I remember that 251 winning tip on Verstappen winning the Spanish Grand Prix
Speaking of magnificent F1 things, working on a set of blogs. Probably not enough to cover the whole off-season but there will be quite a few. Plan to put them up at successive weekends.0 -
Because good faith and sincere co-operation are meaningless fluff and not judiciable. The EU itself has a 2 year exit clause, even NATO and the United Nations have exit clauses but this does not? No thanks.Andy_Cooke said:I'm probably missing something totally obvious with some Leavers' angst about the backstop "causing Northern Ireland to be annexed" and that the EU could simply refuse to co-operate in the further trade treaty, and hold us to it in bad faith.
What's to stop us saying "Nope"?
There's a clause about good faith and sincere co-operation really early on in the Withdrawal Agreement. If the EU does what they fear, what's to stop us saying, "Well, now you're clear in violation of Article 5, it's obviously bad faith and certainly not sincere co-operation, we're withdrawing from this treaty under Article 60 of the Vienna Law on Treaties, kthxbai"?
[or whatever the relevant international law is].
Even if it's arguable, that's all we need to remain legitimate enough for others to be willing to hold to treaties with us.0 -
Its beyond ridiculous that it could be easier to exit the United Nations than to exit the backstop.0
-
Given the fraught nature of an AV referendum here - well, imagine this:AndyJS said:
It would have to be an AV referendum, since it's likely no single one of those would get 50%.HYUFD said:
Chuka Umunnna said he would support a 3 way referendum Remain, Deal or No Deal on Good Morning BritainJonathan said:
A three way or two way vote could go in any direction. The British electorate are hard to call on this.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Thompson, indeed, deliberately negotiating a terrible deal then presenting us with the choice of remaining after all or having something definitively worse was a course predicted by various people, at least one of whom is renowned for lacy menswear.
That brings us to the interesting question of the question that might be posed by a second referendum. It's also why I think that May's Deal versus Remain is the way likeliest to result in us staying after all.
Deal: 25%
No Deal: 40%
Remain: 35%
Deal splits to 50%--> Remain, 20% --> No Deal, 30% no second choice or spoiled. This ends up around 51.5% Remain and 48.5% No Deal.
Plausible?
There would be a howl that Leave options actually won by 65-35 and a dodgy voting system (which "gives losers a second chance") stole the referendum.
So, no AV referendum.
An FPTP referendum with three options will be very highly likely to end up with the winner having minority support. So, no FPTP three-way referendum.
A two-stage referendum suffers from choosing which choice can get excluded first.
Either two choices only, or an exhaustive ballot: run the first one, reject the lowest score, run it again with the two remaining choices.
(Of course, that's arguably logically equivalent to AV, but that argument has never worked for pro-AV people due to the perception issue above)
0 -
I'm a fan of no deal as, shall we put it a backstop, but preferring a good deal in preference.Jonathan said:
Wake up old chap, it’s the only deal in town. And apart from minor amendments the only deal there will be.Philip_Thompson said:
You mean we had May's deal in 2016?Scott_P said:
It's remarkable how so many Remainers seem to want to equate Brexit with May's deal.
The alternatives
No deal
Remain
So unless you are a no deal fan, this deal IS Brexit.0 -
There's not much to say about Formula 1 is there? Back Hamilton when it rains should cover it.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Cooke, you have a faith in our political class I lack.
Mr. CD13, no. But I do get a warm, fuzzy feeling whenever I remember that 251 winning tip on Verstappen winning the Spanish Grand Prix
Speaking of magnificent F1 things, working on a set of blogs. Probably not enough to cover the whole off-season but there will be quite a few. Plan to put them up at successive weekends.0 -
A few years of No Deal disruption/hardship will be worth it so we can rejoin the EU.
One thing I’ve learned from Brexiteers is that there are more important things than economic growth and prosperity.
Thank you ERG, your contribution will not be forgotten, I’d expect you’ll be awarded the Order of Sir Edward Heath within the decade.0 -
Aside from the fact that the Treasury has fack all credibility for economic forecasting since its prediction of an immediate year long recession to follow a Leave vote, have you thought how little those numbers actually are in relation to UK GDP ?HYUFD said:Treasury forecasts predict £150 billion wiped off UK output and the UK economy with No Deal compared to just £40 billion with May's Deal over the next 15 years.
Hammond also says No Deal means higher food prices in the shops
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46366162
£150bn over 15 years is £10bn per year.
UK GDP by comparison is over two trillion pounds per year and increased by £30bn over the last year.
If that's the worse case scenario the Treasury can come up with we should all be feeling relieved.0 -
Sounds like Nick's pulled.NickPalmer said:Went to McDonnell's Guardian talk last night (with a LibDem friend, who thought him much more impressive than she thinks of Corbyn, and was persuaded to lean Labour afterwards) - very very dry but impressive. Some take-away points:
* He spent almost no time attacking the Tories - the discussion was 95% about what a Labour government ought to do and the relative priorities of helping the desperately poor, restructuring the economy and giving a greater sense of joint purpose and ownership
* He was explicitly and repeatedly a Remainer, but said it was essential to respect people's feelings and try first to get May to get a better deal, second to get an election and try to get a better deal ourselves, and only third to have a referendum - but he was pretty explicit that the referendum on Remain vs best available deal would be their next choice if the others failed
* Something I've not heard before - he indicated that if Labour took power and did manage to get a different deal, it might be best to put it to a referendum anyway, to get popular consent to the revised deal.
It wasn't intended as a romantic evening, but we chuckled over the idea that it might have been the ultimate awful date - "it's pouring with rain, come and hear the shadow chancellor debate Brexit". But it actually was good - especially the absence of the usual party mud-slinging, just a serious discussion of the dilemmas facing any government. A Hammond-McDonnell debate would be quite enlightening as they're both essentially serious.0 -
Mr. JohnL, prepare to be riveted and astonished by the magnificent utterances I have planned! 0
-
In which case, why would you have faith in them to ever exercise an exit clause?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Cooke, you have a faith in our political class I lack.
Doesn't matter if it's "fluff "or not. It's in there (Much like the "ever-closer union" thing is fluff in EU treaties). We're sovereign; as long as we can point to international law to justify our unilateral exit, we can do it.Philip_Thompson said:
Because good faith and sincere co-operation are meaningless fluff and not judiciable. The EU itself has a 2 year exit clause, even NATO and the United Nations have exit clauses but this does not? No thanks.
We wouldn't be international pariahs for doing it, we wouldn't have discouraged people from entering into or adhering to treaties with us, so who or what's to stop us?
0 -
Incidentally if "good faith and sincere co-operation" is such a meaningful phrase why not replace the backstop with it? Commit all parties to the agreement to work together in good faith and sincere co-operation to avoid a hard border. Job done.0
-
However I am not of the common herd, I am a special one.JosiasJessop said:
Since you are a member of the public as well, that explains a great deal ...malcolmg said:
Confirms the public are thick as two short planks.Nigelb said:The interesting thing is all the leavers in denial about this, insisting that it is a ‘betrayal’.
Pretty weird that half of those who voted leave actually support it...
0 -
Yes. Special.malcolmg said:
However I am not of the common herd, I am a special one.JosiasJessop said:
Since you are a member of the public as well, that explains a great deal ...malcolmg said:
Confirms the public are thick as two short planks.Nigelb said:The interesting thing is all the leavers in denial about this, insisting that it is a ‘betrayal’.
Pretty weird that half of those who voted leave actually support it...0 -
malcolmg said:
However I am not of the common herd, I am a special one.JosiasJessop said:
Since you are a member of the public as well, that explains a great deal ...malcolmg said:
Confirms the public are thick as two short planks.Nigelb said:The interesting thing is all the leavers in denial about this, insisting that it is a ‘betrayal’.
Pretty weird that half of those who voted leave actually support it...
Are the 'special' ones as thick as three short planks, or just one ?0 -
Only another £90bn over 15 years to leave properly and actually be free? And this could have been mitigated by preparing for no deal properly and probably includes a bit of exaggeration in order to sell the deal.
I think this is the preferred option rather than May's dog's dinner.
So much for the world will end in the case of no deal Brexit.0 -
That is indeed what some say at the moment. But the situation we are theorising about would be very different.edmundintokyo said:
Well, listen to what they say. AFAIK zero leaders have said it's a good thing the British are leaving, but a bunch of leaders of member states and Commission bigwigs have said that Brexit hurts everybody and they'd much rather it didn't happen.JosiasJessop said:
Personally I think it's incredibly unlikely that they would agree to it. We've been troublesome to their project for decades, and we're mucking them about something rotten at the moment. Frankly, I wouldn't blame them if they felt better off without us, especially as anything other than a stonking remain win would not staunch British euroscepticism.
Why? Well, Brexit hurts their citizens, who lose the ability to live and work in as wide an area as they'd like, and their businesses, that lose the ability to trade as frictionlessly as they'd like, and it puts them at risk of their environmental and labour standards getting undermined by the UK competing with lower standards. And they lose the money, since the UK is a net contributor, and the soft power.
Doubtless the whole thing is exasperating. But they're politicians in democracies, so they know that there's a thing called a voter, and sometimes voters get bullshat by bullshitters and vote for things that are bad ideas, and the politicians have to work out a way to minimize the damage. And if they were asked to sign a bit of paper at no cost to themselves to minimize this particular damage, that's what they'd do. [ * ]
[*] That said, 27 is a lot of countries and they all have local politics, so you can't *quite* be sure that nobody would play silly buggers.0 -
Trying to exit the EU is proving to be as difficult as exiting a timeshare holiday contract (unless you're over 75, or 70, not sure which).0
-
I think this is pretty easy, in that "which brexit" and "brexit or not" are distinct questions, and the second one depends on the first one and not vice versa. So you do "which brexit" followed by, in a second round, "brexit or not".Andy_Cooke said:
A two-stage referendum suffers from choosing which choice can get excluded first.
Where this gets icky is with funding rules and things, because you have to decide whether to treat it as two separate referendums, in which case the winning Leave option gets funded twice, or just one referendum, in which case they have to spread their resources over two rounds whereas Remain can spend it all on one. That would cause all kinds of bad-tempered food-fights, but whichever way it went I don't think it's going to be a legitimacy problem with people who don't already think the whole thing is illegitimate.0 -
I'm far from convinced that's the case. And you're a remainer: it is this sort of thinking that led remain to lose.Foxy said:
In such circumstances the eurosceptics would be a busted flush and completely discredited. Indeed watching Brexit has already shifted european eurosceptics to more pro EU and pro Euro positions.JosiasJessop said:
Shirt term maybe. But not in the medium- or long-term if the 'cancer' of Euroscepticism (from their POV) is not removed, as we'll just be fucking them about again in a few years.Foxy said:
Us returning with tail between our legs would be quite a filip for the EU. Of course rather humiloating for our government, but that will pass. Would it be worse than the humiliation of being a vassal state or the self destruction of unprepared No Deal Brexit? Probably not, there are worse things than wounded pride.JosiasJessop said:
Personally I think it's incredibly unlikely that they would agree to it. We've been troublesome to their project for decades, and we're mucking them about something rotten at the moment. Frankly, I wouldn't blame them if they felt better off without us, especially as anything other than a stonking remain win would not staunch British euroscepticism.edmundintokyo said:Sure, there are difficulties, life is full of difficulties.
I think you'd really want to get the rest of the member states to agree ahead of time that the UK could come back in without changing its status. The idea that a bunch of countries that are having all kinds of problems with the Eurozone are suddenly going to try to forcibly recruit a country that doesn't want to join is ludicrously bonkers, but the voters don't know this, and the Leave campaign(s) would certainly claim it. I also think the other member states would agree to make an assurance like this, as they like it when problems go away, but it's not 100% certain.
What it solves is getting an arrangement that doesn't blow up the economy into law. It's true that it doesn't solve the problem of getting people who disagree with each other about EU to stop arguing on the internet, but that's not a sensible or achievable goal, as the previous referendum should have shown.0 -
Who would have imagined they would say anything different. Lying toerags.HYUFD said:Treasury forecasts predict £150 billion wiped off UK output and the UK economy with No Deal compared to just £40 billion with May's Deal over the next 15 years.
Hammond also says No Deal means higher food prices in the shops
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-463661620 -
Very very Special.Recidivist said:
Yes. Special.malcolmg said:
However I am not of the common herd, I am a special one.JosiasJessop said:
Since you are a member of the public as well, that explains a great deal ...malcolmg said:
Confirms the public are thick as two short planks.Nigelb said:The interesting thing is all the leavers in denial about this, insisting that it is a ‘betrayal’.
Pretty weird that half of those who voted leave actually support it...0 -
Would it? It's like a month or two away, and the only thing that will have changed would be an internal British political thing - voting down a deal in its own parliament - which if anything just adds to the nastiness of the problem that you may be able to make go away by signing a piece of paper.JosiasJessop said:
That is indeed what some say at the moment. But the situation we are theorising about would be very different.edmundintokyo said:
Well, listen to what they say. AFAIK zero leaders have said it's a good thing the British are leaving, but a bunch of leaders of member states and Commission bigwigs have said that Brexit hurts everybody and they'd much rather it didn't happen.JosiasJessop said:
Personally I think it's incredibly unlikely that they would agree to it. We've been troublesome to their project for decades, and we're mucking them about something rotten at the moment. Frankly, I wouldn't blame them if they felt better off without us, especially as anything other than a stonking remain win would not staunch British euroscepticism.
Why? Well, Brexit hurts their citizens, who lose the ability to live and work in as wide an area as they'd like, and their businesses, that lose the ability to trade as frictionlessly as they'd like, and it puts them at risk of their environmental and labour standards getting undermined by the UK competing with lower standards. And they lose the money, since the UK is a net contributor, and the soft power.
Doubtless the whole thing is exasperating. But they're politicians in democracies, so they know that there's a thing called a voter, and sometimes voters get bullshat by bullshitters and vote for things that are bad ideas, and the politicians have to work out a way to minimize the damage. And if they were asked to sign a bit of paper at no cost to themselves to minimize this particular damage, that's what they'd do. [ * ]
[*] That said, 27 is a lot of countries and they all have local politics, so you can't *quite* be sure that nobody would play silly buggers.0 -
Sounds like John's pulledRecidivist said:
Sounds like Nick's pulled.NickPalmer said:Went to McDonnell's Guardian talk last night (with a LibDem friend, who thought him much more impressive than she thinks of Corbyn, and was persuaded to lean Labour afterwards) - very very dry but impressive. Some take-away points:
* He spent almost no time attacking the Tories - the discussion was 95% about what a Labour government ought to do and the relative priorities of helping the desperately poor, restructuring the economy and giving a greater sense of joint purpose and ownership
* He was explicitly and repeatedly a Remainer, but said it was essential to respect people's feelings and try first to get May to get a better deal, second to get an election and try to get a better deal ourselves, and only third to have a referendum - but he was pretty explicit that the referendum on Remain vs best available deal would be their next choice if the others failed
* Something I've not heard before - he indicated that if Labour took power and did manage to get a different deal, it might be best to put it to a referendum anyway, to get popular consent to the revised deal.
It wasn't intended as a romantic evening, but we chuckled over the idea that it might have been the ultimate awful date - "it's pouring with rain, come and hear the shadow chancellor debate Brexit". But it actually was good - especially the absence of the usual party mud-slinging, just a serious discussion of the dilemmas facing any government. A Hammond-McDonnell debate would be quite enlightening as they're both essentially serious.0 -
And what's going on with the Mail? Don't tell me they've been taken over by dopey remainers too.0
-
I am sure all the extra unemployed and lower wages and food shortages from No Deal will be worth it! Plus £110 billion extra lost from No Deal actuallyXenon said:Only another £90bn over 15 years to leave properly and actually be free? And this could have been mitigated by preparing for no deal properly and probably includes a bit of exaggeration in order to sell the deal.
I think this is the preferred option rather than May's dog's dinner.
So much for the world will end in the case of no deal Brexit.0 -
Yes we would be pariahs because the EU will insist they have shown good faith etc and thus us reneging with them would make us pariahs with them. Is that seriously something you find ok?Andy_Cooke said:
In which case, why would you have faith in them to ever exercise an exit clause?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Cooke, you have a faith in our political class I lack.
Doesn't matter if it's "fluff "or not. It's in there (Much like the "ever-closer union" thing is fluff in EU treaties). We're sovereign; as long as we can point to international law to justify our unilateral exit, we can do it.Philip_Thompson said:
Because good faith and sincere co-operation are meaningless fluff and not judiciable. The EU itself has a 2 year exit clause, even NATO and the United Nations have exit clauses but this does not? No thanks.
We wouldn't be international pariahs for doing it, we wouldn't have discouraged people from entering into or adhering to treaties with us, so who or what's to stop us?0 -
Just like the immediate extra unemployed and lower wages and food shortages from a Leave Vote.HYUFD said:
I am sure all the extra unemployed and lower wages and food shortages from No Deal will be worth it!Xenon said:Only another £90bn over 15 years to leave properly and actually be free? And this could have been mitigated by preparing for no deal properly and probably includes a bit of exaggeration in order to sell the deal.
I think this is the preferred option rather than May's dog's dinner.
So much for the world will end in the case of no deal Brexit.0 -
Just like the immediate extra unemployed and lower wages and food shortages from a Leave Vote.HYUFD said:
I am sure all the extra unemployed and lower wages and food shortages from No Deal will be worth it!Xenon said:Only another £90bn over 15 years to leave properly and actually be free? And this could have been mitigated by preparing for no deal properly and probably includes a bit of exaggeration in order to sell the deal.
I think this is the preferred option rather than May's dog's dinner.
So much for the world will end in the case of no deal Brexit.0 -
I'm sorry, saying that she 'deliberately' negotiated a bad deal makes you sound like one of the more febrile Europhobic winnets. It's stupid talk.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Jessop, nobody forced her to sign up to the backstop, or to proceed on the basis of staying as close as possible to the EU rather than trying to maximise the advantages of leaving. Her great concern for the Irish border led her to nod through regulatory annexation of Northern Ireland in the backstop, which we cannot leave without EU agreement. Despite the Commons voting against a customs union, that's what she's also agreed.
There was pressure to trigger Article 50 early but she could've tried to actually put together a basic position beforehand. Not only that, agreeing to EU sequencing (even though resolving the Irish border requires knowing what the trading terms will be) and prevaricating so much that the EU put forward proposals rather than us, then just nodding along, was not to the advantage of the UK.
Maybe you're right. Maybe she's just incompetent. It's certainly believable. By clinging to the EU as much as possible, playing short term tactical politics at home, she's managed to unite the Commons against the deal.
I remain very surprised at the 48% pro-deal finding in the poll.
Mr. Recidivist, ha. A second referendum was something at least some handsome men with well-oiled wiffle sticks predicted.
I sure as hell couldn't have negotiated a better deal. I very much doubt you could either, and nor could the vast majority of us on here (with, I suspect, a few exceptions - and they're not the ones who witter on about their negotiating prowess).
She negotiated from a position of utter weakness. Part of that was her own doing, in the fact she had a minority government due to her failure at last year's GE. But the majority of the blame goes on the extremists: some remainers, but mostly the ERG fuckwits and their hangers-on. The Europhobic ISIS.
And again, a leaver says it's up to other people to work out their position, when they were too fucking lazy and incompetent to do it before the referendum.0 -
Georgie Gregg their new editor is a Remainer.Xenon said:And what's going on with the Mail? Don't tell me they've been taken over by dopey remainers too.
Didn't think he'd want to so blatantly piss off their old readers though. And I doubt it will win them any new ones.0 -
Thanks to Merkel's open door the two are now intertwined but we would get a UK AfDFoxy said:
He is more Islamophobic than eurosceptic, indeed many of his followers show an affinity for strong German leaders. Like the BNP their maximum vote would be 10%.HYUFD said:
Only this time it will be Tommy Robinson EDL type EuroscepticismJosiasJessop said:
Shirt term maybe. But not in the medium- or long-term if the 'cancer' of Euroscepticism (from their POV) is not removed, as we'll just be fucking them about again in a few years.Foxy said:
Us returning with tail between our legs would be quite a filip for the EU. Of course rather humiloating for our government, but that will pass. Would it be worse than the humiliation of being a vassal state or the self destruction of unprepared No Deal Brexit? Probably not, there are worse things than wounded pride.JosiasJessop said:
Personally I think it's incredibly unlikely that they would agree to it. We've been troublesome to their project for decades, and we're mucking them about something rotten at the moment. Frankly, I wouldn't blame them if they felt better off without us, especially as anything other than a stonking remain win would not staunch British euroscepticism.edmundintokyo said:Sure, there are difficulties, life is full of difficulties.
I think you'd really want to get the rest of the member states to agree ahead of time that the UK could come back in without changing its status. The idea that a bunch of countries that are having all kinds of problems with the Eurozone are suddenly going to try to forcibly recruit a country that doesn't want to join is ludicrously bonkers, but the voters don't know this, and the Leave campaign(s) would certainly claim it. I also think the other member states would agree to make an assurance like this, as they like it when problems go away, but it's not 100% certain.
What it solves is getting an arrangement that doesn't blow up the economy into law. It's true that it doesn't solve the problem of getting people who disagree with each other about EU to stop arguing on the internet, but that's not a sensible or achievable goal, as the previous referendum should have shown.
Indeed most Britons concerns re immigration are about non-european migration.0 -
We are still in the EU, the single market and customs union not crashing out of all with No DealPhilip_Thompson said:
Just like the immediate extra unemployed and lower wages and food shortages from a Leave Vote.HYUFD said:
I am sure all the extra unemployed and lower wages and food shortages from No Deal will be worth it!Xenon said:Only another £90bn over 15 years to leave properly and actually be free? And this could have been mitigated by preparing for no deal properly and probably includes a bit of exaggeration in order to sell the deal.
I think this is the preferred option rather than May's dog's dinner.
So much for the world will end in the case of no deal Brexit.0 -
Why would signing a piece of paper make it 'go away'? That piece of paper would essentially be wallpapering over a chasm the size of the Grand Canyon. It'd fix nothing.edmundintokyo said:
Would it? It's like a month or two away, and the only thing that will have changed would be an internal British political thing - voting down a deal in its own parliament - which if anything just adds to the nastiness of the problem that you may be able to make go away by signing a piece of paper.JosiasJessop said:
That is indeed what some say at the moment. But the situation we are theorising about would be very different.edmundintokyo said:
Well, listen to what they say. AFAIK zero leaders have said it's a good thing the British are leaving, but a bunch of leaders of member states and Commission bigwigs have said that Brexit hurts everybody and they'd much rather it didn't happen.JosiasJessop said:
Personally I think it's incredibly unlikely that they would agree to it. We've been troublesome to their project for decades, and we're mucking them about something rotten at the moment. Frankly, I wouldn't blame them if they felt better off without us, especially as anything other than a stonking remain win would not staunch British euroscepticism.
Why? Well, Brexit hurts their citizens, who lose the ability to live and work in as wide an area as they'd like, and their businesses, that lose the ability to trade as frictionlessly as they'd like, and it puts them at risk of their environmental and labour standards getting undermined by the UK competing with lower standards. And they lose the money, since the UK is a net contributor, and the soft power.
Doubtless the whole thing is exasperating. But they're politicians in democracies, so they know that there's a thing called a voter, and sometimes voters get bullshat by bullshitters and vote for things that are bad ideas, and the politicians have to work out a way to minimize the damage. And if they were asked to sign a bit of paper at no cost to themselves to minimize this particular damage, that's what they'd do. [ * ]
[*] That said, 27 is a lot of countries and they all have local politics, so you can't *quite* be sure that nobody would play silly buggers.0 -
AIUI
The Brexit Catch-22- The UK will not leave the EU with a backstop tying it indefinitely to EU.
- The backstop is not needed if there is a UK-EU FTA.
- A UK-EU FTA cannot be negotiated until the UK is out of the EU.
- Until an FTA is agreed the backstop must be in place.
0 -
Oh FFS are leavers allowed to have any media that represents their views?Philip_Thompson said:
Georgie Gregg their new editor is a Remainer.Xenon said:And what's going on with the Mail? Don't tell me they've been taken over by dopey remainers too.
Didn't think he'd want to so blatantly piss off their old readers though. And I doubt it will win them any new ones.0 -
The Treasury has form on this. Their last prediction was for an immediate crash caused by the vote not after we leave.HYUFD said:
We are still in the EU, the single market and customs union not crashing out of all with No DealPhilip_Thompson said:
Just like the immediate extra unemployed and lower wages and food shortages from a Leave Vote.HYUFD said:
I am sure all the extra unemployed and lower wages and food shortages from No Deal will be worth it!Xenon said:Only another £90bn over 15 years to leave properly and actually be free? And this could have been mitigated by preparing for no deal properly and probably includes a bit of exaggeration in order to sell the deal.
I think this is the preferred option rather than May's dog's dinner.
So much for the world will end in the case of no deal Brexit.0 -
I'm beginning to wonder if Jezza will actually make it to GE 2022 as leader.ExiledInScotland said:
Sounds like John's pulledRecidivist said:
Sounds like Nick's pulled.NickPalmer said:Went to McDonnell's Guardian talk last night (with a LibDem friend, who thought him much more impressive than she thinks of Corbyn, and was persuaded to lean Labour afterwards) - very very dry but impressive. Some take-away points:
* He spent almost no time attacking the Tories - the discussion was 95% about what a Labour government ought to do and the relative priorities of helping the desperately poor, restructuring the economy and giving a greater sense of joint purpose and ownership
* He was explicitly and repeatedly a Remainer, but said it was essential to respect people's feelings and try first to get May to get a better deal, second to get an election and try to get a better deal ourselves, and only third to have a referendum - but he was pretty explicit that the referendum on Remain vs best available deal would be their next choice if the others failed
* Something I've not heard before - he indicated that if Labour took power and did manage to get a different deal, it might be best to put it to a referendum anyway, to get popular consent to the revised deal.
It wasn't intended as a romantic evening, but we chuckled over the idea that it might have been the ultimate awful date - "it's pouring with rain, come and hear the shadow chancellor debate Brexit". But it actually was good - especially the absence of the usual party mud-slinging, just a serious discussion of the dilemmas facing any government. A Hammond-McDonnell debate would be quite enlightening as they're both essentially serious.0 -
Mr. Jessop, fair enough. Though if you listened to some of my earlier conspiracies, such as the 6.5 on another referendum before the end of 2019, you can hedge that now by backing no referendum in that time frame at 1.53.
[I'm unsure whether to do that. For now, given the parliamentary mood music, I'm holding off].
Also, Boris is an utter dick, unfit to be in Cabinet. But he (or any other hardline Leaver) isn't the moral equal of religious zealots who burn people alive, attempt religious genocide, crucify children, and participate in industrial scale sexual slavery.0 -
Can it be whittled down to fit the side of a bus?HYUFD said:Treasury forecasts predict £150 billion wiped off UK output and the UK economy with No Deal compared to just £40 billion with May's Deal over the next 15 years.
Hammond also says No Deal means higher food prices in the shops
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-463661620 -
That is no way to speak of our next Prime Minister. Hammond has been trimmed slightly to 50/1 with Shadsy.malcolmg said:
Who would have imagined they would say anything different. Lying toerags.HYUFD said:Treasury forecasts predict £150 billion wiped off UK output and the UK economy with No Deal compared to just £40 billion with May's Deal over the next 15 years.
Hammond also says No Deal means higher food prices in the shops
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-463661620 -
Since leavers tend to have many inconsistent views, that'd be difficult.Xenon said:
Oh FFS are leavers allowed to have any media that represents their views?Philip_Thompson said:
Georgie Gregg their new editor is a Remainer.Xenon said:And what's going on with the Mail? Don't tell me they've been taken over by dopey remainers too.
Didn't think he'd want to so blatantly piss off their old readers though. And I doubt it will win them any new ones.
Also note that many leavers on here support this deal, e.g. Mr Tyndall or Royale, however reluctantly. Therefore the paper is representing the views of some leavers.
I think you mean : "are Europhobic extremist winnets allowed to have any media that represents their views?"
0 -
Much easier to blame dead pilots who can’t defend themselves - though the airline maintenance culture also seems at fault - from what was published yesterday it seems they had a horrendous struggle with the nose being pushed down 26 times.JosiasJessop said:The Lion Air cover-up begins:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-461211270 -
Under that scenario, our relationship with the EU would already have broken down to a catastrophic level.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes we would be pariahs because the EU will insist they have shown good faith etc and thus us reneging with them would make us pariahs with them. Is that seriously something you find ok?Andy_Cooke said:
In which case, why would you have faith in them to ever exercise an exit clause?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Cooke, you have a faith in our political class I lack.
Doesn't matter if it's "fluff "or not. It's in there (Much like the "ever-closer union" thing is fluff in EU treaties). We're sovereign; as long as we can point to international law to justify our unilateral exit, we can do it.Philip_Thompson said:
Because good faith and sincere co-operation are meaningless fluff and not judiciable. The EU itself has a 2 year exit clause, even NATO and the United Nations have exit clauses but this does not? No thanks.
We wouldn't be international pariahs for doing it, we wouldn't have discouraged people from entering into or adhering to treaties with us, so who or what's to stop us?
It literally posits them forcing us into trade deals against our will and in bad faith. In that case, we'd lose nothing with them - we were getting nothing anyway.
0 -
I have a question for remainers. Is there any behaviour the EU could exhibit that would cause you to tell them to sod off?HYUFD said:
I am sure all the extra unemployed and lower wages and food shortages from No Deal will be worth it! Plus £110 billion extra lost from No Deal actuallyXenon said:Only another £90bn over 15 years to leave properly and actually be free? And this could have been mitigated by preparing for no deal properly and probably includes a bit of exaggeration in order to sell the deal.
I think this is the preferred option rather than May's dog's dinner.
So much for the world will end in the case of no deal Brexit.
They've been massively disrespectful and unreasonable all the way through this "negotiation" and yet still you want to roll over for them, in fact not even bring yourselves to criticise their approach.
When would the tipping point be where an economic hit to ourselves is worth it to retain our independence and dignity? Or would that never happen?0 -
The Sun?Xenon said:
Oh FFS are leavers allowed to have any media that represents their views?Philip_Thompson said:
Georgie Gregg their new editor is a Remainer.Xenon said:And what's going on with the Mail? Don't tell me they've been taken over by dopey remainers too.
Didn't think he'd want to so blatantly piss off their old readers though. And I doubt it will win them any new ones.0 -
They're willing to see the country, and the people within it, hurt in order to obtain the sunlit uplands of their dream world. In that, they've very much like religious extremists.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Jessop, fair enough. Though if you listened to some of my earlier conspiracies, such as the 6.5 on another referendum before the end of 2019, you can hedge that now by backing no referendum in that time frame at 1.53.
[I'm unsure whether to do that. For now, given the parliamentary mood music, I'm holding off].
Also, Boris is an utter dick, unfit to be in Cabinet. But he (or any other hardline Leaver) isn't the moral equal of religious zealots who burn people alive, attempt religious genocide, crucify children, and participate in industrial scale sexual slavery.
And at the end of the day, that's what too many people forget: this is about people. Whether they voted remain, leave, or couldn't be arsed to get to the polling station. Whether male, female, or something in between. Whether a good citizen or bad.
Europhobes treat Brexit as an ideology, and that is why they are leading us to a disaster.0 -
Chuka Umuna and Jacob Rees Mogg, strong evidence of a 'horseshoe' effect in this debate. Discuss.0
-
I said *may* make it go away, the situation being: The British want to have a new referendum which might result in Brexit being cancelled. If Brexit is cancelled then the problem of Brexit happening goes away. But for this to work, you, dear national leader and EU Council member, need to:JosiasJessop said:
Why would signing a piece of paper make it 'go away'? That piece of paper would essentially be wallpapering over a chasm the size of the Grand Canyon. It'd fix nothing.edmundintokyo said:
Would it? It's like a month or two away, and the only thing that will have changed would be an internal British political thing - voting down a deal in its own parliament - which if anything just adds to the nastiness of the problem that you may be able to make go away by signing a piece of paper.
1) Vote for an extension of Article 50
2) Sign a piece of paper saying that if the referendum returns a "remain" result, you're happy for the UK to resume its membership without joining the Euro or sending Prince Harry's first born to marry Angela Merkel's niece or whatever.
Obviously you can't be sure they'll vote to Remain, and even if they do it doesn't fix the problem of a significant proportion of the voters of Britain throwing a massive huff, but everybody has angry voters.0 -
Thanks for introducing me to the word 'winnet'. Smaller than, I gather, but similar to, a dag!JosiasJessop said:
I'm sorry, saying that she 'deliberately' negotiated a bad deal makes you sound like one of the more febrile Europhobic winnets. It's stupid talk.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Jessop, nobody forced her to sign up to the backstop, or to proceed on the basis of staying as close as possible to the EU rather than trying to maximise the advantages of leaving. Her great concern for the Irish border led her to nod through regulatory annexation of Northern Ireland in the backstop, which we cannot leave without EU agreement. Despite the Commons voting against a customs union, that's what she's also agreed.
There was pressure to trigger Article 50 early but she could've tried to actually put together a basic position beforehand. Not only that, agreeing to EU sequencing (even though resolving the Irish border requires knowing what the trading terms will be) and prevaricating so much that the EU put forward proposals rather than us, then just nodding along, was not to the advantage of the UK.
Maybe you're right. Maybe she's just incompetent. It's certainly believable. By clinging to the EU as much as possible, playing short term tactical politics at home, she's managed to unite the Commons against the deal.
I remain very surprised at the 48% pro-deal finding in the poll.
Mr. Recidivist, ha. A second referendum was something at least some handsome men with well-oiled wiffle sticks predicted.
I sure as hell couldn't have negotiated a better deal. I very much doubt you could either, and nor could the vast majority of us on here (with, I suspect, a few exceptions - and they're not the ones who witter on about their negotiating prowess).
She negotiated from a position of utter weakness. Part of that was her own doing, in the fact she had a minority government due to her failure at last year's GE. But the majority of the blame goes on the extremists: some remainers, but mostly the ERG fuckwits and their hangers-on. The Europhobic ISIS.
And again, a leaver says it's up to other people to work out their position, when they were too fucking lazy and incompetent to do it before the referendum.0 -
Yes that is a succinct summary of how they are trying to force the backstop on us, hence why we oppose it. Understand now?Andy_Cooke said:
Under that scenario, our relationship with the EU would already have broken down to a catastrophic level.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes we would be pariahs because the EU will insist they have shown good faith etc and thus us reneging with them would make us pariahs with them. Is that seriously something you find ok?Andy_Cooke said:
In which case, why would you have faith in them to ever exercise an exit clause?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Cooke, you have a faith in our political class I lack.
Doesn't matter if it's "fluff "or not. It's in there (Much like the "ever-closer union" thing is fluff in EU treaties). We're sovereign; as long as we can point to international law to justify our unilateral exit, we can do it.Philip_Thompson said:
Because good faith and sincere co-operation are meaningless fluff and not judiciable. The EU itself has a 2 year exit clause, even NATO and the United Nations have exit clauses but this does not? No thanks.
We wouldn't be international pariahs for doing it, we wouldn't have discouraged people from entering into or adhering to treaties with us, so who or what's to stop us?
It literally posits them forcing us into trade deals against our will and in bad faith. In that case, we'd lose nothing with them - we were getting nothing anyway.
What is wrong with replacing the backstop with a commitment to avoid the hard border made in good faith and sincere co-operation?0 -
There will be many causal factors, and I wouldn't at all be surprised if one of those causes was poor maintenance - albeit of an essentially brand-new plane. It's just that the comments in the article makes it sound like they're really trying to avoid what appears to be the main causal factor: Boeing's addition of flight laws the pilots knew nothing about.CarlottaVance said:
Much easier to blame dead pilots who can’t defend themselves - though the airline maintenance culture also seems at fault - from what was published yesterday it seems they had a horrendous struggle with the nose being pushed down 26 times.JosiasJessop said:The Lion Air cover-up begins:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-461211270 -
That's the problem right there.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Jessop, nobody forced her to sign up to the backstop, or to proceed on the basis of staying as close as possible to the EU rather than trying to maximise the advantages of leaving.
There are no advantages to leaving.
Importing chlorinated chicken from the US is not an advantage.
Abandoning workers' rights and environmental standards is not an advantage.0 -
What does it matter now? Seems clear that Leaver representatives in Parliament are determined to blow-up their own dream by scuppering anything that might just work and chasing off after unicorns.Scott_P said:
You have BoZo's personal blog. Google "The Telegraph" to read itXenon said:Oh FFS are leavers allowed to have any media that represents their views?
Nothing the Daily Mail says looks likely to swing 100 or more of ultras back from shooting the whole thing down imho.0 -
30% support no deal.JosiasJessop said:
Since leavers tend to have many inconsistent views, that'd be difficult.Xenon said:
Oh FFS are leavers allowed to have any media that represents their views?Philip_Thompson said:
Georgie Gregg their new editor is a Remainer.Xenon said:And what's going on with the Mail? Don't tell me they've been taken over by dopey remainers too.
Didn't think he'd want to so blatantly piss off their old readers though. And I doubt it will win them any new ones.
Also note that many leavers on here support this deal, e.g. Mr Tyndall or Royale, however reluctantly. Therefore the paper is representing the views of some leavers.
I think you mean : "are Europhobic extremist winnets allowed to have any media that represents their views?"
Try to paint them as a tiny minority of extremists if that makes you feel special.0 -
The attack on a survation poll in the daily mail is unsurprising.
The poll gives support to TM deal and certainly does not reflect the HOC determination to bring the deal down
It is amusing to see critics attacking the messenger rather than engaging with the findings
It should also be noted that mail on line where caustic comments derive from is populated by ERG/UKIP whereas the newspaper is widely read by conservative voters and especially now it is available fully on line
I would suggest some conservative mps will be concerned, not least as the mail will not back off their full on attack on those intending to vote down TM deal.0 -
You said leavers. We were talking about leavers.Xenon said:
30% support no deal.JosiasJessop said:
Since leavers tend to have many inconsistent views, that'd be difficult.Xenon said:
Oh FFS are leavers allowed to have any media that represents their views?Philip_Thompson said:
Georgie Gregg their new editor is a Remainer.Xenon said:And what's going on with the Mail? Don't tell me they've been taken over by dopey remainers too.
Didn't think he'd want to so blatantly piss off their old readers though. And I doubt it will win them any new ones.
Also note that many leavers on here support this deal, e.g. Mr Tyndall or Royale, however reluctantly. Therefore the paper is representing the views of some leavers.
I think you mean : "are Europhobic extremist winnets allowed to have any media that represents their views?"
Try to paint them as a tiny minority of extremists if that makes you feel special.0 -
The Express is probably the paper that comes closest to weapons-grade winnetry like this:JosiasJessop said:I think you mean : "are Europhobic extremist winnets allowed to have any media that represents their views?"
Xenon said:Only another £90bn over 15 years to leave properly and actually be free?
0 -
If only there were some kind of way she could really go the public and get the people's backing for her deal....Big_G_NorthWales said:The attack on a survation poll in the daily mail is unsurprising.
The poll gives support to TM deal and certainly does not reflect the HOC determination to bring the deal down
It is amusing to see critics attacking the messenger rather than engaging with the findings
It should also be noted that mail on line where caustic comments derive from is populated by ERG/UKIP whereas the newspaper is widely read by conservative voters and especially now it is available fully on line
I would suggest some conservative mps will be concerned, not least as the mail will not back off their full on attack on those intending to vote down TM deal.0 -
Good! Because "this whole thing" isnt Brexit which is why it was negotiated by and for Remainers. It's why the deals biggest cheerleaders are remainers. Shoot down the deal, tell the Irish we have a deal if they drop the backstop, run the clock down and prepare for no deal. Let the Irish sort their own mess out.rottenborough said:
What does it matter now? Seems clear that Leaver representatives in Parliament are determined to blow-up their own dream by scuppering anything that might just work and chasing off after unicorns.Scott_P said:
You have BoZo's personal blog. Google "The Telegraph" to read itXenon said:Oh FFS are leavers allowed to have any media that represents their views?
Nothing the Daily Mail says looks likely to swing 100 or more of ultras back from shooting the whole thing down imho.0
