politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » There are four Brexit options and Remain is the least likely

Philip_Thompson said:

Recidivist said:

This YouTube video criticising the anti-EU campaign has had 90,000 views in less than 24 hours. Do you really think this issue will be settled once we leave?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=257&v=UYonSZ8s3_o

Yes. The EU will continue to integrate without us and we will drift further apart. Early days there were talks of Canadian provinces joining the USA. You never hear that now. As time goes on the memory of being an EU member will fade, the younger generation who have never known us outside the EU will get to know that and old wounds will turn into scars and fade away.

CarlottaVance said:

Can't imagine Trump writing such a letter:

https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/1068778184127193088

Xenon said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/mk1969/status/1068812005707005952?s=21

This photo sums it up, people either want to remain or get out completely. No one wants this wretched deal.

Recidivist said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Recidivist said:

This YouTube video criticising the anti-EU campaign has had 90,000 views in less than 24 hours. Do you really think this issue will be settled once we leave?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=257&v=UYonSZ8s3_o

Yes. The EU will continue to integrate without us and we will drift further apart. Early days there were talks of Canadian provinces joining the USA. You never hear that now. As time goes on the memory of being an EU member will fade, the younger generation who have never known us outside the EU will get to know that and old wounds will turn into scars and fade away.

The EU itself isn't going to fade away and it will remain on our doorstep. The relationship we have with it will continue to be subject to debate. Or we going to turn our noses up at every opportunity to co-operate with our neighbours? Do you really want to be the awkward eccentric in the room who does his own thing in the face of common sense because he thinks he is special?

Philip_Thompson said:

Recidivist said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Recidivist said:

This YouTube video criticising the anti-EU campaign has had 90,000 views in less than 24 hours. Do you really think this issue will be settled once we leave?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=257&v=UYonSZ8s3_o

Yes. The EU will continue to integrate without us and we will drift further apart. Early days there were talks of Canadian provinces joining the USA. You never hear that now. As time goes on the memory of being an EU member will fade, the younger generation who have never known us outside the EU will get to know that and old wounds will turn into scars and fade away.

The EU itself isn't going to fade away and it will remain on our doorstep. The relationship we have with it will continue to be subject to debate. Or we going to turn our noses up at every opportunity to co-operate with our neighbours? Do you really want to be the awkward eccentric in the room who does his own thing in the face of common sense because he thinks he is special?

If the EU faded or even stayed the same it would be easier to rejoin. My point was the opposite of fading it's going to go further. The further it goes from us the less likely rejoining becomes. The EU will continue to integrate around the Eurozone and while we may end up in some kind of NAFTA style trade deal with the EU we arent ever going to rejoin the political union.

Yes I want to be the entrepreneurial one doing his own thing and not a sheep in the crowd.

kle4 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Very good and interesting thread David and thank you

Just catching up and see the usual suspects expecting TM to be out after the vote.

TM is the party's biggest asset at present, respected for her courtesy and persistance under intense attack from all sides and to attempt to vnoc would just fail at this critical moment

She is receiving increasing backing for her deal and the latest poll gives the party a 5% lead over labour and a 10 seat majority under electoral calculus.

It is widely expected she will lose the meaningful vote but this will depend on sequencing of the amendments and the flow chart points to no deal as default and it is this chart that is alarming remainers

It is high noon a week on tuesday and I do not think any of us really are able to predict the outcome, though of course we all tend to be influenced by our own opinions

The polls this weekend will be interesting

To be honest, I dont think we will see anything much happen this week, just the usual stalemate of trench warfare. Tuesday the 11th will be interesting. I expect that you are right and that the whiff of gunpowder will send the ERG types back gibbrering under their bunks in the duggout.

The good news is the 5 day debate commences on tuesday so we can have a week off before reconvening on tuesday week to see the theatre play out

Obviously I'm not planning to follow the debate, but it will be interesting to read how many really gut stuck into detail, how much they acknowledge the flaws of the deal, the flaws of the other options people want to try, and how much it is more just bashing the deal without much consideration of what happens afterwards - many of those who are opposing say they have considered things very carefully, and I believe most of them, so if that is the case it should be more nuanced that it has so far.

Recidivist said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Recidivist said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Recidivist said:

This YouTube video criticising the anti-EU campaign has had 90,000 views in less than 24 hours. Do you really think this issue will be settled once we leave?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=257&v=UYonSZ8s3_o

Yes. The EU will continue to integrate without us and we will drift further apart. Early days there were talks of Canadian provinces joining the USA. You never hear that now. As time goes on the memory of being an EU member will fade, the younger generation who have never known us outside the EU will get to know that and old wounds will turn into scars and fade away.

The EU itself isn't going to fade away and it will remain on our doorstep. The relationship we have with it will continue to be subject to debate. Or we going to turn our noses up at every opportunity to co-operate with our neighbours? Do you really want to be the awkward eccentric in the room who does his own thing in the face of common sense because he thinks he is special?

If the EU faded or even stayed the same it would be easier to rejoin. My point was the opposite of fading it's going to go further. The further it goes from us the less likely rejoining becomes. The EU will continue to integrate around the Eurozone and while we may end up in some kind of NAFTA style trade deal with the EU we arent ever going to rejoin the political union.

Yes I want to be the entrepreneurial one doing his own thing and not a sheep in the crowd.

Bloody funny entrepreneur who wants a smaller market to work in.

As for divergence from the EU, I don't think that is going to happen. You mentioned Canada earlier. In my field Canada has aligned its regulations pretty closely to those of the EU. I happen to quite like the way the Europeans do things, but the reality is we are giving up a say in the making of rules that have an effect on us. But we aren't removing the compelling reasons we will have to continue following those rules.

Rejoining will be easy whenever we do it. It's just a question of how long we leave the taxi waiting outside with the clock running.

Notch said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Notch said:

Speaking of £85K, what's going to happen to the bank account deposit protection limit of that amount that is currently guaranteed by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme if sterling plummets against the euro? It will be in for a hammering if it stays roughly pegged to €100K.

If sterling takes a battering, it will go up, not down, e.g. if 1€ = £1, then it becomes £100k.

Point taken. What I meant to say was that maintaining its real value could be very costly.

CarlottaVance said:

Can't imagine Trump writing such a letter:

twitter.com/StigAbell/status/1068778184127193088

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

King Cole, disagree. Such an ill considered proposal was bound to bugger things up, as per the old books situation, as per Article 13, as per the mooted (by the UK political establishment) one-handed enthusiast database.

These things are obviously and predictably stupid, and those whose jobs it is to legislate in the area should be more familiar with it.

Don't often side with he EU but on this one I respectfully disagree. Sales on Amazon etc should face same taxes as sales elsewhere. If I go to a high street store everything I buy there has VAT. So should Amazon. If you don't like it, don't sell on it.

That was not MD's point as he said earlier. It was that a law designed to target large companies such as Amazon was introduced in a blanket form which adversely affected smaller companies which, because of their turnover, should not have been liable and that then drove them to trade via Amazon because the red tape involved in trading independently was not worth it.

A law designed to punish companies like Amazon has actually ended up helping them without making them pay any more taxes as a company than they were originally.

I don't see a realistic alternative with cross border trade. If a micro business wants to sell to the UK only then AFAIK this law doesn't apply. If you start exporting it does. Given the rampant exploitation that was occurring something had to change and I'm not sure how to change it any better. Not without homogenising VAT thresholds and that would have been a bigger outrage!

If we had a single homogenised VAT threshold across all.of Europe then simply apply VAT after that (though how you split the VAT-free between nations I'm not sure about) but otherwise it wouldn't work.

Alternatively and I'm just spitballing ideas keep your own domestic VAT threshold but have 0 threshold for exports.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1068798640947220486

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1068830267694096385

TheWhiteRabbit said:

viewcode said:

One of the problems with Brexit (there are many) is that we become very navel-gazing, focussing on nothing else. With that in mind, I would like to point out that George HW Bush, (POTUS 89-93) died today. I liked him and I am quite surprised at the vituperation levelled at him online. The mindset of the late 2010's is quite strange to me and yet again it reacts in a way that I find difficult to sympathise with. Although if the allegations about fondling are accurate, that would negatively affect my view of him.

The main criticism of HW is that he was too focussed internationally, and not enough at home. So I think people from around the world might naturally have a different view.

SeanT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Recidivist said:

This YouTube video criticising the anti-EU campaign has had 90,000 views in less than 24 hours. Do you really think this issue will be settled once we leave?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=257&v=UYonSZ8s3_o

Yes. The EU will continue to integrate without us and we will drift further apart. Early days there were talks of Canadian provinces joining the USA. You never hear that now. As time goes on the memory of being an EU member will fade, the younger generation who have never known us outside the EU will get to know that and old wounds will turn into scars and fade away.

I tend to agree with this, it's a rule of human nature. However this is such an explosive issue the psychological evolution will take time, so I reckon the Remainers will have a 3-5 year window after we Leave to get a new referendum, and win a vote to Rejoin.

The problem for them is that they need a major party to put that new vote in their manifesto, then that party must win the GE (and call the plebiscite). There is zero chance of the Tories doing it. Which leaves us with Labour, who would be very likely to do this if led by a normal centrist.... but they are led by Corbyn, so they won't.

And by the time Corbyn has gone, the window of opportunity, for another vote, will likely have shut.

OldKingCole said:

With hindsight GHWB's biggest error was not to have ensured regime change in Iraq. But, of course, hindsight's easy.

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Recidivist said:

This YouTube video criticising the anti-EU campaign has had 90,000 views in less than 24 hours. Do you really think this issue will be settled once we leave?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=257&v=UYonSZ8s3_o

Yes. The EU will continue to integrate without us and we will drift further apart. Early days there were talks of Canadian provinces joining the USA. You never hear that now. As time goes on the memory of being an EU member will fade, the younger generation who have never known us outside the EU will get to know that and old wounds will turn into scars and fade away.

I tend to agree with this, it's a rule of human nature. However this is such an explosive issue the psychological evolution will take time, so I reckon the Remainers will have a 3-5 year window after we Leave to get a new referendum, and win a vote to Rejoin.

The problem for them is that they need a major party to put that new vote in their manifesto, then that party must win the GE (and call the plebiscite). There is zero chance of the Tories doing it. Which leaves us with Labour, who would be very likely to do this if led by a normal centrist.... but they are led by Corbyn, so they won't.

And by the time Corbyn has gone, the window of opportunity, for another vote, will likely have shut.

I'd put the window a tad further than that and Corbyn may help them here. First 1-5 years the exit is going to be too fresh to be revisited. Last thing Europe is going to want is to talk Britain more. After 1 more Parliament then it's going to be prime window of opportunity. European Parliament 2024-29 probably, Brexit will have settled down and enough time passed to say "we want to go back in", not too much time. That gives the 2022 and 2027 elections to have that as a commitment. If Corbyn loses 2022 his successor will almost certainly win 2027 (by that point Tories will have been in Downing Street 17 years).

If it doesn't happen then it never will.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

david_herdson said:

Can you cite the part of section 25 that relates to S1? I don't see it.

The position re the notification was that a government cannot by executive authority override the effect of an Act of Parliament. In this case, parliament has expressly granted the PM the power to withdraw the UK from the EU, which she has since done. To withdraw that notice - the power to do which is not granted by the Act, and hence must rely on pre-existing executive powers - would run counter to that same de Keyser principle.

Yes, I can. Section 25(1) lists those provisions that come into force on the day the Act is passed (which doesn't include section 1). Then subsections (2) and (3) deal with some Scottish matters of no relevance to our discussion. Then subsection (4) says, "The provisions of this Act, so far as they are not brought into force by subsections (1) to (3), come into force on such day as a Minister of the Crown may by regulations appoint; and different days may be appointed for different purposes." So that's the relevant one for section 1, and it's not yet come into force.

[snip].

ralphmalph said:

OldKingCole said:

With hindsight GHWB's biggest error was not to have ensured regime change in Iraq. But, of course, hindsight's easy.

And the regime change that his son delivered left the country so much better off?

ydoethur said:

ralphmalph said:

OldKingCole said:

With hindsight GHWB's biggest error was not to have ensured regime change in Iraq. But, of course, hindsight's easy.

And the regime change that his son delivered left the country so much better off?

I think in 1991 with international support and an Iraqi regime already tottering while al-Qaeda were still only a minor irritant would have been a rather different matter from the disaster of 2003.

Edit - I hadn't seen his justification prior to posting this. I still think he was wrong and Saddam could have been removed with much less damage in 1991.

Arguably however 2003 was a mistake to rectify another mistake.

ydoethur said:

ralphmalph said:

OldKingCole said:

With hindsight GHWB's biggest error was not to have ensured regime change in Iraq. But, of course, hindsight's easy.

And the regime change that his son delivered left the country so much better off?

I think in 1991 with international support and an Iraqi regime already tottering while al-Qaeda were still only a minor irritant would have been a rather different matter from the disaster of 2003.

Edit - I hadn't seen his justification prior to posting this. I still think he was wrong and Saddam could have been removed with much less damage in 1991.

Arguably however 2003 was a mistake to rectify another mistake.

Benpointer said:

geoffw said:

GIN1138 said:

Good piece David (as usual)

Henceforth we're ARLTB - All Road's Lead To Brexit

https://twitter.com/commonslibrary/status/1068476917228232705

I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:

Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no

ralphmalph said:

ydoethur said:

ralphmalph said:

OldKingCole said:

With hindsight GHWB's biggest error was not to have ensured regime change in Iraq. But, of course, hindsight's easy.

And the regime change that his son delivered left the country so much better off?

I think in 1991 with international support and an Iraqi regime already tottering while al-Qaeda were still only a minor irritant would have been a rather different matter from the disaster of 2003.

Edit - I hadn't seen his justification prior to posting this. I still think he was wrong and Saddam could have been removed with much less damage in 1991.

Arguably however 2003 was a mistake to rectify another mistake.

It still does not address the fundamental issue and that is until the Sunni's and the Shia's bury the hatchet and decide to live peacefully with each other any regime change in Iraq would have resulted in sectarian war until one side won.

IanB2 said:

Benpointer said:

geoffw said:

GIN1138 said:

Good piece David (as usual)

Henceforth we're ARLTB - All Road's Lead To Brexit

https://twitter.com/commonslibrary/status/1068476917228232705

I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:

Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no

Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.

Benpointer said:

IanB2 said:

Benpointer said:

geoffw said:

GIN1138 said:

Good piece David (as usual)

Henceforth we're ARLTB - All Road's Lead To Brexit

https://twitter.com/commonslibrary/status/1068476917228232705

I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:

Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no

Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.

Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.

Apols for shouting this but:

I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.

ydoethur said:

Benpointer said:

IanB2 said:

Benpointer said:

geoffw said:

GIN1138 said:

Good piece David (as usual)

Henceforth we're ARLTB - All Road's Lead To Brexit

https://twitter.com/commonslibrary/status/1068476917228232705

I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:

Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no

Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.

Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.

Apols for shouting this but:

I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.

Because its opponents are stubborn and cannot bear to admit they are wrong.

That's not a convincing argument but it is the reason.

ydoethur said:

ralphmalph said:

ydoethur said:

ralphmalph said:

OldKingCole said:

With hindsight GHWB's biggest error was not to have ensured regime change in Iraq. But, of course, hindsight's easy.

And the regime change that his son delivered left the country so much better off?

I think in 1991 with international support and an Iraqi regime already tottering while al-Qaeda were still only a minor irritant would have been a rather different matter from the disaster of 2003.

Edit - I hadn't seen his justification prior to posting this. I still think he was wrong and Saddam could have been removed with much less damage in 1991.

Arguably however 2003 was a mistake to rectify another mistake.

It still does not address the fundamental issue and that is until the Sunni's and the Shia's bury the hatchet and decide to live peacefully with each other any regime change in Iraq would have resulted in sectarian war until one side won.

They are industriously burying the hatchet right now.

Pity they're choosing to bury it in each other.

Benpointer said:

IanB2 said:

Benpointer said:

geoffw said:

GIN1138 said:

Good piece David (as usual)

Henceforth we're ARLTB - All Road's Lead To Brexit

https://twitter.com/commonslibrary/status/1068476917228232705

I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:

Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no

Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.

Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.

Apols for shouting this but:

I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.

FF43 said:

SeanT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Recidivist said:

This YouTube video criticising the anti-EU campaign has had 90,000 views in less than 24 hours. Do you really think this issue will be settled once we leave?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=257&v=UYonSZ8s3_o

Yes. The EU will continue to integrate without us and we will drift further apart. Early days there were talks of Canadian provinces joining the USA. You never hear that now. As time goes on the memory of being an EU member will fade, the younger generation who have never known us outside the EU will get to know that and old wounds will turn into scars and fade away.

I tend to agree with this, it's a rule of human nature. However this is such an explosive issue the psychological evolution will take time, so I reckon the Remainers will have a 3-5 year window after we Leave to get a new referendum, and win a vote to Rejoin.

The problem for them is that they need a major party to put that new vote in their manifesto, then that party must win the GE (and call the plebiscite). There is zero chance of the Tories doing it. Which leaves us with Labour, who would be very likely to do this if led by a normal centrist.... but they are led by Corbyn, so they won't.

And by the time Corbyn has gone, the window of opportunity, for another vote, will likely have shut.

The only realistic eventual options IMO are EU membership and the Vassal State. I am reasonably confident the Vassal State will win. The argument for membership is that you might as well get the real thing rather than a degraded version of it. If we are following the rules we should have a say over what they are and ensure our interests are represented. The problem is that reversing direction requires mindshare when everyone is heartily sick of the subject and needs people to accept they made a mistake, which no-one enjoys.

Which brings me onto Greenland, a country unlike the UK in most respects, but which like us left the EU. In Greenland's case it was all about the fish. It had rich fish stocks and didn't see a need to share. After a negotiation that lasted two years, they ended up almost where they started, but leaving Greenland wholly dependent on a unreliable resource, cut off from EU development funds and diversification opportunities. Anyone with half a brain can see Greenland would be better off in the EU. The essential fact however is that Greenland is not in the EU.

Benpointer said:

IanB2 said:

Benpointer said:

geoffw said:

GIN1138 said:

Good piece David (as usual)

Henceforth we're ARLTB - All Road's Lead To Brexit

https://twitter.com/commonslibrary/status/1068476917228232705

I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:

Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no

Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.

Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.

Apols for shouting this but:

I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.

IanB2 said:

FF43 said:

SeanT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Recidivist said:

This YouTube video criticising the anti-EU campaign has had 90,000 views in less than 24 hours. Do you really think this issue will be settled once we leave?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=257&v=UYonSZ8s3_o

Yes. The EU will continue to integrate without us and we will drift further apart. Early days there were talks of Canadian provinces joining the USA. You never hear that now. As time goes on the memory of being an EU member will fade, the younger generation who have never known us outside the EU will get to know that and old wounds will turn into scars and fade away.

The problem for them is that they need a major party to put that new vote in their manifesto, then that party must win the GE (and call the plebiscite). There is zero chance of the Tories doing it. Which leaves us with Labour, who would be very likely to do this if led by a normal centrist.... but they are led by Corbyn, so they won't.

And by the time Corbyn has gone, the window of opportunity, for another vote, will likely have shut.

The only realistic eventual options IMO are EU membership and the Vassal State. I am reasonably confident the Vassal State will win. The argument for membership is that you might as well get the real thing rather than a degraded version of it. If we are following the rules we should have a say over what they are and ensure our interests are represented. The problem is that reversing direction requires mindshare when everyone is heartily sick of the subject and needs people to accept they made a mistake, which no-one enjoys.

Which brings me onto Greenland, a country unlike the UK in most respects, but which like us left the EU. In Greenland's case it was all about the fish. It had rich fish stocks and didn't see a need to share. After a negotiation that lasted two years, they ended up almost where they started, but leaving Greenland wholly dependent on a unreliable resource, cut off from EU development funds and diversification opportunities. Anyone with half a brain can see Greenland would be better off in the EU. The essential fact however is that Greenland is not in the EU.

Our instinct is always to judge things through the prism of the past, particularly if we are older and have actually lived through it. Unfortunately the world is changing so quickly that this is often the worst possible basis for taking decisions.

Benpointer said:

IanB2 said:

Benpointer said:

geoffw said:

GIN1138 said:

Good piece David (as usual)

Henceforth we're ARLTB - All Road's Lead To Brexit

https://twitter.com/commonslibrary/status/1068476917228232705

I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:

Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no

Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.

Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.

Apols for shouting this but:

I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.

FF43 said:

Benpointer said:

IanB2 said:

Benpointer said:

geoffw said:

GIN1138 said:

Good piece David (as usual)

Henceforth we're ARLTB - All Road's Lead To Brexit

https://twitter.com/commonslibrary/status/1068476917228232705

I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:

Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no

Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.

Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.

Apols for shouting this but:

I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.

The Withdrawal Agreement should be supported because we don't have a real choice and never have done. Incidentally it isn't May's Deal. It's EU Demands, which haven't changed hugely over the past two years. They have added Level Playing Field requirements. Otherwise it's money, citizens' rights and Irish border provisions for a two year extension of the status quo and subsequent negotiations on the final arrangement.

The Political Statement isn't worth the paper it's written on but there is nevertheless no reason to support it.

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Resignations continue.... oh hang on...

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1068888260770963460

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

ydoethur said:

Benpointer said:

IanB2 said:

Benpointer said:

geoffw said:

GIN1138 said:

Good piece David (as usual)

Henceforth we're ARLTB - All Road's Lead To Brexit

https://twitter.com/commonslibrary/status/1068476917228232705

I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:

Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no

Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.

Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.

Apols for shouting this but:

I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.

Because its opponents are stubborn and cannot bear to admit they are wrong.

That's not a convincing argument but it is the reason.

Inclined to agree. Most of them had decided they weren't going to like it before they saw it.

Makes me think TMay might have to find them a face-saving way to change their mind.

I've no idea what that can be as the EU are understandably not going to budge. If somone has a good idea, post it on PB - I am sure No 10 will be looking everywhere for inspriation!

Some tweaking of the backstop would do that. I'm wondering how much of this is theatrics.

YBarddCwsc said:

Benpointer said:

ydoethur said:

Benpointer said:

IanB2 said:

Benpointer said:

geoffw said:

GIN1138 said:

Good piece David (as usual)

Henceforth we're ARLTB - All Road's Lead To Brexit

https://twitter.com/commonslibrary/status/1068476917228232705

I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:

Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no

Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.

Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.

Apols for shouting this but:

I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.

Because its opponents are stubborn and cannot bear to admit they are wrong.

That's not a convincing argument but it is the reason.

Inclined to agree. Most of them had decided they weren't going to like it before they saw it.

Makes me think TMay might have to find them a face-saving way to change their mind.

I've no idea what that can be as the EU are understandably not going to budge. If somone has a good idea, post it on PB - I am sure No 10 will be looking everywhere for inspriation!

There has to be a human sacrifice to propitiate the dark gods of unreason.

The sacrifice will be TMay.

Either she'll promise to resign in the Summer after the Bill has passed.

Or she will be sacrificed before then and someone else (Gove ? Corby?) will present essentially her deal and it will pass.

Benpointer said:

SandyRentool said:

Benpointer said:

IanB2 said:

Benpointer said:

geoffw said:

GIN1138 said:

Good piece David (as usual)

Henceforth we're ARLTB - All Road's Lead To Brexit

https://twitter.com/commonslibrary/status/1068476917228232705

I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:

Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no

Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.

Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.

Apols for shouting this but:

I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.

Rejecting May's deal increases the chances of a Labour government. That’s why we aren't supporting it.

That is a convincing enough argument from where I sit.

You've more chance of a Labour government by approving May's deal for the following reasons:

1. Rejecting the deal and heading for no deal won't might remove May but won't remove the the Tories.

2. Approving the deal will put the DUP in a position where they would very likely pull support for the government and support a VoNC (the only way you can get an early GE).

3. Labour will fare better in a GE once Brexit is (significantly) settled - when voters will focus on the mess the Tories have made of public services.

IanB2 said:

Benpointer said:

SandyRentool said:

Benpointer said:

IanB2 said:

Benpointer said:

geoffw said:

GIN1138 said:

Good piece David (as usual)

Henceforth we're ARLTB - All Road's Lead To Brexit

https://twitter.com/commonslibrary/status/1068476917228232705

I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:

Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no

Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.

Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.

Apols for shouting this but:

I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.

Rejecting May's deal increases the chances of a Labour government. That’s why we aren't supporting it.

That is a convincing enough argument from where I sit.

You've more chance of a Labour government by approving May's deal for the following reasons:

1. Rejecting the deal and heading for no deal won't might remove May but won't remove the the Tories.

2. Approving the deal will put the DUP in a position where they would very likely pull support for the government and support a VoNC (the only way you can get an early GE).

3. Labour will fare better in a GE once Brexit is (significantly) settled - when voters will focus on the mess the Tories have made of public services.

The only quibble is that Labour did well last time by turning what was called as a Brexit election into a contest about domestic issues of greater concern to voters. But I don't think they will be able to repeat that trick in an election called now under current circumstances.

IanB2 said:

rkrkrk said:

ydoethur said:

IanB2 said:

Benpointer said:

geoffw said:

GIN1138 said:

Good piece David (as usual)

Henceforth we're ARLTB - All Road's Lead To Brexit

https://twitter.com/commonslibrary/status/1068476917228232705

I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:

Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no

Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.

Although given the vast, unneeded, and probably irreversible ecological damage it has caused, arguably an ability to leave the CFP is one of the more understandable reasons for being a Leaver.

The CFP gets a bad press, but it is actually helping fish stocks recover. The biggest problem is politicians ignoring the science and allowing overfishing.

Too true, And all this talk of "keeping our fish" ignores the fact that the herring and mackerel caught in UK waters aren't to British taste (75% of the UK catch is exported, much to the EU) with most of the fare served across the counters of our "British" fish and chip shops being imported, much from the EU.

RobD said:

FF43 said:

Benpointer said:

IanB2 said:

Benpointer said:

geoffw said:

GIN1138 said:

Good piece David (as usual)

Henceforth we're ARLTB - All Road's Lead To Brexit

https://twitter.com/commonslibrary/status/1068476917228232705

I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:

Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no

Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.

Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.

Apols for shouting this but:

I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.

The Withdrawal Agreement should be supported because we don't have a real choice and never have done. Incidentally it isn't May's Deal. It's EU Demands, which haven't changed hugely over the past two years. They have added Level Playing Field requirements. Otherwise it's money, citizens' rights and Irish border provisions for a two year extension of the status quo and subsequent negotiations on the final arrangement.

The Political Statement isn't worth the paper it's written on but there is nevertheless no reason to support it.

There was a twitter thread posted here a week or so ago showing that it was more balanced than that. Both sides have made concessions, it's not true to say the EU just said "no" until they got what they want.

Benpointer said:

SandyRentool said:

Benpointer said:

IanB2 said:

Benpointer said:

geoffw said:

GIN1138 said:

Good piece David (as usual)

Henceforth we're ARLTB - All Road's Lead To Brexit

https://twitter.com/commonslibrary/status/1068476917228232705

I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:

Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no

Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.

Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.

Apols for shouting this but:

I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.

Rejecting May's deal increases the chances of a Labour government. That’s why we aren't supporting it.

That is a convincing enough argument from where I sit.

You've more chance of a Labour government by approving May's deal for the following reasons:

1. Rejecting the deal and heading for no deal won't might remove May but won't remove the the Tories.

2. Approving the deal will put the DUP in a position where they would very likely pull support for the government and support a VoNC (the only way you can get an early GE).

3. Labour will fare better in a GE once Brexit is (significantly) settled - when voters will focus on the mess the Tories have made of public services.