politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters now make it a 77% chance that MPs won’t agree a deal b

Second rate - like our political class.

Obligatory '23% think we might?!' comment

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

This is the most incompetent and dysfunctional government of my adult life. As someone who generally votes Tory I get no satisfaction from saying this, indeed it causes me deep dismay, but there is no getting away from it.

From utterly inept negotiations, failing to have the necessary statutory framework on the books for any scenario, failing to prepare for no deal, failing to make arrangements with most of our trading partners weeks before we are supposed to leave, constantly postponing decisions with no regard to the real world consequences, I could go on all night. The worst in my lifetime. Fact.

And the alternative, god help us, looks worse.

Bring back Dave and George when a shambles involved one of a horse, pasties, and yachts.

Oh the days when the biggest problem with a budget was whether VAT fell to be paid on a pie that had been heated up for you. We didn’t know how good we had it.

I did.

Was one of the secondary factors for my backing Remain, I knew if Leave won it would the end of the age of Dave and George and the more extreme Leavers would be emboldened like never before.

It made me hesitate more than anything else. With hindsight the price just might have been too high.

Sadly so.

Casino_Royale said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1100500230510968834

For some time it has been clear the any actual ERG approved deal would not be possible to be achieved, or would not have enough votes from others to pass anyway. Therefore it naturally follows either the ERG would have to stymie everything in the hopes of no deal, or May/Parliament would at some point have to face down the ERG as the only things that could get passed would seriously annoy the ERG.

I know why there has been reluctance to confront them - for one thing their position is not actually that unpopular outside the Commons - but something has to give.

Brexit will give.

Well indeed it might. I'm sure the ERG will comfort themselves in their purity nonetheless. Not out fault, they will cry.

Reposting as I need to do some work...

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

As standard, deals can be terminated by either party. This can't. We will forever unless they relinquish control be subjugated to their rules and their schedules etc without anyone we elect having a say.

I'm afraid this is absolute tosh.

We can abrogate the treaty, as we can any treaty.

Now, there are consequences to that, but if we felt the EU had not done its (treaty obliged) best to work for a technological solution in Northern Ireland we would be morally right in doing so.

The simple solution is this. We announce the existence of a multinational (say 1 x Swiss, 1 x Norwegian, 1x Canadian, 1 x New Zealand, 1 x Brazilian) committee of trade academics, who write a report every year on whether the parties are keeping to the spirit of the treaty - i.e. working for a technological solution in Northern Ireland.

If they say the EU is not, then we given them one year's notice. If it has not changed the following year, we simply announce the EU has not kept to the terms of the treaty, and that we no longer recognise it as valid.

Problem solved.

I can live with that. I think its deeply concerning to go into a Treaty expecting to need to unilaterally abrogate it while the other party is making clear you can't unilaterally do so though.

But we only need to unilaterally abrogate in the event that the EU (and Ireland) do not keep to their side of the bargain - see the Withdrawal Agreement, page 302, paragraph 2 which obliges the parties to work to replace the backstop. If the EU and Ireland do not do that, then they have broken to the treaty.

We only abrogate in the circumstance where the EU does not abide by its treaty obligations; abrogation is not our intention.

Well this will be a blow for Remain/Vote for May's deal in a future referendum.

Nigel Farage 'wouldn't campaign or vote' in second Brexit referendum.

The MEP says choosing between the PM's deal and Remain would be an "outrage" - and that he would rather go on holiday.

https://news.sky.com/story/nigel-farage-wouldnt-campaign-or-vote-in-second-brexit-referendum-11648823

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well this will be a blow for Remain/Vote for May's deal in a future referendum.

Nigel Farage 'wouldn't campaign or vote' in second Brexit referendum.

The MEP says choosing between the PM's deal and Remain would be an "outrage" - and that he would rather go on holiday.

https://news.sky.com/story/nigel-farage-wouldnt-campaign-or-vote-in-second-brexit-referendum-11648823

Maybe Javid could revoke his citizenship while he's away?

GIN1138 said:

dr_spyn said:

First.

Oh really? Lets have another go at it to make sure...

You can... next thread

rcs1000 said:

Reposting as I need to do some work...

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

As standard, deals can be terminated by either party. This can't. We will forever unless they relinquish control be subjugated to their rules and their schedules etc without anyone we elect having a say.

I'm afraid this is absolute tosh.

We can abrogate the treaty, as we can any treaty.

Now, there are consequences to that, but if we felt the EU had not done its (treaty obliged) best to work for a technological solution in Northern Ireland we would be morally right in doing so.

The simple solution is this. We announce the existence of a multinational (say 1 x Swiss, 1 x Norwegian, 1x Canadian, 1 x New Zealand, 1 x Brazilian) committee of trade academics, who write a report every year on whether the parties are keeping to the spirit of the treaty - i.e. working for a technological solution in Northern Ireland.

If they say the EU is not, then we given them one year's notice. If it has not changed the following year, we simply announce the EU has not kept to the terms of the treaty, and that we no longer recognise it as valid.

Problem solved.

I can live with that. I think its deeply concerning to go into a Treaty expecting to need to unilaterally abrogate it while the other party is making clear you can't unilaterally do so though.

But we only need to unilaterally abrogate in the event that the EU (and Ireland) do not keep to their side of the bargain - see the Withdrawal Agreement, page 302, paragraph 2 which obliges the parties to work to replace the backstop. If the EU and Ireland do not do that, then they have broken to the treaty.

We only abrogate in the circumstance where the EU does not abide by its treaty obligations; abrogation is not our intention.

It's almost as if the opponents of the WA agreement haven't actually read it!

rcs1000 said:

Reposting as I need to do some work...

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

As standard, deals can be terminated by either party. This can't. We will forever unless they relinquish control be subjugated to their rules and their schedules etc without anyone we elect having a say.

I'm afraid this is absolute tosh.

We can abrogate the treaty, as we can any treaty.

Now, there are consequences to that, but if we felt the EU had not done its (treaty obliged) best to work for a technological solution in Northern Ireland we would be morally right in doing so.

The simple solution is this. We announce the existence of a multinational (say 1 x Swiss, 1 x Norwegian, 1x Canadian, 1 x New Zealand, 1 x Brazilian) committee of trade academics, who write a report every year on whether the parties are keeping to the spirit of the treaty - i.e. working for a technological solution in Northern Ireland.

If they say the EU is not, then we given them one year's notice. If it has not changed the following year, we simply announce the EU has not kept to the terms of the treaty, and that we no longer recognise it as valid.

Problem solved.

I can live with that. I think its deeply concerning to go into a Treaty expecting to need to unilaterally abrogate it while the other party is making clear you can't unilaterally do so though.

But we only need to unilaterally abrogate in the event that the EU (and Ireland) do not keep to their side of the bargain - see the Withdrawal Agreement, page 302, paragraph 2 which obliges the parties to work to replace the backstop. If the EU and Ireland do not do that, then they have broken to the treaty.

We only abrogate in the circumstance where the EU does not abide by its treaty obligations; abrogation is not our intention.

If in practice, abrogation does not allow us to enforce an independent trade policy in Northern Ireland, what will it achieve except demonstrate impotence and bad faith to the world?

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

Reposting as I need to do some work...

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

As standard, deals can be terminated by either party. This can't. We will forever unless they relinquish control be subjugated to their rules and their schedules etc without anyone we elect having a say.

I'm afraid this is absolute tosh.

We can abrogate the treaty, as we can any treaty.

Now, there are consequences to that, but if we felt the EU had not done its (treaty obliged) best to work for a technological solution in Northern Ireland we would be morally right in doing so.

The simple solution is this. We announce the existence of a multinational (say 1 x Swiss, 1 x Norwegian, 1x Canadian, 1 x New Zealand, 1 x Brazilian) committee of trade academics, who write a report every year on whether the parties are keeping to the spirit of the treaty - i.e. working for a technological solution in Northern Ireland.

If they say the EU is not, then we given them one year's notice. If it has not changed the following year, we simply announce the EU has not kept to the terms of the treaty, and that we no longer recognise it as valid.

Problem solved.

I can live with that. I think its deeply concerning to go into a Treaty expecting to need to unilaterally abrogate it while the other party is making clear you can't unilaterally do so though.

But we only need to unilaterally abrogate in the event that the EU (and Ireland) do not keep to their side of the bargain - see the Withdrawal Agreement, page 302, paragraph 2 which obliges the parties to work to replace the backstop. If the EU and Ireland do not do that, then they have broken to the treaty.

We only abrogate in the circumstance where the EU does not abide by its treaty obligations; abrogation is not our intention.

It's almost as if the opponents of the WA agreement haven't actually read it!

Well it is hundreds of pages of impenetrable legalese. I couldn't get through the whole thing myself.

Thank goodness, though, that there's no one out there who might suggest it should not be accepted because the EU agree with it, and that anything they agree to is unacceptable.

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

It's almost as if the opponents of the WA agreement haven't actually read it!

We have a former Brexit Secretary who thinks the transition period still happens even if we exit with No Deal.

Fortunately all our other Brexit secretaries have been totally on the ball.

GIN1138 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well this will be a blow for Remain/Vote for May's deal in a future referendum.

Nigel Farage 'wouldn't campaign or vote' in second Brexit referendum.

The MEP says choosing between the PM's deal and Remain would be an "outrage" - and that he would rather go on holiday.

https://news.sky.com/story/nigel-farage-wouldnt-campaign-or-vote-in-second-brexit-referendum-11648823

If Leavers boycotted I doubt it would stop remain from claiming the win.

But Leavers would then spend the next years claiming it was illegitimate and we'd never hear the end of it.

But we would remain. For a while.

I suspect we would remain for a long time but it would make the EU a focus in elections the way religion determines the returned MPs in Northern Ireland.

Brexit is going really, really well. What a terrific thing.

Jonathan said:

Brexit is going really, really well. What a terrific thing.

It is. The cleansing bleach of transparency has exposed the political class to the voters.

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Reposting as I need to do some work...

Philip_Thompson said:

I can live with that. I think its deeply concerning to go into a Treaty expecting to need to unilaterally abrogate it while the other party is making clear you can't unilaterally do so though.

But we only need to unilaterally abrogate in the event that the EU (and Ireland) do not keep to their side of the bargain - see the Withdrawal Agreement, page 302, paragraph 2 which obliges the parties to work to replace the backstop. If the EU and Ireland do not do that, then they have broken to the treaty.

We only abrogate in the circumstance where the EU does not abide by its treaty obligations; abrogation is not our intention.

Who gets to adjudicate whether the EU and Ireland have not kept to their side of the bargain though? The Irish will insist they have, even if we think they haven't. Both parties may genuinely believe their own side too. An exit clause with a lengthy enough period would make far more sense to me, there was a 2 year exit clause from the EU itself so why not a 2 year exit clause from the deal?

That's longer than the 12 months exit we'll have to give under the Vienna Convention (if it applies)

PS Thanks for your positive remarks FPT about my proposal to extend to end 2020. From where we are now that seems to me the most logical thing to do, extending for a couple of months (unless a deal has already been agreed and we just need time to get it implemented) is utterly pointless. A lengthy extension would allow us to get stuff done and get Fox replaced or to take his job seriously.

Well, there are plenty of existing international arbitration systems already in existence. Many of which the EU already leans upon.

But to keep things moving, we should simply announce we would be forming an international committee of independent trade academics. We should even invite someone from the EU to be on it. And it writes a report every year on whether the parties are abiding by their treaty commitments.

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Reposting as I need to do some work...

Philip_Thompson said:

I can live with that. I think its deeply concerning to go into a Treaty expecting to need to unilaterally abrogate it while the other party is making clear you can't unilaterally do so though.

But we only need to unilaterally abrogate in the event that the EU (and Ireland) do not keep to their side of the bargain - see the Withdrawal Agreement, page 302, paragraph 2 which obliges the parties to work to replace the backstop. If the EU and Ireland do not do that, then they have broken to the treaty.

We only abrogate in the circumstance where the EU does not abide by its treaty obligations; abrogation is not our intention.

Who gets to adjudicate whether the EU and Ireland have not kept to their side of the bargain though? The Irish will insist they have, even if we think they haven't. Both parties may genuinely believe their own side too. An exit clause with a lengthy enough period would make far more sense to me, there was a 2 year exit clause from the EU itself so why not a 2 year exit clause from the deal?

That's longer than the 12 months exit we'll have to give under the Vienna Convention (if it applies)

PS Thanks for your positive remarks FPT about my proposal to extend to end 2020. From where we are now that seems to me the most logical thing to do, extending for a couple of months (unless a deal has already been agreed and we just need time to get it implemented) is utterly pointless. A lengthy extension would allow us to get stuff done and get Fox replaced or to take his job seriously.

Well, there are plenty of existing international arbitration systems already in existence. Many of which the EU already leans upon.

But to keep things moving, we should simply announce we would be forming an international committee of independent trade academics. We should even invite someone from the EU to be on it. And it writes a report every year on whether the parties are abiding by their treaty commitments.

The worldview it requires to think that this will do anything other than make us look ridiculous explains so much about why you backed Brexit.

Watching Fox - They don't like him, but it's ALL about the Bern

Pulpstar said:

Watching Fox - They don't like him, but it's ALL about the Bern

Should I be worried about my big red against Bernie?

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Who gets to adjudicate whether the EU and Ireland have not kept to their side of the bargain though? The Irish will insist they have, even if we think they haven't. Both parties may genuinely believe their own side too. An exit clause with a lengthy enough period would make far more sense to me, there was a 2 year exit clause from the EU itself so why not a 2 year exit clause from the deal?

That's longer than the 12 months exit we'll have to give under the Vienna Convention (if it applies)

PS Thanks for your positive remarks FPT about my proposal to extend to end 2020. From where we are now that seems to me the most logical thing to do, extending for a couple of months (unless a deal has already been agreed and we just need time to get it implemented) is utterly pointless. A lengthy extension would allow us to get stuff done and get Fox replaced or to take his job seriously.

I am not sure there is an official body that would be able to adjudicate if we pulled out of a treaty unilaterally. But in away that is not what you have to worry about.

If the UK were seen to withdraw from a treaty without due cause, each and every country in the world would be judging us to some extent. We rely on many, many treaties around the world most of which depend primarily on good will and the good name of a country to abide by them. If we were to start unilaterally abandoning treaties without following the proper procedures or without the other side first clearly breaching the terms then who is going to trust us in any other existing or future treaty?

It really is something we need to avoid if at all possible which is why I think Robert's position is debatable. In effect we would be relying on the rest of the International Community agreeing with us that the EU had acted in bad faith. I am not sure that is a case we could reasonably make.

My point is that it is not us who makes the judgment, it is a body of independent experts, who writes an annual report. In this way, it is also taken out of the British (and Northern Irish) political sphere.

Pulpstar said:

Watching Fox - They don't like him, but it's ALL about the Bern

https://twitter.com/davidaxelrod/status/1100245597498589184

https://twitter.com/georgewparker/status/1100308476293726209?s=21

Crush the sabot... never mind

https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1100519134398431233

https://twitter.com/IanAustinMP/status/1100514648233779202

Might be better if Williamson dressed like the followers of Rodderick The 7th Earl of Sidcup.

Scott_P said:

Crush the sabot... never mind

https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1100519134398431233

Is May's finger pointing at the length her nose is about to grow to?

"Writing in the Daily Mail she says she is close to winning concessions from the EU that could persuade Eurosceptic MPs to back her."

What is it about politicians called Williamson that makes them complete c*nts?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/britain-can-t-prepare-for-no-deal-brexit-warns-carney-j5sgrsv6w

ralphmalph said:

Jonathan said:

Brexit is going really, really well. What a terrific thing.

It is. The cleansing bleach of transparency has exposed the political class to the voters.

You think what is going on is transparent? Seems pretty murky to me.

Benpointer said:

Scott_P said:

Crush the sabot... never mind

https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1100519134398431233

Is May's finger pointing at the length her nose is about to grow to?

"Writing in the Daily Mail she says she is close to winning concessions from the EU that could persuade Eurosceptic MPs to back her."

Hahaha. Close to winning concessions? Which EU bigwig will rubbish that rumour in the next 5 minutes, or cover an eventual meaningless fudge by talking about constructive talks but sitll much to do?

Jonathan said:

Benpointer said:

blockquote class="Quote" rel="Jonathan">Brexit is going really, really well. What a terrific thing.

Yes indeed. Still, holding all the cards and the fact that they need us more than we need them meant it was bound to go well.

I must confess I had my doubts. I thought Westminster/Whitehall was not up to the job. I feel ashamed that I got it so very wrong.

The lack of smiley emojis tell me I must believe you are 100% sincere.

rcs1000 said:

Quick quiz question. How many newly build apartments in China are there currently empty and for sale?

Nearest guess (no Googling) get a free copy of SeanT's new book.

3 million.

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Who gets to adjudicate whether the EU and Ireland have not kept to their side of the bargain though? The Irish will insist they have, even if we think they haven't. Both parties may genuinely believe their own side too. An exit clause with a lengthy enough period would make far more sense to me, there was a 2 year exit clause from the EU itself so why not a 2 year exit clause from the deal?

That's longer than the 12 months exit we'll have to give under the Vienna Convention (if it applies)

PS Thanks for your positive remarks FPT about my proposal to extend to end 2020. From where we are now that seems to me the most logical thing to do, extending for a couple of months (unless a deal has already been agreed and we just need time to get it implemented) is utterly pointless. A lengthy extension would allow us to get stuff done and get Fox replaced or to take his job seriously.

I am not sure there is an official body that would be able to adjudicate if we pulled out of a treaty unilaterally. But in away that is not what you have to worry about.

If the UK were seen to withdraw from a treaty without due cause, each and every country in the world would be judging us to some extent. We rely on many, many treaties around the world most of which depend primarily on good will and the good name of a country to abide by them. If we were to start unilaterally abandoning treaties without following the proper procedures or without the other side first clearly breaching the terms then who is going to trust us in any other existing or future treaty?

It really is something we need to avoid if at all possible which is why I think Robert's position is debatable. In effect we would be relying on the rest of the International Community agreeing with us that the EU had acted in bad faith. I am not sure that is a case we could reasonably make.

My point is that it is not us who makes the judgment, it is a body of independent experts, who writes an annual report. In this way, it is also taken out of the British (and Northern Irish) political sphere.

The problem is that this would be a body of independent experts we set up (since the EU object to this or any unilateral way for us to exit). They would just denounce the body and say they're wrong. So if we leave this way it will be burning bridges with our nearest neighbours in a way that is 10x worse than invoking a unilateral exit like Article 50.

rcs1000 said:

Quick quiz question. How many newly build apartments in China are there currently empty and for sale?

Nearest guess (no Googling) get a free copy of SeanT's new book.

10 million.

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

It's almost as if the opponents of the WA agreement haven't actually read it!

We have a former Brexit Secretary who thinks the transition period still happens even if we exit with No Deal.

Fortunately all our other Brexit secretaries have been totally on the ball.

Should that read "off the wall"?

notme2 said:

williamglenn said:

GIN1138 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well this will be a blow for Remain/Vote for May's deal in a future referendum.

Nigel Farage 'wouldn't campaign or vote' in second Brexit referendum.

The MEP says choosing between the PM's deal and Remain would be an "outrage" - and that he would rather go on holiday.

https://news.sky.com/story/nigel-farage-wouldnt-campaign-or-vote-in-second-brexit-referendum-11648823

If Leavers boycotted I doubt it would stop remain from claiming the win.

But Leavers would then spend the next years claiming it was illegitimate and we'd never hear the end of it.

But we would remain. For a while.

The racist Daniel Hannan says that the boycott will turn it into an “African referendum”.

I wasn’t aware DH was racist. What things has he said that are racist?

For example describing dodgy votes as “African”, not to mention his tales of the terror of growing up in the midst of non-English speaking people in Peru.

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Reposting as I need to do some work...

Philip_Thompson said:

I can live with that. I think its deeply concerning to go into a Treaty expecting to need to unilaterally abrogate it while the other party is making clear you can't unilaterally do so though.

But we only need to unilaterally abrogate in the event that the EU (and Ireland) do not keep to their side of the bargain - see the Withdrawal Agreement, page 302, paragraph 2 which obliges the parties to work to replace the backstop. If the EU and Ireland do not do that, then they have broken to the treaty.

We only abrogate in the circumstance where the EU does not abide by its treaty obligations; abrogation is not our intention.

Who gets to adjudicate whether

That's longer than the 12 months exit we'll have to give under the Vienna Convention (if it applies)

PS Thanks for your positive remarks FPT about my proposal to extend to end 2020. From where we are now that seems to me the most logical thing to do, extending for a couple of months (unless a deal has already been agreed and we just need time to get it implemented) is utterly pointless. A lengthy extension would allow us to get stuff done and get Fox replaced or to take his job seriously.

Well, there are plenty of existing international arbitration systems already in existence. Many of which the EU already leans upon.

But to keep things moving, we should simply announce we would be forming an international committee of independent trade academics. We should even invite someone from the EU to be on it. And it writes a report every year on whether the parties are abiding by their treaty commitments.

The worldview it requires to think that this will do anything other than make us look ridiculous explains so much about why you backed Brexit.

William Glenn, you are usually polite, even when I disagree with you. But that's simply rude.

The only circumstance where we would abrogate the treaty would be one where the EU had demonstrably failed to meet its commitments, and where it was confirmed by people who weren't principles in the matter.

There exist today systems for international arbitration to whom Her Majesty's Government and the EU submit themselves all the time. This would be no different.

The country is currently facing national humiliation because people who ought to have known better thought we weren’t a “good fit” for the EU, so forgive me for running short on patience for further nonsense.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Precisely. Which is why, with regret, I fundamentally oppose this deal.

I still think that, even with the backstop in place, it is a deal worth doing. I would of course prefer the backstop not to be there but it is a fact and one we have to work with. The idea of saying that because we might be bound to a few parts of the EU for a while, we would be better off staying in and being bound to all of it is just daft.

It is like those who used to say that because we would have to pay the equivalent of a year or two's payments to the EU we should instead stay in and keep paying year in, year out for ever more. It is just stupid reasoning.

It's the words for a while I have a problem with. If it was time limited so for a while then yes I would have no qualms whatsoever. Sign away.

Instead what we are signing up to is an unequal treaty like the Treaty of Nanking that effectively cedes our customs regulations etc to the EU in eternity. Unless or until the EU voluntarily relinquishes control over us.

There are multiple forms of Europe in this continent as the famous Venn Diagram shows but as far as I'm aware in the EU nations have a unilateral exit right. In the EEA I believe nations can exit. In the EFTA nations can exit.

In the backstop we can't. That is to my knowledge unprecedented. It is simply unacceptable.

It was famously said recently we were always sovereign as we could always leave. If we leave but cede in eternity control over certain laws, regulations, customs etc in the backstop then we have fully lost sovereignty over those matters. Not only do we have laws, regulations and customs set elsewhere but we can't exit that without permission.

williamglenn said:

notme2 said:

williamglenn said:

GIN1138 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well this will be a blow for Remain/Vote for May's deal in a future referendum.

Nigel Farage 'wouldn't campaign or vote' in second Brexit referendum.

The MEP says choosing between the PM's deal and Remain would be an "outrage" - and that he would rather go on holiday.

https://news.sky.com/story/nigel-farage-wouldnt-campaign-or-vote-in-second-brexit-referendum-11648823

If Leavers boycotted I doubt it would stop remain from claiming the win.

But Leavers would then spend the next years claiming it was illegitimate and we'd never hear the end of it.

But we would remain. For a while.

The racist Daniel Hannan says that the boycott will turn it into an “African referendum”.

I wasn’t aware DH was racist. What things has he said that are racist?

For example describing dodgy votes as “African”, not to mention his tales of the terror of growing up in the midst of non-English speaking people in Peru.

African isn't a race.

https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1100528893650321408

OllyT said:

GIN1138 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well this will be a blow for Remain/Vote for May's deal in a future referendum.

Nigel Farage 'wouldn't campaign or vote' in second Brexit referendum.

The MEP says choosing between the PM's deal and Remain would be an "outrage" - and that he would rather go on holiday.

https://news.sky.com/story/nigel-farage-wouldnt-campaign-or-vote-in-second-brexit-referendum-11648823

If Leavers boycotted I doubt it would stop remain from claiming the win.

But Leavers would then spend the next years claiming it was illegitimate and we'd never hear the end of it.

But we would remain. For a while.

If leavers did boycott a second vote people would be looking at the absolute number of remain votes in comparison to 2016.

Indeed and if Remain is fewer than 17.4 million campaigning would begin pretty swiftly for a third EU referendum. If Leave wins again I would expect an actual Leaver to be PM for that next time.

https://twitter.com/fotoole/status/1100368344493015040?s=21

https://twitter.com/sarahwollaston/status/1100530108979445763

https://twitter.com/JenWilliamsMEN/status/1100530856597352449

Democratic Primaries

Joe Biden has suggested that many of his family want him to run but he has concerns about the impact on them. He looks to be 80% of the way to throwing the hat into the ring.

Chinese apartment guesses:

Charles     1,100,000,000
Philip T       10,000,000
Pulpstar        5,000,000
Kle4            3,000,000
Ben P                   3

Remember, there are 1.2 billion people in China, and therefore about 300 million households. Use that to guide your guess.

Any more...

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well this will be a blow for Remain/Vote for May's deal in a future referendum.

Nigel Farage 'wouldn't campaign or vote' in second Brexit referendum.

The MEP says choosing between the PM's deal and Remain would be an "outrage" - and that he would rather go on holiday.

https://news.sky.com/story/nigel-farage-wouldnt-campaign-or-vote-in-second-brexit-referendum-11648823

He's reached the stage of saying or doing anything to get a headline. Going Lembit Opek I think they call it.

Recidivist said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well this will be a blow for Remain/Vote for May's deal in a future referendum.

Nigel Farage 'wouldn't campaign or vote' in second Brexit referendum.

The MEP says choosing between the PM's deal and Remain would be an "outrage" - and that he would rather go on holiday.

https://news.sky.com/story/nigel-farage-wouldnt-campaign-or-vote-in-second-brexit-referendum-11648823

He's reached the stage of saying or doing anything to get a headline. Going Lembit Opek I think they call it.

What is this Farage that you are talking about? I vaguely remember someone with that name - but I don't think he exists as any longer.

Ishmael_Z said:

OllyT said:

GIN1138 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well this will be a blow for Remain/Vote for May's deal in a future referendum.

Nigel Farage 'wouldn't campaign or vote' in second Brexit referendum.

The MEP says choosing between the PM's deal and Remain would be an "outrage" - and that he would rather go on holiday.

https://news.sky.com/story/nigel-farage-wouldnt-campaign-or-vote-in-second-brexit-referendum-11648823

If Leavers boycotted I doubt it would stop remain from claiming the win.

But Leavers would then spend the next years claiming it was illegitimate and we'd never hear the end of it.

But we would remain. For a while.

If leavers did boycott a second vote people would be looking at the absolute number of remain votes in comparison to 2016.

Boycotting is an incredibly high risk strategy. The danger is it goes off at half cock and gives a result which can be interpreted as either the result of a successful boycott or a substantive heavy defeat. Indeed if i were Remain i would be tempted to run a false flag #boycotttheeuref campaign. Plus the appetite for remain in parliament is such that it is ridiculous to think that any Remain win won't be seized on with both hands and taken at face value whether it looks like 52:48 or 98:2.

Personally I am quite happy for Brexiteers to boycott the #peoplesvote.

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

It's almost as if the opponents of the WA agreement haven't actually read it!

We have a former Brexit Secretary who thinks the transition period still happens even if we exit with No Deal.

Fortunately all our other Brexit secretaries have been totally on the ball.

In much the way that The Cat In The Hat was on the ball in his initial story.

Ishmael_Z said:

OllyT said:

GIN1138 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well this will be a blow for Remain/Vote for May's deal in a future referendum.

Nigel Farage 'wouldn't campaign or vote' in second Brexit referendum.

The MEP says choosing between the PM's deal and Remain would be an "outrage" - and that he would rather go on holiday.

https://news.sky.com/story/nigel-farage-wouldnt-campaign-or-vote-in-second-brexit-referendum-11648823

If Leavers boycotted I doubt it would stop remain from claiming the win.

But Leavers would then spend the next years claiming it was illegitimate and we'd never hear the end of it.

But we would remain. For a while.

If leavers did boycott a second vote people would be looking at the absolute number of remain votes in comparison to 2016.

Boycotting is an incredibly high risk strategy. The danger is it goes off at half cock and gives a result which can be interpreted as either the result of a successful boycott or a substantive heavy defeat. Indeed if i were Remain i would be tempted to run a false flag #boycotttheeuref campaign. Plus the appetite for remain in parliament is such that it is ridiculous to think that any Remain win won't be seized on with both hands and taken at face value whether it looks like 52:48 or 98:2.

It would but would it settle the matter? Or would we be back here in a few years time for EU Referendum 3 this time with a committed Brexiteer in charge?

If instead of a Remain backing Cameron or May we had someone like a UK Alex Salmond we would be in a different scenario.

If the backstop is eternal then the long game to get a proper Brexit could be to revoke now and win again later.

(100% not saying this is a high possibility chance)