politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s reported negativity on a second referendum sends the
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s reported negativity on a second referendum sends the betting odds down to a 29% chance
Betting continues to be running at a high level on all aspects relating to Brexit. Mostly of the markets have stayed pretty consistent over the past few days days. The only one to buck this trend has been the second referendum betting.
0
Comments
-
Arse. Corbyn.0
-
Corbyn's just playing with everyone. He seems to be enjoying himself by stringing along the very people desperate for him to be PM. He can seem reluctant, it doesn't matter.0
-
Third! Like Boris.0
-
Good to see England improving relations with the Commonwealth in advance of Brexit.
77 ALL OUT.0 -
There was never any notion of what that referendum would ask.
T'was doomed.0 -
Deal doomedMarqueeMark said:There was never any notion of what that referendum would ask.
T'was doomed.
Referendum doomed
What next?
Us?0 -
When Labour backed Dominic Grieve's original amendment to secure a meaningful vote, it only took 11 Tory MPs to rebel to defeat the government.Danny565 said:
Could you explain how you expect Corbyn to magically force Tory MPs to vote for a second referendum?Jonathan said:Arse. Corbyn.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/13/tory-brexit-rebels-inflict-major-defeat-on-theresa-may0 -
I always knew Jezza would save Brexit.
0 -
So he knackers Labour's chances of winning an election, for a cause which doesn't even have a chance of succeeding anyway in the absence of Tory rebels.Jonathan said:
Didn't you use to complain about pointless gesture politics...0 -
-
It’s Labours policy. Get on with it. Corbyn is about implementing what the members want or he is nothing. Personal ambition clearly comes first in this case. You want a Labour government saddled with no deal?Danny565 said:
So he knackers Labour's chances of winning an election, for a cause which doesn't even have a chance of succeeding anyway in the absence of Tory rebels.Jonathan said:
Didn't you use to complain about pointless gesture politics...
0 -
Again, you might have a point if Corbyn supporting a second referendum automatically made one happen (well, I probably still wouldn't agree personally, but I could at least see the argument). But it's not, there's only 9 Tory MPs who've said they'd support a referendum as compared to 23 Labour MPs who've said they'll never support one regardless of what Corbyn says. So I'm not still getting what the point would be of ruining Labour's election chances for an empty gesture.Jonathan said:
It’s Labours policy. Get on with it. Corbyn is about implementing what the members want or he is nothing. Personal ambition clearly comes first in this case. You want a Labour government saddled with no deal?Danny565 said:
So he knackers Labour's chances of winning an election, for a cause which doesn't even have a chance of succeeding anyway in the absence of Tory rebels.Jonathan said:
Didn't you use to complain about pointless gesture politics...
As for "what members want", the 2016 leadership contest goes against the idea that they're desperate to remain in the EU above all else.0 -
Since when did the Labour Party stop voting for what it believes in and only back things Tories support?Danny565 said:
Again, you might have a point if Corbyn supporting a second referendum automatically made one happen (well, I probably still wouldn't agree personally, but I could at least see the argument). But it's not, there's only 9 Tory MPs who've said they'd support a referendum as compared to 23 Labour MPs who've said they'll never support one regardless of what Corbyn says. So I'm not still getting what the point would be of ruining Labour's election chances for an empty gesture.Jonathan said:
It’s Labours policy. Get on with it. Corbyn is about implementing what the members want or he is nothing. Personal ambition clearly comes first in this case. You want a Labour government saddled with no deal?Danny565 said:
So he knackers Labour's chances of winning an election, for a cause which doesn't even have a chance of succeeding anyway in the absence of Tory rebels.Jonathan said:
Didn't you use to complain about pointless gesture politics...
Corbyn didn’t seem to have this problem when he called for a motion of no confidence.
This is bullshit and you know it. Corbyn doesn’t want a vote and is overriding party policy. The question is why.0 -
I'm not sure accidental no deal is saving it.GIN1138 said:I always knew Jezza would save Brexit.
We're long passed that.Jonathan said:
Deal doomedMarqueeMark said:There was never any notion of what that referendum would ask.
T'was doomed.
Referendum doomed
What next?
Us?0 -
Exactly. Trouble is Corbyn only wants to listen to the members when they agree with him and Seamus.Jonathan said:0 -
I do hope there are going to be more markets on the votes next week.
An unrelated question: despite the claimed changes in mood music, how many MPs have so far said that they’re going to vote for the deal when they didn’t last time?0 -
It is worth noting that the Betfair "No Deal" market is only for "No Deal" on 29 March. It wouldn't cover a "No Deal" exit if it happened after an extension.0
-
I think Corbyn loses both ways on this. I would imagine a big exit to the Lib Dems by labour voters in London consituencies and in leave areas, the conservatives are the brexit partyOllyT said:
Exactly. Trouble is Corbyn only wants to listen to the members when they agree with him and Seamus.Jonathan said:0 -
You're still not answering my question. What. Would. Be. The. Point.Jonathan said:
Since when did the Labour Party stop voting for what it believes in and only back things Tories support?Danny565 said:
Again, you might have a point if Corbyn supporting a second referendum automatically made one happen (well, I probably still wouldn't agree personally, but I could at least see the argument). But it's not, there's only 9 Tory MPs who've said they'd support a referendum as compared to 23 Labour MPs who've said they'll never support one regardless of what Corbyn says. So I'm not still getting what the point would be of ruining Labour's election chances for an empty gesture.Jonathan said:
It’s Labours policy. Get on with it. Corbyn is about implementing what the members want or he is nothing. Personal ambition clearly comes first in this case. You want a Labour government saddled with no deal?Danny565 said:
So he knackers Labour's chances of winning an election, for a cause which doesn't even have a chance of succeeding anyway in the absence of Tory rebels.Jonathan said:
Didn't you use to complain about pointless gesture politics...
Corbyn didn’t seem to have this problem when he called for a motion of no confidence.
This is bullshit and you know it. Corbyn doesn’t want a vote and is overriding party policy. The question is why.0 -
It's not like Corbyn has a problem backing things that don't happen.Danny565 said:
You're still not answering my question. What. Would. Be. The. Point.Jonathan said:
Since when did the Labour Party stop voting for what it believes in and only back things Tories support?Danny565 said:
Again, you might have a point if Corbyn supporting a second referendum automatically made one happen (well, I probably still wouldn't agree personally, but I could at least see the argument). But it's not, there's only 9 Tory MPs who've said they'd support a referendum as compared to 23 Labour MPs who've said they'll never support one regardless of what Corbyn says. So I'm not still getting what the point would be of ruining Labour's election chances for an empty gesture.Jonathan said:
It’s Labours policy. Get on with it. Corbyn is about implementing what the members want or he is nothing. Personal ambition clearly comes first in this case. You want a Labour government saddled with no deal?Danny565 said:
So he knackers Labour's chances of winning an election, for a cause which doesn't even have a chance of succeeding anyway in the absence of Tory rebels.Jonathan said:
Didn't you use to complain about pointless gesture politics...
Corbyn didn’t seem to have this problem when he called for a motion of no confidence.
This is bullshit and you know it. Corbyn doesn’t want a vote and is overriding party policy. The question is why.0 -
Sorry, you want me to explain why parties vote for their policy?Danny565 said:
You're still not answering my question. What. Would. Be. The. Point.Jonathan said:
Since when did the Labour Party stop voting for what it believes in and only back things Tories support?Danny565 said:
Again, you might have a point if Corbyn supporting a second referendum automatically made one happen (well, I probably still wouldn't agree personally, but I could at least see the argument). But it's not, there's only 9 Tory MPs who've said they'd support a referendum as compared to 23 Labour MPs who've said they'll never support one regardless of what Corbyn says. So I'm not still getting what the point would be of ruining Labour's election chances for an empty gesture.Jonathan said:
It’s Labours policy. Get on with it. Corbyn is about implementing what the members want or he is nothing. Personal ambition clearly comes first in this case. You want a Labour government saddled with no deal?Danny565 said:
So he knackers Labour's chances of winning an election, for a cause which doesn't even have a chance of succeeding anyway in the absence of Tory rebels.Jonathan said:
Didn't you use to complain about pointless gesture politics...
Corbyn didn’t seem to have this problem when he called for a motion of no confidence.
This is bullshit and you know it. Corbyn doesn’t want a vote and is overriding party policy. The question is why.0 -
If defeated it would force the Tories to be seen to be blocking the people having a say on what they've negotiated.Danny565 said:
You're still not answering my question. What. Would. Be. The. Point.Jonathan said:
Since when did the Labour Party stop voting for what it believes in and only back things Tories support?Danny565 said:
Again, you might have a point if Corbyn supporting a second referendum automatically made one happen (well, I probably still wouldn't agree personally, but I could at least see the argument). But it's not, there's only 9 Tory MPs who've said they'd support a referendum as compared to 23 Labour MPs who've said they'll never support one regardless of what Corbyn says. So I'm not still getting what the point would be of ruining Labour's election chances for an empty gesture.Jonathan said:
It’s Labours policy. Get on with it. Corbyn is about implementing what the members want or he is nothing. Personal ambition clearly comes first in this case. You want a Labour government saddled with no deal?Danny565 said:
So he knackers Labour's chances of winning an election, for a cause which doesn't even have a chance of succeeding anyway in the absence of Tory rebels.Jonathan said:
Didn't you use to complain about pointless gesture politics...
Corbyn didn’t seem to have this problem when he called for a motion of no confidence.
This is bullshit and you know it. Corbyn doesn’t want a vote and is overriding party policy. The question is why.0 -
LOL, are you seriously trying to claim that meaningless waffle that the Labour conference passed about "options on the table" was actually a concrete commitment to a second referendum.Jonathan said:
Sorry, you want me to explain why parties vote for their policy?Danny565 said:
You're still not answering my question. What. Would. Be. The. Point.Jonathan said:
Since when did the Labour Party stop voting for what it believes in and only back things Tories support?Danny565 said:
Again, you might have a point if Corbyn supporting a second referendum automatically made one happen (well, I probably still wouldn't agree personally, but I could at least see the argument). But it's not, there's only 9 Tory MPs who've said they'd support a referendum as compared to 23 Labour MPs who've said they'll never support one regardless of what Corbyn says. So I'm not still getting what the point would be of ruining Labour's election chances for an empty gesture.Jonathan said:
It’s Labours policy. Get on with it. Corbyn is about implementing what the members want or he is nothing. Personal ambition clearly comes first in this case. You want a Labour government saddled with no deal?Danny565 said:
So he knackers Labour's chances of winning an election, for a cause which doesn't even have a chance of succeeding anyway in the absence of Tory rebels.Jonathan said:
Didn't you use to complain about pointless gesture politics...
Corbyn didn’t seem to have this problem when he called for a motion of no confidence.
This is bullshit and you know it. Corbyn doesn’t want a vote and is overriding party policy. The question is why.
I'm asking why it should be the policy, when it's both unachievable and a massive electoral liability.0 -
You should explain it to Jeremy, he's traditionally struggled with it from time to time apparently.Jonathan said:
Sorry, you want me to explain why parties vote for their policy?Danny565 said:
You're still not answering my question. What. Would. Be. The. Point.Jonathan said:
Since when did the Labour Party stop voting for what it believes in and only back things Tories support?Danny565 said:
Again, you might have a point if Corbyn supporting a second referendum automatically made one happen (well, I probably still wouldn't agree personally, but I could at least see the argument). But it's not, there's only 9 Tory MPs who've said they'd support a referendum as compared to 23 Labour MPs who've said they'll never support one regardless of what Corbyn says. So I'm not still getting what the point would be of ruining Labour's election chances for an empty gesture.Jonathan said:
It’s Labours policy. Get on with it. Corbyn is about implementing what the members want or he is nothing. Personal ambition clearly comes first in this case. You want a Labour government saddled with no deal?Danny565 said:
So he knackers Labour's chances of winning an election, for a cause which doesn't even have a chance of succeeding anyway in the absence of Tory rebels.Jonathan said:
Didn't you use to complain about pointless gesture politics...
Corbyn didn’t seem to have this problem when he called for a motion of no confidence.
This is bullshit and you know it. Corbyn doesn’t want a vote and is overriding party policy. The question is why.0 -
You can always email BF and suggest some. (Probably not worth the candle mind - for them, and thus for you)AlastairMeeks said:I do hope there are going to be more markets on the votes next week.
An unrelated question: despite the claimed changes in mood music, how many MPs have so far said that they’re going to vote for the deal when they didn’t last time?
Equally you might suggest some possible markets here. People might quote some odds, or more likely take you up on anything you cared to quote. There's settlement risk and all that of course.
Perhaps MeeksBetClearing PLC needs to be established!?0 -
The Labour motion says, "If the Government is confident in negotiating a deal that working people, our economy and communities will benefit from they should not be afraid to put that deal to the public."Danny565 said:
LOL, are you seriously trying to claim that meaningless waffle that the Labour conference passed about "options on the table" was actually a concrete commitment to a second referendum.Jonathan said:
Sorry, you want me to explain why parties vote for their policy?Danny565 said:
You're still not answering my question. What. Would. Be. The. Point.Jonathan said:
Since when did the Labour Party stop voting for what it believes in and only back things Tories support?Danny565 said:
Again, you might have a point if Corbyn supporting a second referendum automatically made one happen (well, I probably still wouldn't agree personally, but I could at least see the argument). But it's not, there's only 9 Tory MPs who've said they'd support a referendum as compared to 23 Labour MPs who've said they'll never support one regardless of what Corbyn says. So I'm not still getting what the point would be of ruining Labour's election chances for an empty gesture.Jonathan said:
It’s Labours policy. Get on with it. Corbyn is about implementing what the members want or he is nothing. Personal ambition clearly comes first in this case. You want a Labour government saddled with no deal?Danny565 said:
So he knackers Labour's chances of winning an election, for a cause which doesn't even have a chance of succeeding anyway in the absence of Tory rebels.Jonathan said:
Didn't you use to complain about pointless gesture politics...
Corbyn didn’t seem to have this problem when he called for a motion of no confidence.
This is bullshit and you know it. Corbyn doesn’t want a vote and is overriding party policy. The question is why.
I'm asking why it should be the policy, when it's both unachievable and a massive electoral liability.
Prove that they're afraid. Back it in parliament.0 -
If you’re interested in changing policy do the NPF or go to conference. That’s the time to do it. Not in the heat of the moment when the country is crying out for Labour to take a lead, not slippery posturing and chicanery. Labour agreed a policy. The leader should implement it.Danny565 said:
LOL, are you seriously trying to claim that meaningless waffle that the Labour conference passed about "options on the table" was actually a concrete commitment to a second referendum.Jonathan said:
Sorry, you want me to explain why parties vote for their policy?Danny565 said:
You're still not answering my question. What. Would. Be. The. Point.Jonathan said:
Since when did the Labour Party stop voting for what it believes in and only back things Tories support?Danny565 said:
Again, you might have a point if Corbyn supporting a second referendum automatically made one happen (well, I probably still wouldn't agree personally, but I could at least see the argument). But it's not, there's only 9 Tory MPs who've said they'd support a referendum as compared to 23 Labour MPs who've said they'll never support one regardless of what Corbyn says. So I'm not still getting what the point would be of ruining Labour's election chances for an empty gesture.Jonathan said:
It’s Labours policy. Get on with it. Corbyn is about implementing what the members want or he is nothing. Personal ambition clearly comes first in this case. You want a Labour government saddled with no deal?Danny565 said:
So he knackers Labour's chances of winning an election, for a cause which doesn't even have a chance of succeeding anyway in the absence of Tory rebels.Jonathan said:
Didn't you use to complain about pointless gesture politics...
Corbyn didn’t seem to have this problem when he called for a motion of no confidence.
This is bullshit and you know it. Corbyn doesn’t want a vote and is overriding party policy. The question is why.
I'm asking why it should be the policy, when it's both unachievable and a massive electoral liability.0 -
For the Tories, that would be fine, as their supporters oppose a second referendumwilliamglenn said:
If defeated it would force the Tories to be seen to be blocking the people having a say on what they've negotiated.Danny565 said:
You're still not answering my question. What. Would. Be. The. Point.Jonathan said:
Since when did the Labour Party stop voting for what it believes in and only back things Tories support?Danny565 said:
Again, you might have a point if Corbyn supporting a second referendum automatically made one happen (well, I probably still wouldn't agree personally, but I could at least see the argument). But it's not, there's only 9 Tory MPs who've said they'd support a referendum as compared to 23 Labour MPs who've said they'll never support one regardless of what Corbyn says. So I'm not still getting what the point would be of ruining Labour's election chances for an empty gesture.Jonathan said:
It’s Labours policy. Get on with it. Corbyn is about implementing what the members want or he is nothing. Personal ambition clearly comes first in this case. You want a Labour government saddled with no deal?Danny565 said:
So he knackers Labour's chances of winning an election, for a cause which doesn't even have a chance of succeeding anyway in the absence of Tory rebels.Jonathan said:
Didn't you use to complain about pointless gesture politics...
Corbyn didn’t seem to have this problem when he called for a motion of no confidence.
This is bullshit and you know it. Corbyn doesn’t want a vote and is overriding party policy. The question is why.0 -
England’s attack looking absolutely toothless. This is an astonishingly poor display. Curran bowling at low 80s or even slower. Not even vaguely threatening.0
-
Reality is gradually dawning. The result of that MASSIVE referendum we had a couple of years ago must (alas) be implemented. No re-run. It was not that sort of thing.
But there is another unicorn to be dealt with - No Deal - the bizarre notion of flouncing off without the transition period that is needed to negotiate the future relationship, i.e. the arrangement which is going to replace frictionless trade with our biggest overseas market.
Once this one dies too - which surely it will - we can ratify the WA and officially leave the European Union.
It will be a sad day (for me) but I have a great bunch of friends and a good family. They'll see me through.0 -
Their base opposes a second referendum. At the margins it's less clear-cut, and certainly the people who denied them a majority in 2017 won't thank them for dying in a ditch over Brexit.Sean_F said:
For the Tories, that would be fine, as their supporters oppose a second referendumwilliamglenn said:
If defeated it would force the Tories to be seen to be blocking the people having a say on what they've negotiated.Danny565 said:
You're still not answering my question. What. Would. Be. The. Point.Jonathan said:
Since when did the Labour Party stop voting for what it believes in and only back things Tories support?Danny565 said:
Again, you might have a point if Corbyn supporting a second referendum automatically made one happen (well, I probably still wouldn't agree personally, but I could at least see the argument). But it's not, there's only 9 Tory MPs who've said they'd support a referendum as compared to 23 Labour MPs who've said they'll never support one regardless of what Corbyn says. So I'm not still getting what the point would be of ruining Labour's election chances for an empty gesture.Jonathan said:
It’s Labours policy. Get on with it. Corbyn is about implementing what the members want or he is nothing. Personal ambition clearly comes first in this case. You want a Labour government saddled with no deal?Danny565 said:
So he knackers Labour's chances of winning an election, for a cause which doesn't even have a chance of succeeding anyway in the absence of Tory rebels.Jonathan said:
Didn't you use to complain about pointless gesture politics...
Corbyn didn’t seem to have this problem when he called for a motion of no confidence.
This is bullshit and you know it. Corbyn doesn’t want a vote and is overriding party policy. The question is why.0 -
Many of us pointed this out from the start. It's the fraud the hard left always pulls. More democracy so long as you agree with us.OllyT said:
Exactly. Trouble is Corbyn only wants to listen to the members when they agree with him and Seamus.Jonathan said:
It's just this time the soft left have been stupid and spineless enough to fall for it.
As for the idea that Labour should only support things some Tory MPs would vote into law, well then I guess Labour can stop being anti-austerity and scrap all its policies then. There maybe a case against a People's Vote - the best one, I think, is that we're now so late in the day and so fucked that something like Norway+ would be a better way of stopping chaos, but that ain't it - and the Labour leadership are being worse than useless with their constant lies and fantasies.0 -
o/t: Is anyone else surprised that the Patisserie Valerie story hasn't had greater legs in the press? It's a huge scandal.0
-
Yougov for the People's Vote showed the Tory lead doubling from 4% to 8% if Labour backed a 2nd referendum. Survation had a switch from a 3% Labour lead to a 2% Tory lead. Their private polling probably says the same.0
-
Spectator reporting that MPs are getting cold feet about Yvette's No Deal amendment
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/mps-get-cold-feet-about-the-cooper-no-deal-amendment/0 -
The difference being that an anti-austerity policy isn't unachievable, because they can implement that if they get into government at any point in the future. Whereas a policy of "there should be a second referendum before we leave the EU" is unachievable regardless of what Corbyn says, given (it seems) they're not going to be in government before then.MJW said:
As for the idea that Labour should only support things some Tory MPs would vote into law, well then I guess Labour can stop being anti-austerity and scrap all its policies then. There maybe a case against a People's Vote - the best one, I think, is that we're now so late in the day and so fucked that something like Norway+ would be a better way of stopping chaos, but that ain't it - and the Labour leadership are being worse than useless with their constant lies and fantasies.0 -
Ironically if Labour backed a second referendum and it won, they might suffer in the polls whereas if it were defeated on Tory/DUP votes, they might get a boost for being seen to stand up for giving the people a say on the mess the government has created.Sean_F said:Yougov for the People's Vote showed the Tory lead doubling from 4% to 8% if Labour backed a 2nd referendum. Survation had a switch from a 3% Labour lead to a 2% Tory lead. Their private polling probably says the same.
-1 -
kinabalu said:
Reality is gradually dawning. The result of that MASSIVE referendum we had a couple of years ago must (alas) be implemented. No re-run. It was not that sort of thing.
But there is another unicorn to be dealt with - No Deal - the bizarre notion of flouncing off without the transition period that is needed to negotiate the future relationship, i.e. the arrangement which is going to replace frictionless trade with our biggest overseas market.
Once this one dies too - which surely it will - we can ratify the WA and officially leave the European Union.
It will be a sad day (for me) but I have a great bunch of friends and a good family. They'll see me through.
Agree with this, though more sympathetic to the outcome. A much more fruitful discussion than the various unicorns that have wasted so much energy is that of the many different possible directions of a post Brexit future; these in practice will still include on the one hand a very hard exit, and on the other hand a rapid rejoining. If this stage has been difficult, with a marked absence of grown up politics, it does make you wonder what the difficult stage will be like.
0 -
Good news, so long as they intend to then actually do something in its place. Kicking the can is a damn stupid plan (yes, from May too), and likely dishonest too in its intentions, but it is at least an idea.GIN1138 said:Spectator reporting that MPs are getting cold feet about Yvette's No Deal amendment
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/mps-get-cold-feet-about-the-cooper-no-deal-amendment/0 -
Not all campaigners support this. One said it was "f***ing mad" & no different to Downing St policy of May's deal vs no-dealwilliamglenn said:
Indeed. It would also make a lie of their fears of no deal. Bit of an unnecessary scorched earth strategy, I think they're well placed if they focus. People are vaguely softening on various options, but don't actually appear that close to a decision yet, which means it is all to play for for PV.-1 -
A referendum will come, if it comes, out of Parliament’s failure to forge a path to Brexit. Right now it looks more likely than ever to me. Everyone is getting itchy feet but no one is prepared to move from their preexisting stance.williamglenn said:0 -
I think there may be more truth in the statement that this strategy is no different to Downing Street policy than the person who said it realises. May just needs to make sure she can point the finger somewhere else.AlastairMeeks said:
A referendum will come, if it comes, out of Parliament’s failure to forge a path to Brexit. Right now it looks more likely than ever to me. Everyone is getting itchy feet but no one is prepared to move from their preexisting stance.williamglenn said:0 -
It is just a case of Fraud though. Luke Johnson is a respected sector investor and his reputation has taken a hit, but he seems to be doing the right things. The big surprise for me is that the company had secret bank loan facilities. How did the auditors not pick that up?Omnium said:0 -
It appears that Tim has got a bit hyperbolic. Has this ever happned with Brexiteers before?
https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1088457792988446722
https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/10884580835740180480 -
-
We would need a lengthy extension for a referendum, and the comments coming from European politicians seem pretty hostile to that idea.williamglenn said:0 -
Well it certainly makes clear they have no interest in another vote for the sake of democracy but only as a means of making sure we don't leave. Which of course we have known all along. We were just waiting for them to be honest about it. .kle4 said:
Not all campaigners support this. One said it was "f***ing mad" & no different to Downing St policy of May's deal vs no-dealwilliamglenn said:
Indeed. It would also make a lie of their fears of no deal. Bit of an unnecessary scorched earth strategy, I think they're well placed if they focus. People are vaguely softening on various options, but don't actually appear that close to a decision yet, which means it is all to play for for PV.0 -
At least it has to be small-scale-bilateral-conspiracy, fraud, and a deep black mark on the audit process. It may be much worse though. I find it hard to imagine that company, auditors, and the banks aren't connected. That'd be very very newsworthy.Nemtynakht said:
It is just a case of Fraud though. Luke Johnson is a respected sector investor and his reputation has taken a hit, but he seems to be doing the right things. The big surprise for me is that the company had secret bank loan facilities. How did the auditors not pick that up?Omnium said:
(I have no involvement in any of this, financial or otherwise by the way)0 -
As a means of making sure we don't leave without the specific consent of the people for the withdrawal agreement.Richard_Tyndall said:
Well it certainly makes clear they have no interest in another vote for the sake of democracy but only as a means of making sure we don't leave. Which of course we have known all along. We were just waiting for them to be honest about it. .kle4 said:
Not all campaigners support this. One said it was "f***ing mad" & no different to Downing St policy of May's deal vs no-dealwilliamglenn said:
Indeed. It would also make a lie of their fears of no deal. Bit of an unnecessary scorched earth strategy, I think they're well placed if they focus. People are vaguely softening on various options, but don't actually appear that close to a decision yet, which means it is all to play for for PV.0 -
Evening all
To use the vernacular, nothing really honestly truthfully has changed.
A second vote or a GE are and always have been distractions.
The basic options are, as they have been since before Christmas, the WA, leaving without a Deal or revoking A50 completely. I imagine a small extension to A50 if it were a question of allowing extra time to allow full legislation to pass Parliament, remains a possibility.
Now, we can probably assume neither May nor any other Conservative will voluntarily revoke A50 as that would mean signing the party's electoral death warrant enticing though that prospect is on a dark January evening.
Getting the WA through Parliament remains (so to speak), May's only serious option. To close down a deficit of 230 votes, she had effectively two options, tack hard or tack soft. The latter meant trying to get Labour MPs primarily but the SNP and a few of her own dissidents plus anybody else to accept the WA was really BINO and she would soften it even further with the assistance of the EU.
However, the Labour leadership, which seems determined to honour the 23/6/16 vote, wouldn't play ball so May is forced to tack hard which means trying to convince the ERG and the DUP the WA isn't the sell out and betrayal they think it is. One approach is to speak softly on the Backstop and go all Project Fear on a No Deal in the hope enough of her own side will be compelled/cajoled/persuaded/told by their local Associations (delete as appropriate) to vote for the WA when it comes back. Unfortunately, the parliamentary numbers mean convincing only some of them won't work - she probably needs all the ERG and ideally the DUP too.
That leaves No Deal which is where we are tonight with 7 weeks to go. Undoubtedly, May is hoping all the other options will die either on the Commons floor or by dint of their own contradictions, to leave the WA standing alone on the battlefield to face No Deal. She no doubt believes that with a few healthy dollops of Project Fear (thank you Airbus) the WA will be passed by a frightened cowed Commons.
That's how I see it, I may be entirely wrong and It won't be the first or the last time.0 -
It was also been reported that the FRC audited the audit that was done on PV.Nemtynakht said:
It is just a case of Fraud though. Luke Johnson is a respected sector investor and his reputation has taken a hit, but he seems to be doing the right things. The big surprise for me is that the company had secret bank loan facilities. How did the auditors not pick that up?Omnium said:
0 -
A fair assessmentstodge said:Evening all
To use the vernacular, nothing really honestly truthfully has changed.
A second vote or a GE are and always have been distractions.
The basic options are, as they have been since before Christmas, the WA, leaving without a Deal or revoking A50 completely. I imagine a small extension to A50 if it were a question of allowing extra time to allow full legislation to pass Parliament, remains a possibility.
Now, we can probably assume neither May nor any other Conservative will voluntarily revoke A50 as that would mean signing the party's electoral death warrant enticing though that prospect is on a dark January evening.
Getting the WA through Parliament remains (so to speak), May's only serious option. To close down a deficit of 230 votes, she had effectively two options, tack hard or tack soft. The latter meant trying to get Labour MPs primarily but the SNP and a few of her own dissidents plus anybody else to accept the WA was really BINO and she would soften it even further with the assistance of the EU.
However, the Labour leadership, which seems determined to honour the 23/6/16 vote, wouldn't play ball so May is forced to tack hard which means trying to convince the ERG and the DUP the WA isn't the sell out and betrayal they think it is. One approach is to speak softly on the Backstop and go all Project Fear on a No Deal in the hope enough of her own side will be compelled/cajoled/persuaded/told by their local Associations (delete as appropriate) to vote for the WA when it comes back. Unfortunately, the parliamentary numbers mean convincing only some of them won't work - she probably needs all the ERG and ideally the DUP too.
That leaves No Deal which is where we are tonight with 7 weeks to go. Undoubtedly, May is hoping all the other options will die either on the Commons floor or by dint of their own contradictions, to leave the WA standing alone on the battlefield to face No Deal. She no doubt believes that with a few healthy dollops of Project Fear (thank you Airbus) the WA will be passed by a frightened cowed Commons.
That's how I see it, I may be entirely wrong and It won't be the first or the last time.0 -
Hadn't seen that, please link if you can.ralphmalph said:
It was also been reported that the FRC audited the audit that was done on PV.Nemtynakht said:
It is just a case of Fraud though. Luke Johnson is a respected sector investor and his reputation has taken a hit, but he seems to be doing the right things. The big surprise for me is that the company had secret bank loan facilities. How did the auditors not pick that up?Omnium said:
0 -
-
https://economia.icaew.com/news/january-2019/frc-saw-patisserie-audit-before-fraud-detectedOmnium said:
Hadn't seen that, please link if you can.ralphmalph said:
It was also been reported that the FRC audited the audit that was done on PV.Nemtynakht said:
It is just a case of Fraud though. Luke Johnson is a respected sector investor and his reputation has taken a hit, but he seems to be doing the right things. The big surprise for me is that the company had secret bank loan facilities. How did the auditors not pick that up?Omnium said:
0 -
Thank you for the kind word - I thought through this on my home from work but I keep thinking I'm missing something.Big_G_NorthWales said:
A fair assessment
The one other factor might be the EU and the degree to which they are willing to prevent a No Deal. if we get down to close to the wire, the EU may seek to extend A50 and it may be the WA isn't as non-negotiable as we might think.
If the EU blinks, it's possible May can get enough concession to make the WA acceptable to either the "tack hard" or "tack soft" camp. I wonder which way she'll go.0 -
I thought they were only hostile to a 'delay so we can sort out shit out' idea, but given a referendum would, presuming MPs actually follow it (or make it binding), actually resolve matters I thought they were more positive about the idea.Chris said:
We would need a lengthy extension for a referendum, and the comments coming from European politicians seem pretty hostile to that idea.williamglenn said:0 -
It's good to know that the England cricket team will not be needing any of Barbados', *cough*, special tourist services on this tour.
Not after the screwing Kemar Roach has just given them.0 -
They will doubtless get their just desserts...ralphmalph said:
https://economia.icaew.com/news/january-2019/frc-saw-patisserie-audit-before-fraud-detectedOmnium said:
Hadn't seen that, please link if you can.ralphmalph said:
It was also been reported that the FRC audited the audit that was done on PV.Nemtynakht said:
It is just a case of Fraud though. Luke Johnson is a respected sector investor and his reputation has taken a hit, but he seems to be doing the right things. The big surprise for me is that the company had secret bank loan facilities. How did the auditors not pick that up?Omnium said:0 -
If she gets a clear indication next week of parliaments direction of travel I have little doubt the EU will get seriousstodge said:
Thank you for the kind word - I thought through this on my home from work but I keep thinking I'm missing something.Big_G_NorthWales said:
A fair assessment
The one other factor might be the EU and the degree to which they are willing to prevent a No Deal. if we get down to close to the wire, the EU may seek to extend A50 and it may be the WA isn't as non-negotiable as we might think.
If the EU blinks, it's possible May can get enough concession to make the WA acceptable to either the "tack hard" or "tack soft" camp. I wonder which way she'll go.0 -
The innards of the Yougov poll were striking.williamglenn said:
Ironically if Labour backed a second referendum and it won, they might suffer in the polls whereas if it were defeated on Tory/DUP votes, they might get a boost for being seen to stand up for giving the people a say on the mess the government has created.Sean_F said:Yougov for the People's Vote showed the Tory lead doubling from 4% to 8% if Labour backed a 2nd referendum. Survation had a switch from a 3% Labour lead to a 2% Tory lead. Their private polling probably says the same.
They certainly showed a big swing to Labour among Conservative Remainers. But a slightly bigger swing to the Conservatives with Labour leavers, plus some votes from UKIP supporters.
Potentially, the Conservatives would lose places like Westminster, Putney, St. alban's, and see their leads slashed along the M3/M4 corridors, while gaining seats like Ashfield, Stoke North, Wakefield, Penistone.0 -
All the weaknesses of the deal remain. Nothing has changed.0
-
If it 's Remain v No Deal, I'd make the latter slight favourite.kle4 said:
Not all campaigners support this. One said it was "f***ing mad" & no different to Downing St policy of May's deal vs no-dealwilliamglenn said:
Indeed. It would also make a lie of their fears of no deal. Bit of an unnecessary scorched earth strategy, I think they're well placed if they focus. People are vaguely softening on various options, but don't actually appear that close to a decision yet, which means it is all to play for for PV.0 -
The thing you are missing is May following on from G Cox speech in the House where May loses the vote on her deal next week and then stands up and says "As my colleague has told you, you are legislatures not children. Until you act accordingly I have no option but to declare no deal is what I am going for, so I will start negotiations with the EU to put mini deals in place to mitigate the effects. When you grow up come back to me and we can decide."stodge said:
Thank you for the kind word - I thought through this on my home from work but I keep thinking I'm missing something.Big_G_NorthWales said:
A fair assessment
The one other factor might be the EU and the degree to which they are willing to prevent a No Deal. if we get down to close to the wire, the EU may seek to extend A50 and it may be the WA isn't as non-negotiable as we might think.
If the EU blinks, it's possible May can get enough concession to make the WA acceptable to either the "tack hard" or "tack soft" camp. I wonder which way she'll go.0 -
My goodness, what is wrong with this pitch?-1
-
Since her historic defeat May has added nothing. Zip. Sweet FA.0
-
Betting post:
(This may slightly be a betting post under false colours though, as given my previous lacklustre performance in US political betting I'd hardly recommend you follow my ideas)
I've been backing Gabbard as next President.
Pros:
- Not Trump
- Looks good
- Sounds good
- Female
- Totally on message with Bernie
- Has shown commitment
- Served in the Military
- Pro gun lobby
Cons arguably, but are mainly pros now:
- Hindu religion
- Odd ancestory
- from Hawaii
- expressed some anti-gayetc views, and now trying to over-compensate
- has engaged with Trump
- has engaged with Assad
- not quite with the programme
Actual Cons:
(as far as I can see it, none)
There's a chance Bernie if he didn't run might lend support along the way too.
Anyway, we don't get many betting posts now on PB, so I thought I'd do one. As said above my history betting in US politics is abysmal, and also I am most definitely talking my position.
0 -
Clear? From Parliament?! I mean, really.Big_G_NorthWales said:
If she gets a clear indication next week of parliaments direction of travel I have little doubt the EU will get seriousstodge said:
Thank you for the kind word - I thought through this on my home from work but I keep thinking I'm missing something.Big_G_NorthWales said:
A fair assessment
The one other factor might be the EU and the degree to which they are willing to prevent a No Deal. if we get down to close to the wire, the EU may seek to extend A50 and it may be the WA isn't as non-negotiable as we might think.
If the EU blinks, it's possible May can get enough concession to make the WA acceptable to either the "tack hard" or "tack soft" camp. I wonder which way she'll go.0 -
W I trying to emulate England and succeeding.0
-
Thanks very muchralphmalph said:
https://economia.icaew.com/news/january-2019/frc-saw-patisserie-audit-before-fraud-detectedOmnium said:
Hadn't seen that, please link if you can.ralphmalph said:
It was also been reported that the FRC audited the audit that was done on PV.Nemtynakht said:
It is just a case of Fraud though. Luke Johnson is a respected sector investor and his reputation has taken a hit, but he seems to be doing the right things. The big surprise for me is that the company had secret bank loan facilities. How did the auditors not pick that up?Omnium said:0 -
It is just possible - lets seeBlack_Rook said:
Clear? From Parliament?! I mean, really.Big_G_NorthWales said:
If she gets a clear indication next week of parliaments direction of travel I have little doubt the EU will get seriousstodge said:
Thank you for the kind word - I thought through this on my home from work but I keep thinking I'm missing something.Big_G_NorthWales said:
A fair assessment
The one other factor might be the EU and the degree to which they are willing to prevent a No Deal. if we get down to close to the wire, the EU may seek to extend A50 and it may be the WA isn't as non-negotiable as we might think.
If the EU blinks, it's possible May can get enough concession to make the WA acceptable to either the "tack hard" or "tack soft" camp. I wonder which way she'll go.0 -
And why would the EU not have been serious before when May has presumably been telling them for months that she needs changes to get this through? They just keep getting angrier that she is saying the same thing.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is just possible - lets seeBlack_Rook said:
Clear? From Parliament?! I mean, really.Big_G_NorthWales said:
If she gets a clear indication next week of parliaments direction of travel I have little doubt the EU will get seriousstodge said:
Thank you for the kind word - I thought through this on my home from work but I keep thinking I'm missing something.Big_G_NorthWales said:
A fair assessment
The one other factor might be the EU and the degree to which they are willing to prevent a No Deal. if we get down to close to the wire, the EU may seek to extend A50 and it may be the WA isn't as non-negotiable as we might think.
If the EU blinks, it's possible May can get enough concession to make the WA acceptable to either the "tack hard" or "tack soft" camp. I wonder which way she'll go.
As for wait and see, she has used up the reasonable allotment of giving her the benefit of the doubt.0 -
Looking at what Barnier has said, he seems to be saying that "a stable majority in London for all laws related to Brexit that need to be adopted" is a prerequisite for an extension. It doesn't sound to me as though he would look favourably on a request for an extension so that a referendum can be held to break a deadlock in parliament.kle4 said:
I thought they were only hostile to a 'delay so we can sort out shit out' idea, but given a referendum would, presuming MPs actually follow it (or make it binding), actually resolve matters I thought they were more positive about the idea.Chris said:
We would need a lengthy extension for a referendum, and the comments coming from European politicians seem pretty hostile to that idea.williamglenn said:
On top of that he says he doesn't have a clear legal answer to the difficulty of the European elections.
The prime minister of Lithuania has actually been quoted as saying she thinks No Deal may be preferable to an extension, though the EU will try to help if a request is made.0 -
I presume sir Geoffrey has self combusted at all the crap batting on show.0
-
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that but I assume you mean that if faced with the likelihood of No Deal, the EU will blink.Big_G_NorthWales said:
If she gets a clear indication next week of parliaments direction of travel I have little doubt the EU will get serious
Maybe but I'm not sure I would be relying on it and IF the Prime Minister goes back to the EU she might have to do a fair b it of compromise as well. I think the EU and the UK could live with a permanent CU which would, I imagine, get through Parliament albeit with a considerable Conservative rebellion.
Just as Heath needed Labour MPs like Jenkins to get the accession bill through in the early 70s so May might be reliant on moderate Labour MPs to get any amended deal through.0 -
They are looking down the barrel of no deal in 7 weekskle4 said:
And why would the EU not have been serious before when May has presumably been telling them for months that she needs changes to get this through? They just keep getting angrier that she is saying the same thing.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is just possible - lets seeBlack_Rook said:
Clear? From Parliament?! I mean, really.Big_G_NorthWales said:
If she gets a clear indication next week of parliaments direction of travel I have little doubt the EU will get seriousstodge said:
Thank you for the kind word - I thought through this on my home from work but I keep thinking I'm missing something.Big_G_NorthWales said:
A fair assessment
The one other factor might be the EU and the degree to which they are willing to prevent a No Deal. if we get down to close to the wire, the EU may seek to extend A50 and it may be the WA isn't as non-negotiable as we might think.
If the EU blinks, it's possible May can get enough concession to make the WA acceptable to either the "tack hard" or "tack soft" camp. I wonder which way she'll go.
As for wait and see, she has used up the reasonable allotment of giving her the benefit of the doubt.0 -
His grandmother will certainly have been busy today.FrancisUrquhart said:I presume sir Geoffrey has self combusted at all the crap batting on show.
0 -
I am more confident that a deal will be done as no deal becomes stark realitystodge said:
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that but I assume you mean that if faced with the likelihood of No Deal, the EU will blink.Big_G_NorthWales said:
If she gets a clear indication next week of parliaments direction of travel I have little doubt the EU will get serious
Maybe but I'm not sure I would be relying on it and IF the Prime Minister goes back to the EU she might have to do a fair b it of compromise as well. I think the EU and the UK could live with a permanent CU which would, I imagine, get through Parliament albeit with a considerable Conservative rebellion.
Just as Heath needed Labour MPs like Jenkins to get the accession bill through in the early 70s so May might be reliant on moderate Labour MPs to get any amended deal through.
For my own sanity I have to believe in a deal, no deal is unimaginable0 -
So are we, and they are better prepared than us, and they have to face the politics of it as well, and we have far more people in authority scared stiff by no deal (rightly or not) than they do.Big_G_NorthWales said:
They are looking down the barrel of no deal in 7 weekskle4 said:
And why would the EU not have been serious before when May has presumably been telling them for months that she needs changes to get this through? They just keep getting angrier that she is saying the same thing.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is just possible - lets seeBlack_Rook said:
Clear? From Parliament?! I mean, really.Big_G_NorthWales said:
If she gets a clear indication next week of parliaments direction of travel I have little doubt the EU will get seriousstodge said:
Thank you for the kind word - I thought through this on my home from work but I keep thinking I'm missing something.Big_G_NorthWales said:
A fair assessment
The one other factor might be the EU and the degree to which they are willing to prevent a No Deal. if we get down to close to the wire, the EU may seek to extend A50 and it may be the WA isn't as non-negotiable as we might think.
If the EU blinks, it's possible May can get enough concession to make the WA acceptable to either the "tack hard" or "tack soft" camp. I wonder which way she'll go.
As for wait and see, she has used up the reasonable allotment of giving her the benefit of the doubt.
You're basically adopting the no deal brexiteer strategy of all we have to do is talk tough, and we will get what we want just because.0 -
Unfortunately it is very far from unimaginable. It's just that nobody sensible actually wants it.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I am more confident that a deal will be done as no deal becomes stark realitystodge said:
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that but I assume you mean that if faced with the likelihood of No Deal, the EU will blink.Big_G_NorthWales said:
If she gets a clear indication next week of parliaments direction of travel I have little doubt the EU will get serious
Maybe but I'm not sure I would be relying on it and IF the Prime Minister goes back to the EU she might have to do a fair b it of compromise as well. I think the EU and the UK could live with a permanent CU which would, I imagine, get through Parliament albeit with a considerable Conservative rebellion.
Just as Heath needed Labour MPs like Jenkins to get the accession bill through in the early 70s so May might be reliant on moderate Labour MPs to get any amended deal through.
For my own sanity I have to believe in a deal, no deal is unimaginable0 -
Sky sports will be get a calling shortly...
Thierry Henry: Monaco sack manager after three months in charge0 -
Is he available to open for England?FrancisUrquhart said:Sky sports will be get a calling shortly...
Thierry Henry: Monaco sack manager after three months in charge0 -
Despite being passionate about Brexit, my impression of Tory members is that they aren't ready for the shift in mindset that their new support base will require.Sean_F said:
The innards of the Yougov poll were striking.williamglenn said:
Ironically if Labour backed a second referendum and it won, they might suffer in the polls whereas if it were defeated on Tory/DUP votes, they might get a boost for being seen to stand up for giving the people a say on the mess the government has created.Sean_F said:Yougov for the People's Vote showed the Tory lead doubling from 4% to 8% if Labour backed a 2nd referendum. Survation had a switch from a 3% Labour lead to a 2% Tory lead. Their private polling probably says the same.
They certainly showed a big swing to Labour among Conservative Remainers. But a slightly bigger swing to the Conservatives with Labour leavers, plus some votes from UKIP supporters.
Potentially, the Conservatives would lose places like Westminster, Putney, St. alban's, and see their leads slashed along the M3/M4 corridors, while gaining seats like Ashfield, Stoke North, Wakefield, Penistone.0 -
Well of course, anything that's not impossible is possible. And I suppose that a Parliamentary majority actually being found to positively support one outcome or another (as distinct from there being nothing but a range of different blocking majorities for every solution available) is not only possible, but also slightly more possible than some of the more out-there resolutions. Such as Brexit being cancelled by global thermonuclear war, a megatsunami or an alien invasion.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is just possible - lets seeBlack_Rook said:
Clear? From Parliament?! I mean, really.Big_G_NorthWales said:
If she gets a clear indication next week of parliaments direction of travel I have little doubt the EU will get seriousstodge said:
Thank you for the kind word - I thought through this on my home from work but I keep thinking I'm missing something.Big_G_NorthWales said:
A fair assessment
The one other factor might be the EU and the degree to which they are willing to prevent a No Deal. if we get down to close to the wire, the EU may seek to extend A50 and it may be the WA isn't as non-negotiable as we might think.
If the EU blinks, it's possible May can get enough concession to make the WA acceptable to either the "tack hard" or "tack soft" camp. I wonder which way she'll go.
However, all that said the final victory of the Corbyn-Bridgen-Dodds-Hollobone alliance is very, very close now. Since MPs seem wholly incapable of taking the necessary action to revoke, delay, attempt to negotiate a new deal, call a plebiscite or do anything else, the only obvious barrier to No Deal is a total climbdown by at least 115 of the Remainers and Soft Brexiteers who previously rejected the Withdrawal Agreement in a fresh vote at some point during the next two months.
The 85% of punters whom, according to OGH, believe that there won't be a Hard Brexit on schedule on March 29th could well find out that they are very much mistaken.0 -
No - brexiteers are a very real risk to our economy. I am coming from the view that TM has a WDA deal and with a few tweeks sensible mps will pass itkle4 said:
So are we, and they are better prepared than us, and they have to face the politics of it as well, and we have far more people in authority scared stiff by no deal (rightly or not) than they do.Big_G_NorthWales said:
They are looking down the barrel of no deal in 7 weekskle4 said:
And why would the EU not have been serious before when May has presumably been telling them for months that she needs changes to get this through? They just keep getting angrier that she is saying the same thing.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is just possible - lets seeBlack_Rook said:
Clear? From Parliament?! I mean, really.Big_G_NorthWales said:
If she gets a clear indication next week of parliaments direction of travel I have little doubt the EU will get seriousstodge said:
Thank you for the kind word - I thought through this on my home from work but I keep thinking I'm missing something.Big_G_NorthWales said:
A fair assessment
The one other factor might be the EU and the degree to which they are willing to prevent a No Deal. if we get down to close to the wire, the EU may seek to extend A50 and it may be the WA isn't as non-negotiable as we might think.
If the EU blinks, it's possible May can get enough concession to make the WA acceptable to either the "tack hard" or "tack soft" camp. I wonder which way she'll go.
As for wait and see, she has used up the reasonable allotment of giving her the benefit of the doubt.
You're basically adopting the no deal brexiteer strategy of all we have to do is talk tough, and we will get what we want just because.0 -
The EU, and May, have been saying for months it will not be tweaked. Unless the EU have been lying this entire time, and we will have to hope they were, chasing after this unicorn at the risk of no deal is no different to the no dealers and the ultra remainers.Big_G_NorthWales said:
No - brexiteers are a very real risk to our economy. I am coming from the view that TM has a WDA deal and with a few tweeks sensible mps will pass itkle4 said:
So are we, and they are better prepared than us, and they have to face the politics of it as well, and we have far more people in authority scared stiff by no deal (rightly or not) than they do.Big_G_NorthWales said:
They are looking down the barrel of no deal in 7 weekskle4 said:
And why would the EU not have been serious before when May has presumably been telling them for months that she needs changes to get this through? They just keep getting angrier that she is saying the same thing.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is just possible - lets seeBlack_Rook said:
Clear? From Parliament?! I mean, really.Big_G_NorthWales said:
If she gets a clear indication next week of parliaments direction of travel I have little doubt the EU will get seriousstodge said:
Thank you for the kind word - I thought through this on my home from work but I keep thinking I'm missing something.Big_G_NorthWales said:
A fair assessment
The one other factor might be the EU and the degree to which they are willing to prevent a No Deal. if we get down to close to the wire, the EU may seek to extend A50 and it may be the WA isn't as non-negotiable as we might think.
If the EU blinks, it's possible May can get enough concession to make the WA acceptable to either the "tack hard" or "tack soft" camp. I wonder which way she'll go.
As for wait and see, she has used up the reasonable allotment of giving her the benefit of the doubt.
You're basically adopting the no deal brexiteer strategy of all we have to do is talk tough, and we will get what we want just because.0 -
Unfortunately, they are looking down it from the gun end...Big_G_NorthWales said:
They are looking down the barrel of no deal in 7 weekskle4 said:
And why would the EU not have been serious before when May has presumably been telling them for months that she needs changes to get this through? They just keep getting angrier that she is saying the same thing.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is just possible - lets seeBlack_Rook said:
Clear? From Parliament?! I mean, really.Big_G_NorthWales said:
If she gets a clear indication next week of parliaments direction of travel I have little doubt the EU will get seriousstodge said:
Thank you for the kind word - I thought through this on my home from work but I keep thinking I'm missing something.Big_G_NorthWales said:
A fair assessment
The one other factor might be the EU and the degree to which they are willing to prevent a No Deal. if we get down to close to the wire, the EU may seek to extend A50 and it may be the WA isn't as non-negotiable as we might think.
If the EU blinks, it's possible May can get enough concession to make the WA acceptable to either the "tack hard" or "tack soft" camp. I wonder which way she'll go.
As for wait and see, she has used up the reasonable allotment of giving her the benefit of the doubt.
0 -
I couldn’t face another evening of Brexit
So I went to a fantastic exhibition of Ruskin and Turner instead. Strongly recommended. Even the Guardian likes it
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/jan/24/john-ruskin-the-power-of-seeing-review-critic-social-reformer-two-temple-place0 -
Russian roulette with three loaded chambers.Sean_F said:
If it 's Remain v No Deal, I'd make the latter slight favourite.kle4 said:
Not all campaigners support this. One said it was "f***ing mad" & no different to Downing St policy of May's deal vs no-dealwilliamglenn said:
Indeed. It would also make a lie of their fears of no deal. Bit of an unnecessary scorched earth strategy, I think they're well placed if they focus. People are vaguely softening on various options, but don't actually appear that close to a decision yet, which means it is all to play for for PV.0 -
Why are you still pushing a deal that has been comprehensively defeated? It’s flawed beyond tweaks. We won’t make progress until we admit that.Big_G_NorthWales said:
No - brexiteers are a very real risk to our economy. I am coming from the view that TM has a WDA deal and with a few tweeks sensible mps will pass itkle4 said:
So are we, and they are better prepared than us, and they have to face the politics of it as well, and we have far more people in authority scared stiff by no deal (rightly or not) than they do.Big_G_NorthWales said:
They are looking down the barrel of no deal in 7 weekskle4 said:
And why would the EU not have been serious before when May has presumably been telling them for months that she needs changes to get this through? They just keep getting angrier that she is saying the same thing.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is just possible - lets seeBlack_Rook said:
Clear? From Parliament?! I mean, really.Big_G_NorthWales said:
If she gets a clear indication next week of parliaments direction of travel I have little doubt the EU will get seriousstodge said:
Thank you for the kind word - I thought through this on my home from work but I keep thinking I'm missing something.Big_G_NorthWales said:
A fair assessment
The one other factor might be the EU and the degree to which they are willing to prevent a No Deal. if we get down to close to the wire, the EU may seek to extend A50 and it may be the WA isn't as non-negotiable as we might think.
If the EU blinks, it's possible May can get enough concession to make the WA acceptable to either the "tack hard" or "tack soft" camp. I wonder which way she'll go.
As for wait and see, she has used up the reasonable allotment of giving her the benefit of the doubt.
You're basically adopting the no deal brexiteer strategy of all we have to do is talk tough, and we will get what we want just because.0 -
It's a demonstration too that backstops have meaning!ydoethur said:
Unfortunately it is very far from unimaginable. It's just that nobody sensible actually wants it.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I am more confident that a deal will be done as no deal becomes stark realitystodge said:
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that but I assume you mean that if faced with the likelihood of No Deal, the EU will blink.Big_G_NorthWales said:
If she gets a clear indication next week of parliaments direction of travel I have little doubt the EU will get serious
Maybe but I'm not sure I would be relying on it and IF the Prime Minister goes back to the EU she might have to do a fair b it of compromise as well. I think the EU and the UK could live with a permanent CU which would, I imagine, get through Parliament albeit with a considerable Conservative rebellion.
Just as Heath needed Labour MPs like Jenkins to get the accession bill through in the early 70s so May might be reliant on moderate Labour MPs to get any amended deal through.
For my own sanity I have to believe in a deal, no deal is unimaginable
'No deal' is a deal too - its just a minimal one. It'd much more likely if it came to it to be a NoDeal+++++ (with pluses almost ad infinitum). There would be a clear domino effect for Whitehall and Brussels departments to be falling over themselves in trying to get their + on the map. That dynamic has its attractions, but overall an all-encompassing deal is better.
May's deal has to be the deal.
0 -
-
She needs Labour votes in big numbers, enough Tory MPs are implacably opposed/too ambitious to wreck their chances of being party leader.Big_G_NorthWales said:
No - brexiteers are a very real risk to our economy. I am coming from the view that TM has a WDA deal and with a few tweeks sensible mps will pass itkle4 said:
So are we, and they are better prepared than us, and they have to face the politics of it as well, and we have far more people in authority scared stiff by no deal (rightly or not) than they do.Big_G_NorthWales said:
They are looking down the barrel of no deal in 7 weekskle4 said:
And why would the EU not have been serious before when May has presumably been telling them for months that she needs changes to get this through? They just keep getting angrier that she is saying the same thing.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is just possible - lets seeBlack_Rook said:
Clear? From Parliament?! I mean, really.Big_G_NorthWales said:
If she gets a clear indication next week of parliaments direction of travel I have little doubt the EU will get seriousstodge said:
Thank you for the kind word - I thought through this on my home from work but I keep thinking I'm missing something.Big_G_NorthWales said:
A fair assessment
The one other factor might be the EU and the degree to which they are willing to prevent a No Deal. if we get down to close to the wire, the EU may seek to extend A50 and it may be the WA isn't as non-negotiable as we might think.
If the EU blinks, it's possible May can get enough concession to make the WA acceptable to either the "tack hard" or "tack soft" camp. I wonder which way she'll go.
As for wait and see, she has used up the reasonable allotment of giving her the benefit of the doubt.
You're basically adopting the no deal brexiteer strategy of all we have to do is talk tough, and we will get what we want just because.0
This discussion has been closed.