politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Olly Robbins’ overheard comments are a clue that TMay might be

Options
System
System Posts: 12,578
edited February 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Olly Robbins’ overheard comments are a clue that TMay might be considering EURef2

Brexit is not going to plan, it’s fair to assume. Only the Leave Ultras, intent on a No Deal outcome are likely to be feeling any confidence at the moment, and that group is always given to unjustified hope and expectation before the event anyway. Labour partisans not bothered about Brexit might also be revelling in the government’s discomfort too, but the list pleased with how it’s going runs short after that.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Beverley_C
    Beverley_C Posts: 6,256
    edited February 2019
    Zero

    Like the benefits of Brexit
  • Roger
    Roger Posts: 20,744
    edited February 2019
    Sign on one of the kids banners seen during to-days demo;

    'I've Seen Smarter Cabinets at Ikea'
  • Awb683
    Awb683 Posts: 80
    Why would a new referendum be binding if the first one isn't???
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    Beverley_C said:

    Zero

    Like the benefits of Brexit

    First.

    Like those who should be up against the wall
  • Beverley_C
    Beverley_C Posts: 6,256
    edited February 2019
    Scott_P said:

    Beverley_C said:

    Zero

    Like the benefits of Brexit

    First.

    Like those who should be up against the wall
    I have to admire the ability of the party loyalists to tell us this month what they denied was a possibility last month.

    Another referendum? I am shocked!!!
  • david_herdson
    david_herdson Posts: 18,357
    Awb683 said:

    Why would a new referendum be binding if the first one isn't???

    You would write it into the legislation, as happened with the AV vote in 2011.
  • Andrew
    Andrew Posts: 2,900
    Offer a referendum, remain wins, then ignore the result and leave anyway. Worth it just to see Adonis' reaction.
  • FrancisUrquhart
    FrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,724
    Part-time posting.....like our MPs.
  • MikeSmithson
    MikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Thanks David. I've just switched my betting from UK leaving on March 29th to there will be a second referendum. I had been puzzled by the Ollie "12 month" extension and your explanation seems to it.
  • Beverley_C
    Beverley_C Posts: 6,256
    david_herdson said:

    Awb683 said:

    Why would a new referendum be binding if the first one isn't???

    You would write it into the legislation, as happened with the AV vote in 2011.
    It is a truism that no Parliament can bind its successors, why should referenda be any different?

    Or party policy it would seem ;)
  • kle4
    kle4 Posts: 99,113
    A second referendum, if they could agree on the options, would indeed be a possible way out of this quagmire. It at least has a better chance than many other options. But if May is considering it why the hell would she wait this long? The deal was killed ages ago, and I don't buy for a second that she actually thought she would get the EU to give her a unicorn as a valentine gift, so if it is being considered she could have toward it bloody ages ago.
  • Pro_Rata
    Pro_Rata Posts: 5,690
    In an AV type construction, I would still be inclined to favour May's deal, though I'm less sure of this than a month ago - 'make it go away' has its appeal.

    However, given that avoiding no deal is my first priority, the structure suggested in the article would be very likely to bring me back to Remain.
  • edmundintokyo
    edmundintokyo Posts: 17,735
    edited February 2019
    In his excellent piece David Herdson said:

    Where a referendum really wins out though is that it might be the one process that can command a majority in the House, if No Deal and Remain are also offered alongside the agreed deal

    Who are the MPs who will
    1) Vote for a referendum
    2) But only if it includes a No Deal option
    ???

    I'd been assuming there were basically none of these, but you could pass Remain vs Deal on TMay-Loyalists + Lab-Remain + LD/SNP/etc
  • williamglenn
    williamglenn Posts: 56,289
    If David is right, then I’ll win my bet with him.
  • FrancisUrquhart
    FrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,724
    edited February 2019
    Well that MAGA fanboys attack Empire star in racist and homophobic attack story has taken a strange twist...

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6708821/Lawyer-two-black-Empire-extras-detained-Jussie-Smollett-attack-says-innocent.html
  • david_herdson
    david_herdson Posts: 18,357
    MikeSmithson said:

    Thanks David. I've just switched my betting from UK leaving on March 29th to there will be a second referendum. I had been puzzled by the Ollie "12 month" extension and your explanation seems to it.

    Thanks. I'm working on the basis that the report of Robbins is accurate - though if it wasn't I think it would have been denied in stronger terms. I also suspect that given that he felt able to comment as he did, then at least informal talks about the possibility.

    I still feel that there's a strong chance of a No Deal outcome, simply because there are a lot of hurdles in the way of any other result but it's lower than I'd previously thought if an A50 extension is being considered not just to tidy up the implementation of a pre-29/3 vote but for something else beyond.
  • No_Offence_Alan
    No_Offence_Alan Posts: 5,118
    What happens if the HoC refuses to implement the results of a second referendum?
  • david_herdson
    david_herdson Posts: 18,357
    kle4 said:

    A second referendum, if they could agree on the options, would indeed be a possible way out of this quagmire. It at least has a better chance than many other options. But if May is considering it why the hell would she wait this long? The deal was killed ages ago, and I don't buy for a second that she actually thought she would get the EU to give her a unicorn as a valentine gift, so if it is being considered she could have toward it bloody ages ago.

    I think she really thought that pressure of time and lack of options (and the minimal space between what she's agreed and what Labour wants in the WA, as opposed to the Future Relationship), would enable parliamentary ratification.

    A referendum would be a rotten process to have to go through. But it might be the least rotten one, if the Commons won't sign anything off without that extra mandate.
  • david_herdson
    david_herdson Posts: 18,357
    edmundintokyo said:

    In his excellent piece David Herdson said:

    Where a referendum really wins out though is that it might be the one process that can command a majority in the House, if No Deal and Remain are also offered alongside the agreed deal

    Who are the MPs who will
    1) Vote for a referendum
    2) But only if it includes a No Deal option
    ???

    I'd been assuming there were basically none of these, but you could pass Remain vs Deal on TMay-Loyalists + Lab-Remain + LD/SNP/etc
    AV is one of the least-likely methods of getting the deal through, as it has little positive support and would almost certainly go out first. There would be the serious risk that I flagged up that people like you (and me) would cause Leave to gain an overall majority on first preferences but the country then ends up remaining, which really wouldn't settle the issue.
  • david_herdson
    david_herdson Posts: 18,357
    edmundintokyo said:

    In his excellent piece David Herdson said:

    Where a referendum really wins out though is that it might be the one process that can command a majority in the House, if No Deal and Remain are also offered alongside the agreed deal

    Who are the MPs who will
    1) Vote for a referendum
    2) But only if it includes a No Deal option
    ???

    I'd been assuming there were basically none of these, but you could pass Remain vs Deal on TMay-Loyalists + Lab-Remain + LD/SNP/etc
    May needs to keep her government viable through the months during which the Bill would be passed and the vote held. That means keeping the DUP and ERG extremists on board. Ruling out No Deal would risk Con defections to the Brexit Party.
  • edmundintokyo
    edmundintokyo Posts: 17,735
    No_Offence_Alan said:

    What happens if the HoC refuses to implement the results of a second referendum?

    You'd almost definitely make it binding like the AV one, so they wouldn't need to.

    In theory they could pass new legislation to stop being bound by it, but there's not much risk of that since parliament can't agree on anything in the first place, and that's why we're getting to the referendum.

    The one wrinkle is No Deal, because ultimately the UK and EU would presumably make some *other* deal, at which point the people who backed No Deal will say they woz robbed.
  • david_herdson
    david_herdson Posts: 18,357
    No_Offence_Alan said:

    What happens if the HoC refuses to implement the results of a second referendum?

    You write the legislation so that it wouldn't have to.

    In other words, you put all the implementing legislation under three groups of sections, and then include another section that says something like "if the result of the referendum is to Remain in the EU, sections X to Y shall become active on the 3rd working day after the vote, Sections M to N shall not be active, and the prime minister shall be required to send the EU a letter notifying revocation of Article 50 within 7 days of the vote", or "if the result of the referendum is the leave the EU with the agreed deal, the Secretary of State shall deposit within 7 days an instrument of ratification to the Withdrawal Agreement ... etc"
  • TheAncientMariner
    TheAncientMariner Posts: 227
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Well that MAGA fanboys attack Empire star in racist and homophobic attack story has taken a strange twist...

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6708821/Lawyer-two-black-Empire-extras-detained-Jussie-Smollett-attack-says-innocent.html

    You don't expect it to be discussed on this site do you ? What was that phrase again? Fake news?

    In the meantime this article just smells of remainers clinging to chinese whispers.
  • Floater
    Floater Posts: 14,207
    Andrew said:

    Offer a referendum, remain wins, then ignore the result and leave anyway. Worth it just to see Adonis' reaction.

    LOL
  • eristdoof
    eristdoof Posts: 5,089
    david_herdson said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    Thanks David. I've just switched my betting from UK leaving on March 29th to there will be a second referendum. I had been puzzled by the Ollie "12 month" extension and your explanation seems to it.

    Thanks. I'm working on the basis that the report of Robbins is accurate - though if it wasn't I think it would have been denied in stronger terms. I also suspect that given that he felt able to comment as he did, then at least informal talks about the possibility.
    I'm still sceptical that a top civil servant was overheard by a journalist in a bar. Politicians are vain and forget where they are if the want to impress someone. Civil Servants are drilled on the importance of confidentiality and top Civil Servants don't make this kind of mistake.

    This does not mean that what he said is untrue, but it does mean that what he said was meant to be heard and reported.
  • williamglenn
    williamglenn Posts: 56,289
    david_herdson said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    In his excellent piece David Herdson said:

    Where a referendum really wins out though is that it might be the one process that can command a majority in the House, if No Deal and Remain are also offered alongside the agreed deal

    Who are the MPs who will
    1) Vote for a referendum
    2) But only if it includes a No Deal option
    ???

    I'd been assuming there were basically none of these, but you could pass Remain vs Deal on TMay-Loyalists + Lab-Remain + LD/SNP/etc
    May needs to keep her government viable through the months during which the Bill would be passed and the vote held. That means keeping the DUP and ERG extremists on board. Ruling out No Deal would risk Con defections to the Brexit Party.
    The best case scenario for May would be if she takes it to the wire, the ERG blink on No Deal, but refuse to vote for the deal because they say Remain would be better. Then she can take it to the country with the reluctant support of the Conservative parliamentary party.
  • david_herdson
    david_herdson Posts: 18,357
    edmundintokyo said:

    No_Offence_Alan said:

    What happens if the HoC refuses to implement the results of a second referendum?

    You'd almost definitely make it binding like the AV one, so they wouldn't need to.

    In theory they could pass new legislation to stop being bound by it, but there's not much risk of that since parliament can't agree on anything in the first place, and that's why we're getting to the referendum.

    The one wrinkle is No Deal, because ultimately the UK and EU would presumably make some *other* deal, at which point the people who backed No Deal will say they woz robbed.
    I think you would have to phrase it as 'without ratifying the Withdrawal Agreement', or something like that. I agree that you wouldn't want to politically bind the government and EU from agreeing *any* arrangements.
  • edmundintokyo
    edmundintokyo Posts: 17,735
    david_herdson said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    No_Offence_Alan said:

    What happens if the HoC refuses to implement the results of a second referendum?

    You'd almost definitely make it binding like the AV one, so they wouldn't need to.

    In theory they could pass new legislation to stop being bound by it, but there's not much risk of that since parliament can't agree on anything in the first place, and that's why we're getting to the referendum.

    The one wrinkle is No Deal, because ultimately the UK and EU would presumably make some *other* deal, at which point the people who backed No Deal will say they woz robbed.
    I think you would have to phrase it as 'without ratifying the Withdrawal Agreement', or something like that. I agree that you wouldn't want to politically bind the government and EU from agreeing *any* arrangements.
    Yes, that makes sense, but the people who voted for it would still end up thinking they woz robbed.
  • NickPalmer
    NickPalmer Posts: 21,724
    eristdoof said:

    david_herdson said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    Thanks David. I've just switched my betting from UK leaving on March 29th to there will be a second referendum. I had been puzzled by the Ollie "12 month" extension and your explanation seems to it.

    Thanks. I'm working on the basis that the report of Robbins is accurate - though if it wasn't I think it would have been denied in stronger terms. I also suspect that given that he felt able to comment as he did, then at least informal talks about the possibility.
    I'm still sceptical that a top civil servant was overheard by a journalist in a bar. Politicians are vain and forget where they are if the want to impress someone. Civil Servants are drilled on the importance of confidentiality and top Civil Servants don't make this kind of mistake.

    This does not mean that what he said is untrue, but it does mean that what he said was meant to be heard and reported.
    I'm sceptical about that - there are numerous better ways to fly a kite if you want to (not for attribution briefing, getting an inttermediary to gossip, invite a journalist to ask a relevant question and give an evasive answer). Saying something in a bar in the hope that a journalist will overhear and run with it seems about as good as shiperecked sailors putting a message in a bottle.

    But it's a slender basis for David's inference. It would be much more May-like to mean that she'd try for a long period of leisurely can-kicking.
  • Pro_Rata
    Pro_Rata Posts: 5,690
    edited February 2019
    I've read we've come to some impasse on getting agreement for our basic WTO schedules. Could anyone enlighten me on what exactly is not in place and what the further practical trade implications would be of having such a semi-formed WTO setup?
  • FrancisUrquhart
    FrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,724
    Trump: Shinzo Abe nominated me for Nobel peace prize

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/15/trump-shinzo-abe-nominated-me-nobel-peace-prize
  • another_richard
    another_richard Posts: 27,927
    david_herdson said:

    No_Offence_Alan said:

    What happens if the HoC refuses to implement the results of a second referendum?

    You write the legislation so that it wouldn't have to.

    In other words, you put all the implementing legislation under three groups of sections, and then include another section that says something like "if the result of the referendum is to Remain in the EU, sections X to Y shall become active on the 3rd working day after the vote, Sections M to N shall not be active, and the prime minister shall be required to send the EU a letter notifying revocation of Article 50 within 7 days of the vote", or "if the result of the referendum is the leave the EU with the agreed deal, the Secretary of State shall deposit within 7 days an instrument of ratification to the Withdrawal Agreement ... etc"
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRowLjb0x48

    After years of 'cast iron' guarantees and 'no ifs or buts' pledges do you really expect anyone to believe this ?
  • NickPalmer
    NickPalmer Posts: 21,724
    I'm on Opinium's panel and get asked for my opinion on this and that, every day or two. Today I was asked at the end of a survey netting me 25p whether my business had considered the impact of No Deal on our information responsibilities (GDPR and all that), concluding with a list of links that my business should consider.

    As a way of reaching out to businesses it has the charm of novelty. But it's a bit random, no?
  • prh47bridge
    prh47bridge Posts: 480
    Beverley_C said:

    david_herdson said:

    Awb683 said:

    Why would a new referendum be binding if the first one isn't???

    You would write it into the legislation, as happened with the AV vote in 2011.
    It is a truism that no Parliament can bind its successors, why should referenda be any different?

    Or party policy it would seem ;)
    This wouldn't be a Parliament binding its successors. This Parliament would be binding itself. There would only be a successor Parliament after a General Election, by which time this referendum would have taken place and the result enacted.
  • Nigelb
    Nigelb Posts: 79,355
    Awb683 said:

    Why would a new referendum be binding if the first one isn't???

    Apart from the reasons already stated, it doesn’t really matter because parliament is desperate to hand back the decision to the people.

    The first referendum aftermath demostrated the truth of this when a overwhelming majority voted in favour of invoking A50 without pausing to enquire too deeply (or at all) into the likely consequences. Absent any such guidance on how to deal with those consequences, parliament is utterly paralysed as a decision making body.

    Should parliament vote for a second referendum, I would expect a similar massive majority to back implementation of the result, albeit with a slightly larger number of irreconcilables ... whatever the result might be.

  • rottenborough
    rottenborough Posts: 66,860
    Illinois shooting. Five dead.
  • dots
    dots Posts: 615
    On topic. Can I take issue with May’s performance in the last GE being poor? It wasn’t that bad. It’s a myth that needs to die now.
    She isn’t that bad delivering to a mic, an audience or dealing with a press conference or audience questions. May performed better at the last election than Corbyn and better than Milliband in 2015. Her manifesto was more substantial and credible than Labours, it had what was dubbed dementia tax in it (that actually wasn’t a dementia tax) her party and workers were poorly briefed on it, other than that people say Corbyn the great campaigner, May a poor one simply on the result, the result was redreamers naively flocking to Labour, a surge in youth voting because of brexit, it is wrong to believe the myth the result was down to how both party leaders campaigned. I don’t care if I’m a lone voice saying this, I am right. I was there, I know what I saw heard and analysed.
  • Nigelb
    Nigelb Posts: 79,355
    Biden and Saunders’ are the most popular second as well as first preferences of Democrats - with their respective supporters favouring the other as a second choice, too.-
    https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/430261-sanders-biden-seen-as-most-popular-second-choices-for-dem
  • rottenborough
    rottenborough Posts: 66,860
    dots said:

    On topic. Can I take issue with May’s performance in the last GE being poor? It wasn’t that bad. It’s a myth that needs to die now.
    She isn’t that bad delivering to a mic, an audience or dealing with a press conference or audience questions. May performed better at the last election than Corbyn and better than Milliband in 2015. Her manifesto was more substantial and credible than Labours, it had what was dubbed dementia tax in it (that actually wasn’t a dementia tax) her party and workers were poorly briefed on it, other than that people say Corbyn the great campaigner, May a poor one simply on the result, the result was redreamers naively flocking to Labour, a surge in youth voting because of brexit, it is wrong to believe the myth the result was down to how both party leaders campaigned. I don’t care if I’m a lone voice saying this, I am right. I was there, I know what I saw heard and analysed.

    The young surged (if this is actually true, there seems some pol sci debate on the numbers) because they bought the whole Magic Grandpa, no fees for uni, nationalisation is cool etc etc agenda.
  • williamglenn
    williamglenn Posts: 56,289
    edited February 2019
    Brexit gets real for Yorkshire.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-47252834

    Plans for a "Sausage World" attraction in North Yorkshire have been put on hold after funding from the European Union was refused.
  • Nigelb
    Nigelb Posts: 79,355
    dots said:

    On topic. Can I take issue with May’s performance in the last GE being poor? It wasn’t that bad. It’s a myth that needs to die now.
    She isn’t that bad delivering to a mic, an audience or dealing with a press conference or audience questions. May performed better at the last election than Corbyn and better than Milliband in 2015. Her manifesto was more substantial and credible than Labours, it had what was dubbed dementia tax in it (that actually wasn’t a dementia tax) her party and workers were poorly briefed on it, other than that people say Corbyn the great campaigner, May a poor one simply on the result, the result was redreamers naively flocking to Labour, a surge in youth voting because of brexit, it is wrong to believe the myth the result was down to how both party leaders campaigned. I don’t care if I’m a lone voice saying this, I am right. I was there, I know what I saw heard and analysed.

    What, the rest of us were out of the country or something ?
    It was a piss poor campaign.

  • Nigelb
    Nigelb Posts: 79,355
    This is a big endorsement for Harris:
    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/15/huerta-endorses-kamala-harris-2020-election-1172256
  • RobD
    RobD Posts: 60,608
    I
    williamglenn said:

    Brexit gets real for Yorkshire.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-47252834

    Plans for a "Sausage World" attraction in North Yorkshire have been put on hold after funding from the European Union was refused.

    Emulsified high fat offal tube world doesn’t quite have the same ring to it, does it?
  • another_richard
    another_richard Posts: 27,927
    rottenborough said:

    dots said:

    On topic. Can I take issue with May’s performance in the last GE being poor? It wasn’t that bad. It’s a myth that needs to die now.
    She isn’t that bad delivering to a mic, an audience or dealing with a press conference or audience questions. May performed better at the last election than Corbyn and better than Milliband in 2015. Her manifesto was more substantial and credible than Labours, it had what was dubbed dementia tax in it (that actually wasn’t a dementia tax) her party and workers were poorly briefed on it, other than that people say Corbyn the great campaigner, May a poor one simply on the result, the result was redreamers naively flocking to Labour, a surge in youth voting because of brexit, it is wrong to believe the myth the result was down to how both party leaders campaigned. I don’t care if I’m a lone voice saying this, I am right. I was there, I know what I saw heard and analysed.

    The young surged (if this is actually true, there seems some pol sci debate on the numbers) because they bought the whole Magic Grandpa, no fees for uni, nationalisation is cool etc etc agenda.
    And for students it had a positive effect:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41456555
  • Nigelb
    Nigelb Posts: 79,355
    RobD said:

    I

    williamglenn said:

    Brexit gets real for Yorkshire.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-47252834

    Plans for a "Sausage World" attraction in North Yorkshire have been put on hold after funding from the European Union was refused.

    Emulsified high fat offal tube world doesn’t quite have the same ring to it, does it?
    Heck sausages are nothing of the sort. They are unbeatable for those with genuine food allergies, as they don’t contain much in the way of crap at all.
  • dots
    dots Posts: 615
    MikeSmithson said:

    Thanks David. I've just switched my betting from UK leaving on March 29th to there will be a second referendum. I had been puzzled by the Ollie "12 month" extension and your explanation seems to it.

    After the excited hyperbole of the campaign in 2016, I have a feeling a ref2 in 2019 would be more cerebral, a degree more somber and level headed, because leave still have a huge amount of committed and unashamed support out there to mobilise, but whilst they can’t run the same campaign of brexit being nothing but benefits, a huge money tree and easy to pull off with replacement deals, rather bizarrely a far stronger leave campaign can rise from the ashes of past hype and lies, a leave campaign that’s a completeflip from last time, instead of easy it talks of struggle, hard work, instead of a shower of wealth from a magic money tree the tone is any happiness and comforts will have to be earned; a campaign with far broader appeal across all age groups. But why would people vote for such messages, what is the reward? To keep our identity, our identity as a people, an island race a culture, not to choose the route where it becomes subsumed and disappears. Because this is what the EU project is, to make people European, to remove cultures, borders and national identity. Remain could argue the toss about money, costs, taking back control, borders, immigration, but remain would have no answer to a cool headed debate about the fight to save our identity.
  • Nigelb
    Nigelb Posts: 79,355
    dots said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    Thanks David. I've just switched my betting from UK leaving on March 29th to there will be a second referendum. I had been puzzled by the Ollie "12 month" extension and your explanation seems to it.

    After the excited hyperbole of the campaign in 2016, I have a feeling a ref2 in 2019 would be more cerebral, a degree more somber and level headed, because leave still have a huge amount of committed and unashamed support out there to mobilise, but whilst they can’t run the same campaign of brexit being nothing but benefits, a huge money tree and easy to pull off with replacement deals, rather bizarrely a far stronger leave campaign can rise from the ashes of past hype and lies, a leave campaign that’s a completeflip from last time, instead of easy it talks of struggle, hard work, instead of a shower of wealth from a magic money tree the tone is any happiness and comforts will have to be earned; a campaign with far broader appeal across all age groups. But why would people vote for such messages, what is the reward? To keep our identity, our identity as a people, an island race a culture, not to choose the route where it becomes subsumed and disappears. Because this is what the EU project is, to make people European, to remove cultures, borders and national identity. Remain could argue the toss about money, costs, taking back control, borders, immigration, but remain would have no answer to a cool headed debate about the fight to save our identity.
    Sounds like excited hyperbole to me.

  • williamglenn
    williamglenn Posts: 56,289
    Nigelb said:

    RobD said:

    I

    williamglenn said:

    Brexit gets real for Yorkshire.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-47252834

    Plans for a "Sausage World" attraction in North Yorkshire have been put on hold after funding from the European Union was refused.

    Emulsified high fat offal tube world doesn’t quite have the same ring to it, does it?
    Heck sausages are nothing of the sort. They are unbeatable for those with genuine food allergies, as they don’t contain much in the way of crap at all.
    I see in the article they are also launching in Ireland with the name "Feck".
  • edmundintokyo
    edmundintokyo Posts: 17,735
    Nigelb said:

    Biden and Saunders’ are the most popular second as well as first preferences of Democrats - with their respective supporters favouring the other as a second choice, too.-
    https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/430261-sanders-biden-seen-as-most-popular-second-choices-for-dem

    If anyone wasn't convinced the Biden and Sanders polling was mostly name recognition, this should clinch it.
  • Nigelb
    Nigelb Posts: 79,355
    williamglenn said:

    Nigelb said:

    RobD said:

    I

    williamglenn said:

    Brexit gets real for Yorkshire.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-47252834

    Plans for a "Sausage World" attraction in North Yorkshire have been put on hold after funding from the European Union was refused.

    Emulsified high fat offal tube world doesn’t quite have the same ring to it, does it?
    Heck sausages are nothing of the sort. They are unbeatable for those with genuine food allergies, as they don’t contain much in the way of crap at all.
    I see in the article they are also launching in Ireland with the name "Feck".
    Surely they’re not going to call them Scheisse in Germany ?

  • Nigelb
    Nigelb Posts: 79,355
    edmundintokyo said:

    Nigelb said:

    Biden and Saunders’ are the most popular second as well as first preferences of Democrats - with their respective supporters favouring the other as a second choice, too.-
    https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/430261-sanders-biden-seen-as-most-popular-second-choices-for-dem

    If anyone wasn't convinced the Biden and Sanders polling was mostly name recognition, this should clinch it.
    Up to a point.
    There’s also polling which strongly demonstrates Democrats on either wing of the party will vote for the candidate they think has the best chance of beating Trump, even if they’re on the ‘wrong’ side. You’re quite right that it suggests name recognition is the likely cause, but I don’t think it’s definitive.

  • edmundintokyo
    edmundintokyo Posts: 17,735
    Awb683 said:

    Why would a new referendum be binding if the first one isn't???

    Because that's what it would say in the referendum legislation.

    Or do you mean, why would parliament make the second one binding after they made the first one advisory? The answer is that the first one was implemented by a party with a majority that agreed it wanted to do it, whereas the second one is designed to clear a logjam of having multiple factions all wanting different things. The factions don't trust each other, so each faction wouldn't quite be 100% confident that its rivals would cooperate in passing the legislation it would need if it won. The solution is to write the legislation to be binding, so that you don't need your rivals to cooperate once the referendum legislation is passed.
  • david_herdson
    david_herdson Posts: 18,357
    dots said:

    On topic. Can I take issue with May’s performance in the last GE being poor? It wasn’t that bad. It’s a myth that needs to die now.
    She isn’t that bad delivering to a mic, an audience or dealing with a press conference or audience questions. May performed better at the last election than Corbyn and better than Milliband in 2015. Her manifesto was more substantial and credible than Labours, it had what was dubbed dementia tax in it (that actually wasn’t a dementia tax) her party and workers were poorly briefed on it, other than that people say Corbyn the great campaigner, May a poor one simply on the result, the result was redreamers naively flocking to Labour, a surge in youth voting because of brexit, it is wrong to believe the myth the result was down to how both party leaders campaigned. I don’t care if I’m a lone voice saying this, I am right. I was there, I know what I saw heard and analysed.

    The manifesto was a disaster and cost a lot of votes.

    May might be good in some settings but she was wooden in interviews, ducked the debates and took every decision possible to undermine her 'strong and stable' message, which she repeated ad nauseam, despite it clearly not being credible by week three.

    The Tories failed to take Labour's manifesto apart and had no coherence or flexibility to the campaign strategy and messaging.

    FWIW, I agree that Corbyn isn't that hot and for the second time, was in the right place at the right time. But May was crap.
  • MikeL
    MikeL Posts: 7,809
    edited February 2019
    I don't think the AV referendum was 100% binding.

    All the law said was that IF the AV referendum had passed then the Statutory Instrument implementing it had to be laid before the Queen in the same Privy Council meeting as a Statutory Instrument implementing the Boundary changes.

    So even if AV had been Yes, it's still possible there could have been a falling out over the Boundary changes (which were still subject to Commons and Lords votes before SI went to Privy Council) such that AV would not have actually been implemented.

    OK, the law did go so far as to say no more votes were needed on AV in Parliament. But at the same time it still wasn't 100% guaranteed to be implemented.
  • SunnyJim
    SunnyJim Posts: 1,106
    Why would TM agree to R2 before she would agree to a GE?

    The latter gives her an out which would at least keep the Tories together whilst going for R2 would rip them apart.

    She can offer a GE on a manifesto binding all candidates to her deal (she will lose a few current MP's of course who would not stand on that platform) and explain it away as the only realistic option to escape the impasse.

    Offering R2 is utterly nuts and gets crazier the more I consider it.
  • david_herdson
    david_herdson Posts: 18,357
    MikeL said:

    I don't think the AV referendum was 100% binding.

    All the law said was that IF the AV referendum had passed then the Statutory Instrument implementing it had to be laid before the Queen in the same Privy Council meeting as a Statutory Instrument implementing the Boundary changes.

    So even if AV had been Yes, it's still possible there could have been a falling out over the Boundary changes (which were still subject to Commons and Lords votes before SI went to Privy Council) such that AV would not have actually been implemented.

    OK, the law did go so far as to say no more votes were needed on AV in Parliament. But at the same time it still wasn't 100% guaranteed to be implemented.

    OK, fair enough. But the principle is still there that you can make a referendum binding inasfar as not depending on other parliamentary votes. There was no need, other than political horsetrading, that required the AV provisions to be tied to the boundary review.
  • JohnLoony
    JohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    I was recently told by a reliable source (I can't be too specific about the details) that reports about what has been overheard, and other such rumours, should be taken with a huge amount of salt. The newspapers often report things which are simply made up.
  • viewcode
    viewcode Posts: 25,202
    JohnLoony said:

    I was recently told by a reliable source (I can't be too specific about the details) that reports about what has been overheard, and other such rumours, should be taken with a huge amount of salt. The newspapers often report things which are simply made up.

    Without prejudice to your noble self, I would prefer a more concrete source than Some Guy
  • SunnyJim
    SunnyJim Posts: 1,106
    JohnLoony said:

    I was recently told by a reliable source (I can't be too specific about the details) that reports about what has been overheard, and other such rumours, should be taken with a huge amount of salt. The newspapers often report things which are simply made up.

    I wouldn't be surprised if it is fake news, it seems particularly amateurish from a very senior CS especially when set against the sensitivity of both the subject and timescales.

    Who would benefit from leaking the story though? Bookies aside.
  • Floater
    Floater Posts: 14,207
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Trump: Shinzo Abe nominated me for Nobel peace prize

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/15/trump-shinzo-abe-nominated-me-nobel-peace-prize

    I heard Trump say that

    I do have to agree with him on one thing though, what the fuck did Obama do for his?

  • edmundintokyo
    edmundintokyo Posts: 17,735
    SunnyJim said:

    Why would TM agree to R2 before she would agree to a GE?

    The latter gives her an out which would at least keep the Tories together whilst going for R2 would rip them apart.

    She can offer a GE on a manifesto binding all candidates to her deal (she will lose a few current MP's of course who would not stand on that platform) and explain it away as the only realistic option to escape the impasse.

    Offering R2 is utterly nuts and gets crazier the more I consider it.

    I agree, a GE is more likely than R2. That said, calling an election to give you a mandate for a deal that everybody on all sides thinks is terrible and 1/3 of your candidates have already voted against in parliament isn't a risk-free move, to put it mildly.
  • williamglenn
    williamglenn Posts: 56,289
    edmundintokyo said:

    SunnyJim said:

    Why would TM agree to R2 before she would agree to a GE?

    The latter gives her an out which would at least keep the Tories together whilst going for R2 would rip them apart.

    She can offer a GE on a manifesto binding all candidates to her deal (she will lose a few current MP's of course who would not stand on that platform) and explain it away as the only realistic option to escape the impasse.

    Offering R2 is utterly nuts and gets crazier the more I consider it.

    I agree, a GE is more likely than R2. That said, calling an election to give you a mandate for a deal that everybody on all sides thinks is terrible and 1/3 of your candidates have already voted against in parliament isn't a risk-free move, to put it mildly.
    There is a third way: the "nothing has changed" extension. With parliament still at an impasse, May convinces the EU to give a 21 month extension with no specific plan, and then waits to see how the European elections pan out.
  • swing_voter
    swing_voter Posts: 1,466
    edmundintokyo said:

    SunnyJim said:

    Why would TM agree to R2 before she would agree to a GE?

    The latter gives her an out which would at least keep the Tories together whilst going for R2 would rip them apart.

    She can offer a GE on a manifesto binding all candidates to her deal (she will lose a few current MP's of course who would not stand on that platform) and explain it away as the only realistic option to escape the impasse.

    Offering R2 is utterly nuts and gets crazier the more I consider it.

    I agree, a GE is more likely than R2. That said, calling an election to give you a mandate for a deal that everybody on all sides thinks is terrible and 1/3 of your candidates have already voted against in parliament isn't a risk-free move, to put it mildly.
    I cant see TM ever seeking a GE under either of those conditions, I think she'd have resigned first.....
  • swing_voter
    swing_voter Posts: 1,466
    dots said:

    On topic. Can I take issue with May’s performance in the last GE being poor? It wasn’t that bad. It’s a myth that needs to die now.
    She isn’t that bad delivering to a mic, an audience or dealing with a press conference or audience questions. May performed better at the last election than Corbyn and better than Milliband in 2015. Her manifesto was more substantial and credible than Labours, it had what was dubbed dementia tax in it (that actually wasn’t a dementia tax) her party and workers were poorly briefed on it, other than that people say Corbyn the great campaigner, May a poor one simply on the result, the result was redreamers naively flocking to Labour, a surge in youth voting because of brexit, it is wrong to believe the myth the result was down to how both party leaders campaigned. I don’t care if I’m a lone voice saying this, I am right. I was there, I know what I saw heard and analysed.

    Are you Phillip May (TM's husband)???
  • DecrepitJohnL
    DecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited February 2019
    SunnyJim said:

    Why would TM agree to R2 before she would agree to a GE?

    The latter gives her an out which would at least keep the Tories together whilst going for R2 would rip them apart.

    She can offer a GE on a manifesto binding all candidates to her deal (she will lose a few current MP's of course who would not stand on that platform) and explain it away as the only realistic option to escape the impasse.

    Offering R2 is utterly nuts and gets crazier the more I consider it.

    Because a referendum keeps Theresa May in a job whereas an election might not, especially if she pledged to step down beforehand.

    ETA: though since last summer I've thought CCHQ has been gearing up for an election.
  • DecrepitJohnL
    DecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    The Telegraph has Lady Falkender's (Marcia Williams') obituary but her death 10 days ago does not seem to have been reported anywhere else.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2019/02/15/lady-falkender-harold-wilsons-controversial-secretary-powerful/
  • edmundintokyo
    edmundintokyo Posts: 17,735
    edited February 2019
    williamglenn said:

    edmundintokyo said:


    I agree, a GE is more likely than R2. That said, calling an election to give you a mandate for a deal that everybody on all sides thinks is terrible and 1/3 of your candidates have already voted against in parliament isn't a risk-free move, to put it mildly.

    There is a third way: the "nothing has changed" extension. With parliament still at an impasse, May convinces the EU to give a 21 month extension with no specific plan, and then waits to see how the European elections pan out.
    Yes, I was going to mention that was the most likely way of all. The question is then whether the rest of the EU will go for it.

    I feel like they will, although taking a step back I'm a bit suspicious of my own judgement on this, since historically, "I want the EU to do X, everybody involved says they won't, but I insist that when it comes to the crunch they will" has been a clear sign of a person who's full of shit.
  • SunnyJim
    SunnyJim Posts: 1,106
    DecrepitJohnL said:



    Because a referendum keeps Theresa May in a job whereas an election might not, especially if she pledged to step down beforehand.

    ETA: though since last summer I've thought CCHQ has been gearing up for an election.

    If R2 produced a majority for her deal the DUP would ensure her political life expectancy was measured in minutes.

    If R2 produced a remain win the party would be destroyed by perpetual internal warfare. And why would she want to be know as the leader who destroyed her party.


    If she wins a majority in a GE she gets her deal through.

    If it's a hung parliament she can offer Corbyn the reigns and allow Labour to take the hit for the subsequent sh*tshow.

    Either way she comes out of a GE 'relatively' unscathed and certainly not a woman despised as she would be for calling R2.
  • edmundintokyo
    edmundintokyo Posts: 17,735
    SunnyJim said:


    If R2 produced a majority for her deal the DUP would ensure her political life expectancy was measured in minutes.

    If R2 produced a remain win the party would be destroyed by perpetual internal warfare. And why would she want to be know as the leader who destroyed her party.

    I don't think either of these things are *necessarily* true.

    I mean, the DUP can pull the plug if they want to, but their choice is basically money and power vs no money and power, so that doesn't sound like a great strategic choice.

    As for perpetual internal warfare, that's what we've got at the moment, and will have for as long as Brexit is a thing. But it's not at all obvious why a Remain win would destroy the party; Most of the voters are sick of the whole thing, and the people who aren't won't be satisfied by any plausible outcome. Some of the activists would resign in disgust or defect to Farage, and Farage would get a chunk of vote share back, but neither of those things are fatal.
  • DecrepitJohnL
    DecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited February 2019
    Chris Grayling's under fire again so there must be a y in the day.
    Chris Grayling was under fire on Friday night as a private firm to whom he awarded a probation contract to monitor thousands of offenders went into administration after warnings it put the public at risk.

    To be fair to the government:

    David Gauke, the Justice Secretary, announced last summer he was terminating early all 21 private probation contracts awarded under Mr Grayling to manage low and medium risk offenders. He is currently consulting on plans for a new regime.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/15/probation-firm-collapses-amid-criticism-failings-put-public/
  • Philip_Thompson
    Philip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    SunnyJim said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:



    Because a referendum keeps Theresa May in a job whereas an election might not, especially if she pledged to step down beforehand.

    ETA: though since last summer I've thought CCHQ has been gearing up for an election.

    If R2 produced a majority for her deal the DUP would ensure her political life expectancy was measured in minutes.

    If R2 produced a remain win the party would be destroyed by perpetual internal warfare. And why would she want to be know as the leader who destroyed her party.


    If she wins a majority in a GE she gets her deal through.

    If it's a hung parliament she can offer Corbyn the reigns and allow Labour to take the hit for the subsequent sh*tshow.

    Either way she comes out of a GE 'relatively' unscathed and certainly not a woman despised as she would be for calling R2.
    If she wins a majority her deal is still rejected.
  • SunnyJim
    SunnyJim Posts: 1,106
    Philip_Thompson said:



    If she wins a majority her deal is still rejected.

    Not if the manifesto was explicit and sitting MP's, and candidates, were selected on the basis of their agreement to implement her deal.

    Yes, Soubry and a few others would stomp off but it would be a small price to pay.
  • DecrepitJohnL
    DecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    The Telegraph has Lady Falkender's (Marcia Williams') obituary but her death 10 days ago does not seem to have been reported anywhere else.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2019/02/15/lady-falkender-harold-wilsons-controversial-secretary-powerful/

    The Mail now has it (presumably prompted by the Telegraph)
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6711275/Baroness-Falkender-former-private-secretary-Harold-Wilson-dies-aged-86.html
  • edmundintokyo
    edmundintokyo Posts: 17,735
    SunnyJim said:

    Not if the manifesto was explicit and sitting MP's, and candidates, were selected on the basis of their agreement to implement her deal.

    Whoa, is she going to deselect anyone who won't promise to vote for her deal? Because that seems like more of a "perpetual internal warfare", "destroy her party" kind of move than losing a second referendum.
  • AndyJS
    AndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Floater said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Trump: Shinzo Abe nominated me for Nobel peace prize

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/15/trump-shinzo-abe-nominated-me-nobel-peace-prize

    I heard Trump say that

    I do have to agree with him on one thing though, what the fuck did Obama do for his?

    By definition, not much, because he was awarded it only a short time after becoming president. It was almost as if he was given it in expectation of what they hoped he would do, rather than what he'd done.
  • Nigelb
    Nigelb Posts: 79,355
    SunnyJim said:

    Philip_Thompson said:



    If she wins a majority her deal is still rejected.

    Not if the manifesto was explicit and sitting MP's, and candidates, were selected on the basis of their agreement to implement her deal.

    Yes, Soubry and a few others would stomp off but it would be a small price to pay.
    It might have escaped your notice, but May is not a leader with that kind of absolute power.
    And even in your fantasy world, it would likely be the other extreme of the party doing the stomping.

    Apart from that, a flawless plan.

  • Nigelb
    Nigelb Posts: 79,355
    AndyJS said:

    Floater said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Trump: Shinzo Abe nominated me for Nobel peace prize

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/15/trump-shinzo-abe-nominated-me-nobel-peace-prize

    I heard Trump say that

    I do have to agree with him on one thing though, what the fuck did Obama do for his?

    By definition, not much, because he was awarded it only a short time after becoming president. It was almost as if he was given it in expectation of what they hoped he would do, rather than what he'd done.
    I think the rationale, if there was one (and given the history of the prize, that’s no more than marginally likely), was that his campaign and election brought a measure of healing to the US’s racial divide. Subsequent events have show that judgment to be premature at best.

    I’m not seeing any rationale for Trump’s claim other than his crippling narcissism.

  • Nigelb
    Nigelb Posts: 79,355
    Interesting polling on O’Rourke’s senate prospects:
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/430317-poll-shows-competitive-matchup-if-orourke-ran-for-senate-again
  • ydoethur
    ydoethur Posts: 74,263
    edited February 2019
    You sometimes wonder what Angela Rayner has in her head.

    Labour pledges to prevent universities from going bust
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-47253822

    Has she really not noticed that no university in this country, not even the likes of London Met which was insolvent and Lampeter which was (and probably remains) unviable, has ever been allowed to go bankrupt?

    In fact in the whole history of these islands I think I am right in saying the only university ever to be actually closed (as in, completely got rid of rather than merged) was Northampton in 1265 - and that was because Henry III decided they were a hotbed of Montfort supporters.
  • ydoethur
    ydoethur Posts: 74,263
    edited February 2019
    Nigelb said:

    SunnyJim said:

    Philip_Thompson said:



    If she wins a majority her deal is still rejected.

    Not if the manifesto was explicit and sitting MP's, and candidates, were selected on the basis of their agreement to implement her deal.

    Yes, Soubry and a few others would stomp off but it would be a small price to pay.
    It might have escaped your notice, but May is not a leader with that kind of absolute power.
    And even in your fantasy world, it would likely be the other extreme of the party doing the stomping.

    Apart from that, a flawless plan.

    Any plan that would potentially see Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Davis, Gove, Fabricant, Brady and Hannan (not an MP) leave both Parliament and the governing party is a plan that deserves to be considered vey seriously.
  • AndyJS
    AndyJS Posts: 29,395
    O/T

    The dialect quiz in case anyone missed it yesterday.

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/15/upshot/british-irish-dialect-quiz.html
  • Sunil_Prasannan
    Sunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,076
    edmundintokyo said:

    No_Offence_Alan said:

    What happens if the HoC refuses to implement the results of a second referendum?

    You'd almost definitely make it binding like the AV one, so they wouldn't need to.

    No to AV 68%
    Yes to AV 32%

    :innocent:
  • Sunil_Prasannan
    Sunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,076
    edmundintokyo said:

    SunnyJim said:

    Why would TM agree to R2 before she would agree to a GE?

    The latter gives her an out which would at least keep the Tories together whilst going for R2 would rip them apart.

    She can offer a GE on a manifesto binding all candidates to her deal (she will lose a few current MP's of course who would not stand on that platform) and explain it away as the only realistic option to escape the impasse.

    Offering R2 is utterly nuts and gets crazier the more I consider it.

    I agree, a GE is more likely than R2.
    "R2D2, it is you! It is you!"

  • AlastairMeeks
    AlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    A referendum is always a convenient device for holding together parties that are horribly divided. It doesn’t make them a good idea.
  • AlastairMeeks
    AlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    AndyJS said:

    O/T

    The dialect quiz in case anyone missed it yesterday.

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/15/upshot/british-irish-dialect-quiz.html

    It got me wrong by about 30 miles.
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Good morning, everyone.

    Well, we'll see. Politics is certainly quite tricky to predict.

    (Although I did tip this at 6.5, and no referendum at 1.75 *cough*).
  • ydoethur
    ydoethur Posts: 74,263
    AlastairMeeks said:

    AndyJS said:

    O/T

    The dialect quiz in case anyone missed it yesterday.

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/15/upshot/british-irish-dialect-quiz.html

    It got me wrong by about 30 miles.
    It put me on the west bank rather than east bank of the Severn. However, it was bang on for where my mother came from so we'll give it that.
  • ydoethur
    ydoethur Posts: 74,263
    AlastairMeeks said:

    A referendum is always a convenient device for holding together parties that are horribly divided. It doesn’t make them a good idea.

    Insofar as it would clearly divide the country even further it's a very bad idea.
  • tlg86
    tlg86 Posts: 26,950
    AndyJS said:

    O/T

    The dialect quiz in case anyone missed it yesterday.

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/15/upshot/british-irish-dialect-quiz.html

    There were three kids on the Six O’Clock News on the climate change demos. One from Sheffield, one from Ullapool and one from Cardiff. I reckon if they did this quiz it would put them all in the South East of England.
  • AlastairMeeks
    AlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    ydoethur said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    A referendum is always a convenient device for holding together parties that are horribly divided. It doesn’t make them a good idea.

    Insofar as it would clearly divide the country even further it's a very bad idea.
    There are no good ideas from here, only competing bad ideas.
  • IanB2
    IanB2 Posts: 52,310
    If there is an extension, it makes political sense to have a long one, take the political hit only once, and buy enough time to be prepared for whatever the eventuality.

    Going for a short extension, with all the attendant promises it would require, and then coming back for a further one when we still aren't decided or aren't ready would be suicidal.
  • logical_song
    logical_song Posts: 10,082
    AlastairMeeks said:

    A referendum is always a convenient device for holding together parties that are horribly divided. It doesn’t make them a good idea.

    True, but how to get out of our present situation?
    It would certainly do that, but the danger of getting 'No Deal' would be real if the two part method is chosen. The government and probably Labour leadership would back Leave in the first part, so that would likely win, then we would be faced with a toss up as to the final outcome. So a new referendum is a good idea and may be the only way out but it must be a single part affair and if we must risk 'No Deal' then conducted by AV.
  • IanB2
    IanB2 Posts: 52,310
    And no deal isn't going to any referendum. Even our politicians retain some ability to learn from previous mistakes.
  • Jonathan
    Jonathan Posts: 22,107
    IanB2 said:

    If there is an extension, it makes political sense to have a long one, take the political hit only once, and buy enough time to be prepared for whatever the eventuality.

    Going for a short extension, with all the attendant promises it would require, and then coming back for a further one when we still aren't decided or aren't ready would be suicidal.

    100years should do the trick.
  • Ishmael_Z
    Ishmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    IanB2 said:

    And no deal isn't going to any referendum. Even our politicians retain some ability to learn from previous mistakes.

    ThisIs the most curious long running misconception in the history of pb. You cannot resolve to leave without it being implicit that you will leave with no deal if necessary, because otherwise you are committing to accepting whatever terms the eh chooses to impose.
  • IanB2
    IanB2 Posts: 52,310
    Nigelb said:

    SunnyJim said:

    Philip_Thompson said:



    If she wins a majority her deal is still rejected.

    Not if the manifesto was explicit and sitting MP's, and candidates, were selected on the basis of their agreement to implement her deal.

    Yes, Soubry and a few others would stomp off but it would be a small price to pay.
    It might have escaped your notice, but May is not a leader with that kind of absolute power.
    And even in your fantasy world, it would likely be the other extreme of the party doing the stomping.

    Apart from that, a flawless plan.

    Yes, as soon as anything specific and actually achievable in the real world is ever put into writing that requires ERG support, rather than knee jerk opposition, they would be off.
  • ydoethur
    ydoethur Posts: 74,263
    edited February 2019
    Jonathan said:

    IanB2 said:

    If there is an extension, it makes political sense to have a long one, take the political hit only once, and buy enough time to be prepared for whatever the eventuality.

    Going for a short extension, with all the attendant promises it would require, and then coming back for a further one when we still aren't decided or aren't ready would be suicidal.

    100years should do the trick.
    All MPs should be given 100 years.

    Oh, and we should have an extension on our departure too.
  • IanB2
    IanB2 Posts: 52,310
    Ishmael_Z said:

    IanB2 said:

    And no deal isn't going to any referendum. Even our politicians retain some ability to learn from previous mistakes.

    ThisIs the most curious long running misconception in the history of pb. You cannot resolve to leave without it being implicit that you will leave with no deal if necessary, because otherwise you are committing to accepting whatever terms the eh chooses to impose.
    Which was always the case, given where the cards really were.

    May has been promising, in private, that she won't go no deal from the instant she took office. As would any other PM, faced with the implications.
  • AndyJS
    AndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited February 2019
    It'll be embarrassing for Dominic Grieve if there's No Deal on 29th March and nothing much changes afterwards.
  • Ishmael_Z
    Ishmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    IanB2 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    IanB2 said:

    And no deal isn't going to any referendum. Even our politicians retain some ability to learn from previous mistakes.

    ThisIs the most curious long running misconception in the history of pb. You cannot resolve to leave without it being implicit that you will leave with no deal if necessary, because otherwise you are committing to accepting whatever terms the eh chooses to impose.
    Which was always the case, given where the cards really were.

    May has been promising, in private, that she won't go no deal from the instant she took office. As would any other PM, faced with the implications.
    Yes, but the only thing madder than being in the current situation would be expressly resolving to be in the current situation, again.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories