politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB 2018 betting review: Brexit – whether it will happen on tim

asjohnstone said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

YBarddCwsc said:

I did know that some countries (e.g. India) frown on dual citizenship, and I do understand why Indians might be reluctant to relinquish an Indian passport.

Yeah, ask my mum

But India does confer so-called "Overseas Citizen of India" (OCI) status to anyone wot can prove Indian ancestry or Indian ancestry of their parents or spouse. It is NOT dual citizenship by any means, but is in effect a life-long Indian visa.

As I understand it from friends, lack of Indian citizenship can create problems with the inheritance of certain types of real estate in India. I know people who are waiting for parents to die before giving up Indian citizenship.

OCI enables you to inherit non-agricultural property in India.

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Meanwhile, none of our plucky band of Brexiteers has yet confirmed whether they would deport anyone who had been in the country for decades who was in their 80s.

No. But what do they do when they want to rent a flat and their landlord asks them for a passport/proof of their right to be in the country

Why would their passport be insufficient proof? Nobody is proposing to remove the right of EU citizens to "be in the country" or rent property here.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Divvie, did he allege that Keegan believed Caesar a superior general to Hannibal?

JC won. Carthage was defeated. Eisenhower was a superior general to, for example, Montgomery and Rommel because he understood that a general is a political animal.

matt said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Divvie, did he allege that Keegan believed Caesar a superior general to Hannibal?

JC won. Carthage was defeated. Eisenhower was a superior general to, for example, Montgomery and Rommel because he understood that a general is a political animal.

That was Scipio, not Caesar.

Edit - and 'superior to Montgomery' is damning with faint praise if ever I heard it.

Cross-party move to stop the clock on hard Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/29/cross-party-stop-the-clock-hard-brexit-no-deal-29-march

IanB2 said:

Cross-party move to stop the clock on hard Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/29/cross-party-stop-the-clock-hard-brexit-no-deal-29-march

Remainers want to stop Brexit? I'm shocked.

AmpfieldAndy said:

IanB2 said:

Cross-party move to stop the clock on hard Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/29/cross-party-stop-the-clock-hard-brexit-no-deal-29-march

Just reinforces what I said earlier. Given that Remainers are not democrats and Remain MPs just want a generous salary and benefits for simply doing what Brussels tells them, the only surprise is that anyone would actually be surprised by this.

Well I can't fault your logic, but I think your axioms need looking at...

Chris said:

Chris said:

On topic, isn't it interesting that over the last 6 weeks or so, the sum of the implied probabilities for a referendum before 2020 and Brexit on time has dropped from about 100% to about 80%?

If that's correct, what does it represent? An increase in the likelihood of revocation without a referendum? Or in the likelihood of an extension for a general election (also without a referendum)? Or the likelihood of an extension for more negotiation even in the absence of either a referendum or an election?

Or have the betting markets lost contact with reality, then and/or now?

Or to put it another way, if I was convinced that the only circumstances in which the European Council would grant an extension would be for a referendum, then (if I've done my sums right) I could bet £1 on a referendum and 75p on Brexit happening on schedule, and my winnings would be either zero if Brexit happened on schedule or 80p if it was delayed for a referendum.

If my assumption was wrong and Brexit was delayed for some other reason than a referendum, I'd lose £1.75. But is that sufficiently likely to outweigh the expected profit if my assumption is right?

And the Guardian report IanB2 linked to does refer to European sources saying there will have to be a good reason for any extension. The only example of a good reason suggested in that report is a referendum. The report might have added that an extension will require unanimity, not just majority approval, which obviously tends to raise the bar.

AmpfieldAndy said:

If May gets her deal through Parliament, we certainly will leave next March.

That's not actually certain. The meaningful vote isn't the end of the story because then a full act of parliament needs to be passed before we leave. The potential for a delay is quite high.

Charles said:

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Meanwhile, none of our plucky band of Brexiteers has yet confirmed whether they would deport anyone who had been in the country for decades who was in their 80s.

No. But what do they do when they want to rent a flat and their landlord asks them for a passport/proof of their right to be in the country

Why would their passport be insufficient proof? Nobody is proposing to remove the right of EU citizens to "be in the country" or rent property here.

I’m assuming post Brexit Day any EU citizen newly arrived in the UK (ie never here prior to Brexit) would have to comply with the same rules (eg on proving right to work, rent a flat, open a bank account) as other immigrants?

Post Brexit day, we'll be in transition so EU citizenship will be sufficient. Even after that, renting a flat doesn't in itself make you an immigrant. It could be a second home.

IanB2 said:

Cross-party move to stop the clock on hard Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/29/cross-party-stop-the-clock-hard-brexit-no-deal-29-march

Just so I'm clear on this.

If the WA falls in the Commons, it doesn't make the slightest difference if the notion of "No Deal" is rejected by MPs because that's what we will have unless we either delay or seek to revoke A50.

How would a Prime Minister who has always maintained "Brexit means Brexit" and has always said she will carry out the democratic will of the people as expressed in the 23/6/16 referendum spin a delay to A50? After all, it was may who triggered A50 and seemed confident at the time a deal could be reached.

If we are to believe a broad swath of opinion is now in the "let's get it done" camp, how will a further delay of weeks or perhaps months go down - like a lump of cold sick I imagine?

Politically, could she do it? In the interests of her own self preservation, probably but what would be the political price in terms of local council seats in May?

Revocation of A50 would be political suicide for the Conservatives but would moving ahead to a managed No Deal (whatever that means) be less damaging than going cap in hand to Brussels and asking for a delay? The stench of national humiliation would be in the air and that never sits well with any Government, least of all a Conservative Government.

It all cones back to the WA or exiting without a Deal.

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Meanwhile, none of our plucky band of Brexiteers has yet confirmed whether they would deport anyone who had been in the country for decades who was in their 80s.

No. But what do they do when they want to rent a flat and their landlord asks them for a passport/proof of their right to be in the country

Why would their passport be insufficient proof? Nobody is proposing to remove the right of EU citizens to "be in the country" or rent property here.

I’m assuming post Brexit Day any EU citizen newly arrived in the UK (ie never here prior to Brexit) would have to comply with the same rules (eg on proving right to work, rent a flat, open a bank account) as other immigrants?

Post Brexit day, we'll be in transition so EU citizenship will be sufficient. Even after that, renting a flat doesn't in itself make you an immigrant. It could be a second home.

After transition then

Landlords currently have to perform a “right to rent check”. Once we are out of transition then presumably this requirement will also apply to EU citizens who are newly arrived

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/landlords-immigration-right-to-rent-checks

If someone doesn’t have a U.K. passport, and doesn’t want to obtain ILR or Settled Status won’t this be a problem for them?

matt said:

ydoethur said:

matt said:

ydoethur said:

matt said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Divvie, did he allege that Keegan believed Caesar a superior general to Hannibal?

JC won. Carthage was defeated. Eisenhower was a superior general to, for example, Montgomery and Rommel because he understood that a general is a political animal.

That was Scipio, not Caesar.

Edit - and 'superior to Montgomery' is damning with faint praise if ever I heard it.

Lazy from me. JC won his battles and he should know as with good winners, he wrote the history. Carthage was defeated.

Montgomery was the premier British general. He was poor at politics. The others were no better - look at Auchinleck or Gort or, or.

My grandfather, who knew Montgomery and served under him, would disagree. He thought Wavell was a better general who was, linking to your point, buggered by politics (the loss of half his force to Crete for no good reason).

It may however be coloured by the fact he was a senior officer in 9th Armoured Brigade.

Montogomery was the premier British general at the high water mark of British land forces. Auchinleck was a better general (Alexander was his inferior but chosen), Wavell possibly was. Irrelevant. Montgomery then tried meshing warfare and politics with Arnhem etc. Almost Hitlerian in its ambition and absurdity.

A couple of anecdotes about Montgomery that amuse me.

On the eve of Alamein, he began his briefing with the words: 'Now, gentlemen, as Our Lord said to Moses, and in my view, quite rightly...'

And to get Market Garden through, he started hectoring Eisenhower about the failure of his 'broad front' strategy and telling him how incompetent he (Eisenhower) was. Eisenhower retorted 'Steady Monty. You can't speak to me like that. I'm your boss.'

And Winston Churchill: 'in defeat, he is unbeatable. In victory, merely unbearable.'

ydoethur said:

matt said:

ydoethur said:

matt said:

ydoethur said:

matt said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Divvie, did he allege that Keegan believed Caesar a superior general to Hannibal?

JC won. Carthage was defeated. Eisenhower was a superior general to, for example, Montgomery and Rommel because he understood that a general is a political animal.

That was Scipio, not Caesar.

Edit - and 'superior to Montgomery' is damning with faint praise if ever I heard it.

Lazy from me. JC won his battles and he should know as with good winners, he wrote the history. Carthage was defeated.

Montgomery was the premier British general. He was poor at politics. The others were no better - look at Auchinleck or Gort or, or.

My grandfather, who knew Montgomery and served under him, would disagree. He thought Wavell was a better general who was, linking to your point, buggered by politics (the loss of half his force to Crete for no good reason).

It may however be coloured by the fact he was a senior officer in 9th Armoured Brigade.

Montogomery was the premier British general at the high water mark of British land forces. Auchinleck was a better general (Alexander was his inferior but chosen), Wavell possibly was. Irrelevant. Montgomery then tried meshing warfare and politics with Arnhem etc. Almost Hitlerian in its ambition and absurdity.

A couple of anecdotes about Montgomery that amuse me.

On the eve of Alamein, he began his briefing with the words: 'Now, gentlemen, as Our Lord said to Moses, and in my view, quite rightly...'

And to get Market Garden through, he started hectoring Eisenhower about the failure of his 'broad front' strategy and telling him how incompetent he (Eisenhower) was. Eisenhower retorted 'Steady Monty. You can't speak to me like that. I'm your boss.'

And Winston Churchill: 'in defeat, he is unbeatable. In victory, merely unbearable.'

And that’s why, to revert to where I walked in, Eisenhower was an effective politician....

YBarddCwsc said:

AlastairMeeks said:

You would arrest anyone driving without a driving licence. Are you going to deport anyone elderly who has been here for many years who had not applied for permission to remain? If not, you’re just frightening people and wasting everyone’s time.

If you have been resident in this country since the 1950s (as seems to be the case from the tweet), it does seem curious to me that you have not applied for British citizenship.

For a start, it seems to me to be part of your responsibility. I have on occasions thought about migrating to the US to take up various generous-sounding job offers, and if I did, I would want to become a US citizen so as to be able to vote and carry out other civic responsibilities (e.g., jury service).

After all, the individual in the tweet would have been able to vote in the Breixt referendum if he had held a British passport.

I think living in the UK since the 1950s means that you have some responsibilities to the UK, and acquiring British citizenship so as to be able to vote and participate in other civic duties is one of them.

I might have more sympathy if there was a good reason why the person did not acquire a British passport -- was there? The person seems to be an Israeli citizen, so it is perfectly possible to hold due Israeli-British citizenship

Citizenship is a personal choice and shouldn’t be foisted on anyone. In the case of the UK it’s also bloody expensive - the application fee (paid whether you are approved or not) is currently £1300 and goes up above inflation every year.

And of course many countries (eg Germany, India, China) do not allow dual citizenship. So if you insist that everyone residing in the UK becomes a citizen then you may be asking them to give up the citizenship of the country of their birth, which seems pretty unreasonable.

geoffw said:

Take a step back from the backbiting between leavers and remainers and ask why we set out on this path. Anthony Browne has some thoughts on the matter. Nothing new or original, but reassuringly confirms what we all know.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/why-britain-decided-to-leave-the-eu-but-other-countries-havent/

The Liberals were right that we should have been a founder member.

not_on_fire said:

YBarddCwsc said:

AlastairMeeks said:

You would arrest anyone driving without a driving licence. Are you going to deport anyone elderly who has been here for many years who had not applied for permission to remain? If not, you’re just frightening people and wasting everyone’s time.

If you have been resident in this country since the 1950s (as seems to be the case from the tweet), it does seem curious to me that you have not applied for British citizenship.

For a start, it seems to me to be part of your responsibility. I have on occasions thought about migrating to the US to take up various generous-sounding job offers, and if I did, I would want to become a US citizen so as to be able to vote and carry out other civic responsibilities (e.g., jury service).

After all, the individual in the tweet would have been able to vote in the Breixt referendum if he had held a British passport.

I think living in the UK since the 1950s means that you have some responsibilities to the UK, and acquiring British citizenship so as to be able to vote and participate in other civic duties is one of them.

I might have more sympathy if there was a good reason why the person did not acquire a British passport -- was there? The person seems to be an Israeli citizen, so it is perfectly possible to hold due Israeli-British citizenship

Citizenship is a personal choice and shouldn’t be foisted on anyone. In the case of the UK it’s also bloody expensive - the application fee (paid whether you are approved or not) is currently £1300 and goes up above inflation every year.

And of course many countries (eg Germany, India, China) do not allow dual citizenship. So if you insist that everyone residing in the UK becomes a citizen then you may be asking them to give up the citizenship of the country of their birth, which seems pretty unreasonable.

I think you'll find Germany does allow dual citizenship, it just regards such people primarily as German citizens.

ydoethur said:

not_on_fire said:

YBarddCwsc said:

AlastairMeeks said:

You would arrest anyone driving without a driving licence. Are you going to deport anyone elderly who has been here for many years who had not applied for permission to remain? If not, you’re just frightening people and wasting everyone’s time.

If you have been resident in this country since the 1950s (as seems to be the case from the tweet), it does seem curious to me that you have not applied for British citizenship.

For a start, it seems to me to be part of your responsibility. I have on occasions thought about migrating to the US to take up various generous-sounding job offers, and if I did, I would want to become a US citizen so as to be able to vote and carry out other civic responsibilities (e.g., jury service).

After all, the individual in the tweet would have been able to vote in the Breixt referendum if he had held a British passport.

I think living in the UK since the 1950s means that you have some responsibilities to the UK, and acquiring British citizenship so as to be able to vote and participate in other civic duties is one of them.

I might have more sympathy if there was a good reason why the person did not acquire a British passport -- was there? The person seems to be an Israeli citizen, so it is perfectly possible to hold due Israeli-British citizenship

Citizenship is a personal choice and shouldn’t be foisted on anyone. In the case of the UK it’s also bloody expensive - the application fee (paid whether you are approved or not) is currently £1300 and goes up above inflation every year.

And of course many countries (eg Germany, India, China) do not allow dual citizenship. So if you insist that everyone residing in the UK becomes a citizen then you may be asking them to give up the citizenship of the country of their birth, which seems pretty unreasonable.

I think you'll find Germany does allow dual citizenship, it just regards such people primarily as German citizens.

Not in all circumstances. Children born in Germany to foreign parents need to choose between the foreign or German citizenship before they turn 23.

@geoffw

I have spoken on this before. There are four approaches to looking at why people voted Leave.

* The Ashcroft polls: why did individuals vote Leave?
* The Goodwin[4] groups: why did categories vote Leave? Goodwin (and Ford?) isolates three tribes - the poor, the retired, and wealthy social conservatives - as the cause of Leave.
* The Dennison[1][2] countries: why did the UK Leave, as opposed to Ireland, Sweden, Greece, etc. Dennison et al points out that the UK elite never bought into the project in the same way and extent that other countries did.
* The British Election Study subcategories: why did races, classes, ages vote Leave?

I don't subscribe to the Spectator so I can't tell what Anthony Browne says in his article[3]. I shall wait until somebody posts it on Reddit...

NOTES
[1] https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/conference/fac-socsci/epop-2017/documents/epop-2017-programme-final.pdf
[2] https://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/Cc9xDv5yxXagREbnVpvy/full
[3] https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/why-britain-decided-to-leave-the-eu-but-other-countries-havent/
[4] https://quillette.com/2018/08/03/britains-populist-revolt/

viewcode said:

.. snip

I don't subscribe to the Spectator so I can't tell what Anthony Browne says in his article[3]. I shall wait until somebody posts it on Reddit...

... snip
/

eh? You don't need to subscribe to read it on their website.

geoffw said:

Benpointer said:

Floater said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

Benpointer said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

If May gets her deal through Parliament, we certainly will leave next March. If she does, no doubt Remain will further demonstrate their contempt for the referendum result and contempt for democracy. Tory Remain MPs can’t really complain about Corbyn’s antics in Parliament when they themselves show such blatant disregard for 52% of the electorate.

I can’t see a need for a second referendum. We haven’t honoured the first yet.

Hang on - I thought you were against May's deal?

I am against May’s deal. The prospects of leaving with no deal however are virtually nil given the antics of Tory Remain MPs

You sound disappointed. You'd rather the country suffer serious economic dislocation and a few 1000 people die because of lack of meds?

The first claim is debateable. The second is utter bullshit which has been proved to be bollocks on multiple occasions and is only repeated by those dumb enough or dishonest enough to believe they can get away with it.

Shame you seem to fall into one of those categories.

Unless you can time travel you cannot know.

Then nor can you - yet you were ok making such confident claims

I predict that 1000s of people may die due to lack of meds in the event of No Deal. I may be wrong. It would be perfectly reasonable to express an opinion that my prediction is wrong.

What no one can truthfully say is that my prediction "is utter bullshit which has been proved to be bollocks on multiple occasions".

You are Mystic Meg.

I knew you were going to post that.

ralphmalph said:

Mr Javid's "pointless" PR stunts have already started.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/29/border-force-boat-pointlessly-sailed-around-circles-behind-immigration/

When a next potential Tory leader is mocked in the Torygraph you really do know they are in trouble.

He’s the wrong colour for the Telegraph. And theyve pledged their flag to Johnson. Anyone who is putatively competent is the enemy.

viewcode said:

geoffw said:

viewcode said:

.. snip

I don't subscribe to the Spectator so I can't tell what Anthony Browne says in his article[3]. I shall wait until somebody posts it on Reddit...

... snip
/

eh? You don't need to subscribe to read it on their website.

I was referring to their website. One has to register to read the whole article. I try not to register for things online (I'm the paradigmatic late-adopter: I don't have Facebook, for example). Since interesting stuff is often reposted online in places like Reddit, it's simpler to wait.

Not so. I opened a private browser so they couldn't know who accessed it and got the article in the normal way.

Benpointer said:

Have the government said yet when they expect the Meaningful Vote to take place?

After the ides of January sfaik.

geoffw said:

Benpointer said:

Floater said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

Benpointer said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

If May gets her deal through Parliament, we certainly will leave next March. If she does, no doubt Remain will further demonstrate their contempt for the referendum result and contempt for democracy. Tory Remain MPs can’t really complain about Corbyn’s antics in Parliament when they themselves show such blatant disregard for 52% of the electorate.

I can’t see a need for a second referendum. We haven’t honoured the first yet.

Hang on - I thought you were against May's deal?

I am against May’s deal. The prospects of leaving with no deal however are virtually nil given the antics of Tory Remain MPs

You sound disappointed. You'd rather the country suffer serious economic dislocation and a few 1000 people die because of lack of meds?

The first claim is debateable. The second is utter bullshit which has been proved to be bollocks on multiple occasions and is only repeated by those dumb enough or dishonest enough to believe they can get away with it.

Shame you seem to fall into one of those categories.

Unless you can time travel you cannot know.

Then nor can you - yet you were ok making such confident claims

I predict that 1000s of people may die due to lack of meds in the event of No Deal. I may be wrong. It would be perfectly reasonable to express an opinion that my prediction is wrong.

What no one can truthfully say is that my prediction "is utter bullshit which has been proved to be bollocks on multiple occasions".

You are Mystic Meg.

Mystic Smeg

justin124 said:

Benpointer said:

Have the government said yet when they expect the Meaningful Vote to take place?

I believe it is expected on 15th January.

Thanks

justin124 said:

Benpointer said:

Have the government said yet when they expect the Meaningful Vote to take place?

I believe it is expected on 15th January.

That's when the debate starts.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

justin124 said:

Benpointer said:

Have the government said yet when they expect the Meaningful Vote to take place?

I believe it is expected on 15th January.

That's when the debate starts.

The debate [re]starts on 9th January according to the parliamentary calendar

https://calendar.parliament.uk/calendar/Commons/All/2019/1/9/Daily

No Deal planning (and spending) is accelerating. The more we spend, the more it becomes clear that we can't spend enough to avoid any of what will be severe and painful effects of no deal Brexit. The government trying to deal with the impact of this will no longer be able to bleat "will of the people" as the people - faced with the reality start shouting "I didn't vote for this".

No Deal cannot happen. Even by accident or inaction. By the time we get to late March with nothing in place and the economy collapsing into pieces at the realisation of what is about to happen, actually voluntarily letting that happen because "will of the people" will not be an option.

Right now politically I get that revocation is politically difficult. But with no deal imminent and increasing chaos as it's abundantly clear just how fucked we are both from what no deal means and the UK's lack of preparation, politically it will be less difficult than allowing chaos to continue.

If we get to late March. With no political solution. And no deal crashing all around her, May will revoke. Yes, it will kill her political career and probably that of her party. But she knows both of those are guaranteed if we crash out and get smashed on the rocks. And whatever her faults, May has a sense of duty to the country

RIP June Whitfield.

RochdalePioneers said:

No Deal planning (and spending) is accelerating. The more we spend, the more it becomes clear that we can't spend enough to avoid any of what will be severe and painful effects of no deal Brexit. The government trying to deal with the impact of this will no longer be able to bleat "will of the people" as the people - faced with the reality start shouting "I didn't vote for this".

No Deal cannot happen. Even by accident or inaction. By the time we get to late March with nothing in place and the economy collapsing into pieces at the realisation of what is about to happen, actually voluntarily letting that happen because "will of the people" will not be an option.

Right now politically I get that revocation is politically difficult. But with no deal imminent and increasing chaos as it's abundantly clear just how fucked we are both from what no deal means and the UK's lack of preparation, politically it will be less difficult than allowing chaos to continue.

If we get to late March. With no political solution. And no deal crashing all around her, May will revoke. Yes, it will kill her political career and probably that of her party. But she knows both of those are guaranteed if we crash out and get smashed on the rocks. And whatever her faults, May has a sense of duty to the country

Good evening. I am not posting as much as the debate is polarised

However, with respect TM cannot revoke without the will of Parliament.

RochdalePioneers said:

No Deal planning (and spending) is accelerating. The more we spend, the more it becomes clear that we can't spend enough to avoid any of what will be severe and painful effects of no deal Brexit. The government trying to deal with the impact of this will no longer be able to bleat "will of the people" as the people - faced with the reality start shouting "I didn't vote for this".

No Deal cannot happen. Even by accident or inaction. By the time we get to late March with nothing in place and the economy collapsing into pieces at the realisation of what is about to happen, actually voluntarily letting that happen because "will of the people" will not be an option.

Right now politically I get that revocation is politically difficult. But with no deal imminent and increasing chaos as it's abundantly clear just how fucked we are both from what no deal means and the UK's lack of preparation, politically it will be less difficult than allowing chaos to continue.

If we get to late March. With no political solution. And no deal crashing all around her, May will revoke. Yes, it will kill her political career and probably that of her party. But she knows both of those are guaranteed if we crash out and get smashed on the rocks. And whatever her faults, May has a sense of duty to the country

What effects. Crash out, smashed on the rocks, crashing all around, chaos, collapsing into pieces - you've treated us all to quite a long post with lots of horror-filled metaphor, but you haven't actually enumerated anything that you think will go wrong. I thought you people were meant to be the intelligent side? You know, the 'experts' who like 'fact based' arguments?

Luckyguy1983 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

No Deal planning (and spending) is accelerating. The more we spend, the more it becomes clear that we can't spend enough to avoid any of what will be severe and painful effects of no deal Brexit. The government trying to deal with the impact of this will no longer be able to bleat "will of the people" as the people - faced with the reality start shouting "I didn't vote for this".

No Deal cannot happen. Even by accident or inaction. By the time we get to late March with nothing in place and the economy collapsing into pieces at the realisation of what is about to happen, actually voluntarily letting that happen because "will of the people" will not be an option.

Right now politically I get that revocation is politically difficult. But with no deal imminent and increasing chaos as it's abundantly clear just how fucked we are both from what no deal means and the UK's lack of preparation, politically it will be less difficult than allowing chaos to continue.

If we get to late March. With no political solution. And no deal crashing all around her, May will revoke. Yes, it will kill her political career and probably that of her party. But she knows both of those are guaranteed if we crash out and get smashed on the rocks. And whatever her faults, May has a sense of duty to the country

What effects. Crash out, smashed on the rocks, crashing all around, chaos, collapsing into pieces - you've treated us all to quite a long post with lots of horror-filled metaphor, but you haven't actually enumerated anything that you think will go wrong. I thought you people were meant to be the intelligent side? You know, the 'experts' who like 'fact based' arguments?

Remember the halcyon days of "easiest deal in the world", "they need us more than we need them", "we hold all the cards"?

Now it seems Leavers' efforts are devoted to promoting the idea that Brexit might not be utter chaos and disaster.

Presumably the next stage will be focused on proving it wasn't all their fault.

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good evening. I am not posting as much as the debate is polarised

However, with respect TM cannot revoke without the will of Parliament.

The politics of that would be fascinating. IF a majority consisting of Opposition MPs and a few Conservatives voted to revoke, would she feel compelled to do it? Doubtless it would be spun by the Conservatives as the Opposition parties trying to subvert the democratic will of the people.

The other option is, as Rochdale suggests, for May herself to instigate the revocation of A50. That would be political and electoral suicide for her and the Conservative Party. She would have to explain how revoking A50 equates to "Brexit means Brexit" and recognising the democratic will of the people as expressed in the 2016 Referendum.

No, revocation, like a second referendum, isn't going to happen.

Still have just the two options - May's Deal or leaving on 29/3/19 without a Deal and making the best preparations we can for that eventuality.

I think leaving with no deal is totally irresponsible. I agree that May will find it very difficult to pause A50, but I believe she will find it more difficult to leave with no deal. From the public's point of view, I'm incredulous that the government and parliament is being allowed to waste our tax money on no-deal preparations. They should be ashamed of themselves. If they're going to be so irresponsible, they should pay.

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good evening. I am not posting as much as the debate is polarised

However, with respect TM cannot revoke without the will of Parliament.

The politics of that would be fascinating. IF a majority consisting of Opposition MPs and a few Conservatives voted to revoke, would she feel compelled to do it? Doubtless it would be spun by the Conservatives as the Opposition parties trying to subvert the democratic will of the people.

The other option is, as Rochdale suggests, for May herself to instigate the revocation of A50. That would be political and electoral suicide for her and the Conservative Party. She would have to explain how revoking A50 equates to "Brexit means Brexit" and recognising the democratic will of the people as expressed in the 2016 Referendum.

No, revocation, like a second referendum, isn't going to happen.

Still have just the two options - May's Deal or leaving on 29/3/19 without a Deal and making the best preparations we can for that eventuality.

But May has said it's her deal or no deal or no brexit. Your logic rules out the third of these. At the same time we are told that Parliament will not allow no deal. So May's deal it is, no?

Dadge said:

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good evening. I am not posting as much as the debate is polarised

However, with respect TM cannot revoke without the will of Parliament.

The politics of that would be fascinating. IF a majority consisting of Opposition MPs and a few Conservatives voted to revoke, would she feel compelled to do it? Doubtless it would be spun by the Conservatives as the Opposition parties trying to subvert the democratic will of the people.

The other option is, as Rochdale suggests, for May herself to instigate the revocation of A50. That would be political and electoral suicide for her and the Conservative Party. She would have to explain how revoking A50 equates to "Brexit means Brexit" and recognising the democratic will of the people as expressed in the 2016 Referendum.

No, revocation, like a second referendum, isn't going to happen.

Still have just the two options - May's Deal or leaving on 29/3/19 without a Deal and making the best preparations we can for that eventuality.

I think leaving with no deal is totally irresponsible. I agree that May will find it very difficult to pause A50, but I believe she will find it more difficult to leave with no deal. From the public's point of view, I'm incredulous that the government and parliament is being allowed to waste our tax money on no-deal preparations. They should be ashamed of themselves. If they're going to be so irresponsible, they should pay.

Some might argue that not planning for no deal would be irresponsible.

kyf_100 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

No Deal planning (and spending) is accelerating. The more we spend, the more it becomes clear that we can't spend enough to avoid any of what will be severe and painful effects of no deal Brexit. The government trying to deal with the impact of this will no longer be able to bleat "will of the people" as the people - faced with the reality start shouting "I didn't vote for this".

No Deal cannot happen. Even by accident or inaction. By the time we get to late March with nothing in place and the economy collapsing into pieces at the realisation of what is about to happen, actually voluntarily letting that happen because "will of the people" will not be an option.

Right now politically I get that revocation is politically difficult. But with no deal imminent and increasing chaos as it's abundantly clear just how fucked we are both from what no deal means and the UK's lack of preparation, politically it will be less difficult than allowing chaos to continue.

If we get to late March. With no political solution. And no deal crashing all around her, May will revoke. Yes, it will kill her political career and probably that of her party. But she knows both of those are guaranteed if we crash out and get smashed on the rocks. And whatever her faults, May has a sense of duty to the country

Good evening. I am not posting as much as the debate is polarised

However, with respect TM cannot revoke without the will of Parliament.

It's sad that we've all gotten so angry and combative that big G isn't posting. My apologies. I don't mean to be rude.

You are not rude and I have enjoyed this period with my family and grandchildren who in the end are the most important part of my life. The anger and purile language I have read on here over the holiday period is something I have no interest in being part off

However, when the HOC returns I will contribute as best as I can but will not endorse the ultras from both sides

The Church of England has urged greater compassion in the migration debate as new figures revealed an influx of lone child refugees among the boatloads of people crossing the Channel.

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/dec/29/church-of-england-urges-compassion-for-channel-migrants

Illegal immigrants claiming to be lone child refugees all the way from Iran, I am somewhat sceptical based on the fact nobody seems to believe they are actually from Iran and previous evidence of those claiming to be lone children.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Floater said:

Dadge said:

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good evening. I am not posting as much as the debate is polarised

However, with respect TM cannot revoke without the will of Parliament.

The politics of that would be fascinating. IF a majority consisting of Opposition MPs and a few Conservatives voted to revoke, would she feel compelled to do it? Doubtless it would be spun by the Conservatives as the Opposition parties trying to subvert the democratic will of the people.

The other option is, as Rochdale suggests, for May herself to instigate the revocation of A50. That would be political and electoral suicide for her and the Conservative Party. She would have to explain how revoking A50 equates to "Brexit means Brexit" and recognising the democratic will of the people as expressed in the 2016 Referendum.

No, revocation, like a second referendum, isn't going to happen.

Still have just the two options - May's Deal or leaving on 29/3/19 without a Deal and making the best preparations we can for that eventuality.

I think leaving with no deal is totally irresponsible. I agree that May will find it very difficult to pause A50, but I believe she will find it more difficult to leave with no deal. From the public's point of view, I'm incredulous that the government and parliament is being allowed to waste our tax money on no-deal preparations. They should be ashamed of themselves. If they're going to be so irresponsible, they should pay.

Some might argue that not planning for no deal would be irresponsible.

Anyone sane would argue it.

Some poor old remainers have lost the plot.

Luckyguy1983 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

No Deal planning (and spending) is accelerating. The more we spend, the more it becomes clear that we can't spend enough to avoid any of what will be severe and painful effects of no deal Brexit. The government trying to deal with the impact of this will no longer be able to bleat "will of the people" as the people - faced with the reality start shouting "I didn't vote for this".

No Deal cannot happen. Even by accident or inaction. By the time we get to late March with nothing in place and the economy collapsing into pieces at the realisation of what is about to happen, actually voluntarily letting that happen because "will of the people" will not be an option.

Right now politically I get that revocation is politically difficult. But with no deal imminent and increasing chaos as it's abundantly clear just how fucked we are both from what no deal means and the UK's lack of preparation, politically it will be less difficult than allowing chaos to continue.

If we get to late March. With no political solution. And no deal crashing all around her, May will revoke. Yes, it will kill her political career and probably that of her party. But she knows both of those are guaranteed if we crash out and get smashed on the rocks. And whatever her faults, May has a sense of duty to the country

What effects. Crash out, smashed on the rocks, crashing all around, chaos, collapsing into pieces - you've treated us all to quite a long post with lots of horror-filled metaphor, but you haven't actually enumerated anything that you think will go wrong. I thought you people were meant to be the intelligent side? You know, the 'experts' who like 'fact based' arguments?

Go and speak to any business involved with the practicalities of trade. They will tell you everything you refuse to know. "What effects" is you saying that you have your fingers jammed into your ears insisting that the detailed factual descriptions of how trade doesn't physically work with no deal aren't real.

Believe what you want, facts are facts.

RochdalePioneers said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

No Deal planning (and spending) is accelerating. The more we spend, the more it becomes clear that we can't spend enough to avoid any of what will be severe and painful effects of no deal Brexit. The government trying to deal with the impact of this will no longer be able to bleat "will of the people" as the people - faced with the reality start shouting "I didn't vote for this".

No Deal cannot happen. Even by accident or inaction. By the time we get to late March with nothing in place and the economy collapsing into pieces at the realisation of what is about to happen, actually voluntarily letting that happen because "will of the people" will not be an option.

Right now politically I get that revocation is politically difficult. But with no deal imminent and increasing chaos as it's abundantly clear just how fucked we are both from what no deal means and the UK's lack of preparation, politically it will be less difficult than allowing chaos to continue.

If we get to late March. With no political solution. And no deal crashing all around her, May will revoke. Yes, it will kill her political career and probably that of her party. But she knows both of those are guaranteed if we crash out and get smashed on the rocks. And whatever her faults, May has a sense of duty to the country

What effects. Crash out, smashed on the rocks, crashing all around, chaos, collapsing into pieces - you've treated us all to quite a long post with lots of horror-filled metaphor, but you haven't actually enumerated anything that you think will go wrong. I thought you people were meant to be the intelligent side? You know, the 'experts' who like 'fact based' arguments?

Go and speak to any business involved with the practicalities of trade. They will tell you everything you refuse to know. "What effects" is you saying that you have your fingers jammed into your ears insisting that the detailed factual descriptions of how trade doesn't physically work with no deal aren't real.

Believe what you want, facts are facts.

Yes, they are, but you haven't given us any.

matt said:

ydoethur said:

My grandfather, who knew Montgomery and served under him, would disagree. He thought Wavell was a better general who was, linking to your point, buggered by politics (the loss of half his force to Crete for no good reason).

It may however be coloured by the fact he was a senior officer in 9th Armoured Brigade.

Montogomery was the premier British general at the high water mark of British land forces. Auchinleck was a better general (Alexander was his inferior but chosen), Wavell possibly was. Irrelevant. Montgomery then tried meshing warfare and politics with Arnhem etc. Almost Hitlerian in its ambition and absurdity.

Also anecdotally, my uncle was a spotter for the (I think) only artillery unit to get within range of the Arnhem bridge just before it fell - his view FWIW was that the operation came within an ace of succeeding and despite everything had been worth trying: the failure to spot the resting SS division was an intelligence failure that it's hard to blame Monty for. But I agree that Montgomery's record essentially rests on Alamein, and we had the edge in forces there - it mainly looked surprising because Rommel had been winning up to then.

Luckyguy1983 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

No Deal planning (and spending) is accelerating. The more we spend, the more it becomes clear that we can't spend enough to avoid any of what will be severe and painful effects of no deal Brexit. The government trying to deal with the impact of this will no longer be able to bleat "will of the people" as the people - faced with the reality start shouting "I didn't vote for this".

No Deal cannot happen. Even by accident or inaction. By the time we get to late March with nothing in place and the economy collapsing into pieces at the realisation of what is about to happen, actually voluntarily letting that happen because "will of the people" will not be an option.

Right now politically I get that revocation is politically difficult. But with no deal imminent and increasing chaos as it's abundantly clear just how fucked we are both from what no deal means and the UK's lack of preparation, politically it will be less difficult than allowing chaos to continue.

If we get to late March. With no political solution. And no deal crashing all around her, May will revoke. Yes, it will kill her political career and probably that of her party. But she knows both of those are guaranteed if we crash out and get smashed on the rocks. And whatever her faults, May has a sense of duty to the country

What effects. Crash out, smashed on the rocks, crashing all around, chaos, collapsing into pieces - you've treated us all to quite a long post with lots of horror-filled metaphor, but you haven't actually enumerated anything that you think will go wrong. I thought you people were meant to be the intelligent side? You know, the 'experts' who like 'fact based' arguments?

Go and speak to any business involved with the practicalities of trade. They will tell you everything you refuse to know. "What effects" is you saying that you have your fingers jammed into your ears insisting that the detailed factual descriptions of how trade doesn't physically work with no deal aren't real.

Believe what you want, facts are facts.

Yes, they are, but you haven't given us any.

RochdalePioneers has written extensively on here about the specific challenges for food retail. You obviously weren't interested.

ralphmalph said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Floater said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The Church of England has urged greater compassion in the migration debate as new figures revealed an influx of lone child refugees among the boatloads of people crossing the Channel.

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/dec/29/church-of-england-urges-compassion-for-channel-migrants

Illegal immigrants claiming to be lone child refugees all the way from Iran, I am somewhat sceptical based on the fact nobody seems to believe they are actually from Iran and previous evidence of those claiming to be lone children.

There was one at a school in Ipswich - it was a total joke, any fool could see he was more like 30 than 15

Well we only have to remember the uproar when the UK accepted "children" from the Jungle. The Sun / Mail got smeared as racist for taking photos of these children and questioning their age, despite it wasn't them taking the photos and it was found that, as they any fool could see, they weren't kids.

The Parsons Green bomber came into the UK on the Dobbs child program.

And wasn't a child....

FrancisUrquhart said:

Floater said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The Church of England has urged greater compassion in the migration debate as new figures revealed an influx of lone child refugees among the boatloads of people crossing the Channel.

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/dec/29/church-of-england-urges-compassion-for-channel-migrants

Illegal immigrants claiming to be lone child refugees all the way from Iran, I am somewhat sceptical based on the fact nobody seems to believe they are actually from Iran and previous evidence of those claiming to be lone children.

There was one at a school in Ipswich - it was a total joke, any fool could see he was more like 30 than 15

Well we only have to remember the uproar when the UK accepted "children" from the Jungle. The Sun / Mail got smeared as racist for taking photos of these children and questioning their age, despite it wasn't them taking the photos and it was found that, as they any fool could see, they weren't kids.

My housemate teaches at a school in East Oxford - each year they have 'refugee' children who are clearly over 18 but can do nothing about it. Thankfully they are kept separate from the rest of the school due to the need to focus on basics of language teaching rather than integrating them into regular lessons.

Cyclefree said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

ralphmalph said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Floater said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The Church of England has urged greater compassion in the migration debate as new figures revealed an influx of lone child refugees among the boatloads of people crossing the Channel.

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/dec/29/church-of-england-urges-compassion-for-channel-migrants

Illegal immigrants claiming to be lone child refugees all the way from Iran, I am somewhat sceptical based on the fact nobody seems to believe they are actually from Iran and previous evidence of those claiming to be lone children.

There was one at a school in Ipswich - it was a total joke, any fool could see he was more like 30 than 15

Well we only have to remember the uproar when the UK accepted "children" from the Jungle. The Sun / Mail got smeared as racist for taking photos of these children and questioning their age, despite it wasn't them taking the photos and it was found that, as they any fool could see, they weren't kids.

The Parsons Green bomber came into the UK on the Dobbs child program.

And wasn't a child....

I think he was. More pertinently - and astonishingly, the authorities knew before he was let in, because he told them, that he had been trained by IS. Despite this he was let into the country (why?), placed with a foster family who were not told of his background and put on the Prevent programme. He went on to carry out a bombing which only failed because of his incompetence. He aimed to kill commuters and children in a packed tube carriage.

A complete failure by the authorities.

People don’t want law abiding EU or other nationals who have lived here decades pestered. They do want criminals and terrorists, particularly those who are open about their murderous intent, kept out of the country. We need much less sentimentality about those who are not in this country and much much more empathy and concern for those who have chosen to make this country their home.

The authorities seem incapable (unwilling?) of doing the latter and instead focus on the former.

No in the trial, they stated he was more around likely to be 21. But as you say they knew he was seriously problematic from the get go.

If I remember correctly, he wouldn't have anything to do with the Prevent programme.

Now we again have a load of people turning up claiming to be kids from Iran, which nobody believes they are actually from Iran.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Floater said:

Dadge said:

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good evening. I am not posting as much as the debate is polarised

However, with respect TM cannot revoke without the will of Parliament.

The politics of that would be fascinating. IF a majority consisting of Opposition MPs and a few Conservatives voted to revoke, would she feel compelled to do it? Doubtless it would be spun by the Conservatives as the Opposition parties trying to subvert the democratic will of the people.

The other option is, as Rochdale suggests, for May herself to instigate the revocation of A50. That would be political and electoral suicide for her and the Conservative Party. She would have to explain how revoking A50 equates to "Brexit means Brexit" and recognising the democratic will of the people as expressed in the 2016 Referendum.

No, revocation, like a second referendum, isn't going to happen.

Still have just the two options - May's Deal or leaving on 29/3/19 without a Deal and making the best preparations we can for that eventuality.

I think leaving with no deal is totally irresponsible. I agree that May will find it very difficult to pause A50, but I believe she will find it more difficult to leave with no deal. From the public's point of view, I'm incredulous that the government and parliament is being allowed to waste our tax money on no-deal preparations. They should be ashamed of themselves. If they're going to be so irresponsible, they should pay.

Some might argue that not planning for no deal would be irresponsible.

Anyone sane would argue it.

Anyone sane wouldn't put themselves in that position in the first place. Which is the whole problem with "No Deal planning".

In any case it's not true that the government hasn't done planning. It produced reasonably detailed planning notices last summer. They boil down to two basic messages: 1. OF COURSE the EU will agree a deal on X. We can't manage otherwise. 2. Do your own planning, businesses, Y. As far as we're concerned you're on your own.

Leavers dismissed these notices at the time because they were for No Deal and not for production of unicorns. Dominic Raab was very uncomfortable leading on them.