politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump is clearing the road to his own impeachment

edmundintokyo said:

Sean_F said:

AnneJGP said:

IanB2 said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1086580985435688960

If Grieve wants to do things like this I really do not know why he does not just quit the whip already to bring down the government, I really don't. As true blue a conservative as he no doubt is, he clearly regards leaving the EU as something that must be stopped by any means necessary. Is hamfisted constitutional meddling which could have vast implications to do that really the best way to do so when he and a few others, which is all it would take, can sacrifice their Tory careers and just bring down the government?

Arcane procedural measures have their place, but this seems like a major shift which they are not thinking about consequences beyond a single vote on a single issue. The man is incredibly reckless and gets away with fanaticism because people agree with him.

The likelihood is that, imaginative (and arguably merited - given the lengths government has gone to to prevent parliament having a say) though this is, it probably would fail. He starts with only a narrow majority based on the anti-no-deal amendments. Whilst I guess he might pick up a few new supporters such as that disgruntled Scottish Tory, he could easily lose support from people worrying about precedent or for whom Grieve's plan is a step too far.

I rather think I've seen enough and had enough.

I'm a life-long 'duty' voter and have always voted for someone even when my preferred choice doesn't have an earthly chance of winning.

What we now have is a Parliament full of people who voted to give the general population a choice; voted to implement what the population (narrowly) chose to do; and now are trying every wheeze they can come up with to make sure that the population's narrow choice was nugatory.

I'd have accepted Mrs May's deal, although I think the way the government have handled this has been dreadful.

If the HoP really do find a way to reverse the decision they voted to allow and to implement, I'm very close to a resolution never, ever, to waste my time voting again.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Sadly, they would be very happy if you and millions of others did so.

Definitely. Civic participation is nice but voting is a powerful weapon, and these people wielding it isn't harmless. It actively reduces other people's freedom. If people who want to use the government to commit harm to other people stop doing that, it's a huge benefit.

Sadly she's almost definitely bluffing.

By definition, if there 's a vote on anything, the losing side will think they have been harmed.

Stark_Dawning said:

I like the Bush-41 and Bush-43 nomenclature. Is that an existing convention or did David invent it?

Existing nomenclature. They had caps made with the numbers on.

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/EFK652/us-president-george-w-bush-sits-in-a-golf-cart-with-his-father-former-EFK652.jpg

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Cyclefree said:

Chris said:

Casino_Royale said:

Danny565 said:

edmundintokyo said:

Danny565 said:

Cyclefree said:

A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.

If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.

Stop all this faffing about.

But do you really think another referendum would go any differently to last time?

In any case, given May's deal is dead, I would've thought if there was to be one then the choices would be Remain v No Deal -- even some of the "People's Vote" people like Chuka Umunna have admitted that.

TMay's deal is dead because she can't get it through parliament. A quid pro quo with the parliamentary Remainiacs that gives them a second referendum in return gets it through parliament. So one way or another, it solves the problem.

I think Remain would likely beat Deal (or No Deal for that matter) but it could go either way. But whichever way a Remain vs Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.

Well, OK - if May proposes a Deal v Remain referendum, I'dendum taking place).

Somehow, I just don't see how "No Deal" is kept off the ballot in a new vote, though.

I'm coming round to this idea too. I see no other way out.

The trouble is, for any way out, there's a reason why it's impossible.

Having a referendum with "No Deal" excluded would split the Tory party.

A referendum requires an extension to Article 50 which requires the unanimous consent of the other EU states. They will have a say on what is on the ballot paper, like it or not.

"Take Back Control" ..etc......

With the greatest of respect the EU cannot decide the questions.

That is a decision for the HOC and electoral commission

Indeed I doubt they would attempt to interfere in something as controversial as this

Indirectly, they have all the power.

They decide whether to grant the extension needed to have the referendum. They will ask: why do you need it? Answer: a referendum. Question: what will be on the ballot?

If they don't like the answer to that, no extension. No extension. No referendum.

There is only one option where Parliament has total control without requiring the EU's consent: revocation of Article 50.

I don't think the EU are terribly bothered about a No Deal Brexit (perhaps they ought to be) so I wouldn't see that as a sticking point.

SunnyJim said:

One of the aspects of the current impasse I find most disappointing is the craven cowardice of the majority of remainer mp's.

They are looking for May to make the decision that will lead to the Brexit result being over-turned rather than forcing it themselves and having to take the consequences.

Centuries of democratic convention are being subverted for a very short term political issue which diminishes parliament and makes us little better than a 3rd world tinpot country.

Many remainers should be ashamed of themselves.

Eh? May has control of the agenda, and has gone out of her way from the outset to try and prevent MPs from having a say. As we speak they are finalising a way to try and wrest some control back from her so that they can do what you say.

williamglenn said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Casino_Royale said:

Danny565 said:

edmundintokyo said:

Danny565 said:

Cyclefree said:

A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.

If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.

Stop all this faffing about.

But do you really think another referendum would go any differently to last time?

In any case, given May's deal is dead, I would've thought if there was to be one then the choices would be Remain v No Deal -- even some of the "People's Vote" people like Chuka Umunna have admitted that.

TMay's deal is dead because she can't get it through parliament. A quid pro quo with the parliamentary Remainiacs that gives them a second referendum in return gets it through parliament. So one way or another, it solves the problem.

I think Remain would likely beat Deal (or No Deal for that matter) but it could go either way. But whichever way a Remain vs Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.

Well, OK - if May proposes a Deal v Remain referendum, I'd be happy with that since either option seems palatable to me personally (plus, from the selfish partisan point, May being the one to propose it reduces the chances of Leave voters blaming Labour exclusively for a referendum taking place).

Somehow, I just don't see how "No Deal" is kept off the ballot in a new vote, though.

I'm coming round to this idea too. I see no other way out.

Parliament will otherwise find a way to unilaterally revoke Brexit, which will be terrible for our democracy, or we'll crash out, in which case we'll have nasty economic turbulence, the fall of the Government, full Corbyn socialism, and then re-joining in prompt order on full terms, including a commitment to join the euro.

Remain cannot be on the ballot paper because it was rejected in the first referendum.
No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper because it would cause economic chaos.
Deal cannot be on the ballot paper because it is "dead" after a decisive rejection in the "meaningful vote".
What was the question, again?

Cameron’s deal was rejected. If he hadn’t gone through the renegotiation, a meaningful number of Conservatives would never have jumped ship to back Leave.

You may have a point. Leave were very clever in stirring up rabid, bulging-eyed condemnation of Dave's Deal. As such, a huge part of the campaign became about humiliating the PM by giving him an E minus for his paltry efforts. Perhaps Dave was guilty of complicating matters. 'Just carry on as usual' may have had a far greater pull.

paulyork64 said:

Nigelb said:

On topic, the better bet, if you are so inclined, is for Trump not to get the nomination. Similar odds to the other two, but covers more eventualities (and is arguably more likely).

isnt it possible for him to be impeached but also win the nomination?

Yes, contrary to others on here, Trump to get the nomination is a great bet in my opinion.

I've put £50 more up to be laid by others if anyone wants it...

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

In principle, it would be straightforward to have a No Deal referendum.

The question would be along the lines "Do you wish Parliament to legislate for the UK to remain within the European Union.

Yes/No."

What do you think is the way out, Sean?

I wish I knew.

On reflection, I think I'd offer an indicative free vote on Leave with deal, leave without deal, EFTA/EEA, Remain to the Commons. If most decide on Remain, so be it. They can own it.

Thanks.

edmundintokyo said:

Sean_F said:

AnneJGP said:

IanB2 said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1086580985435688960

If Grieve wants to do things like this I really do not know why he does not just quit the whip already to bring down the government, I really don't. As true blue a conservative as he no doubt is, he clearly regards leaving the EU as something that must be stopped by any means necessary. Is hamfisted constitutional meddling which could have vast implications to do that really the best way to do so when he and a few others, which is all it would take, can sacrifice their Tory careers and just bring down the government?

Arcane procedural measures have their place, but this seems like a major shift which they are not thinking about consequences beyond a single vote on a single issue. The man is incredibly reckless and gets away with fanaticism because people agree with him.

The likelihood is that, imaginative (and arguably merited - given the lengths government has gone to to prevent parliament having a say) though this is, it probably would fail. He starts with only a narrow majority based on the anti-no-deal amendments. Whilst I guess he might pick up a few new supporters such as that disgruntled Scottish Tory, he could easily lose support from people worrying about precedent or for whom Grieve's plan is a step too far.

I rather think I've seen enough and had enough.

I'm a life-long 'duty' voter and have always voted for someone even when my preferred choice doesn't have an earthly chance of winning.

What we now have is a Parliament full of people who voted to give the general population a choice; voted to implement what the population (narrowly) chose to do; and now are trying every wheeze they can come up with to make sure that the population's narrow choice was nugatory.

I'd have accepted Mrs May's deal, although I think the way the government have handled this has been dreadful.

If the HoP really do find a way to reverse the decision they voted to allow and to implement, I'm very close to a resolution never, ever, to waste my time voting again.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Sadly, they would be very happy if you and millions of others did so.

Definitely. Civic participation is nice but voting is a powerful weapon, and these people wielding it isn't harmless. It actively reduces other people's freedom. If people who want to use the government to commit harm to other people stop doing that, it's a huge benefit.

Sadly she's almost definitely bluffing.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how Western democracy ends.

I still think all the talk of a 2nd referendum is an unhelpful distraction. Even if Corbyn changes his mind, May won't, and there aren't the numbers in parliament to push one through.

If we come back to what May's going to do on Monday, there seem to be two possibilties. The most obvious is No Change, and tally ho! on to the re-vote on the Withdrawal Agreement on the following Monday. She knows this is a forlorn endeavour but I think she feels she has to give it one more go; the alternatives are almost too awful for her to contemplate.

The second possibility is to give in to the inevitable and postpone A50. If she doesn't do this eventually her Remainer rebels will bring her government down. Only by postponing A50 is there any possibility of having enough time to recast the WA so that either her rebels or Labour will support it. In the end, I think that if her govt is to survive she will actually have to *revoke* A50 and wait until the backstop issue has been dealt with before invoking it again. if she doesn't, she (or the govt) won't last till the summer.

Stark_Dawning said:

williamglenn said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Casino_Royale said:

Danny565 said:

edmundintokyo said:

Danny565 said:

Cyclefree said:

A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.

If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.

Stop all this faffing about.

But do you really think another referendum would go any differently to last time?

In any case, given May's deal is dead, I would've thought if there was to be one then the choices would be Remain v No Deal -- even some of the "People's Vote" people like Chuka Umunna have admitted that.

TMay's deal is dead

I think Remain would likely beat Deal (or No Deal for that matter) but it could go either way. But whichever way a Remain vs Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.

Well, OK - if May proposes a Deal v Remain referendum, I'd be happy with that since either option seems palatable to me personally (plus, from the selfish partisan point, May being the one to propose it reduces the chances of Leave voters blaming Labour exclusively for a referendum taking place).

Somehow, I just don't see how "No Deal" is kept off the ballot in a new vote, though.

I'm coming round to this idea too. I see no other way out.

Parliament will otherwise find a way to unilaterally revoke Brexit, which will be terrible for our democracy, or we'll crash out, in which case we'll have nasty economic turbulence, the fall of the Government, full Corbyn socialism, and then re-joining in prompt order on full terms, including a commitment to join the euro.

Remain cannot be on the ballot paper because it was rejected in the first referendum.
No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper because it would cause economic chaos.
Deal cannot be on the ballot paper because it is "dead" after a decisive rejection in the "meaningful vote".
What was the question, again?

Cameron’s deal was rejected. If he hadn’t gone through the renegotiation, a meaningful number of Conservatives would never have jumped ship to back Leave.

You may have a point. Leave were very clever in stirring up rabid, bulging-eyed condemnation of Dave's Deal. As such, a huge part of the campaign became about humiliating the PM by giving him an E minus for his paltry efforts. Perhaps Dave was guilty of complicating matters. 'Just carry on as usual' may have had a far greater pull.

Leading Leavers' core competence is trashing stuff. They have had a lifetime of practice.

Casino_Royale said:

edmundintokyo said:

Sean_F said:

AnneJGP said:

IanB2 said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1086580985435688960

If Grieve wants to do things like this I really do not know why he does not just quit the whip already to bring down the government, I really don't. As true blue a conservative as he no doubt is, he clearly regards leaving the EU as something that must be stopped by any means necessary. Is hamfisted constitutional meddling which could have vast implications to do that really the best way to do so when he and a few others, which is all it would take, can sacrifice their Tory careers and just bring is incredibly reckless and gets away with fanaticism because people agree with him.

The likelihood is that, imaginative (and arguably merited - given the lengths government has gone to to prevent parliament having a say) though this is, it probably would fail. He starts with only a narrow majority based on the anti-no-deal amendments. Whilst I guess he might pick up a few new supporters such as that disgruntled Scottish Tory, he could easily lose support from people worrying about precedent or for whom Grieve's plan is a step too far.

I rather think I've seen enough and had enough.

I'm a life-long 'duty' voter and have always voted for some my preferred choice doesn't have an earthly chance of winning.

What we now have is a Parliament full of people who voted to give the general population a choice; voted to implement what the population (narrowly) chose to do; and now are trying every wheeze they can come up with to make sure that the population's narrow choice was nugatory.

I'd have accepted Mrs May's deal, although I think the way the government have handled this has been dreadful.

If the HoP really do find a way to reverse the decision they voted to allow and to implement, I'm very close to a resolution never, ever, to waste my time voting again.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Sadly, they would be very happy if you and millions of others did so.

Definitely. Civic participation is nice but voting is a powerful weapon, and these people wielding it isn't harmless. It actively reduces other people's freedom. If people who want to use the government to commit harm to other people stop doing that, it's a huge benefit.

Sadly she's almost definitely bluffing.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how Western democracy ends.

There have always been excellent arguments against democracy. It just that the alternatives lead to worse outcomes.

Pulpstar said:

rottenborough said:

Pulpstar said:

I can't begin to describe my contempt for Grieve's plans. Nevertheless they'll work so I've shifted my pension more to UK rather than global.

Blimey, risking pension investments on the Grieve amendment.

Brave.

Even if we leave without a deal, sterling tanking should mean the FTSE heads up. If we remain the FTSE heads up. It's barely gone anywhere in the last 5 years and I think there's value whatever happens quite honestly.

I agree at the FTSE level but the FTSE would head up for different reasons in those two scenarios so it is important which shares you choose.

Sterling tanking helps international shares like GSK whose earnings are mainly in dollars but domestic shares would suffer. Remaining helps mainly domestic shares like Barratts housebuilders and GSK would suffer from strong sterling. So it's not simple.

kle4 said:

Democracy is going to take a back seat. It's a parliamentary fight, and parliament won't include no deal, end of, and will insist on remain, end of. They are no doubt rightly confident that as they will all have done it, no single party will be punished for it at a GE.

Of course, that assumes present stumbling blocks to a referendum can be overcome, which is not certain, but wrangling over the question will see the above occur. If people don't like it they'll have to vote for someone other than every party in the commons.

Neither of the main parties stood on a manifesto of blocking BREXIT, quite the opposite. Excluding a larger proportion of the winning vote but letting the losers on ballot would not be the end of it. Do you think our democracy would survive such a thing.

Im a passive guy in his 40s but even I would be willing to take part in some kind of non violent civil disobedience even if it means a couple of years inside as a concequence. What other alternative do I have once my vote has been taken? I can guarantee you a lot of less passive people than me feel a lot stronger.

viewcode said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

rottenborough said:

Pulpstar said:

I can't begin to describe my contempt for Grieve's plans. Nevertheless they'll work so I've shifted my pension more to UK rather than global.

Blimey, risking pension investments on the Grieve amendment.

Brave.

Even if we leave without a deal, sterling tanking should mean the FTSE heads up. If we remain the FTSE heads up. It's barely gone anywhere in the last 5 years and I think there's value whatever happens quite honestly.

I've bet on No Deal not so much as a political bet but as good value insurance. It's approaching 5/1 in places, which is insane.

I looked at this on Thursday. SkyBet and BetVictor(?) were offering 4/1 on No Deal but unfortunately they're online-only accounts and I don't do online-only (see previous posts). But Ladbrokes/Coral (which are high-street shops) do offer odds, which unfortunately is more restricted - 5/2 on NoDeal AND leaving by April 1st. Still worth it on insurance grounds, IMHO.

paddys are offering 7/2 we leave with no deal on 30/03. That's the online price but I suspect it will be available in their shops if you have one near.

edmundintokyo said:

Sean_F said:

By definition, if there 's a vote on anything, the losing side will think they have been harmed.

Well, they'll think *someone* has been harmed, or not helped.

But I wonder whether we disagree in principle here, or just in the type and degree of harm. People often do the thought experiment about going back in time and killing Hitler. But what if you could go back to 1933 and confuse Nazi voters about the location of their nearest polling station? I think that would actually be preferable to killing Hitler.

If I'm right, the question about whether we'd rather AnneJGP didn't vote is just a question about how harmful the British far right parties are. (Apologies of I've got her confused with someone else.)

I know people sometimes say these people will do more harm if they use violence instead of voting, but if they can get the state to use violence that's far more terrifying than if they have to do it themselves - the state is far more organized and better armed.

I could be wrong, but I don't think she is involved with any extreme party.

Counter -factuals are always difficult, but the KPD or German nationalists might have been just as bad as the Nazis,

Sean_F said:

viewcode said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

rottenborough said:

Pulpstar said:

I can't begin to describe my contempt for Grieve's plans. Nevertheless they'll work so I've shifted my pension more to UK rather than global.

Blimey, risking pension investments on the Grieve amendment.

Brave.

Even if we leave without a deal, sterling tanking should mean the FTSE heads up. If we remain the FTSE heads up. It's barely gone anywhere in the last 5 years and I think there's value whatever happens quite honestly.

I've bet on No Deal not so much as a political bet but as good value insurance. It's approaching 5/1 in places, which is insane.

I looked at this on Thursday. SkyBet and BetVictor(?) were offering 4/1 on No Deal but unfortunately they're online-only accounts and I don't do online-only (see previous posts). But Ladbrokes/Coral (which are high-street shops) do offer odds, which unfortunately is more restricted - 5/2 on NoDeal AND leaving by April 1st. Still worth it on insurance grounds, IMHO.

This is people betting with their hearts. The chance of No Deal must be better than 16.67%.

People will be betting on no deal as insurance rather than with their hearts. I'm tempted myself to hedge my UK equity position. That depresses the odds on No Deal so the implied 16.67% is probably an over estimate.

Stark_Dawning said:

When No Deal happens and its catastrophic effects are present for all to see, how will the Ultras explain them? I predict four approaches to be used in parallel:

They aren't happening. It's just the Elite and their media chums making stuff up.

They are happening but would have happened anyway.

They are happening and are the consequence of Remainers/the EU/not listening to DD.

They are happening but this is precisely what people voted for and it will prove good for us in the long term.

The risks of No Deal Brexit have been so ramped up that they would probably say it was a fuss about nothing.

I think there are many ways that a no deal Brexit would be a pain the arse, which Robert Smithson has detailed, but they'd take time to emerge.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Caroline Flint's article in today's Guardian should be read to see just why a referendum will not happen

Pity that Starmer is still clinging on to his hope to see one, but labour are not going to vote for it. It looks as if there are as many labour mps against as in favour and if you add that to the overwhelming conservative mps who are opposed, it just does not have the numbers

On that reading of Caroline's article we can take a second referendum of the table

The logic of that is deal - no deal - revoke

I would prefer if both main party leaders , would let their MPs have a free vote on any proposals put forward.
However can not see it happening as they both seem stuck in their current positions.

Chris said:

SeanT said:

Pulpstar said:

rottenborough said:

Pulpstar said:

I can't begin to describe my contempt for Grieve's plans. Nevertheless they'll work so I've shifted my pension more to UK rather than global.

Blimey, risking pension investments on the Grieve amendment.

Brave.

Even if we leave without a deal, sterling tanking should mean the FTSE heads up. If we remain the FTSE heads up. It's barely gone anywhere in the last 5 years and I think there's value whatever happens quite honestly.

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

In principle, it would be straightforward to have a No Deal referendum.

The question would be along the lines "Do you wish Parliament to legislate for the UK to remain within the European Union.

Yes/No."

What do you think is the way out, Sean?

I wish I knew.

On reflection, I think I'd offer an indicative free vote on Leave with deal, leave without deal, EFTA/EEA, Remain to the Commons. If most decide on Remain, so be it. They can own it.

That’s what I was suggesting on PB months ago. It is the obvious choice. A free vote. Every MP will have to answer to his or her conscience, and his or her constituency. Let parliament decide, and if they decide to Remain they can deal with the backlash.

It sounds one of the more sensible options. But if May adopted that approach and ended up with a decision supported mainly by the opposition parties and opposed by most of her own party, that could still be fatal for her and the party.

If the 2/3 of Tories who do not want no deal want to prevent it, their time in government may be the price. That's rough on them, but they talk up a good game on national interest, well they have to play that game too.

LordWakefield said:

kle4 said:

Democracy is going to take a back seat. It's a parliamentary fight, and parliament won't include no deal, end of, and will insist on remain, end of. They are no doubt rightly confident that as they will all have done it, no single party will be punished for it at a GE.

Of course, that assumes present stumbling blocks to a referendum can be overcome, which is not certain, but wrangling over the question will see the above occur. If people don't like it they'll have to vote for someone other than every party in the commons.

Neither of the main parties stood on a manifesto of blocking BREXIT, quite the opposite. Excluding a larger proportion of the winning vote but letting the losers on ballot would not be the end of it. Do you think our democracy would survive such a thing.

Im a passive guy in his 40s but even I would be willing to take part in some kind of non violent civil disobedience even if it means a couple of years inside as a concequence. What other alternative do I have once my vote has been taken? I can guarantee you a lot of less passive people than me feel a lot stronger.

I believe it. I just don't believe there'll be enough of that. There'll be plenty of even more passive people who thought parliament would find a way to block things, and were proven right, so what's the bloody point?

Stark_Dawning said:

When No Deal happens and its catastrophic effects are present for all to see, how will the Ultras explain them? I predict four approaches to be used in parallel:

They aren't happening. It's just the Elite and their media chums making stuff up.

They are happening but would have happened anyway.

They are happening and are the consequence of Remainers/the EU/not listening to DD.

They are happening but this is precisely what people voted for and it will prove good for us in the long term.

The issue will be that the really pernicious effects - businesses folding, or relocating - will take months to work through to the published data - and therefore the judgement as to whether there has been damage or not will rest principally on the impact during the first few weeks. If our motorways are full of queuing lorries and the rest, it will quickly be seen as a disaster regardless of the medium term economic impact and, conversely, if the world appears to be carrying on normally into April people will decide it has been relatively benign even if beneath the radar our economy is slowly sinking beneath the waves.

Theuniondivvie said:

https://twitter.com/ProfChalmers/status/1086575260521152518

Well, for one thing people haven't forgotten, for two its hardly the only time Abbot had such an incident, and she's also a lot more aggressive and, quite reasonably and proudly, even more partisan than most MPs, so far less likely to get any charitable understanding when she would never, ever, in a million years, extend the same courtesy. It's quite possible that she takes a lot of unearned shit, which she does, while still earning plenty of shit, which she does.

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

https://twitter.com/ProfChalmers/status/1086575260521152518

Abbott has become a figure of fun. However I have no truck with those who claim that the contempt and vitriol that comes her way is because she is black or because she is a woman. That is nonsense. It is because she is both of those things at the same time.

Surely it is because she is dramatically under-equipped for the senior position she now holds?

Sean_F said:

Stark_Dawning said:

When No Deal happens and its catastrophic effects are present for all to see, how will the Ultras explain them? I predict four approaches to be used in parallel:

They aren't happening. It's just the Elite and their media chums making stuff up.

They are happening but would have happened anyway.

They are happening and are the consequence of Remainers/the EU/not listening to DD.

They are happening but this is precisely what people voted for and it will prove good for us in the long term.

The risks of No Deal Brexit have been so ramped up that they would probably say it was a fuss about nothing.

I think there are many ways that a no deal Brexit would be a pain the arse, which Robert Smithson has detailed, but they'd take time to emerge.

We don't know whether the risks have been overestimated or underestimated.

Given the chaos that can be caused to our infrastructure by quite a small amount of disruption, I find it quite believable that the risks are huge. If people really want No Deal, I think we have the right to expect at least that it will be planned for as well as is possible. I don't believe for a moment that that's been done.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Cyclefree said:

Chris said:

Casino_Royale said:

Danny565 said:

edmundintokyo said:

Danny565 said:

Cyclefree said:

With the greatest of respect the EU cannot decide the questions.

That is a decision for the HOC and electoral commission

Indeed I doubt they would attempt to interfere in something as controversial as this

Indirectly, they have all the power.

They decide whether to grant the extension needed to have the referendum. They will ask: why do you need it? Answer: a referendum. Question: what will be on the ballot?

If they don't like the answer to that, no extension. No extension. No referendum.

There is only one option where Parliament has total control without requiring the EU's consent: revocation of Article 50.

I would suggest the question on the ballot will follow the approval from the EU

The timetable produced by the government yesterday showed the legal process a referendum would go through extending over 12 months. Now that timescale seems too long but the decision and the questions and the wording are recommended by the electoral commission some weeks later

Therefore when requesting an extension the wording would be unknown

I may be wrong but the EU are not going to grant an extension for a referendum on some unknown question which does not resolve issues for them. Why should they? They will think of their own best interests. And they want certainty.

We may not like it but we won't have control over this. Wishing it weren't so, saying this is not how things should be, this is not how things were last time is not going to change the brutal realities we face now. Apart from one choice, everything we do from now on it is dependant on others - and they will have their own interests and price. Time for Britain to face up to this fact instead of believing what it would like to be true.

paulyork64 said:

Nigelb said:

On topic, the better bet, if you are so inclined, is for Trump not to get the nomination. Similar odds to the other two, but covers more eventualities (and is arguably more likely).

isnt it possible for him to be impeached but also win the nomination?

Not if he is successfully impeached - the penalty would be exclusion from office.

The Mueller investigation statement on the Buzzfeed story is interesting. Rather than denying it outright, they called it inaccurate.
They rarely comment on anything, and also it’s pretty certain that whatever leak lay behind it, it wasn’t from Mueller’s team, which simply doesn’t leak. Most likely source is the SDNY attorney’s office, which is reputedly leak prone.

Chris said:

Sean_F said:

Stark_Dawning said:

When No Deal happens and its catastrophic effects are present for all to see, how will the Ultras explain them? I predict four approaches to be used in parallel:

They aren't happening. It's just the Elite and their media chums making stuff up.

They are happening but would have happened anyway.

They are happening and are the consequence of Remainers/the EU/not listening to DD.

They are happening but this is precisely what people voted for and it will prove good for us in the long term.

The risks of No Deal Brexit have been so ramped up that they would probably say it was a fuss about nothing.

I think there are many ways that a no deal Brexit would be a pain the arse, which Robert Smithson has detailed, but they'd take time to emerge.

We don't know whether the risks have been overestimated or underestimated.

Given the chaos that can be caused to our infrastructure by quite a small amount of disruption, I find it quite believable that the risks are huge. If people really want No Deal, I think we have the right to expect at least that it will be planned for as well as is possible. I don't believe for a moment that that's been done.

Brexit is expensive enough without the government having to waste billions of our taxes on planning for a range of possibilities. May is acting irresponsibly by not postponing or revoking A50 until a withdrawal agreement is, um, agreed.

Barnesian said:

I agree at the FTSE level but the FTSE would head up for different reasons in those two scenarios so it is important which shares you choose.

Sterling tanking helps international shares like GSK whose earnings are mainly in dollars but domestic shares would suffer. Remaining helps mainly domestic shares like Barratts housebuilders and GSK would suffer from strong sterling. So it's not simple.

There is also a less technical reason why a fall in sterling boosts the footsie.

If the £ falls it makes UK shares cheaper - thus a more attractive buy - to international 'citizens of nowhere' investors.

Similar to the London prime property market. A cheap £ makes that Knightsbridge stucco villa more affordable to a wealthy overseas buyer and therefore boosts its price - or mitigates the fall of it in a bear market.

SeanT said:

kle4 said:

SeanT said:

I think, with respect, this is nonsense. A lot of Europeans - not least the Irish - are genuinely horrified at the idea of No Deal. They think it could lead to a chain reaction of economic negatives, becoming deep recessions continent-wide. Plus it will reflect very badly on the Eurocrats themselves. Their agenda has always been to make Brexit so bad we will change our minds and Remain. It never occurred to them we might actually crash out.

That was incredibly arrogant and silly of them then.

I believe they think no deal is bad, but like many in our own parliament not as bad as they are saying they think it is. If they believed it to be all that bad they'd do something more to prevent it. Never occurring we might crash out was an excuse 2 years ago, not now. It is very possible (though I'd say not quite as likely as remain), the EU are not fools and they can surely see that. They have chosen to offer nothing more, and that's their prerogative, but the cannot pretend to not now know it might really happen.

This is reliably sourced, and apparently true


https://twitter.com/moutet/status/1086365841157963778?s=21

Yet the deal really isn't that hard - which is actually a credit to Mrs M's efforts in negotiating, if not in selling. The problem is that a significant proportion of her own party is pre-programmed to oppose anything that involves interacting with the our European neighbours.

Nigelb said:

paulyork64 said:

Nigelb said:

On topic, the better bet, if you are so inclined, is for Trump not to get the nomination. Similar odds to the other two, but covers more eventualities (and is arguably more likely).

isnt it possible for him to be impeached but also win the nomination?

Not if he is successfully impeached - the penalty would be exclusion from office.

The Mueller investigation statement on the Buzzfeed story is interesting. Rather than denying it outright, they called it inaccurate.
They rarely comment on anything, and also it’s pretty certain that whatever leak lay behind it, it wasn’t from Mueller’s team, which simply doesn’t leak. Most likely source is the SDNY attorney’s office, which is reputedly leak prone.

The Special Counsel is likely to be concerned that the House committees might act prematurely, they don't want them crashing about all over the place when the investigation is still continuing. We will see a lot of this sort of thing over the next few months.

SeanT said:

kle4 said:

SeanT said:

I think, with respect, this is nonsense. A lot of Europeans - not least the Irish - are genuinely horrified at the idea of No Deal. They think it could lead to a chain reaction of economic negatives, becoming deep recessions continent-wide. Plus it will reflect very badly on the Eurocrats themselves. Their agenda has always been to make Brexit so bad we will change our minds and Remain. It never occurred to them we might actually crash out.

That was incredibly arrogant and silly of them then.

I believe they think no deal is bad, but like many in our own parliament not as bad as they are saying they think it is. If they believed it to be all that bad they'd do something more to prevent it. Never occurring we might crash out was an excuse 2 years ago, not now. It is very possible (though I'd say not quite as likely as remain), the EU are not fools and they can surely see that. They have chosen to offer nothing more, and that's their prerogative, but the cannot pretend to not now know it might really happen.

This is reliably sourced, and apparently true


https://twitter.com/moutet/status/1086365841157963778?s=21

So why did our lot let him run rings around us and succeed in his aim? I thought your source 'high up in the Leave campaign' was confident that our guys were the dog's.

Dura_Ace said:

IanB2 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1086580985435688960

kudos to him for being able to come up with this.

Grieve is turning into Doctor Manhatten.

The image of a naked blue Dominic Grieve is more than a little disturbing...

Nigelb said:

paulyork64 said:

Nigelb said:

On topic, the better bet, if you are so inclined, is for Trump not to get the nomination. Similar odds to the other two, but covers more eventualities (and is arguably more likely).

isnt it possible for him to be impeached but also win the nomination?

Not if he is successfully impeached - the penalty would be exclusion from office.

The Mueller investigation statement on the Buzzfeed story is interesting. Rather than denying it outright, they called it inaccurate.
They rarely comment on anything, and also it’s pretty certain that whatever leak lay behind it, it wasn’t from Mueller’s team, which simply doesn’t leak. Most likely source is the SDNY attorney’s office, which is reputedly leak prone.

I think if you're backing the impeachment market you need to know whether it pays out on charges being brought or successfully concluded. I think it has to be the former. I think the Republican Senate might protect him in any case but not standing again might be the price for that support.

I'm currently trying to establish whether the 9/1 Paddy's are offering the he has a US Navy ship named after him has to happen while he is president (it's listed under Trump Narcissism Specials). I don't think they name ships after presidents still in office but it might happen. Although there is still no USS Richard Nixon so I might be waiting a long time.

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Cyclefree said:

Chris said:

Casino_Royale said:

Danny565 said:

edmundintokyo said:

Danny565 said:

Cyclefree said:

With the greatest of respect the EU cannot decide the questions.

That is a decision for the HOC and electoral commission

Indeed I doubt they would attempt to interfere in something as controversial as this

Indirectly, they have all the power.

They decide whether to grant the extension needed to have the referendum. They will ask: why do you need it? Answer: a referendum. Question: what will be on the ballot?

If they don't like the answer to that, no extension. No extension. No referendum.

There is only one option where Parliament has total control without requiring the EU's consent: revocation of Article 50.

I would suggest the question on the ballot will follow the approval from the EU

The timetable produced by the government yesterday showed the legal process a referendum would go through extending over 12 months. Now that timescale seems too long but the decision and the questions and the wording are recommended by the electoral commission some weeks later

Therefore when requesting an extension the wording would be unknown

I may be wrong but the EU are not going to grant an extension for a referendum on some unknown question which does not resolve issues for them. Why should they? They will think of their own best interests. And they want certainty.

We may not like it but we won't have control over this. Wishing it weren't so, saying this is not how things should be, this is not how things were last time is not going to change the brutal realities we face now. Apart from one choice, everything we do from now on it is dependant on others - and they will have their own interests and price. Time for Britain to face up to this fact instead of believing what it would like to be true.

I think I may just have to disagree with you which is not very often by the way

glw said:

Nigelb said:

paulyork64 said:

Nigelb said:

On topic, the better bet, if you are so inclined, is for Trump not to get the nomination. Similar odds to the other two, but covers more eventualities (and is arguably more likely).

isnt it possible for him to be impeached but also win the nomination?

Not if he is successfully impeached - the penalty would be exclusion from office.

The Mueller investigation statement on the Buzzfeed story is interesting. Rather than denying it outright, they called it inaccurate.
They rarely comment on anything, and also it’s pretty certain that whatever leak lay behind it, it wasn’t from Mueller’s team, which simply doesn’t leak. Most likely source is the SDNY attorney’s office, which is reputedly leak prone.

The Special Counsel is likely to be concerned that the House committees might act prematurely, they don't want them crashing about all over the place when the investigation is still continuing. We will see a lot of this sort of thing over the next few months.

Agreed.

When May comes back on Monday with a plan of 'I'll talk some more to the EU' I think I may scream. Have any of the sides made any progress? Every time there's a report of movement up pops the DUP to deny it, the ERG to hit the roof, the Cabinet remainers saying they'll resign, Labour stonewalling. Such a waste.

Theuniondivvie said:

kle4 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

https://twitter.com/ProfChalmers/status/1086575260521152518

Well, for one thing people haven't forgotten, for two its hardly the only time Abbot had such an incident, and she'll also a lot more aggressive and, quite reasonable and proudly, even more partisan than most MPs, so far less likely to get any charitable understanding when she would never, ever, in a million years, extend the same courtesy. It's quite possible that she takes a lot of unearned shit, which she does, while still earning plenty of shit.

Personally if someone gets a ton of unearned racist & sexist shit, I'd be pretty fasdtidious about flinging more, earned or not.

What a peculiar attitude. Essentially give someone a pass because they also face unearned crap? We should all welcome getting such crap on that basis, because then how dare people criticise us.

It is very easy to criticise people without even getting close to racist and sexist about it. That's all people have to do. Not stop with the criticism because you don't want to be in the same company of racists and sexists.

That's as silly as people liking something purely on the basis it upsets those they dislike.

notme2 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

https://twitter.com/ProfChalmers/status/1086575260521152518

The whataboutery fairy has been busy.

For those of us unaware, what was the statistic that Stewart apparently made up ?

(FWIW, I think some of the difference in treatment between the two of them is probably down to most people having no idea who Rory the Tory is.)

kle4 said:

When May comes back on Monday with a plan of 'I'll talk some more to the EU' I think I may scream. Have any of the sides made any progress? Every time there's a report of movement up pops the DUP to deny it, the ERG to hit the roof, the Cabinet remainers saying they'll resign, Labour stonewalling. Such a waste.

The frustration is all consumimg but we have a date and decisions have to be made or out we go on the 29th March. It may go all the way down to the wire so another 9 weeks or so

kle4 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kle4 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

https://twitter.com/ProfChalmers/status/1086575260521152518

Well, for one thing people haven't forgotten, for two its hardly the only time Abbot had such an incident, and she'll also a lot more aggressive and, quite reasonable and proudly, even more partisan than most MPs, so far less likely to get any charitable understanding when she would never, ever, in a million years, extend the same courtesy. It's quite possible that she takes a lot of unearned shit, which she does, while still earning plenty of shit.

Personally if someone gets a ton of unearned racist & sexist shit, I'd be pretty fasdtidious about flinging more, earned or not.

What a peculiar attitude. Essentially give someone a pass because they also face unearned crap? We should all welcome getting such crap on that basis, because then how dare people criticise us...

That was not the point made. It was rather to make sure any such attacks are accurate, rather than trading on existing prejudices.
(Do you not understand the meaning of fastidious ?)

kyf_100 said:

Xenon said:

Stark_Dawning said:

When No Deal happens and its catastrophic effects are present for all to see, how will the Ultras explain them? I predict four approaches to be used in parallel:

They aren't happening. It's just the Elite and their media chums making stuff up.

They are happening but would have happened anyway.

They are happening and are the consequence of Remainers/the EU/not listening to DD.

They are happening but this is precisely what people voted for and it will prove good for us in the long term.

5) We should never have given away our independence against the wishes of the majority in the first place to the wretched organisation.

A reminder that this is the future if we end up remaining.

https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/status/1085854998217469953

Having Brussels with any role in setting our tax rates will push good numbers of relucatant 2016 Remainers into less relucatant 2019 Leavers (if we were to have another vote). Much as Remainers might relish pointing out that Leave voters have died off, in the meantime the EU is pursuing an agenda that is even more distateful to many than was apparent in 2016.

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

notme2 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

https://twitter.com/ProfChalmers/status/1086575260521152518

The whataboutery fairy has been busy.

For those of us unaware, what was the statistic that Stewart apparently made up ?

It was about how many people supported the PM's deal, some preposterously high percentage. The charitable explanation would be he was speaking metaphorically, but even if that was so ministers and shadow ministers mentioning a statistic is going to be assumed to be at least somewhat rooted in fact, which it wasn't.

Ah, thanks.
I suppose the answer to that might depend on what the alternative choice is, but nonetheless a foolish error in the circumstances.

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

notme2 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

https://twitter.com/ProfChalmers/status/1086575260521152518

The whataboutery fairy has been busy.

For those of us unaware, what was the statistic that Stewart apparently made up ?

It was about how many people supported the PM's deal, some preposterously high percentage. The charitable explanation would be he was speaking metaphorically, but even if that was so ministers and shadow ministers mentioning a statistic is going to be assumed to be at least somewhat rooted in fact, which it wasn't.

Ah, thanks.
I suppose the answer to that might depend on what the alternative choice is, but nonetheless a foolish error in the circumstances.

Foolish error or foolish deliberately misleading, either or. Certainly not his finest hour. And it deserves being remembered even if one supports his general position on the deal.

Xenon said:

kle4 said:

When May comes back on Monday with a plan of 'I'll talk some more to the EU' I think I may scream. Have any of the sides made any progress? Every time there's a report of movement up pops the DUP to deny it, the ERG to hit the roof, the Cabinet remainers saying they'll resign, Labour stonewalling. Such a waste.

First the first time I'm starting to think that she might be running down the clock so we leave without a deal.

She knows her successor will be a Leaver. After all the grief she's got from that quarter, perhaps she wants one of those bastards in change when the No Deal havoc ensues and see how they manage (not very well being the obvious prediction). It would be only natural.