I look forward to seeing the conclusion of whether the Tories are really ahead in the polls. Personally they could be and i wouldn't believe it, I just don't see how it would maintain itself in an electoral situation when it is so riven.
I think the Tories are ahead in the polls because of Mrs May's lead in the leadership ratings, however I suspect that lead would crumble during an election campaign this year as the Tories couldn't unite over Brexit.
It would probably be like one of those strange elections in the 1920's. Huge swings all over the place at constituency level.
I think that is right. There would be all manner of spoiler candidates -- Independent Brexiteers against Grieve & Boles, surely Bercow will not be given a free ride in Buckingham, Labour Remainers in Leave seats will face Lexiteers, and so on.
Few MPs will be completely easy in their minds that they will be back in the saddle after the election.
This is one of the main reasons why I don't expect an election.
And the public (rightly) hate the idea, so whoever is seen as responsible for calling it will suffer.
How many current Tory votes for the deal does she lose if that is the case?
Not saying it is an unreasonable demand from the LD perspective - frankly I think it's May's only hope of her deal going through as well - but trying to figure out the maths of this, the LDs can be countered pretty quickly if more Tories defect.
Not many, I suspect, because support for the deal wasn't high in the first place.
But more than 12? Some might have backed it on the basis that at least it guaranteed a form of leave, whereas a referendum does not.
Sure the referendum idea would need to attract Labour. If Theresa May proposes the referendum, that gives cover to Labour MPs who worry about their Leave voting constituencies going against being forced to vote again. For her part Mrs May has lost so many MPs already over her deal, she will probably hang onto most of the rest.
A referendum is the last thing Mrs May wants. It might be the last thing she actually does, given her lack of alternatives.
Says it all really. The incompetent leaver can't even get the date right, seems for a nationalist to be entirely ignorant of constitutional history and completely unaware of the UK/Ireland CTA
How many current Tory votes for the deal does she lose if that is the case?
Not saying it is an unreasonable demand from the LD perspective - frankly I think it's May's only hope of her deal going through as well - but trying to figure out the maths of this, the LDs can be countered pretty quickly if more Tories defect.
I think the catch is that May would want the choice to be Deal/No Deal.
She won’t get to decide. She needs the EU’s consent to an extension, remember.
Quite. And these are the people Cameron thought could reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly decide our future for decades to come.
What the voters? Whether or not one supports referenda in general the notion that the voters shouldn't be able to determine our future is just as much to blame for where we are.
Of course they shouldn't directly. Watch any vox pop - the BBC seems quite keen on them - of voters discussing Brexit and the vast majority having got the first bloody clue about any of the issues.
How many current Tory votes for the deal does she lose if that is the case?
Not saying it is an unreasonable demand from the LD perspective - frankly I think it's May's only hope of her deal going through as well - but trying to figure out the maths of this, the LDs can be countered pretty quickly if more Tories defect.
Not many, I suspect, because support for the deal wasn't high in the first place.
But more than 12? Some might have backed it on the basis that at least it guaranteed a form of leave, whereas a referendum does not.
Sure the referendum idea would need to attract Labour. If Theresa May proposes the referendum, that gives cover to Labour MPs who worry about their Leave voting constituencies going against being forced to vote again. For her part Mrs May has lost so many MPs already over her deal, she will probably hang onto most of the rest.
A referendum is the last thing Mrs May wants. It might be the last thing she actually does, given her lack of alternatives.
I agree that Labour would probably back a referendum, if May had supported one first, since that takes away the risk of Brexit voters blaming Labour exclusively.
Doubt May supporting one would ever happen though...
How many current Tory votes for the deal does she lose if that is the case?
Not saying it is an unreasonable demand from the LD perspective - frankly I think it's May's only hope of her deal going through as well - but trying to figure out the maths of this, the LDs can be countered pretty quickly if more Tories defect.
I think the catch is that May would want the choice to be Deal/No Deal.
She won’t get to decide. She needs the EU’s consent to an extension, remember.
I don't see how those two sentences are connected. Both are true, but if what the EU wants is an outcome then a referendum provides that (assuming MPs follow its instruction, or make it binding anyway) regardless of what the options are, so the EU's consent doesn't have anything to do with the also true fact that May won't get to decide the choice, which is down to the will of parliament.
How many current Tory votes for the deal does she lose if that is the case?
Not saying it is an unreasonable demand from the LD perspective - frankly I think it's May's only hope of her deal going through as well - but trying to figure out the maths of this, the LDs can be countered pretty quickly if more Tories defect.
I think the catch is that May would want the choice to be Deal/No Deal.
I'm sure she would, the Deal might even have a chance then. But given most people who want a referendum want it because they want to remain, those whose votes May needs have good reason to hold firm.
And given the other EU members would have to agree unanimously to an extension for any referendum, I don't think a referendum with a "No Deal" option is feasible.
How many current Tory votes for the deal does she lose if that is the case?
Not saying it is an unreasonable demand from the LD perspective - frankly I think it's May's only hope of her deal going through as well - but trying to figure out the maths of this, the LDs can be countered pretty quickly if more Tories defect.
I think the catch is that May would want the choice to be Deal/No Deal.
She won’t get to decide. She needs the EU’s consent to an extension, remember.
But she/we do not need the EU's consent to temporarily revoke A50 before invoking it again when we have a clue what we want to do (which is effectively a 2-year "extension" anyway).
How many current Tory votes for the deal does she lose if that is the case?
Not saying it is an unreasonable demand from the LD perspective - frankly I think it's May's only hope of her deal going through as well - but trying to figure out the maths of this, the LDs can be countered pretty quickly if more Tories defect.
Not many, I suspect, because support for the deal wasn't high in the first place.
But more than 12? Some might have backed it on the basis that at least it guaranteed a form of leave, whereas a referendum does not.
Sure the referendum idea would need to attract Labour. If Theresa May proposes the referendum, that gives cover to Labour MPs who worry about their Leave voting constituencies going against being forced to vote again. For her part Mrs May has lost so many MPs already over her deal, she will probably hang onto most of the rest.
A referendum is the last thing Mrs May wants. It might be the last thing she actually does, given her lack of alternatives.
If we stalemate into No Deal as a result of (or as a perceived result of) Labour opposing a second referendum, they will get crucified at the following election. That is the attraction to Labour.
How many current Tory votes for the deal does she lose if that is the case?
Not saying it is an unreasonable demand from the LD perspective - frankly I think it's May's only hope of her deal going through as well - but trying to figure out the maths of this, the LDs can be countered pretty quickly if more Tories defect.
I think the catch is that May would want the choice to be Deal/No Deal.
I'm sure she would, the Deal might even have a chance then. But given most people who want a referendum want it because they want to remain, those whose votes May needs have good reason to hold firm.
And given the other EU members would have to agree unanimously to an extension for any referendum, I don't think a referendum with a "No Deal" option is feasible.
Not if any of them watch Question Time, anyway.
The EU have repeatedly made clear they are prepared to progress with no deal. Why would they object to an extension which includes it as an option, if it also opens the door to something actually being agreed to take no deal off the table, as it were?
Quite. And these are the people Cameron thought could reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly decide our future for decades to come.
What the voters? Whether or not one supports referenda in general the notion that the voters shouldn't be able to determine our future is just as much to blame for where we are.
Of course they shouldn't directly. Watch any vox pop - the BBC seems quite keen on them - of voters discussing Brexit and the vast majority having got the first bloody clue about any of the issues.
Theresa May? “She’ll never win anything again.” Jeremy Corbyn? “He’s an arsehole.” Would there be another referendum? “No.” How was it all going to end? “A mess.”...
Says it all really. The incompetent leaver can't even get the date right, seems for a nationalist to be entirely ignorant of constitutional history and completely unaware of the UK/Ireland CTA
It goes without saying that they think the European Court of Human Rights is something to do with the EU. That's standard.
I don't doubt the sincerity of many in the EU for us to remain, but I think if they stopped to think about it a bit more they'd see that it's better for the project if we are not part of them.
As a counterfactual, how do you think the last 45 years would have been better for the other 27 countries currently in the EU if the UK had been outside?
They would have been much happier, without us, IMHO.
I disagree - I think you are perhaps projecting. And they probably wouldn’t have the Single Market.
My view is that De Gaulle was correct to veto our application, and was doing us a favour, had we only seen it.
I cannot think of any better reason for being members of the EU than the French didn't want us to be members.
My ideal EU would be the current set up, less all the countries with a Mediterranean coastline.
How many current Tory votes for the deal does she lose if that is the case?
Not saying it is an unreasonable demand from the LD perspective - frankly I think it's May's only hope of her deal going through as well - but trying to figure out the maths of this, the LDs can be countered pretty quickly if more Tories defect.
I think the catch is that May would want the choice to be Deal/No Deal.
I'm sure she would, the Deal might even have a chance then. But given most people who want a referendum want it because they want to remain, those whose votes May needs have good reason to hold firm.
And given the other EU members would have to agree unanimously to an extension for any referendum, I don't think a referendum with a "No Deal" option is feasible.
Not if any of them watch Question Time, anyway.
The EU have repeatedly made clear they are prepared to progress with no deal. Why would they object to an extension which includes it as an option, if it also opens the door to something actually being agreed to take no deal off the table, as it were?
They might agree if they thought that the people were less likely to choose No Deal in a referendum than the politicians if forced to make a choice in March. I have a pretty low opinion of politicians, but I don't think they're more likely to choose No Deal than the people.
Anyone selling a vote on the basis we must think of the children who could not vote in 2016 has to explain to me why the children who cannot vote in 2019 should be excluded this time. It's a five year old's future too, and for all we know they'll grow up to be absolute raging europhobes.
Quite. And these are the people Cameron thought could reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly decide our future for decades to come.
What the voters? Whether or not one supports referenda in general the notion that the voters shouldn't be able to determine our future is just as much to blame for where we are.
Of course they shouldn't directly. Watch any vox pop - the BBC seems quite keen on them - of voters discussing Brexit and the vast majority having got the first bloody clue about any of the issues.
And how might they be allowed to determine it indirectly? By voting in political system carefully designed to be as inert as possible?
I went to an interesting exhibition on coffee last year in Edinburgh botanic gardens. Almost all coffee in the world traces its lineage to just two bushes from the Amsterdam botanic gardens. One that was taken by the Dutch to Ceylon and then Java and the other by the French to Guadeloupe and then Brazil. It's genetically very restricted.
From David Cameron, who recklessly gambled his country’s future on a referendum in order to isolate some whingers in his Conservative party, to the opportunistic Boris Johnson, who jumped on the Brexit bandwagon to secure the prime ministerial chair once warmed by his role model Winston Churchill, and the top-hatted, theatrically retro Jacob Rees-Mogg, whose fund management company has set up an office within the European Union even as he vehemently scorns it, the British political class has offered to the world an astounding spectacle of mendacious, intellectually limited hustlers.
I don't doubt the sincerity of many in the EU for us to remain, but I think if they stopped to think about it a bit more they'd see that it's better for the project if we are not part of them.
As a counterfactual, how do you think the last 45 years would have been better for the other 27 countries currently in the EU if the UK had been outside?
They would have been much happier, without us, IMHO.
I disagree - I think you are perhaps projecting. And they probably wouldn’t have the Single Market.
My view is that De Gaulle was correct to veto our application, and was doing us a favour, had we only seen it.
I cannot think of any better reason for being members of the EU than the French didn't want us to be members.
My ideal EU would be the current set up, less all the countries with a Mediterranean coastline.
Would overseas territories with a Mediterranean coastline be OK?
I don't doubt the sincerity of many in the EU for us to remain, but I think if they stopped to think about it a bit more they'd see that it's better for the project if we are not part of them.
As a counterfactual, how do you think the last 45 years would have been better for the other 27 countries currently in the EU if the UK had been outside?
They would have been much happier, without us, IMHO.
I disagree - I think you are perhaps projecting. And they probably wouldn’t have the Single Market.
My view is that De Gaulle was correct to veto our application, and was doing us a favour, had we only seen it.
I cannot think of any better reason for being members of the EU than the French didn't want us to be members.
My ideal EU would be the current set up, less all the countries with a Mediterranean coastline.
Says it all really. The incompetent leaver can't even get the date right, seems for a nationalist to be entirely ignorant of constitutional history and completely unaware of the UK/Ireland CTA
It goes without saying that they think the European Court of Human Rights is something to do with the EU. That's standard.
Word of advice to the two of you: telling people they are stupid doesn’t persuade them to agree with you
From David Cameron, who recklessly gambled his country’s future on a referendum in order to isolate some whingers in his Conservative party, to the opportunistic Boris Johnson, who jumped on the Brexit bandwagon to secure the prime ministerial chair once warmed by his role model Winston Churchill, and the top-hatted, theatrically retro Jacob Rees-Mogg, whose fund management company has set up an office within the European Union even as he vehemently scorns it, the British political class has offered to the world an astounding spectacle of mendacious, intellectually limited hustlers.
Says it all really. The incompetent leaver can't even get the date right, seems for a nationalist to be entirely ignorant of constitutional history and completely unaware of the UK/Ireland CTA
It goes without saying that they think the European Court of Human Rights is something to do with the EU. That's standard.
Word of advice to the two of you: telling people they are stupid doesn’t persuade them to agree with you
Says it all really. The incompetent leaver can't even get the date right, seems for a nationalist to be entirely ignorant of constitutional history and completely unaware of the UK/Ireland CTA
It goes without saying that they think the European Court of Human Rights is something to do with the EU. That's standard.
Word of advice to the two of you: telling people they are stupid doesn’t persuade them to agree with you
Says it all really. The incompetent leaver can't even get the date right, seems for a nationalist to be entirely ignorant of constitutional history and completely unaware of the UK/Ireland CTA
It goes without saying that they think the European Court of Human Rights is something to do with the EU. That's standard.
Word of advice to the two of you: telling people they are stupid doesn’t persuade them to agree with you
This site isn't for persuading people, it's terrible for that. It's for working out what's going to happen, and by extension, what's going on now. How dumb which voters are is an important data point.
From David Cameron, who recklessly gambled his country’s future on a referendum in order to isolate some whingers in his Conservative party, to the opportunistic Boris Johnson, who jumped on the Brexit bandwagon to secure the prime ministerial chair once warmed by his role model Winston Churchill, and the top-hatted, theatrically retro Jacob Rees-Mogg, whose fund management company has set up an office within the European Union even as he vehemently scorns it, the British political class has offered to the world an astounding spectacle of mendacious, intellectually limited hustlers.
Says it all really. The incompetent leaver can't even get the date right, seems for a nationalist to be entirely ignorant of constitutional history and completely unaware of the UK/Ireland CTA
It goes without saying that they think the European Court of Human Rights is something to do with the EU. That's standard.
Word of advice to the two of you: telling people they are stupid doesn’t persuade them to agree with you
This site isn't for persuading people, it's terrible for that. It's for working out what's going to happen, and by extension, what's going on now. How dumb which voters are is an important data point.
Or in this case the dumbness of a local councillor currently suspended for her links with the far right.
Quite. And these are the people Cameron thought could reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly decide our future for decades to come.
What the voters? Whether or not one supports referenda in general the notion that the voters shouldn't be able to determine our future is just as much to blame for where we are.
Of course they shouldn't directly. Watch any vox pop - the BBC seems quite keen on them - of voters discussing Brexit and the vast majority having got the first bloody clue about any of the issues.
And how might they be allowed to determine it indirectly? By voting in political system carefully designed to be as inert as possible?
From David Cameron, who recklessly gambled his country’s future on a referendum in order to isolate some whingers in his Conservative party, to the opportunistic Boris Johnson, who jumped on the Brexit bandwagon to secure the prime ministerial chair once warmed by his role model Winston Churchill, and the top-hatted, theatrically retro Jacob Rees-Mogg, whose fund management company has set up an office within the European Union even as he vehemently scorns it, the British political class has offered to the world an astounding spectacle of mendacious, intellectually limited hustlers.
From David Cameron, who recklessly gambled his country’s future on a referendum in order to isolate some whingers in his Conservative party, to the opportunistic Boris Johnson, who jumped on the Brexit bandwagon to secure the prime ministerial chair once warmed by his role model Winston Churchill, and the top-hatted, theatrically retro Jacob Rees-Mogg, whose fund management company has set up an office within the European Union even as he vehemently scorns it, the British political class has offered to the world an astounding spectacle of mendacious, intellectually limited hustlers.
It is also a good example of how a significant percentage of the world sees Britain.
It's pretty much the view of Britain that my wife was taught in school in India and one you see repeatedly in the Indian media - especially in cinema and TV. The idea that the Commonwealth countries are waiting to welcome back Britain as the paterfamilias is, like everything else to do with Brexit, a retrograde fantasy.
If only they had another 250 MPs it might be worth considering....
Indeed
Another bit of unicornism.
Legislating for a second referendum loses another 100 or so story MP, and more than half The cabinet.
So the arithmetic is something like this (I'm not quite up-to-date with the odd Labour Leaver who backed the deal, Brexiter LibDems, who's currently in prison etc, so I'll be a couple off):
Start with the MV result as the baseline, you need a net swing of (432-202)/2 = 115.
So if all the Con Deal voters held that's a majority of 24. But in practice you'll lose some of those 200 odd Tories, and gain some of remaining 168 Labour ones. In particular I reckon a lot of Lab MPs, probably including Corbyn, would abstain. I doubt they'd want to be on the end of Remainer anger if their vote saves Brexit, even in strongly Leave seats.
Seems to me like if the Tories whip it it should be quite an easy win, but if "parliament" tries to do it against the opposition of the PM they'll come up short.
The word "prepare" covers quite a spectrum of implications there. It's probably normal they start doing that in any heavily deadlocked situation like we have at present.
I would be a bit surprised if we have an election before 2nd May - same day as the local elections.
I think another GE gives May's deal (Or a Corbyn brexit) a better chance of passing than a 2nd red quite honestly. It might appeal to both front benches shortly.
I don't doubt the sincerity of many in the EU for us to remain, but I think if they stopped to think about it a bit more they'd see that it's better for the project if we are not part of them.
As a counterfactual, how do you think the last 45 years would have been better for the other 27 countries currently in the EU if the UK had been outside?
They would have been much happier, without us, IMHO.
I disagree - I think you are perhaps projecting. And they probably wouldn’t have the Single Market.
My view is that De Gaulle was correct to veto our application, and was doing us a favour, had we only seen it.
I cannot think of any better reason for being members of the EU than the French didn't want us to be members.
My ideal EU would be the current set up, less all the countries with a Mediterranean coastline.
I think another GE gives May's deal (Or a Corbyn brexit) a better chance of passing than a 2nd red quite honestly. It might appeal to both front benches shortly.
Not saying you're wrong but how does that fix it? I mean, TMay needs to swing 115 votes. That means if the current MPs don't shift she needs at least 115 Con gains. But it's worse, because 1 Tory MP in 3 opposes the deal so for every third MP she adds, she cancels another one out.
Or is the thought that after the election the Tory MPs would say, "Well it was in the manifesto (that everybody knew I was opposed to) so I'll have to vote for it"?
That expression on his face is just great. He looks a bus stop wino that's just shit himself.
Throughout the day I've been seeing this picture and only now have I realised it's IDS in the back with the hat, not some unlucky member of the public or 1970s John Le Carre character caught in the shot.
I think another GE gives May's deal (Or a Corbyn brexit) a better chance of passing than a 2nd red quite honestly. It might appeal to both front benches shortly.
Not saying you're wrong but how does that fix it? I mean, TMay needs to swing 115 votes. That means if the current MPs don't shift she needs at least 115 Con gains. But it's worse, because 1 Tory MP in 3 opposes the deal so for every third MP she adds, she cancels another one out.
Or is the thought that after the election the Tory MPs would say, "Well it was in the manifesto (that everybody knew I was opposed to) so I'll have to vote for it"?
I think another GE gives May's deal (Or a Corbyn brexit) a better chance of passing than a 2nd red quite honestly. It might appeal to both front benches shortly.
Not saying you're wrong but how does that fix it? I mean, TMay needs to swing 115 votes. That means if the current MPs don't shift she needs at least 115 Con gains. But it's worse, because 1 Tory MP in 3 opposes the deal so for every third MP she adds, she cancels another one out.
Or is the thought that after the election the Tory MPs would say, "Well it was in the manifesto (that everybody knew I was opposed to) so I'll have to vote for it"?
Could it be made part of the Queen's speech ?
I'm not sure if that's something she could try but then I think the rebels could just vote down the Queen's speech, wait for Jeremy Corbyn to table a confidence vote, and vote for her in that.
That expression on his face is just great. He looks a bus stop wino that's just shit himself.
Throughout the day I've been seeing this picture and only now have I realised it's IDS in the back with the hat, not some unlucky member of the public or 1970s John Le Carre character caught in the shot.
He looks a bit jowly, whereas DD is becoming ghostly. The Brexit clusterfuck only putting one of them off their tucker evidently.
That expression on his face is just great. He looks a bus stop wino that's just shit himself.
Throughout the day I've been seeing this picture and only now have I realised it's IDS in the back with the hat, not some unlucky member of the public or 1970s John Le Carre character caught in the shot.
He looks a bit jowly, whereas DD is becoming ghostly. The Brexit clusterfuck only putting one of them off their tucker evidently.
We know DD keeps in shape with 3-4 miles of "mostly sprinting".
Trump would be in trouble if some enterprising Democrat had thought to get his new Attorney General on film saying that this would be obstruction of justice.
Trump would be in trouble if some enterprising Democrat had thought to get his new Attorney General on film saying that this would be obstruction of justice.
I am increasingly liking her style. To the point without being shrill or bombastic, keeps her cool well. I think she will be good at the primary debates, and that all important weird name factor.
Trump would be in trouble if some enterprising Democrat had thought to get his new Attorney General on film saying that this would be obstruction of justice.
Actually, it’s Giuliani, through his spectacular incompetence, who might have cracked the case wide open. Trump up until now had a functioning joint defence agreement with the rest of the suspected crooks (and even the already convicted, like Manafort).
And I don’t think he’ll be running for the nomination...
During a CNN interview, President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer blurted out that the only person he knows about who didn’t collude with Russia was Trump himself. Although Giuliani tried to walk back his comments on Thursday, the remarks put the sprawling web of people caught up in special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe on notice: no one is coming to save you.
“Ya think!!!” one former Trump campaign official wrote to POLITICO when asked if Giuliani was trying to protect the president at the expense of everyone who worked for him...
Like I've said, the hard Leavers aren't really serious about Britain leaving.
I've been thinking a lot about this, and I think there are two factors.
1. They think that, as the EU and the UK will continually chafe, that if we don't leave now, we'll leave more utterly and finally at some point in the future. They fear that some kind of halfway house - not that the WA is actually like that, but you can't expect people to read documents - will end up being popular with voters (like the EEA is in Norway), and therefore they want to avoid it at all costs.
2. Sometimes I think they're sole pleasure in life is in bitching about the EU. It's great that somebody else is to blame. It means you don't have to think about whether the UK's welfare or education system is part of the problem. Much easier - in the words of MJ Hibbert - "to put the blame on agencies outside ourselves, not to take responsibility for ourselves". (Albeit he was talking about losing weight...)
Could HM appoint him anyway? It is tradition, after all.
No. She acts on the advice of her Ministers.
And what's this 'tradition' anyway?
Bercow evidently is only selectively in favour of it.
(I don't think it should be blocked for the Grieve shenanigans, which may have been a good decision taken for poor reasons, without thought to the longterm procedural consequences, but for his failure of leadership and complicity in the bullying problem.....and other matters....cough....Vaz....cough....)
Actually, it’s Giuliani, through his spectacular incompetence, who might have cracked the case wide open. Trump up until now had a functioning joint defence agreement with the rest of the suspected crooks (and even the already convicted, like Manafort).
Someone said a while back that what would eventually doom Trump would be his inability to get decent lawyers. And voila, he ended up with the clown Giuliani.
All the leavers I've spoke to in the real world (Brexit is getting mentioned plenty!) are well up for no deal
Because they don't understand, don't care, or somehow think they personally will be immune?
A combination of the above, but no question that a lot of the population would vote No Deal, just look at that Derby BBCQT audience.
My original position from immediately post referendum (and TSE has been more consistent on this) was that we needed to do a planned diamond Brexit, or we would have an unplanned diamond Brexit. I came round to the #peoplesvote after last summers demonstration, but am perhaps coming back to my original view.
Britons need to experience what No Deal means in order to appreciate being in the EU. Its a bit like Corbynism, it has to be tried to be defeated. There will be inevitable damage to Britains surviving manufacturing industry, and to financial services, but many sectors will be immune when we adopt our own Juche philosophy.
There was a spontaneous Brexit discussion in the staff room at work this week (I keep my own politics low key there, so was just an observer). Not too heated, but quite a few talking in favour of No Deal. The ethnic minority Leave vote seemed to have shifted, rather frightened by the forces unleashed, and a few former Remainers thinking the humiliation of A50 withdrawal would be too much. There was no real enthusiasm for Leave, or belief that there were any real benefits, more an obstinate determination to stick with it.
On balance: Nothing has changed. My only contribution to lighten the mood was to point out that Remain or No Deal, PM Jezza or Jacob, we were all assured of plenty of work!
Like I've said, the hard Leavers aren't really serious about Britain leaving.
I've been thinking a lot about this, and I think there are two factors.
1. They think that, as the EU and the UK will continually chafe, that if we don't leave now, we'll leave more utterly and finally at some point in the future. They fear that some kind of halfway house - not that the WA is actually like that, but you can't expect people to read documents - will end up being popular with voters (like the EEA is in Norway), and therefore they want to avoid it at all costs.
2. Sometimes I think they're sole pleasure in life is in bitching about the EU. It's great that somebody else is to blame. It means you don't have to think about whether the UK's welfare or education system is part of the problem. Much easier - in the words of MJ Hibbert - "to put the blame on agencies outside ourselves, not to take responsibility for ourselves". (Albeit he was talking about losing weight...)
I think it's more the second factor.
The first would require more strategic thought than the evidence to date suggests they're capable of.
All the leavers I've spoke to in the real world (Brexit is getting mentioned plenty!) are well up for no deal
On the other hand, a good number of those I know who wavered and ultimately went for Remain have contacted me to say they back May's deal, and don't understand why Leavers arent.
Like I've said, the hard Leavers aren't really serious about Britain leaving.
I've been thinking a lot about this, and I think there are two factors.
1. They think that, as the EU and the UK will continually chafe, that if we don't leave now, we'll leave more utterly and finally at some point in the future. They fear that some kind of halfway house - not that the WA is actually like that, but you can't expect people to read documents - will end up being popular with voters (like the EEA is in Norway), and therefore they want to avoid it at all costs.
2. Sometimes I think they're sole pleasure in life is in bitching about the EU. It's great that somebody else is to blame. It means you don't have to think about whether the UK's welfare or education system is part of the problem. Much easier - in the words of MJ Hibbert - "to put the blame on agencies outside ourselves, not to take responsibility for ourselves". (Albeit he was talking about losing weight...)
I think it's more the second factor.
The first would require more strategic thought than the evidence to date suggests they're capable of.
Certainly they fear that a halfway house will never eventually transition to the vision of 1950s restored that they seem to have. But this is as much because it might at some point be reversed, because it isn't working well, as because it'll end up being popular. The hard leavers want to get us beyond the point of no return before the damage being inflicted becomes obvious.
Your second factor is surely right. The only thing worse than not having a dream is having your dream come true, railing against the EU is their life purpose.
Thirdly, it is worth noting that someone like Lilico who declares that we should have remained rather than gomfor a soft Brexit has, in their own mind at least, thereby escaped from taking any responsibility for the downsides of leaving the EU.
From David Cameron, who recklessly gambled his country’s future on a referendum in order to isolate some whingers in his Conservative party, to the opportunistic Boris Johnson, who jumped on the Brexit bandwagon to secure the prime ministerial chair once warmed by his role model Winston Churchill, and the top-hatted, theatrically retro Jacob Rees-Mogg, whose fund management company has set up an office within the European Union even as he vehemently scorns it, the British political class has offered to the world an astounding spectacle of mendacious, intellectually limited hustlers.
It 's a good example of how hard it is to write well about things you hate.
It is also a good example of how a significant percentage of the world sees Britain.
Doubtless they do.
In much the same way that lots of people have outdated stereotypes of other nations.
I've never truly understood the criticism of Britain over partition. Mountbatten tried to avoid it. Jinnah wouldn't have it.
Maybe Congress would have preferred Britain to stay for a further five years to police a benign split but I don't remember much more from them during that period of history other than "Quit India".
It would be interesting to see other PBers scores.
I wasn't asked about Goldsmith!
openness to experience 96 out of 100 Agreeableness 75 out of 100 Conscientiousness 67 out of 100 Negative emotionality 17 out of 100 Extraversion 67 out of 100
All the leavers I've spoke to in the real world (Brexit is getting mentioned plenty!) are well up for no deal
Because they don't understand, don't care, or somehow think they personally will be immune?
A combination of the above, but no question that a lot of the population would vote No Deal, just look at that Derby BBCQT audience.
My original position from immediately post referendum (and TSE has been more consistent on this) was that we needed to do a planned diamond Brexit, or we would have an unplanned diamond Brexit. I came round to the #peoplesvote after last summers demonstration, but am perhaps coming back to my original view.
Britons need to experience what No Deal means in order to appreciate being in the EU. Its a bit like Corbynism, it has to be tried to be defeated. There will be inevitable damage to Britains surviving manufacturing industry, and to financial services, but many sectors will be immune when we adopt our own Juche philosophy.
There was a spontaneous Brexit discussion in the staff room at work this week (I keep my own politics low key there, so was just an observer). Not too heated, but quite a few talking in favour of No Deal. The ethnic minority Leave vote seemed to have shifted, rather frightened by the forces unleashed, and a few former Remainers thinking the humiliation of A50 withdrawal would be too much. There was no real enthusiasm for Leave, or belief that there were any real benefits, more an obstinate determination to stick with it.
On balance: Nothing has changed. My only contribution to lighten the mood was to point out that Remain or No Deal, PM Jezza or Jacob, we were all assured of plenty of work!
Things are getting pretty desperate when people are arguing that we must inflict great damage upon ourselves because the pain will teach us a lesson.
All the leavers I've spoke to in the real world (Brexit is getting mentioned plenty!) are well up for no deal
On the other hand, a good number of those I know who wavered and ultimately went for Remain have contacted me to say they back May's deal, and don't understand why Leavers arent.
No one in the staffroom pop up focus group wanted Mays Deal, it was one pole or the other.
It was the day after it was rejected by a record vote though, so perhaps just a recognition that it is dead, leaving only No Deal and Remain as possibilities.
All the leavers I've spoke to in the real world (Brexit is getting mentioned plenty!) are well up for no deal
On the other hand, a good number of those I know who wavered and ultimately went for Remain have contacted me to say they back May's deal, and don't understand why Leavers arent.
No one in the staffroom pop up focus group wanted Mays Deal, it was one pole or the other.
It was the day after it was rejected by a record vote though, so perhaps just a recognition that it is dead, leaving only No Deal and Remain as possibilities.
I think you get very different response on Brexit when you discuss it in a group as opposed to personally on a 1:1.
It would be interesting to see other PBers scores.
I wasn't asked about Goldsmith!
openness to experience 96 out of 100 Agreeableness 75 out of 100 Conscientiousness 67 out of 100 Negative emotionality 17 out of 100 Extraversion 67 out of 100
So, basically, we're pretty similar, except that - probably just as well in a doctor - you're a little more conscientious than I am.
Are some Brexiteers addicted to disappointment and frustration? Do they so crave the righteous indignation that flows from being thwarted that they are actively trying to sabotage their own project? How else to explain the extraordinary strategic incompetence of Tory MPs who say they want Britain to leave the EU yet behave in a way that makes it increasingly likely that Britain will not do so?
Like I've said, the hard Leavers aren't really serious about Britain leaving.
I've been thinking a lot about this, and I think there are two factors.
1. They think that, as the EU and the UK will continually chafe, that if we don't leave now, we'll leave more utterly and finally at some point in the future. They fear that some kind of halfway house - not that the WA is actually like that, but you can't expect people to read documents - will end up being popular with voters (like the EEA is in Norway), and therefore they want to avoid it at all costs.
2. Sometimes I think they're sole pleasure in life is in bitching about the EU. It's great that somebody else is to blame. It means you don't have to think about whether the UK's welfare or education system is part of the problem. Much easier - in the words of MJ Hibbert - "to put the blame on agencies outside ourselves, not to take responsibility for ourselves". (Albeit he was talking about losing weight...)
I think it's more the second factor.
The first would require more strategic thought than the evidence to date suggests they're capable of.
Certainly they fear that a halfway house will never eventually transition to the vision of 1950s restored that they seem to have. But this is as much because it might at some point be reversed, because it isn't working well, as because it'll end up being popular. The hard leavers want to get us beyond the point of no return before the damage being inflicted becomes obvious.
Your second factor is surely right. The only thing worse than not having a dream is having your dream come true, railing against the EU is their life purpose.
Thirdly, it is worth noting that someone like Lilico who declares that we should have remained rather than gomfor a soft Brexit has, in their own mind at least, thereby escaped from taking any responsibility for the downsides of leaving the EU.
I see it as the basis of a long term consensus that can be built upon, but will be enduring.
I've tired of Andrew Lilico's ravings, which lash out in a multitude of inconsistent directions daily.
All the leavers I've spoke to in the real world (Brexit is getting mentioned plenty!) are well up for no deal
Because they don't understand, don't care, or somehow think they personally will be immune?
A combination of the above, but no question that a lot of the population would vote No Deal, just look at that Derby BBCQT audience.
My original position from immediately post referendum (and TSE has been more consistent on this) was that we needed to do a planned diamond Brexit, or we would have an unplanned diamond Brexit. I came round to the #peoplesvote after last summers demonstration, but am perhaps coming back to my original view.
Britons need to experience what No Deal means in order to appreciate being in the EU. Its a bit like Corbynism, it has to be tried to be defeated. There will be inevitable damage to Britains surviving manufacturing industry, and to financial services, but many sectors will be immune when we adopt our own Juche philosophy.
There was a spontaneous Brexit discussion in the staff room at work this week (I keep my own politics low key there, so was just an observer). Not too heated, but quite a few talking in favour of No Deal. The ethnic minority Leave vote seemed to have shifted, rather frightened by the forces unleashed, and a few former Remainers thinking the humiliation of A50 withdrawal would be too much. There was no real enthusiasm for Leave, or belief that there were any real benefits, more an obstinate determination to stick with it.
On balance: Nothing has changed. My only contribution to lighten the mood was to point out that Remain or No Deal, PM Jezza or Jacob, we were all assured of plenty of work!
Things are getting pretty desperate when people are arguing that we must inflict great damage upon ourselves because the pain will teach us a lesson.
Until our delusions are exposed we can’t move forward as a country. Part of that may well include not being the country we currently are.
All the leavers I've spoke to in the real world (Brexit is getting mentioned plenty!) are well up for no deal
Because they don't understand, don't care, or somehow think they personally will be immune?
A combination of the above, but no question that a lot of the population would vote No Deal, just look at that Derby BBCQT audience.
My original position from immediately post referendum (and TSE has been more consistent on this) was that we needed to do a planned diamond Brexit, or we would have an unplanned diamond Brexit. I came round to the #peoplesvote after last summers demonstration, but am perhaps coming back to my original view.
Britons need to experience what No Deal means in order to appreciate being in the EU. Its a bit like Corbynism, it has to be tried to be defeated. There will be inevitable damage to Britains surviving manufacturing industry, and to financial services, but many sectors will be immune when we adopt our own Juche philosophy.
There was a spontaneous Brexit discussion in the staff room at work this week (I keep my own politics low key there, so was just an observer). Not too heated, but quite a few talking in favour of No Deal. The ethnic minority Leave vote seemed to have shifted, rather frightened by the forces unleashed, and a few former Remainers thinking the humiliation of A50 withdrawal would be too much. There was no real enthusiasm for Leave, or belief that there were any real benefits, more an obstinate determination to stick with it.
On balance: Nothing has changed. My only contribution to lighten the mood was to point out that Remain or No Deal, PM Jezza or Jacob, we were all assured of plenty of work!
Things are getting pretty desperate when people are arguing that we must inflict great damage upon ourselves because the pain will teach us a lesson.
Yes, that is why I came round to the #peoplesvote last summer, but it is why I am fairly relaxed about No Deal. I see people make foolish decisions with their lives every day. Nations resemble people in that they have autonomy, but can also repent and come back to sense.
All the leavers I've spoke to in the real world (Brexit is getting mentioned plenty!) are well up for no deal
On the other hand, a good number of those I know who wavered and ultimately went for Remain have contacted me to say they back May's deal, and don't understand why Leavers arent.
No one in the staffroom pop up focus group wanted Mays Deal, it was one pole or the other.
It was the day after it was rejected by a record vote though, so perhaps just a recognition that it is dead, leaving only No Deal and Remain as possibilities.
I think you get very different response on Brexit when you discuss it in a group as opposed to personally on a 1:1.
At least, that's been my experience.
I stupidly agreed with Kwasi Kwarteng about the deal on Twitter, and got a pile of shit from ardent Remainers and Leavers. Apparently, it was in every way worse than remaining.
Which way? I asked.
The people of Northern Ireland, they responded.
So, I said, you'd be happy if we asked the people of Northern Ireland about the deal?
No, that won't be necessary. It is enough that we in the UK are horrified by the treatment of Northern Ireland, and therefore would rather we either stay in the EU or leave without any kind of agreement whatsoever.
Like I've said, the hard Leavers aren't really serious about Britain leaving.
I've been thinking a lot about this, and I think there are two factors.
1. They think that, as the EU and the UK will continually chafe, that if we don't leave now, we'll leave more utterly and finally at some point in the future. They fear that some kind of halfway house - not that the WA is actually like that, but you can't expect people to read documents - will end up being popular with voters (like the EEA is in Norway), and therefore they want to avoid it at all costs.
2. Sometimes I think they're sole pleasure in life is in bitching about the EU. It's great that somebody else is to blame. It means you don't have to think about whether the UK's welfare or education system is part of the problem. Much easier - in the words of MJ Hibbert - "to put the blame on agencies outside ourselves, not to take responsibility for ourselves". (Albeit he was talking about losing weight...)
I think it's more the second factor.
The first would require more strategic thought than the evidence to date suggests they're capable of.
Certainly they fear that a halfway house will never eventually transition to the vision of 1950s restored that they seem to have. But this is as much because it might at some point be reversed, because it isn't working well, as because it'll end up being popular. The hard leavers want to get us beyond the point of no return before the damage being inflicted becomes obvious.
Your second factor is surely right. The only thing worse than not having a dream is having your dream come true, railing against the EU is their life purpose.
Thirdly, it is worth noting that someone like Lilico who declares that we should have remained rather than gomfor a soft Brexit has, in their own mind at least, thereby escaped from taking any responsibility for the downsides of leaving the EU.
I see it as the basis of a long term consensus that can be built upon, but will be enduring.
I've tired of Andrew Lilico's ravings, which lash out in a multitude of inconsistent directions daily.
May's deal, if we're talking about the political declaration, wouldn't even form a consensus for the duration of the negotiations to turn it into a treaty. All of the essential trade-offs have been deferred.
All the leavers I've spoke to in the real world (Brexit is getting mentioned plenty!) are well up for no deal
On the other hand, a good number of those I know who wavered and ultimately went for Remain have contacted me to say they back May's deal, and don't understand why Leavers arent.
No one in the staffroom pop up focus group wanted Mays Deal, it was one pole or the other.
It was the day after it was rejected by a record vote though, so perhaps just a recognition that it is dead, leaving only No Deal and Remain as possibilities.
I think you get very different response on Brexit when you discuss it in a group as opposed to personally on a 1:1.
At least, that's been my experience.
Yes, there is that.
Our sole remaining Spanish nurse kept quiet throughout, but looked uncomfortable. I later found out she has a flight booked for 30th March to visit her parents in Murcia! She is planning to stick around though for a couple of years at least
I've never truly understood the criticism of Britain over partition. Mountbatten tried to avoid it. Jinnah wouldn't have it.
Maybe Congress would have preferred Britain to stay for a further five years to police a benign split but I don't remember much more from them during that period of history other than "Quit India".
So we did.
I got as far as this:
Prime Minister Theresa May has matched their arrogant obduracy, imposing a patently unworkable timetable of two years on Brexit
Then stopped.
If the writer thinks the two year timetable was May's idea I suspect the rest of the article is equally misinformed....
Comments
A referendum is the last thing Mrs May wants. It might be the last thing she actually does, given her lack of alternatives.
Says it all really. The incompetent leaver can't even get the date right, seems for a nationalist to be entirely ignorant of constitutional history and completely unaware of the UK/Ireland CTA
minutes...
Doubt May supporting one would ever happen though...
Not if any of them watch Question Time, anyway.
That is the attraction to Labour.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/17/just-stop-messing-about-hastings-aghast-at-brexit-impasse
The most pithily eloquent responses come from a man waiting for his wife outside a shop, who declined to give his name but answered a series of quickfire questions.
Theresa May? “She’ll never win anything again.” Jeremy Corbyn? “He’s an arsehole.” Would there be another referendum? “No.” How was it all going to end? “A mess.”...
Lol. Whingers.
Anti EU feeling has been in existence for decades. Largely because a clique of extreme centrists believe in a project without a demos.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
It 's a good example of how hard it is to write well about things you hate.
On the EMA, the Tories are 0,6% ahead of Labour and would be 27 seats short of a majority.
It is also a good example of how a significant percentage of the world sees Britain.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46913477
Doubtless they do.
In much the same way that lots of people have outdated stereotypes of other nations.
Start with the MV result as the baseline, you need a net swing of (432-202)/2 = 115.
SNP 35
LD 11
Plaid 4
Green 1
= 51
Lab endorsers so far per Labour List: 88
Add those together and I get 139.
So if all the Con Deal voters held that's a majority of 24. But in practice you'll lose some of those 200 odd Tories, and gain some of remaining 168 Labour ones. In particular I reckon a lot of Lab MPs, probably including Corbyn, would abstain. I doubt they'd want to be on the end of Remainer anger if their vote saves Brexit, even in strongly Leave seats.
Seems to me like if the Tories whip it it should be quite an easy win, but if "parliament" tries to do it against the opposition of the PM they'll come up short.
Spitfires gunning down the channel dinghies apparently...
Or is the thought that after the election the Tory MPs would say, "Well it was in the manifesto (that everybody knew I was opposed to) so I'll have to vote for it"?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6604879/Boris-makes-dramatic-pitch-Tory-leadership.html
https://twitter.com/ryansabey/status/1074357677717942272
...
What's that? Who? KLOBUCHAR???
https://twitter.com/axios/status/1086122878116999171
Good old Rudi has just blown that up:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/17/giuliani-mueller-collusion-investigation-1110671
And I don’t think he’ll be running for the nomination...
During a CNN interview, President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer blurted out that the only person he knows about who didn’t collude with Russia was Trump himself. Although Giuliani tried to walk back his comments on Thursday, the remarks put the sprawling web of people caught up in special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe on notice: no one is coming to save you.
“Ya think!!!” one former Trump campaign official wrote to POLITICO when asked if Giuliani was trying to protect the president at the expense of everyone who worked for him...
1. They think that, as the EU and the UK will continually chafe, that if we don't leave now, we'll leave more utterly and finally at some point in the future. They fear that some kind of halfway house - not that the WA is actually like that, but you can't expect people to read documents - will end up being popular with voters (like the EEA is in Norway), and therefore they want to avoid it at all costs.
2. Sometimes I think they're sole pleasure in life is in bitching about the EU. It's great that somebody else is to blame. It means you don't have to think about whether the UK's welfare or education system is part of the problem. Much easier - in the words of MJ Hibbert - "to put the blame on agencies outside ourselves, not to take responsibility for ourselves". (Albeit he was talking about losing weight...)
I would have done much better on "respect for others", but it asked me about Zac Goldsmith.
Here's my result: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/personality-quiz/?group=-LWUbpnsPGmGj00hx03A
It would be interesting to see other PBers scores.
And what's this 'tradition' anyway?
Bercow evidently is only selectively in favour of it.
(I don't think it should be blocked for the Grieve shenanigans, which may have been a good decision taken for poor reasons, without thought to the longterm procedural consequences, but for his failure of leadership and complicity in the bullying problem.....and other matters....cough....Vaz....cough....)
My original position from immediately post referendum (and TSE has been more consistent on this) was that we needed to do a planned diamond Brexit, or we would have an unplanned diamond Brexit. I came round to the #peoplesvote after last summers demonstration, but am perhaps coming back to my original view.
Britons need to experience what No Deal means in order to appreciate being in the EU. Its a bit like Corbynism, it has to be tried to be defeated. There will be inevitable damage to Britains surviving manufacturing industry, and to financial services, but many sectors will be immune when we adopt our own Juche philosophy.
There was a spontaneous Brexit discussion in the staff room at work this week (I keep my own politics low key there, so was just an observer). Not too heated, but quite a few talking in favour of No Deal. The ethnic minority Leave vote seemed to have shifted, rather frightened by the forces unleashed, and a few former Remainers thinking the humiliation of A50 withdrawal would be too much. There was no real enthusiasm for Leave, or belief that there were any real benefits, more an obstinate determination to stick with it.
On balance: Nothing has changed. My only contribution to lighten the mood was to point out that Remain or No Deal, PM Jezza or Jacob, we were all assured of plenty of work!
The first would require more strategic thought than the evidence to date suggests they're capable of.
Your second factor is surely right. The only thing worse than not having a dream is having your dream come true, railing against the EU is their life purpose.
Thirdly, it is worth noting that someone like Lilico who declares that we should have remained rather than gomfor a soft Brexit has, in their own mind at least, thereby escaped from taking any responsibility for the downsides of leaving the EU.
In much the same way that lots of people have outdated stereotypes of other nations.
I've never truly understood the criticism of Britain over partition. Mountbatten tried to avoid it. Jinnah wouldn't have it.
Maybe Congress would have preferred Britain to stay for a further five years to police a benign split but I don't remember much more from them during that period of history other than "Quit India".
So we did.
openness to experience
96 out of 100
Agreeableness
75 out of 100
Conscientiousness
67 out of 100
Negative emotionality
17 out of 100
Extraversion
67 out of 100
It was the day after it was rejected by a record vote though, so perhaps just a recognition that it is dead, leaving only No Deal and Remain as possibilities.
At least, that's been my experience.
Are some Brexiteers addicted to disappointment and frustration? Do they so crave the righteous indignation that flows from being thwarted that they are actively trying to sabotage their own project? How else to explain the extraordinary strategic incompetence of Tory MPs who say they want Britain to leave the EU yet behave in a way that makes it increasingly likely that Britain will not do so?
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/brexiteers-are-destroying-their-own-dream/
I've tired of Andrew Lilico's ravings, which lash out in a multitude of inconsistent directions daily.
Which way? I asked.
The people of Northern Ireland, they responded.
So, I said, you'd be happy if we asked the people of Northern Ireland about the deal?
No, that won't be necessary. It is enough that we in the UK are horrified by the treatment of Northern Ireland, and therefore would rather we either stay in the EU or leave without any kind of agreement whatsoever.
It was utterly bizarre.
Our sole remaining Spanish nurse kept quiet throughout, but looked uncomfortable. I later found out she has a flight booked for 30th March to visit her parents in Murcia! She is planning to stick around though for a couple of years at least
Prime Minister Theresa May has matched their arrogant obduracy, imposing a patently unworkable timetable of two years on Brexit
Then stopped.
If the writer thinks the two year timetable was May's idea I suspect the rest of the article is equally misinformed....