politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The confidence vote betting: How the markets got it right from
Comments
-
Varadkar is trying to convince Sinn Fein to take their seats in Westminster to break the DUP's stranglehold on May:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1058069/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Theresa-May-no-confidence-vote-Leo-Varadkar-Ireland-latest0 -
I think it will depend on May’s ultimate preference between a no deal brexit or a revocation of A50.
Her deal is dead, she is not the type of politician that could convince Labour to vote for the deal, she is stubborn and will not realise her deal is truly dead and that she needed to compromise with parliament until it’s too late. So late January the likely options are no deal or remain (via parliament not by ref as there is no time for that without an extension to A50 which needs to be approved by all EU states, whereas revocation does not)
I think May will prefer no deal to remain, so our only real chance of avoiding it is if Corbyn can manage to get an election (unlikely for sure but not by any means impossible).0 -
May is not (yet) that desperate, but in terms of time and sheer panic we might not be far off.SeanT said:
She'd have to have a very good reason to extend A50 - either a referendum or a GE. She can't just casually press the Pause button, the EU have already made that clear.TOPPING said:
Yes - not legally binding but think who is "the government" - Theresa May: and we know what she thinks of a no deal. She isn't going to allow one.Black_Rook said:
"Not legally binding."TOPPING said:A combination of the EU Withdrawal Act, a disapplication of Standing Order 24B (Section 13 of the EWWA), and the Grieve amendment.
Now, anything parliament decided upon might not be legally binding but, as the Institute for Government says, they would be "politically significant".
I don't see how brinkmanship ends up in anything other than not getting her way. Either the deal is continually voted down, or the Government vote splits (with half the Tories voting with Labour for the deal, and the other half plus the DUP voting against,) and then both the Conservative Party and the Government collapse and complete chaos reigns - presumably with a successful vote of no confidence thrown into the mix. May's deal almost certainly wouldn't survive such a conflagration and it is possible that the country would both lose the ability and run out of the time needed to come up with any sort of solution at all.IanB2 said:As per my post below May intends to arrive at a vote on her deal at the last possible moment and trust that MPs will vote it through to save the country from no deal.
What are the pathetic arsehole moron ERG-ers going to do when she either calls a referendum or extends A50? Have a vote of no confidence in her?
Or of course she could go nuclear and Revoke, but I don't think the Maybot is that mad.0 -
I dare say it's already happened in NJ or RI history. In Rhode Island, to get a mortgage, you have to sign a declaration that you've never been indicted for arson.Alistair said:Somewhere in America a Republican politician is going "Of course, why didn't I think of that"
https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1073230176815906817?s=190 -
The people who are eager to punch Nazis tend to be Communist anti-semites, who hate Nazi anti-semites.grabcocque said:0 -
Come 21st Jan she can decide not to have a deal. Parliament can say it doesn't want one but she, the government, can then make the call.Luckyguy1983 said:
She doesn't want to allow one. But she doesn't have the political clout to cancel Brexit. Nobody does. There isn't a scare story, meme, report, war, big enough. It was done when the result came in.TOPPING said:
Yes - not legally binding but think who is "the government" - Theresa May: and we know what she thinks of a no deal. She isn't going to allow one.Black_Rook said:
"Not legally binding."TOPPING said:A combination of the EU Withdrawal Act, a disapplication of Standing Order 24B (Section 13 of the EWWA), and the Grieve amendment.
Now, anything parliament decided upon might not be legally binding but, as the Institute for Government says, they would be "politically significant".
I don't see how brinkmanship ends up in anything other than not getting her way. Either the deal is continually voted down, or the Government vote splits (with half the Tories voting with Labour for the deal, and the other half plus the DUP voting against,) and then both the Conservative Party and the Government collapse and complete chaos reigns - presumably with a successful vote of no confidence thrown into the mix. May's deal almost certainly wouldn't survive such a conflagration and it is possible that the country would both lose the ability and run out of the time needed to come up with any sort of solution at all.IanB2 said:As per my post below May intends to arrive at a vote on her deal at the last possible moment and trust that MPs will vote it through to save the country from no deal.
What are the pathetic arsehole moron ERG-ers going to do when she either calls a referendum or extends A50? Have a vote of no confidence in her?0 -
I've never actually had the opportunity to punch a real life Nazi, and that's a shame.Sean_F said:
The people who are eager to punch Nazis tend to be Communist anti-semites, who hate Nazi anti-semites.grabcocque said:
Just imagine the simple purity of a clenched fist, as it smashes into the face of an EDL fuckwit. Joyous.0 -
Hitler would likely see them as the superior race, so probably would ally with them.SeanT said:
Interesting moral dilemma: Imagine if in 1941 Britain and America were invaded by aliens, and Nazis offered to help. We'd have to ally with Hitler.Sean_F said:
The people who are eager to punch Nazis tend to be Communist anti-semites, who hate Nazi anti-semites.grabcocque said:0 -
Yes, when an alliance must be formed it must be formed. Working with mad despot Jo in WW2 was the proof of the pudding for that one.SeanT said:
Interesting moral dilemma: Imagine if in 1941 Britain and America were invaded by aliens, and Nazis offered to help. We'd have to ally with Hitler.Sean_F said:
The people who are eager to punch Nazis tend to be Communist anti-semites, who hate Nazi anti-semites.grabcocque said:0 -
"Mein fuehrer, can we be certain that they aren't jews?"Nigelb said:
Hitler would likely see them as the superior race, so probably would ally with them.SeanT said:
Interesting moral dilemma: Imagine if in 1941 Britain and America were invaded by aliens, and Nazis offered to help. We'd have to ally with Hitler.Sean_F said:
The people who are eager to punch Nazis tend to be Communist anti-semites, who hate Nazi anti-semites.grabcocque said:0 -
My suggestion is we simply impose on Parliament the same conditions used during the latter stages of the election of Gregory X in 1271, such conditions to persist until they decide what we're doing.Nigelb said:
Not necessarily - after all, without such a referendum, ‘no deal’ is rather likely anyway.grabcocque said:
She'd need an A50 extension for that, and as long as "no deal" was on there, the Council would categorically refuse.Nemtynakht said:I’ve come up with a way for May to achieve what she wants with all options on the ballot paper for a second referendum
Q1. Do you support the deal agreed by PM Yes / No
Q2. If the deal is not supported would you prefer to a) Remain in EU b) Leave with No Deal
This would allow people to express leave or remain, but with the jeopardy that if they don’t support the deal then the opposite of what they want could happen
They key is that the first vote would be on approval of the agreed WA terms - and if that’s rejected, it’s already a choice between remain and no deal. At least the public could then make the decision rather than it happening, as now, by default.0 -
It's all speculation - we don't yet know who would lead a Nu-KIP party or what they would stand for. But that 24% who would feel "betrayed" have to go somewhere.TheJezziah said:
Unless the betrayed leavers came heavily from Labour but very few from the Conservatives then it would harm the Conservatives far more and cause them losses. In the type of heavily leave voting seats you have Conservatives in some places with Labour not far behind them.kyf_100 said:
My suspicion is that Labour leave voting seats would be more vulnerable to a Nu-KIP of the Tommeh Tommeh variety. For all Corbyn's fence-sitting, if his own MPs vote to revoke Article 50 he's been de-fence-estrated, so to speak, and can no longer sit it out.
My guess, based on the polling we saw earlier this week that 24% would feel "betrayed" if we remained (38% when you add "angry" and "disappointed" into the mix) would give a diamond-hard-brexit alliance of MPs (Whether UKIP or others) around 20-30 seats in the commons. Making governing without them very hard, shy of a Labour or Conservative landslide, which seems very unlikely to happen in present circumstances.
So MPs voting to revoke article 50 and remain would find themselves in a situation after the next GE where they couldn't govern without the support of a diamond hard brexit party, else entering into a government of national unity of Con and Lab remainers. And if that ain't an establishment stitch-up, what is?
Might be wrong but I am sure I remember polling indicating Brexit was more important to Conservative leavers than Labour leavers. It makes sense considering the Conservative campaign was all about Brexit.
More likely than a right brexit party taking most of the leave vote in an area is it taking a portion of it with the Conservatives being the biggest supply of them.
Similarly even with some of the very leave seats Labours vote is made up mostly of remainers, if the Conservatives couldn't take over them then taking a portion of the Conservatives vote wouldn't bring either party closer to victory.
There are very few Labour seats where Labour leave voters are a high percentage. Most of those that voted leave in Labour areas already vote for different parties.
My question is simple, if we end up in a situation where neither Con nor Lab can command a majority in Parliament without the support of such a grouping, what happens then?
In my view, that's the most likely outcome of a vote by this Parliament to revoke Art 50 - Nobody being able to govern without the support of a diamond hard Brexit bloc after the next GE. In my view, this is more likely than "it will be OK, the Conservatives will suffer worse and we will end up with a Labour government who are able to ignore the view of this significant minority".0 -
Perhaps, but there was no 'crash in'. Let the long term be the long term. For now, let's just deal with the 'economic and societal collapse' that one excitable poster was anticipating earlier, and deal with each item. Surely this is just common sense?grabcocque said:
It took the UK seven years to fully integrate into the common market.Luckyguy1983 said:How long is this 'crashing out' construct going to last? How can you 'crash out' with months or potentially more to go? Contrary to what many remainers appear to think, people are not stupid. There is no such thing as a scheduled crash out. The idea is an utter absurdity, and this fact won't be lost long on anyone. Need more customs officers? Get them. Need to bulk buy Mars bars? Do it. Need to prepare the NHS? Do it. Need 6 months to do all this? Get the six months.
A question to those like @Cyclefree who are terrified of No deal. Considering it is a real possibility, should HMG start serious and strenuous preparation for it now?
0 -
Yes agree or what's the point. But by Jan 21st the government needs to have made a decision. Parliament can then suggest advisory amendments. But it is the government that makes the call. If, come Jan 21st, there remains deadlock, she can extend A50 and then I presume call a referendum. Options would be my deal or remain. As mentioned, there cannot be no deal on the ballot paper.SeanT said:
She'd have to have a very good reason to extend A50 - either a referendum or a GE. She can't just casually press the Pause button, the EU have already made that clear.TOPPING said:
Yes - not legally binding but think who is "the government" - Theresa May: and we know what she thinks of a no deal. She isn't going to allow one.Black_Rook said:
"Not legally binding."TOPPING said:A combination of the EU Withdrawal Act, a disapplication of Standing Order 24B (Section 13 of the EWWA), and the Grieve amendment.
Now, anything parliament decided upon might not be legally binding but, as the Institute for Government says, they would be "politically significant".
I don't see how brinkmanship ends up in anything other than not getting her way. Either the deal is continually voted down, or the Government vote splits (with half the Tories voting with Labour for the deal, and the other half plus the DUP voting against,) and then both the Conservative Party and the Government collapse and complete chaos reigns - presumably with a successful vote of no confidence thrown into the mix. May's deal almost certainly wouldn't survive such a conflagration and it is possible that the country would both lose the ability and run out of the time needed to come up with any sort of solution at all.IanB2 said:As per my post below May intends to arrive at a vote on her deal at the last possible moment and trust that MPs will vote it through to save the country from no deal.
What are the pathetic arsehole moron ERG-ers going to do when she either calls a referendum or extends A50? Have a vote of no confidence in her?
Or of course she could go nuclear and Revoke, but I don't think the Maybot is that mad.
"My deal" is leaving. Remain is, er, remaining and if or when the ERG says My Deal is not leaving she can tell them to get to Falkirk for another nine months.0 -
That too. It seems we agree, of course there's a place for violence in politics. Otherwise we wouldn't have invented war.SeanT said:
e.g. I'd happily man the machine gun that mowed down every British member of ISIS.
0 -
Harry Turtledove covered that in his "WorldWar" series.SeanT said:
Interesting moral dilemma: Imagine if in 1941 Britain and America were invaded by aliens, and Nazis offered to help. We'd have to ally with Hitler.Sean_F said:
The people who are eager to punch Nazis tend to be Communist anti-semites, who hate Nazi anti-semites.grabcocque said:0 -
No and no to the preparation of it two years ago. No deal will not happen. And preparations would not be tolerated by the public. Imagine the admission of failure if the govt said it had failed to get a deal, having said that they would be able to get one for the past two years.Luckyguy1983 said:
Perhaps, but there was no 'crash in'. Let the long term be the long term. For now, let's just deal with the 'economic and societal collapse' that one excitable poster was anticipating earlier, and deal with each item. Surely this is just common sense?grabcocque said:
It took the UK seven years to fully integrate into the common market.Luckyguy1983 said:How long is this 'crashing out' construct going to last? How can you 'crash out' with months or potentially more to go? Contrary to what many remainers appear to think, people are not stupid. There is no such thing as a scheduled crash out. The idea is an utter absurdity, and this fact won't be lost long on anyone. Need more customs officers? Get them. Need to bulk buy Mars bars? Do it. Need to prepare the NHS? Do it. Need 6 months to do all this? Get the six months.
A question to those like @Cyclefree who are terrified of No deal. Considering it is a real possibility, should HMG start serious and strenuous preparation for it now?
A VONC by Lab would have a real chance of success and with some justification.0 -
"we simply impose" is what is know as question begging.John_M said:
My suggestion is we simply impose on Parliament the same conditions used during the latter stages of the election of Gregory X in 1271, such conditions to persist until they decide what we're doing.Nigelb said:
Not necessarily - after all, without such a referendum, ‘no deal’ is rather likely anyway.grabcocque said:
She'd need an A50 extension for that, and as long as "no deal" was on there, the Council would categorically refuse.Nemtynakht said:I’ve come up with a way for May to achieve what she wants with all options on the ballot paper for a second referendum
Q1. Do you support the deal agreed by PM Yes / No
Q2. If the deal is not supported would you prefer to a) Remain in EU b) Leave with No Deal
This would allow people to express leave or remain, but with the jeopardy that if they don’t support the deal then the opposite of what they want could happen
They key is that the first vote would be on approval of the agreed WA terms - and if that’s rejected, it’s already a choice between remain and no deal. At least the public could then make the decision rather than it happening, as now, by default.
Only Parliament can impose such conditions on itself.0 -
And Uncle Joe really was mad as a box of frogs, but at the same time, very intelligent.Pulpstar said:
Yes, when an alliance must be formed it must be formed. Working with mad despot Jo in WW2 was the proof of the pudding for that one.SeanT said:
Interesting moral dilemma: Imagine if in 1941 Britain and America were invaded by aliens, and Nazis offered to help. We'd have to ally with Hitler.Sean_F said:
The people who are eager to punch Nazis tend to be Communist anti-semites, who hate Nazi anti-semites.grabcocque said:0 -
kyf_100 said:
Disagree with that. Brexit does not appear to be a very salient issue for Labour voters. Other issues would easily override it - whether they voted Leave or Remain.TheJezziah said:
If both Labour and Conservative MPs lose 25-50% of their leave voters then most Labour MPskyf_100 said:
My guess is that most would want to vote remain, but know they'll lose anywhere between 25-50% of their vote if they do (at best), end up only able to govern in coalition with a UKIP style party that gets 20-30 seats next time round (leading us back to square one) or unleash a Tommeh Tommeh Robinson style far right (at worst).SeanT said:
The whole point of my proposal is that it makes MPs take personal responsibility, which they say they want. Each one would have to examine his or her conscience (and no doubt the votes in her constituency) and decide what is the right moral choice for the country. And if they decide to go for an option their constituents detest, then they will have to suffer the consequences in the next election.kyf_100 said:SeanT said:
That's the point. It means every MP will have to stand up and say what they believe (especially Labour MPs, who are hiding behind their leader's waffling ambiguities).
A grand debate and a final vote, in the Commons, Do it.
And that is the problem. The electorate has said "do this" twice - once in the referendum of 2016 and again in the GE of 2017. For them to go away and say we won't do this, having been instructed to repeatedly, is in itself a constitutional crisis. Aside from the fact they would be explicitly refusing the stated wishes of the electorate, the final outcome would likely be enough no-deal diamond-hard Brexiteers in Parliament at the next election to put us right back where we are now. But not enough of them to force no deal on the rest of us.
My guess, based on the polling we saw earlier this week that 24% would feel "betrayed" if we remained (38% when you add "angry" and "disappointed" into the mix) would give a diamond-hard-brexit alliance of MPs (Whether UKIP or others) around 20-30 seats in the commons. Making governing without them very hard, shy of a Labour or Conservative landslide, which seems very unlikely to happen in present circumstances.
So MPs voting to revoke article 50 and remain would find themselves in a situation after the next GE where they couldn't govern without the support of a diamond hard brexit party, else entering into a government of national unity of Con and Lab remainers. And if that ain't an establishment stitch-up, what is?0 -
On the other hand if Remain still wins through Leavers can't really feel hard done by which they would do if it was a choice between the WA as currently drafted and Remain which is what the Times was advocating todayTissue_Price said:
I fundamentally disagree with that: by asking about the deal first, you near-guarantee its defeat and unnecessarily heighten the stakes on question 2. Even though Deal could probably beat either of the other options head-to-head.SeanT said:Nemtyknakht's proposal is cleverer and more elegant, and more acceptable to more people.
0 -
Apparently the Tories have failed to get us the "easiest deal ever". Quite an achievement.TOPPING said:
No and no to the preparation of it two years ago. No deal will not happen. And preparations would not be tolerated by the public. Imagine the admission of failure if the govt admitted it had failed to get a deal, having said that they would be able to get one for the past two years.
0 -
OK that is a LOL from me.SeanT said:
"I am Minga the Merciless, Lady of Neptune, come to kill you all. Did I mention my son is a doctor?"grabcocque said:
"Mein fuehrer, can we be certain that they aren't jews?"Nigelb said:
Hitler would likely see them as the superior race, so probably would ally with them.SeanT said:
Interesting moral dilemma: Imagine if in 1941 Britain and America were invaded by aliens, and Nazis offered to help. We'd have to ally with Hitler.Sean_F said:
The people who are eager to punch Nazis tend to be Communist anti-semites, who hate Nazi anti-semites.grabcocque said:0 -
Leo Varadkar makes a direct appeal to Parliament to bypass Mrs May and revoke Article 50
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/10732373377133731840 -
The European Council probably won't grant an extension unless it's to settle the issue of leaving with her deal or not leaving at all. If the referendum is Remain versus Deal then even if the Conservative Party itself doesn't split at once the DUP will trigger the fall of the Government.TOPPING said:Yes - not legally binding but think who is "the government" - Theresa May: and we know what she thinks of a no deal. She isn't going to allow one.
What are the pathetic arsehole moron ERG-ers going to do when she either calls a referendum or extends A50? Have a vote of no confidence in her?
That's the end of her Ministry, the devastation of her party, and the likelihood that the deal goes down the pan anyway. Complete Parliamentary chaos that would be more likely to end in either Remain or No Deal by accident than with her agreement passing, and with the strong likelihood of a majority socialist Government post the General Election that would inevitably follow. After all, to get as far as having a referendum you need a Parliamentary majority, control of the Government, and enough time both to amend or repeal all the Brexit legislation and to pass new bills - whether they be to write the Withdrawal Agreement into law without qualification, or to do so subject to ratification by referendum. Unless, of course, the Parliamentary majority simply opts to stay in without a vote, in which case at least the new legislation can be dispensed with.
If the deal is finally, definitively voted down in January, as we all expect, then Theresa May sitting in Downing St and allowing the clock to run down is not likely to amount to a successful strategy. Either there's a schism on both sides of the House, to allow the pro-EU MPs to club together and defeat this thing with some hope of electoral survival afterwards, or there is total paralysis and No Deal by default.0 -
No it isn't, it drives people to the extremes.SeanT said:
Nemtyknakht's proposal is cleverer and more elegant, and more acceptable to more people.rottenborough said:
https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/1073212030193147904SeanT said:
That's exactly what I am proposing.grabcocque said:
That's absurd, because we already know there's currently no majority for any option.SeanT said:Alternatively, instead of the 2nd question you could then enact my proposal: a free vote in parliament on all the options, with the knowledge that if they reject them all, the default is No Deal.
But I do think the papal conclave method is viable. Parliament keeps voting on all options, endlessly, until one gets a majority.0 -
Fuck off.grabcocque said:Leo Varadkar makes a direct appeal to Parliament to bypass Mrs May and revoke Article 50
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/10732373377133731840 -
no uNorm said:
Fuck off.grabcocque said:Leo Varadkar makes a direct appeal to Parliament to bypass Mrs May and revoke Article 50
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/10732373377133731840 -
It just doesn't seem realistic when you consider Leave voters are mostly Conservative voters.kyf_100 said:
It's all speculation - we don't yet know who would lead a Nu-KIP party or what they would stand for. But that 24% who would feel "betrayed" have to go somewhere.TheJezziah said:
Unless the betrayed leavers came heavily from Labour but very few from the Conservatives then it would harm the Conservatives far more and cause them losses. In the type of heavily leave voting seats you have Conservatives in some places with Labour not far behind them.kyf_100 said:
Might be wrong but I am sure I remember polling indicating Brexit was more important to Conservative leavers than Labour leavers. It makes sense considering the Conservative campaign was all about Brexit.
More likely than a right brexit party taking most of the leave vote in an area is it taking a portion of it with the Conservatives being the biggest supply of them.
Similarly even with some of the very leave seats Labours vote is made up mostly of remainers, if the Conservatives couldn't take over them then taking a portion of the Conservatives vote wouldn't bring either party closer to victory.
There are very few Labour seats where Labour leave voters are a high percentage. Most of those that voted leave in Labour areas already vote for different parties.
My question is simple, if we end up in a situation where neither Con nor Lab can command a majority in Parliament without the support of such a grouping, what happens then?
In my view, that's the most likely outcome of a vote by this Parliament to revoke Art 50 - Nobody being able to govern without the support of a diamond hard Brexit bloc after the next GE. In my view, this is more likely than "it will be OK, the Conservatives will suffer worse and we will end up with a Labour government who are able to ignore the view of this significant minority".
If everyone who wouldn't mind privatising the NHS stopped voting for either Labour or Conservative I'm sure Labour would lose a few voters but it would damage the Conservatives more because they have more voters with that view.
It would only really be damaging for Labour if many remainers also joined the Brexit betrayal party. Which doesn't make sense or for some reason (which also wouldn't make sense) Labour leave voters exclusively went to this new party... but that wouldn't then win any seats, which you said the party would.
I just can't see Labour remainers voting for a Brexit betrayal party as the most likely option, anything else likely in terms of leave voters switching surely leads to Labour benefit from the Conservatives losing.
0 -
That would appear on the face of it to apply only if an A50 extension were agreed.Harris_Tweed said:****(4)A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a)amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom,****
0 -
Leo is a Poundshop Gerry Adams.grabcocque said:Leo Varadkar makes a direct appeal to Parliament to bypass Mrs May and revoke Article 50
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1073237337713373184
0 -
To scream about how scary a possibility is, and in the next sentence endorse a refusal to prepare for it, is an utterly insupportable position. Which is, I suppose, why you don't support it, except to say that it would be politically difficult. Of course, this is nonsense. It would be seen as eminently sensible, and would hae strengthened our negotiating position.TOPPING said:
No and no to the preparation of it two years ago. No deal will not happen. And preparations would not be tolerated by the public. Imagine the admission of failure if the govt admitted it had failed to get a deal, having said that they would be able to get one for the past two years.Luckyguy1983 said:
Perhaps, but there was no 'crash in'. Let the long term be the long term. For now, let's just deal with the 'economic and societal collapse' that one excitable poster was anticipating earlier, and deal with each item. Surely this is just common sense?grabcocque said:
It took the UK seven years to fully integrate into the common market.Luckyguy1983 said:How long is this 'crashing out' construct going to last? How can you 'crash out' with months or potentially more to go? Contrary to what many remainers appear to think, people are not stupid. There is no such thing as a scheduled crash out. The idea is an utter absurdity, and this fact won't be lost long on anyone. Need more customs officers? Get them. Need to bulk buy Mars bars? Do it. Need to prepare the NHS? Do it. Need 6 months to do all this? Get the six months.
A question to those like @Cyclefree who are terrified of No deal. Considering it is a real possibility, should HMG start serious and strenuous preparation for it now?
A VONC by Lab would have a real chance of success and with some justification.
The only rationale behind your position is that No deal cannot be prepared for because it must remain the bogeyman which will be used to scare people into remaining, and a prepared for bogeyman is not scary. I wonder how many of your fellow travellers subscribe to this.0 -
What a gimp, not sure how Ireland can be taken seirouslyNorm said:
Fuck off.grabcocque said:Leo Varadkar makes a direct appeal to Parliament to bypass Mrs May and revoke Article 50
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/10732373377133731840 -
One option has been removed, but we are still stuck - to move somewhere we need the unreconciled Remainer bloc in the Commons to either vote to overturn the referendum result or to accept that they can't. Once one of those happens, the path forward is clear.0
-
It's a scary possibility that Theresa May could go mad and order a nuclear attack on France. Does that mean we should prepare for it?Luckyguy1983 said:To scream about how scary a possibility is, and in the next sentence endorse a refusal to prepare for it, is an utterly insupportable position.
0 -
Only saying what John Major said earlier.Brom said:
What a gimp, not sure how Ireland can be taken seirouslyNorm said:
Fuck off.grabcocque said:Leo Varadkar makes a direct appeal to Parliament to bypass Mrs May and revoke Article 50
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1073237337713373184
Is he also a gimp?0 -
It was in the toilet so no surprise thereRoger said:I'm not sure what the pundits are saying but my sense is that this will prove a more significant win for May than the numbers suggest.
She's now there for a year whatever anyone might wish which means she can largely ignore the ERGs and more importantly her regard amongst the public has increased enormously.
Nothing painted a more telling picture than the juxtaposition of Mrs May touring Europe trying her best to get a deal and the bitter figure of Rees Mogg sulking that he couldn't get his own way and she wouldn't resign.
No one likes to see a bully and watching a man beat up a woman is particularly repulsive. i don't know whether there have been polls out but I doubt her popularity has ever been higher0 -
That's scary, but not a possibility.williamglenn said:
It's a scary possibility that Theresa May could go mad and order a nuclear attack on France. Does that mean we should prepare for it?Luckyguy1983 said:To scream about how scary a possibility is, and in the next sentence endorse a refusal to prepare for it, is an utterly insupportable position.
0 -
On the proposed two-question referendum (Q1 Remain/Leave, Q2 Deal/No Deal), would everyone's answers on Q2 be taken into account, or would it only be people who voted Leave on Q1?0
-
CuckooMortimer said:
I repeat, because some people are not understanding the choices:SeanT said:
So her solution has to be a new referendum, BUT excluding Remain from the ballot paper, i.e. between My Deal or No Deal.kinabalu said:So the evidence is that (by miles) most people (i) hate the deal and (ii) think that no other PM could have got a better one. This is quite an interesting mindset. Put that together, divide both sides by a constant, integrate and then differentiate back up to where we came from and what do we get? That the vast majority of people hate the prospect of leaving the EU. And yet it is certainly NOT the case that the vast majority wish to remain in it. I wonder how we reconcile this. Is it possible for a person to both dread the prospect of doing something and yet be determined to do it? Well of course it is. Just think about Christmas. Yes, that is a very good example, come to think of it. So is that what Brexit is going to be like? Will leaving the European Union be like Christmas?
My Deal - TMay's Deal - would win by a mile. Personally I'd rather Remain than endure her awful deal, but the public disagrees with me, and the EU is not going to offer any more.
Once she has secured a result in a referendum, parliament will just have to accept it.
- The deal
- No Brexit
- No deal, managed or otherwise
There is neither time nor will for another referendum, nor is there time nor will for another negotiation.
We have a decent deal; Remainer and Leaver wreckers need to hold their noses and vote for it.0 -
Did you miss his premiership ?rottenborough said:
Only saying what John Major said earlier.Brom said:
What a gimp, not sure how Ireland can be taken seirouslyNorm said:
Fuck off.grabcocque said:Leo Varadkar makes a direct appeal to Parliament to bypass Mrs May and revoke Article 50
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1073237337713373184
Is he also a gimp?
0 -
I have described my view of the referendum question if there is one: Deal vs Remain.Black_Rook said:
The European Council probably won't grant an extension unless it's to settle the issue of leaving with her deal or not leaving at all. If the referendum is Remain versus Deal then even if the Conservative Party itself doesn't split at once the DUP will trigger the fall of the Government.TOPPING said:Yes - not legally binding but think who is "the government" - Theresa May: and we know what she thinks of a no deal. She isn't going to allow one.
What are the pathetic arsehole moron ERG-ers going to do when she either calls a referendum or extends A50? Have a vote of no confidence in her?
That's the end of her Ministry, the devastation of her party, and the likelihood that the deal goes down the pan anyway. Complete Parliamentary chaos that would be more likely to end in either Remain or No Deal by accident than with her agreement passing, and with the strong likelihood of a majority socialist Government post the General Election that would inevitably follow. After all, to get as far as having a referendum you need a Parliamentary majority, control of the Government, and enough time both to amend or repeal all the Brexit legislation and to pass new bills - whether they be to write the Withdrawal Agreement into law without qualification, or to do so subject to ratification by referendum. Unless, of course, the Parliamentary majority simply opts to stay in without a vote, in which case at least the new legislation can be dispensed with.
If the deal is finally, definitively voted down in January, as we all expect, then Theresa May sitting in Downing St and allowing the clock to run down is not likely to amount to a successful strategy. Either there's a schism on both sides of the House, to allow the pro-EU MPs to club together and defeat this thing with some hope of electoral survival afterwards, or there is total paralysis and No Deal by default.
There are no other options.
And imagine the frisson of joy that the otherwise grey, staid Theresa May would feel coursing through her veins if that was her parting gift to the nation. She is leaving anyway and if her deal doesn't pass, then a Deal vs Remain referendum, sanctioned by her, would be exquisite.
Would the DUP and 1/3 of the Cons MPs like it? Hell no. Would Labour? Hell no (because it shoots their fox). Would the overwhelming majority of the electorate? Hell yes.0 -
If/when May pivots to a a remain/deal referendum, even if the DUP withdraw confidence and supply, I remain entirely unconvinced that Labour will want to VONC her. If they bring down the government, Corbyn might end up the prime minister that has to bring an entirely futile referendum in a deal his entire party has publicly rejected countless times to fruition.Black_Rook said:
The European Council probably won't grant an extension unless it's to settle the issue of leaving with her deal or not leaving at all. If the referendum is Remain versus Deal then even if the Conservative Party itself doesn't split at once the DUP will trigger the fall of the Government.
That would be utterly ridiculous.
If Labour allows the referendum to happen, they'll at least keep May in power until the referendum is done.
0 -
Surely he's not right in saying that the UK can unilaterally extend the timetable, is he?Brom said:
What a gimp, not sure how Ireland can be taken seirouslyNorm said:
Fuck off.grabcocque said:Leo Varadkar makes a direct appeal to Parliament to bypass Mrs May and revoke Article 50
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/10732373377133731840 -
Do you agree with no preparations too?grabcocque said:
Apparently the Tories have failed to get us the "easiest deal ever". Quite an achievement.TOPPING said:
No and no to the preparation of it two years ago. No deal will not happen. And preparations would not be tolerated by the public. Imagine the admission of failure if the govt admitted it had failed to get a deal, having said that they would be able to get one for the past two years.0 -
He's talking about revocation, I think.Chris said:
Surely he's not right in saying that the UK can unilaterally extend the timetable, is he?Brom said:
What a gimp, not sure how Ireland can be taken seirouslyNorm said:
Fuck off.grabcocque said:Leo Varadkar makes a direct appeal to Parliament to bypass Mrs May and revoke Article 50
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/10732373377133731840 -
Have to say (with apologies to TSE), I do much prefer the idea of a two-question referendum, rather than this AV nonsense.0
-
I think what he is saying that for a mere £39Bn , the Uk can stay under mafia protection for another 6 months.Chris said:
Surely he's not right in saying that the UK can unilaterally extend the timetable, is he?Brom said:
What a gimp, not sure how Ireland can be taken seirouslyNorm said:
Fuck off.grabcocque said:Leo Varadkar makes a direct appeal to Parliament to bypass Mrs May and revoke Article 50
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1073237337713373184
0 -
Exactly, I'm sure Labour would lose some Brexit voters due to 'Brexit betrayal' but probably a lower percentage of them than the Conservatives and the Conservatives have maybe* about 4 times as many leave voters as Labour do.justin124 said:
Disagree with that. Brexit does not appear to be a very salient issue for Labour voters. Other issues would easily override it - whether they voted Leave or Remain.kyf_100 said:
If both Labour and Conservative MPs lose 25-50% of their leave voters then most Labour MPsTheJezziah said:
My guess is that most would want to vote remain, but know they'll lose anywhere between 25-50% of their vote if they do (at best), end up only able to govern in coalition with a UKIP style party that gets 20-30 seats next time round (leading us back to square one) or unleash a Tommeh Tommeh Robinson style far right (at worst).kyf_100 said:
And that is the problem. The electorate has said "do this" twice - once in the referendum of 2016 and again in the GE of 2017. For them to go away and say we won't do this, having been instructed to repeatedly, is in itself a constitutional crisis. Aside from the fact they would be explicitly refusing the stated wishes of the electorate, the final outcome would likely be enough no-deal diamond-hard Brexiteers in Parliament at the next election to put us right back where we are now. But not enough of them to force no deal on the rest of us.
My guess, based on the polling we saw earlier this week that 24% would feel "betrayed" if we remained (38% when you add "angry" and "disappointed" into the mix) would give a diamond-hard-brexit alliance of MPs (Whether UKIP or others) around 20-30 seats in the commons. Making governing without them very hard, shy of a Labour or Conservative landslide, which seems very unlikely to happen in present circumstances.
So MPs voting to revoke article 50 and remain would find themselves in a situation after the next GE where they couldn't govern without the support of a diamond hard brexit party, else entering into a government of national unity of Con and Lab remainers. And if that ain't an establishment stitch-up, what is?
*Does anyone know where I can find figures for Conservative and Labour voters in terms of leave and remain voters?0 -
Varadkar is broadly a mainstream conservative who would, if he were a British MP, have been quite comfortable in a Cameron administration. You, on the other hand, are a myopic bigot.TGOHF said:
Leo is a Poundshop Gerry Adams.grabcocque said:Leo Varadkar makes a direct appeal to Parliament to bypass Mrs May and revoke Article 50
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/10732373377133731840 -
And then, riding a wave of popular support, May deselects the ERG and calls an election...TOPPING said:And imagine the frisson of joy that the otherwise grey, staid Theresa May would feel coursing through her veins if that was her parting gift to the nation. She is leaving anyway and if her deal doesn't pass, then a Deal vs Remain referendum, sanctioned by her, would be exquisite.
Would the DUP and 1/3 of the Cons MPs like it? Hell no. Would Labour? Hell no (because it shoots their fox). Would the overwhelming majority of the electorate? Hell yes.
0 -
Varadkar is at the average SNP MSP level of intellect and statehood - which isn't a compliment.matt said:
Varadkar is broadly a mainstream conservative who would, if he were a British MP, would have been quite comfortable in a Cameron administration. You, on the other hand, are a myopic bigot.TGOHF said:
Leo is a Poundshop Gerry Adams.grabcocque said:Leo Varadkar makes a direct appeal to Parliament to bypass Mrs May and revoke Article 50
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/10732373377133731840 -
It was not prepared for so it's actually the past 30 months of verifiable fact rather than my views on the situation. Oh of course that nasty man Philip Hammond stopped it happening but that's bollocks. If David Davis was going to have the row of the summer with the EU, why was he such a pussycat with his own CotE? Why not publish his costed plans for no deal preparations and then have it out in the pages of the then-pro-Brexit Daily Mail and Express?Luckyguy1983 said:
To scream about how scary a possibility is, and in the next sentence endorse a refusal to prepare for it, is an utterly insupportable position. Which is, I suppose, why you don't support it, except to say that it would be politically difficult. Of course, this is nonsense. It would be seen as eminently sensible, and would hae strengthened our negotiating position.TOPPING said:
No and no to the preparation of it two years ago. No deal will not happen. And preparations would not be tolerated by the public. Imagine the admission of failure if the govt admitted it had failed to get a deal, having said that they would be able to get one for the past two years.Luckyguy1983 said:
Perhaps, but there was no 'crash in'. Let the long term be the long term. For now, let's just deal with the 'economic and societal collapse' that one excitable poster was anticipating earlier, and deal with each item. Surely this is just common sense?grabcocque said:
It took the UK seven years to fully integrate into the common market.Luckyguy1983 said:How long is this 'crashing out' construct going to last? How can you 'crash out' with months or potentially more to go? Contrary to what many remainers appear to think, people are not stupid. There is no such thing as a scheduled crash out. The idea is an utter absurdity, and this fact won't be lost long on anyone. Need more customs officers? Get them. Need to bulk buy Mars bars? Do it. Need to prepare the NHS? Do it. Need 6 months to do all this? Get the six months.
A question to those like @Cyclefree who are terrified of No deal. Considering it is a real possibility, should HMG start serious and strenuous preparation for it now?
A VONC by Lab would have a real chance of success and with some justification.
The only rationale behind your position is that No deal cannot be prepared for because it must remain the bogeyman which will be used to scare people into remaining, and a prepared for bogeyman is not scary. I wonder how many of your fellow travellers subscribe to this.
Because no deal planning was and is a fantasy.0 -
YouGov typically has Labour splitting 70/20 Remain, and the Conservatives 70/20 Leave.TheJezziah said:
Exactly, I'm sure Labour would lose some Brexit voters due to 'Brexit betrayal' but probably a lower percentage of them than the Conservatives and the Conservatives have maybe* about 4 times as many leave voters as Labour do.justin124 said:
Disagree with that. Brexit does not appear to be a very salient issue for Labour voters. Other issues would easily override it - whether they voted Leave or Remain.kyf_100 said:
If both Labour and Conservative MPs lose 25-50% of their leave voters then most Labour MPsTheJezziah said:
My guess is that most would want to vote remain, but know they'll lose anywhere between 25-50% of their vote if they do (at best), end up only able to govern in coalition with a UKIP style party that gets 20-30 seats next time round (leading us back to square one) or unleash a Tommeh Tommeh Robinson style far right (at worst).kyf_100 said:
And that is the problem. The electorate has said "do this" twice - once in the referendum of 2016 and again in the GE of 2017. For them to go away and say we won't do this, having been instructed to repeatedly, is in itself a constitutional crisis. Aside from the fact they would be explicitly refusing the stated wishes of the electorate, the final outcome would likely be enough no-deal diamond-hard Brexiteers in Parliament at the next election to put us right back where we are now. But not enough of them to force no deal on the rest of us.
My guess, based on the polling we saw earlier this week that 24% would feel "betrayed" if we remained (38% when you add "angry" and "disappointed" into the mix) would give a diamond-hard-brexit alliance of MPs (Whether UKIP or others) around 20-30 seats in the commons. Making governing without them very hard, shy of a Labour or Conservative landslide, which seems very unlikely to happen in present circumstances.
So MPs voting to revoke article 50 and remain would find themselves in a situation after the next GE where they couldn't govern without the support of a diamond hard brexit party, else entering into a government of national unity of Con and Lab remainers. And if that ain't an establishment stitch-up, what is?
*Does anyone know where I can find figures for Conservative and Labour voters in terms of leave and remain voters?
Survation typically has the split at about 2/1 in each case.0 -
I am sure France does have preparations for it. I would certainly hope we have preparations for an attack from the continent.williamglenn said:
It's a scary possibility that Theresa May could go mad and order a nuclear attack on France. Does that mean we should prepare for it?Luckyguy1983 said:To scream about how scary a possibility is, and in the next sentence endorse a refusal to prepare for it, is an utterly insupportable position.
Do I take it from this that you are also on the side of ramping the Nodealpocalypse (state failure I think was your phrase) but also not wanting to make any preparations for it.0 -
Compared to this one? To quote Miliband Junior: Hell, yes!TGOHF said:
Did you miss his premiership ?rottenborough said:
Only saying what John Major said earlier.Brom said:
What a gimp, not sure how Ireland can be taken seirouslyNorm said:
Fuck off.grabcocque said:Leo Varadkar makes a direct appeal to Parliament to bypass Mrs May and revoke Article 50
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1073237337713373184
Is he also a gimp?0 -
Can Article 50 be revoked through a backbench bill ?grabcocque said:Leo Varadkar makes a direct appeal to Parliament to bypass Mrs May and revoke Article 50
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/10732373377133731840 -
You dumbasss. Varadkar is the leader of Fine Gael, Ireland's mainsream centre-right party. In British terms, he's a Tory. In saner political climates, May and he should be very natural allies.0
-
You've excluded an option (the default option) and included a non-option.TOPPING said:
I have described my view of the referendum question if there is one: Deal vs Remain.Black_Rook said:
The European Council probably won't grant an extension unless it's to settle the issue of leaving with her deal or not leaving at all. If the referendum is Remain versus Deal then even if the Conservative Party itself doesn't split at once the DUP will trigger the fall of the Government.TOPPING said:Yes - not legally binding but think who is "the government" - Theresa May: and we know what she thinks of a no deal. She isn't going to allow one.
What are the pathetic arsehole moron ERG-ers going to do when she either calls a referendum or extends A50? Have a vote of no confidence in her?
That's the end of her Ministry, the devastation of her party, and the likelihood that the deal goes down the pan anyway. Complete Parliamentary chaos that would be more likely to end in either Remain or No Deal by accident than with her agreement passing, and with the strong likelihood of a majority socialist Government post the General Election that would inevitably follow. After all, to get as far as having a referendum you need a Parliamentary majority, control of the Government, and enough time both to amend or repeal all the Brexit legislation and to pass new bills - whether they be to write the Withdrawal Agreement into law without qualification, or to do so subject to ratification by referendum. Unless, of course, the Parliamentary majority simply opts to stay in without a vote, in which case at least the new legislation can be dispensed with.
If the deal is finally, definitively voted down in January, as we all expect, then Theresa May sitting in Downing St and allowing the clock to run down is not likely to amount to a successful strategy. Either there's a schism on both sides of the House, to allow the pro-EU MPs to club together and defeat this thing with some hope of electoral survival afterwards, or there is total paralysis and No Deal by default.
There are no other options.0 -
Here he is sticking his nose into internal politics of the Uk - shortly before he crywanked himself to sleep over Priti Patel's comments.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/varadkar-tells-sinn-féin-take-up-westminster-seats-or-resign-them-1.3710817
Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has called on Sinn Féin to take up their seats at Westminster or else consider resigning them ahead of a crucial week for British prime minister Theresa May.0 -
Only if the government provided time for it to progress.Pulpstar said:
Can Article 50 be revoked through a backbench bill ?grabcocque said:Leo Varadkar makes a direct appeal to Parliament to bypass Mrs May and revoke Article 50
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/10732373377133731840 -
It is also within the gift of Govt. and Parliament to take No Deal off the table by agreeing May's Deal - which surely also does what you want, Mr Vardkar? Why not push for that - with Jeremy Corbyn?grabcocque said:Leo Varadkar makes a direct appeal to Parliament to bypass Mrs May and revoke Article 50
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/10732373377133731840 -
Plenty of idiots about for sureBenpointer said:
She's a punchbag for MPs of all pursuasions but I am not sure the public see it that way. Quite a big proportion have a grudging respect for her imo.SeanT said:
Quite. What's the point in replacing her when she is so keen to soak up all the punishment of Brexit; and who else REALLY wants to do that job, especially when there is no obvious way of doing a superior job?Nigel_Foremain said:
Because there is no one to replace her that will get a better result. They know that. As for the likelihood of Mr. Thicky Corbyn being able to renegotiate, that prospect is absolutely laughable.AlastairMeeks said:I have to say that I find the thinking of Conservative MPs incomprehensible. Theresa May offers nothing to the country now: she is used up. Why they decided to leave her in situ is quite beyond me.
Let her be the punchbag for public anger on Brexit. Then she can resign, taking the bruises with her, and the Tories can elect a post-Brexit PM ready to start afresh, untainted by the horrors of the last two years.0 -
Maybe not technically, but, as we've seen in recent weeks, contempt of Parliament proceedings can be launched if the government doesn't do as instructed... which could in turn lead to some Tory MPs being suspended before a motion of no confidence.Pulpstar said:
Can Article 50 be revoked through a backbench bill ?grabcocque said:Leo Varadkar makes a direct appeal to Parliament to bypass Mrs May and revoke Article 50
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/10732373377133731840 -
Phil Hammond is centre - right. Doesn't make him suitable for high office..grabcocque said:You dumbasss. Varadkar is the leader of Fine Gael, Ireland's mainsream centre-right party. In British terms, he's a Tory. In saner political climates, May and he should be very natural allies.
0 -
Ahh - he only says it's within our gift to _seek_ an extension.grabcocque said:
He's talking about revocation, I think.Chris said:
Surely he's not right in saying that the UK can unilaterally extend the timetable, is he?Brom said:
What a gimp, not sure how Ireland can be taken seirouslyNorm said:
Fuck off.grabcocque said:Leo Varadkar makes a direct appeal to Parliament to bypass Mrs May and revoke Article 50
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/10732373377133731840 -
So just Julian Smith (Or Chope) to yell object and it's as dead as a dodo then.Sean_F said:
Only if the government provided time for it to progress.Pulpstar said:
Can Article 50 be revoked through a backbench bill ?grabcocque said:Leo Varadkar makes a direct appeal to Parliament to bypass Mrs May and revoke Article 50
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/10732373377133731840 -
In some small bit of good news, people have stopped inviting Toby Young to their parties
0 -
An humble address to revoke Art 50 !Danny565 said:
Maybe not technically, but, as we've seen in recent weeks, contempt of Parliament proceedings can be launched if the government doesn't do as instructed...Pulpstar said:
Can Article 50 be revoked through a backbench bill ?grabcocque said:Leo Varadkar makes a direct appeal to Parliament to bypass Mrs May and revoke Article 50
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/10732373377133731840 -
Surely "preparing for a state failure" is oxymoronic, in that the state would be succeeding if it prepared properly.Luckyguy1983 said:
I am sure France does have preparations for it. I would certainly hope we have preparations for an attack from the continent.williamglenn said:
It's a scary possibility that Theresa May could go mad and order a nuclear attack on France. Does that mean we should prepare for it?Luckyguy1983 said:To scream about how scary a possibility is, and in the next sentence endorse a refusal to prepare for it, is an utterly insupportable position.
Do I take it from this that you are also on the side of ramping the Nodealpocalypse (state failure I think was your phrase) but also not wanting to make any preparations for it.
I think.0 -
yes, and a terrible PMrottenborough said:
Only saying what John Major said earlier.Brom said:
What a gimp, not sure how Ireland can be taken seirouslyNorm said:
Fuck off.grabcocque said:Leo Varadkar makes a direct appeal to Parliament to bypass Mrs May and revoke Article 50
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1073237337713373184
Is he also a gimp?0 -
The Tories have Andrew Bridgen and Nadine Dorries.TGOHF said:
Varadkar is at the average SNP MSP level of intellect and statehood - which isn't a compliment.matt said:
Varadkar is broadly a mainstream conservative who would, if he were a British MP, would have been quite comfortable in a Cameron administration. You, on the other hand, are a myopic bigot.TGOHF said:
Leo is a Poundshop Gerry Adams.grabcocque said:Leo Varadkar makes a direct appeal to Parliament to bypass Mrs May and revoke Article 50
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1073237337713373184
People in glass houses shouldn't throw really, really thick stones.0 -
-
Two and a half years too late.Luckyguy1983 said:
Perhaps, but there was no 'crash in'. Let the long term be the long term. For now, let's just deal with the 'economic and societal collapse' that one excitable poster was anticipating earlier, and deal with each item. Surely this is just common sense?grabcocque said:
It took the UK seven years to fully integrate into the common market.Luckyguy1983 said:How long is this 'crashing out' construct going to last? How can you 'crash out' with months or potentially more to go? Contrary to what many remainers appear to think, people are not stupid. There is no such thing as a scheduled crash out. The idea is an utter absurdity, and this fact won't be lost long on anyone. Need more customs officers? Get them. Need to bulk buy Mars bars? Do it. Need to prepare the NHS? Do it. Need 6 months to do all this? Get the six months.
A question to those like @Cyclefree who are terrified of No deal. Considering it is a real possibility, should HMG start serious and strenuous preparation for it now?
Either the prospect generally scares the crap out of Brussels, in which case it would have been a negotiating lever. Or they really don't give a shit about the way we exit (and so lose one eighth of their trade), in which case it would be a live option in a second referendum - an option that I suspect would be peculiarly attractive to the legions of ornery voters out there. Hell, it still is after diddly squat preparation.....0 -
Not as ridiculous as declining either to take power or force an election, when your entire purpose as the Leader of the Opposition is to convince everybody that it is an urgent necessity for you to swap places with the Prime Minister just as soon as possible. There's fence-sitting and then there's fence-sitting.grabcocque said:
If/when May pivots to a a remain/deal referendum, even if the DUP withdraw confidence and supply, I remain entirely unconvinced that Labour will want to VONC her. If they bring down the government, Corbyn might end up the prime minister that has to bring an entirely futile referendum in a deal his entire party has publicly rejected countless times to fruition.Black_Rook said:
The European Council probably won't grant an extension unless it's to settle the issue of leaving with her deal or not leaving at all. If the referendum is Remain versus Deal then even if the Conservative Party itself doesn't split at once the DUP will trigger the fall of the Government.
That would be utterly ridiculous.
And apart from looking extremely silly, the other Opposition parties would have a field day. He could probably wave bye bye to all his 2017 gains in Scotland for starters.0 -
Brexiteer logic today:
1. Varadkar makes a direct appeal to Parliament to bypass Mrs May and revoke Article 50 = Interfering moron who should mind his own fucking business.
2. IDS tells the EU "if you want a deal you'd better damn well step up to the plate" = Patriotic hero and can I have his babies.0 -
deleted
0 -
Yes, but you've given your view, and your view is disturbingly hypocritical to say the least.TOPPING said:
It was not prepared for so it's actually the past 30 months of verifiable fact rather than my views on the situation. Oh of course that nasty man Philip Hammond stopped it happening but that's bollocks. If David Davis was going to have the row of the summer with the EU, why was he such a pussycat with his own CotE? Why not publish his costed plans for no deal preparations and then have it out in the pages of the then-pro-Brexit Daily Mail and Express?Luckyguy1983 said:
To scream about how scary a possibility is, and in the next sentence endorse a refusal to prepare for it, is an utterly insupportable position. Which is, I suppose, why you don't support it, except to say that it would be politically difficult. Of course, this is nonsense. It would be seen as eminently sensible, and would hae strengthened our negotiating position.TOPPING said:
No and no to the preparation of it two years ago. No deal will not happen. And preparations would not be tolerated by the public. Imagine the admission of failure if the govt admitted it had failed to get a deal, having said that they would be able to get one for the past two years.Luckyguy1983 said:
Perhaps, but there was no 'crash in'. Let the long term be the long term. For now, let's just deal with the 'economic and societal collapse' that one excitable poster was anticipating earlier, and deal with each item. Surely this is just common sense?grabcocque said:
It took the UK seven years to fully integrate into the common market.Luckyguy1983 said:How long is this 'crashing out' construct going to last? How can you 'crash out' with months or potentially more to go? Contrary to what many remainers appear to think, people are not stupid. There is no such thing as a scheduled crash out.
A question to those like @Cyclefree who are terrified of No deal. Considering it is a real possibility, should HMG start serious and strenuous preparation for it now?
A VONC by Lab would have a real chance of success and with some justification.
The only rationale behind your position is that No deal cannot be prepared for because it must remain the bogeyman which will be used to scare people into remaining, and a prepared for bogeyman is not scary. I wonder how many of your fellow travellers subscribe to this.
Because no deal planning was and is a fantasy.
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.0 -
I am dealing with the realities of the situation today. No deal is not an option in practical terms for the government, "default" as it may be.Donny43 said:
You've excluded an option (the default option) and included a non-option.TOPPING said:
I have described my view of the referendum question if there is one: Deal vs Remain.Black_Rook said:
The European Council probably won't grant an extension unless it's to settle the issue of leaving with her deal or not leaving at all. If the referendum is Remain versus Deal then even if the Conservative Party itself doesn't split at once the DUP will trigger the fall of the Government.TOPPING said:Yes - not legally binding but think who is "the government" - Theresa May: and we know what she thinks of a no deal. She isn't going to allow one.
What are the pathetic arsehole moron ERG-ers going to do when she either calls a referendum or extends A50? Have a vote of no confidence in her?
That's the end of her Ministry, the devastation of her party, and the likelihood that the deal goes down the pan anyway. Complete Parliamentary chaos that would be more likely to end in either Remain or No Deal by accident than with her agreement passing, and with the strong likelihood of a majority socialist Government post the General Election that would inevitably follow. After all, to get as far as having a referendum you need a Parliamentary majority, control of the Government, and enough time both to amend or repeal all the Brexit legislation and to pass new bills - whether they be to write the Withdrawal Agreement into law without qualification, or to do so subject to ratification by referendum. Unless, of course, the Parliamentary majority simply opts to stay in without a vote, in which case at least the new legislation can be dispensed with.
If the deal is finally, definitively voted down in January, as we all expect, then Theresa May sitting in Downing St and allowing the clock to run down is not likely to amount to a successful strategy. Either there's a schism on both sides of the House, to allow the pro-EU MPs to club together and defeat this thing with some hope of electoral survival afterwards, or there is total paralysis and No Deal by default.
There are no other options.0 -
A mild-mannered middle-manager trying and failing to do their best, held hostage by a party that has become fundamentally unmanageable.Brom said:
yes, and a terrible PMrottenborough said:
Only saying what John Major said earlier.Brom said:
What a gimp, not sure how Ireland can be taken seirouslyNorm said:
Fuck off.grabcocque said:Leo Varadkar makes a direct appeal to Parliament to bypass Mrs May and revoke Article 50
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1073237337713373184
Is he also a gimp?
Remind you of anyone?0 -
Awesome, cheers.Sean_F said:
YouGov typically has Labour splitting 70/20 Remain, and the Conservatives 70/20 Leave.TheJezziah said:
Exactly, I'm sure Labour would lose some Brexit voters due to 'Brexit betrayal' but probably a lower percentage of them than the Conservatives and the Conservatives have maybe* about 4 times as many leave voters as Labour do.justin124 said:
Disagree with that. Brexit does not appear to be a very salient issue for Labour voters. Other issues would easily override it - whether they voted Leave or Remain.kyf_100 said:
If both Labour and Conservative MPs lose 25-50% of their leave voters then most Labour MPsTheJezziah said:
My guess is that most would want to vote remain, but know they'll lose anywhere between 25-50% of their vote if they do (at best), end up only able to govern in coalition with a UKIP style party that gets 20-30 seats next time round (leading us back to square one) or unleash a Tommeh Tommeh Robinson style far right (at worst).kyf_100 said:
And that is the problem. The electorate has said "do this" twice - once in the referendum of 2016 and again in the GE of 2017. For them to go away and say we won't do this, having been instructed to repeatedly, is in itself a constitutional crisis. Aside from the fact they would be explicitly refusing the stated wishes of the electorate, the final outcome would likely be enough no-deal diamond-hard Brexiteers in Parliament at the next election to put us right back where we are now. But not enough of them to force no deal on the rest of us.
My guess, based on the polling we saw earlier this week that 24% would feel "betrayed" if we remained (38% when you add "angry" and "disappointed" into the mix) would give a diamond-hard-brexit alliance of MPs (Whether UKIP or others) around 20-30 seats in the commons. Making governing without them very hard, shy of a Labour or Conservative landslide, which seems very unlikely to happen in present circumstances.
So MPs voting to revoke article 50 and remain would find themselves in a situation after the next GE where they couldn't govern without the support of a diamond hard brexit party, else entering into a government of national unity of Con and Lab remainers. And if that ain't an establishment stitch-up, what is?
*Does anyone know where I can find figures for Conservative and Labour voters in terms of leave and remain voters?
Survation typically has the split at about 2/1 in each case.
So if I did say a 70/20/10 split on each party to estimate each parties share of 2017 leave voters would that be a fair rough estimate?0 -
Mr Rumbold?grabcocque said:
A mild-mannered middle-manager trying and failing to do their best, held hostage by a party that has become fundamentally unmanageable.Brom said:
yes, and a terrible PMrottenborough said:
Only saying what John Major said earlier.Brom said:
What a gimp, not sure how Ireland can be taken seirouslyNorm said:
Fuck off.grabcocque said:Leo Varadkar makes a direct appeal to Parliament to bypass Mrs May and revoke Article 50
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1073237337713373184
Is he also a gimp?
Remind you of anyone?0 -
The other opposition parties are calling for the people's vote more than Corbyn is. If May offers it they will try to keep her in place anyway.Black_Rook said:
Not as ridiculous as declining either to take power or force an election, when your entire purpose as the Leader of the Opposition is to convince everybody that it is an urgent necessity for you to swap places with the Prime Minister just as soon as possible. There's fence-sitting and then there's fence-sitting.grabcocque said:
If/when May pivots to a a remain/deal referendum, even if the DUP withdraw confidence and supply, I remain entirely unconvinced that Labour will want to VONC her. If they bring down the government, Corbyn might end up the prime minister that has to bring an entirely futile referendum in a deal his entire party has publicly rejected countless times to fruition.Black_Rook said:
The European Council probably won't grant an extension unless it's to settle the issue of leaving with her deal or not leaving at all. If the referendum is Remain versus Deal then even if the Conservative Party itself doesn't split at once the DUP will trigger the fall of the Government.
That would be utterly ridiculous.
And apart from looking extremely silly, the other Opposition parties would have a field day. He could probably wave bye bye to all his 2017 gains in Scotland for starters.0 -
Then we see very differently. I see a pro-Brexit, socially conservative, working class party doing quite well in Labour seats, *if* Labour votes with the government to revoke Article 50.TheJezziah said:
It just doesn't seem realistic when you consider Leave voters are mostly Conservative voters.kyf_100 said:
It's all speculation - we don't yet know who would lead a Nu-KIP party or what they would stand for. But that 24% who would feel "betrayed" have to go somewhere.
My question is simple, if we end up in a situation where neither Con nor Lab can command a majority in Parliament without the support of such a grouping, what happens then?
In my view, that's the most likely outcome of a vote by this Parliament to revoke Art 50 - Nobody being able to govern without the support of a diamond hard Brexit bloc after the next GE. In my view, this is more likely than "it will be OK, the Conservatives will suffer worse and we will end up with a Labour government who are able to ignore the view of this significant minority".
If everyone who wouldn't mind privatising the NHS stopped voting for either Labour or Conservative I'm sure Labour would lose a few voters but it would damage the Conservatives more because they have more voters with that view.
It would only really be damaging for Labour if many remainers also joined the Brexit betrayal party. Which doesn't make sense or for some reason (which also wouldn't make sense) Labour leave voters exclusively went to this new party... but that wouldn't then win any seats, which you said the party would.
I just can't see Labour remainers voting for a Brexit betrayal party as the most likely option, anything else likely in terms of leave voters switching surely leads to Labour benefit from the Conservatives losing.
Only time will tell. We may yet get to find out...0 -
If it is 2 1/2 years late, then the only tenable position is to start this minute. And surely the panickers of yesterday must agree. ???MarqueeMark said:
Two and a half years too late.Luckyguy1983 said:
Perhaps, but there was no 'crash in'. Let the long term be the long term. For now, let's just deal with the 'economic and societal collapse' that one excitable poster was anticipating earlier, and deal with each item. Surely this is just common sense?grabcocque said:
It took the UK seven years to fully integrate into the common market.Luckyguy1983 said:How long is this 'crashing out' construct going to last? How can you 'crash out' with months or potentially more to go? Contrary to what many remainers appear to think, people are not stupid. There is no such thing as a scheduled crash out. The idea is an utter absurdity, and this fact won't be lost long on anyone. Need more customs officers? Get them. Need to bulk buy Mars bars? Do it. Need to prepare the NHS? Do it. Need 6 months to do all this? Get the six months.
A question to those like @Cyclefree who are terrified of No deal. Considering it is a real possibility, should HMG start serious and strenuous preparation for it now?
Either the prospect generally scares the crap out of Brussels, in which case it would have been a negotiating lever. Or they really don't give a shit about the way we exit (and so lose one eighth of their trade), in which case it would be a live option in a second referendum - an option that I suspect would be peculiarly attractive to the legions of ornery voters out there. Hell, it still is after diddly squat preparation.....0 -
Ah. An epiphany. This is why I've never understood the position of the extreme leaver.Luckyguy1983 said:Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
BY DEFINITION there is a solution to everything, so every problem is not really a problem, it's just that no one has solved it yet.
Simultaneously enlightened and saddened.
[PS why don't you have a punt at the Riemann Hypothesis"]0 -
There is already a perfectly worked out contingency plan: revoke Article 50.Luckyguy1983 said:
If it is 2 1/2 years late, then the only tenable position is to start this minute. And surely the panickers of yesterday must agree. ???MarqueeMark said:
Two and a half years too late.Luckyguy1983 said:
Perhaps, but there was no 'crash in'. Let the long term be the long term. For now, let's just deal with the 'economic and societal collapse' that one excitable poster was anticipating earlier, and deal with each item. Surely this is just common sense?grabcocque said:
It took the UK seven years to fully integrate into the common market.Luckyguy1983 said:How long is this 'crashing out' construct going to last? How can you 'crash out' with months or potentially more to go? Contrary to what many remainers appear to think, people are not stupid. There is no such thing as a scheduled crash out. The idea is an utter absurdity, and this fact won't be lost long on anyone. Need more customs officers? Get them. Need to bulk buy Mars bars? Do it. Need to prepare the NHS? Do it. Need 6 months to do all this? Get the six months.
A question to those like @Cyclefree who are terrified of No deal. Considering it is a real possibility, should HMG start serious and strenuous preparation for it now?
Either the prospect generally scares the crap out of Brussels, in which case it would have been a negotiating lever. Or they really don't give a shit about the way we exit (and so lose one eighth of their trade), in which case it would be a live option in a second referendum - an option that I suspect would be peculiarly attractive to the legions of ornery voters out there. Hell, it still is after diddly squat preparation.....0 -
Not to mention Nicky Morgan.grabcocque said:
The Tories have Andrew Bridgen and Nadine Dorries.TGOHF said:
Varadkar is at the average SNP MSP level of intellect and statehood - which isn't a compliment.matt said:
Varadkar is broadly a mainstream conservative who would, if he were a British MP, would have been quite comfortable in a Cameron administration. You, on the other hand, are a myopic bigot.TGOHF said:
Leo is a Poundshop Gerry Adams.grabcocque said:Leo Varadkar makes a direct appeal to Parliament to bypass Mrs May and revoke Article 50
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1073237337713373184
People in glass houses shouldn't throw really, really thick stones.0 -
Time was when Europe would be like, ooh, seventh in people's lists of concerns below things like housing, jobs, schools, hospitals, transport, public services, crime, pensions, benefits, social care...kyf_100 said:
Then we see very differently. I see a pro-Brexit, socially conservative, working class party doing quite well in Labour seats, *if* Labour votes with the government to revoke Article 50.
Only time will tell. We may yet get to find out...
JUST IMAGINE that I will live long enough for British politicians to start talking about those again.
0 -
Yes, preparations to avoid it would have been more accurate.Anorak said:
Surely "preparing for a state failure" is oxymoronic, in that the state would be succeeding if it prepared properly.Luckyguy1983 said:
I am sure France does have preparations for it. I would certainly hope we have preparations for an attack from the continent.williamglenn said:
It's a scary possibility that Theresa May could go mad and order a nuclear attack on France. Does that mean we should prepare for it?Luckyguy1983 said:To scream about how scary a possibility is, and in the next sentence endorse a refusal to prepare for it, is an utterly insupportable position.
Do I take it from this that you are also on the side of ramping the Nodealpocalypse (state failure I think was your phrase) but also not wanting to make any preparations for it.
I think.0 -
My guess is you'd see a reversion to the polling we saw in 2013-15.TheJezziah said:
Awesome, cheers.Sean_F said:
YouGov typically has Labour splitting 70/20 Remain, and the Conservatives 70/20 Leave.TheJezziah said:
Exactly, I'm sure Labour would lose some Brexit voters due to 'Brexit betrayal' but probably a lower percentage of them than the Conservatives and the Conservatives have maybe* about 4 times as many leave voters as Labour do.justin124 said:
Disagree with that. Brexit does not appear to be a very salient issue for Labour voters. Other issues would easily override it - whether they voted Leave or Remain.kyf_100 said:
If both Labour and Conservative MPs lose 25-50% of their leave voters then most Labour MPsTheJezziah said:
My guess is that most would want to vote remain, but know they'll lose anywhere between 25-50% of their vote if they do (at best), end up only able to govern in coalition with a UKIP style party that gets 20-30 seats next time round (leading us back to square one) or unleash a Tommeh Tommeh Robinson style far right (at worst).kyf_100 said:
And that is the problem. The electorate has said "do this" twice - once in the referendum of 2016 and again in the GE of 2017. For them to go away and say we won't do this, having been instructed to repeatedly, is in itself a constitutional crisis. Aside from the fact they would be explicitly refusing the stated wishes of the electorate, the final outcome would likely be enough no-deal diamond-hard Brexiteers in Parliament at the next election to put us right back where we are now. But not enough of them to force no deal on the rest of us.
So MPs voting to revoke article 50 and remain would find themselves in a situation after the next GE where they couldn't govern without the support of a diamond hard brexit party, else entering into a government of national unity of Con and Lab remainers. And if that ain't an establishment stitch-up, what is?
*Does anyone know where I can find figures for Conservative and Labour voters in terms of leave and remain voters?
Survation typically has the split at about 2/1 in each case.
So if I did say a 70/20/10 split on each party to estimate each parties share of 2017 leave voters would that be a fair rough estimate?0 -
Er, no. No deal is a highly undesirable set of circumstances so undesirable for the government to have ruled it out instantly. The problem was indeed of such undesirability that the government deemed that it was not going to entertain the possibility of it occurring.Luckyguy1983 said:Yes, but you've given your view, and your view is disturbingly hypocritical to say the least.
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
A bit like if you carry a knife on the streets. You are giving permission to someone to kill you. Now, being mugged, disrespected, etc is certainly bad, but it is not as bad as being killed.0 -
Pre Brexit, immigration and the NHS were typically way ahead of the rest.grabcocque said:
Time was when Europe would be like, ooh, seventh in people's lists of concerns below things like housing, jobs, schools, hospitals, transport, public services, crime, pensions, benefits, social care...kyf_100 said:
Then we see very differently. I see a pro-Brexit, socially conservative, working class party doing quite well in Labour seats, *if* Labour votes with the government to revoke Article 50.
Only time will tell. We may yet get to find out...
JUST IMAGINE that I will live long enough for British politicians to start talking about those again.0 -
Why not put the theory to the test and come up with some actual problems. So far there's just been some mumbling about state failure and societal collapse.Anorak said:
Ah. An epiphany. This is why I've never understood the position of the extreme leaver.Luckyguy1983 said:Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
BY DEFINITION there is a solution to everything, so every problem is not really a problem, it's just that no one has solved it yet.
Simultaneously enlightened and saddened.
[PS why don't you have a punt at the Riemann Hypothesis"]0 -
Although, Bridgen and Dorries aren't the face of their country on the international stage....grabcocque said:
The Tories have Andrew Bridgen and Nadine Dorries.TGOHF said:
Varadkar is at the average SNP MSP level of intellect and statehood - which isn't a compliment.matt said:
Varadkar is broadly a mainstream conservative who would, if he were a British MP, would have been quite comfortable in a Cameron administration. You, on the other hand, are a myopic bigot.TGOHF said:
Leo is a Poundshop Gerry Adams.grabcocque said:Leo Varadkar makes a direct appeal to Parliament to bypass Mrs May and revoke Article 50
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1073237337713373184
People in glass houses shouldn't throw really, really thick stones.0 -
LOL at that!Luckyguy1983 said:No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
0 -
But the Conservatives didn't get them out with all the advantages and habitual Conservative voters that being a Conservative comes with. That party would have to almost completely take the Conservative vote if it didn't get Labour remainers in those seats (which it wouldn't as a Brexit betrayal party) to come close to challenging and take the Labour leave voters to have a chance of winning them.kyf_100 said:
Then we see very differently. I see a pro-Brexit, socially conservative, working class party doing quite well in Labour seats, *if* Labour votes with the government to revoke Article 50.TheJezziah said:
It just doesn't seem realistic when you consider Leave voters are mostly Conservative voters.kyf_100 said:
It's all speculation - we don't yet know who would lead a Nu-KIP party or what they would stand for. But that 24% who would feel "betrayed" have to go somewhere.
My question is simple, if we end up in a situation where neither Con nor Lab can command a majority in Parliament without the support of such a grouping, what happens then?
In my view, that's the most likely outcome of a vote by this Parliament to revoke Art 50 - Nobody being able to govern without the support of a diamond hard Brexit bloc after the next GE. In my view, this is more likely than "it will be OK, the Conservatives will suffer worse and we will end up with a Labour government who are able to ignore the view of this significant minority".
If everyone who wouldn't mind privatising the NHS stopped voting for either Labour or Conservative I'm sure Labour would lose a few voters but it would damage the Conservatives more because they have more voters with that view.
It would only really be damaging for Labour if many remainers also joined the Brexit betrayal party. Which doesn't make sense or for some reason (which also wouldn't make sense) Labour leave voters exclusively went to this new party... but that wouldn't then win any seats, which you said the party would.
I just can't see Labour remainers voting for a Brexit betrayal party as the most likely option, anything else likely in terms of leave voters switching surely leads to Labour benefit from the Conservatives losing.
Only time will tell. We may yet get to find out...
and If that was repeated in other seats the Conservatives are wiped out and Labour get a landslide so it is a net positive for Labour. It just doesn't seem realistic to claim Brexit betrayal would harm the party with the majority of leavers as much as the one with very few.
We might be getting close to going round in circles though, clearly we do see things differently.0 -
I think No Deal is the worst possible option. No Deal followed by a Corbyn government fills me with dread.Luckyguy1983 said:
Perhaps, but there was no 'crash in'. Let the long term be the long term. For now, let's just deal with the 'economic and societal collapse' that one excitable poster was anticipating earlier, and deal with each item. Surely this is just common sense?grabcocque said:
It took the UK seven years to fully integrate into the common market.Luckyguy1983 said:How long is this 'crashing out' construct going to last? How can you 'crash out' with months or potentially more to go? Contrary to what many remainers appear to think, people are not stupid. There is no such thing as a scheduled crash out. The idea is an utter absurdity, and this fact won't be lost long on anyone. Need more customs officers? Get them. Need to bulk buy Mars bars? Do it. Need to prepare the NHS? Do it. Need 6 months to do all this? Get the six months.
A question to those like @Cyclefree who are terrified of No deal. Considering it is a real possibility, should HMG start serious and strenuous preparation for it now?
But to answer your question, of course the government should be preparing. In fact, it should have started preparing long before now. Contingency planning is essential to good governance - whether of governments or companies.
0 -
We wish you a merry kickmas
and a happy new can
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/10732469322801971200 -
Topping, the world is chock full of countries that are fully politically and economically disengaged with the EU. Indeed, once upon a time, we used to be one. Somehow, they aren't eating each other in the ruins of their cities. To suggest that fully uncoupling from the EU is fraught with issues is fine. To suggest it is a fate so awful it cannot be looked in the face, much less prepared for, is comical.TOPPING said:
Er, no. No deal is a highly undesirable set of circumstances so undesirable for the government to have ruled it out instantly. The problem was indeed of such undesirability that the government deemed that it was not going to entertain the possibility of it occurring.Luckyguy1983 said:Yes, but you've given your view, and your view is disturbingly hypocritical to say the least.
No deal planning can only be a fantasy, if no deal disruption is a fantasy. Where there is a problem, there is, by definition, a solution.
A bit like if you carry a knife on the streets. You are giving permission to someone to kill you. Now, being mugged, disrespected, etc is certainly bad, but it is not as bad as being killed.0
