politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Something has changed. For the first time I can see how Brexit

AlastairMeeks said:

Nigelb said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1105777295753691136

Let them vote for their unicorn paddock in a free vote if they wish to. The motion is not going to pass anyway.

The government has effectively ceased to have a functioning Brexit policy now. Theresa May should either resign or make a virtue of reality and formally hand over policy to Parliament. Or both.

Actually, both sounds like a really good idea.

Not right now.
At powerless May in place to facilitate the votes is preferable to the likely chaos if she resigns - unless you're also actively seeking no deal Brexit ?

Let's say that I have severe doubts about her facilitating skills, based on abundant recent evidence.

Which I share.
Didn't you just say something about the least bad of terrible options ?

MarqueeMark said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/ProfBrianCox/status/1105743522215399425

And why won't the DUP think this the best think they could ever have introduced to NI? Retail bonanza.....

Never, never! No more car dealerships in Ulster!!!

Just to confirm that there's nothing new under the sun, in March 1672 King Charles II enacted the 'Declaration of Indulgence', a first step at establishing freedom of religion in England to Protestant nonconformists and Roman Catholics. It suspended the laws that punished those who did not attend the services of the Church of England. The following year the Cavalier Parliament compelled him to withdraw this Declaration.

Government vs Parliament yet again!

Theuniondivvie said:

notme2 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

malcolmg said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TGOHF said:

Today's and tomorrows votes are all about giving the virtue signalling numpties in parly something to virtue signal about "oooh I voted against/for no deal then tweeted about it".

They have forgotten how to lead and govern.

Mr Malthouse at least seems to have worked out a plan - whether you like it or not at least it has some detail.

The rest are just thrashing around suggesting can kicking or referendums with loaded questions which would leave the country ungovernable afterwards.

We need to choose better politicians and hammer them at the ballot box when they fail to deliver. Some good may come of this.

Who & where are those better politicians of whom you speak?

TUD, they will parachute in their crack regional sub office teams, they are brimming with talent. Ruth the Mooth will sort it out along with her little Labour helpers top talent assisting
assisting

I know she's a new parent & everything but Ruthie's complete silence is a bit strange, particularly with someone with such a deep affection for the sound of her own voice.

I once worked with someone who went on maternity leave. She only popped back into work once to show us all the baby. Didn’t see her again until her maternity leave was finished.

Funny that.

Fair play to Ruth if she'd prefer to be with her family rather than go back to the clusterfuck, perfectly understandable. Going from expressing 43 opinions a week to panting hacks (often contradictory ones on the same subject) to zero must have taken a bit of willpower though.

I suspect in her position you have a choice of switching off your work phone and taking out the battery for six months, or watch as one quote generates another thousand calls.

"There is no ECJ jurisdiction over EFTA members. And EFAT members are not in the Customs Union. So the only sticking point on her red lines would be Freedom of Movement."

The most obvious solution to addressing free movement in an EFTA model is to reform our non contributory welfare system so that EU migrants whether in work or not are ineligible for tax credits, housing benefit until they have paid in for a number of years etc etc. Problem is you would have to apply that to Brits - i.e. young people - as well. The concepts of tax credits and housing benefit just don't exist in central and eastern Europe bar one or two exceptions.

That is of course a key cause of Brexit in more ways than one - so many people (Brits and EU migrants) can't make ends meet without taxpayer handouts due to the crazy cost of housing etc.

But reforming our welfare system to move it back to a contributory model would make Brexit seem simple!

Ethiopia not sending the 738M "Black Boxes" to the US but to a European country.....us or the French?

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1105786094593937409

On the 'there's nothing new under the sun' front, in March 1672 King Charles II enacted the 'Declaration of Indulgence', a first step at establishing freedom of religion in England to Protestant nonconformists and Roman Catholics. It suspended the laws that punished those who did not attend the services of the Church of England. The following year the Cavalier Parliament compelled him to withdraw this Declaration.

Government vs Parliament again. Eventually, of course that worked out OK for everyone except James II.

As JackW would have told us, of course!

FFS

https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1105785413837512704

brendan16 said:

"There is no ECJ jurisdiction over EFTA members. And EFAT members are not in the Customs Union. So the only sticking point on her red lines would be Freedom of Movement."

The most obvious solution to addressing free movement in an EFTA model is to reform our non contributory welfare system so that EU migrants whether in work or not are ineligible for tax credits, housing benefit until they have paid in for a number of years etc etc. Problem is you would have to apply that to Brits - i.e. young people - as well. The concepts of tax credits and housing benefit just don't exist in central and eastern Europe bar one or two exceptions.

There was a proposal at one stage that you nominally start contributions at the age of 14 or something, though in reality it's the Government paying your contributions. So that means you're applying it to young British people.

I haven't looked into it for more than about 2.3 seconds so have no idea whether it's remotely realistic or a case of Daubenton's faeces.

Nigelb said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/jamesmatesitv/status/1105768400180137985?s=21

*something* is a deal without a backstop. You don't like that something but let's not pretend it doesn't exist.

And don't pretend it hasn't already been explicitly rejected by the EU.

And the backstop has already been explicitly rejected by the UK.

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1105787594242211845

So which is it..

Actually a referendum is the only solution it seems now. But on what?

May vs Remain i guess.

notme2 said:

_Anazina_ said:

notme2 said:

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

Slackbladder said:

I simply cannot understand the ERGs position. simple maths shows they do not, and will not have the numbers for a hard Brexit/no deal.

Therefore they have two tactics.

1) Get a no-deal by default, despite the numbers in the house being against it. Which i think is highly unlikely given an extention or even revoking is much more palatable.

2) Topple May. get a ERGer as PM/Leader and win a GE. which I think is also hugely improbable as the ERG are not the majority of MPs (and would result in huge defections out of the party if they did win), and good luck winning a majority on a utterly split party.

The ERG don’t need the numbers. They have no deal on the statute book already. They think - and, sadly, they may well be right in this - that so long as no alternative legislation is passed they win.

At least they're being honest about what they want.

The MPs who voted for A50 but are against a deal and no deal are the hypocrites.

The ERG were liars during the referendum campaign when they claimed a deal would be easy peasy. I don’t recall them saying that if we voted Leave it meant a No Deal exit.

Conversely a Leaver would have to be a special kind of dim not to have foreseen precisely this outcome. Whatever the outcome will be of course.

I foresaw a smooth movement to EEA, a reversion to common market trade agreement with common standards. And a government creating the infrastructure to properly introduce the entirely legal free movement of labour rules that exist and have not been used. The EU would be fairly cooperative of something that kept us within their sphere influence.

There would need to be a customs agreement, that might take a bit longer, but that’s what a time period is for. I didn’t realise the utter madness that was the PMs redlines would become an article of faith.

Thank you for finally confirming that you are delusional.

You don’t think a complete move to EEA/Norway style status could not be agreed within the first two years, and the further two years of the WA?

The problems come down to the red lines of insisting no ECJ jurisdiction, no free movement and not participation in the customs union. It doesn’t really give the EU much to work with, or her.

If gives a FTA to work with.

Freggles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Streeter said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

"This deal is getting worse all the time!" - Lando Calrissian.

Do you still Be Leave, my chirpy chum?

Um, this may raise a few eyebrows on here, but it's getting to the point that I may abstain or even vote Remain if there's another referendum...

Are you reverting from FarageSunil to MilibandSunil?

This question is wrong at a time when negotiations are still ongoing. Parliament has acted in a reckless and provocative manner in the way it's gone about these issues. I urge all MPs to get around the table, put aside the rhetoric, and stop this kind of action happening again!

TheScreamingEagles said:

FFS

https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1105785413837512704

Let MPs vote on whatever they want. They're just emphasising their essential worthlessness. It's always been the case but one rarely has the opportunity to see it so obviously.

rel="Richard_Nabavi">

Jonathan said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Cyclefree said:

[snip]
I think the EU is at the stage of saying - if you don't like this deal, go without or stay. Your call. But we are not wasting any more time indulging your nonsense. I can't say I blame them.

As regards the Withdrawal Agreement, that is true, and has been their consistent position since November. However, they would be open to discussing a different long-term relationship, involving a softer Brexit. That has always been available. It basically makes no difference from the EU's point of view, because the final relationship hasn't been negotiated in any detail anyway (we haven't really started that bit, thanks to their sequencing). The only practical effect of moving in that direction is that it might give Labour MPs an excuse for voting for the current WA. But that assumes that Labour won't just continue to oppose for the sake of opposition.

May might have been more successful if she had been less dismissive of opposition concerns.

She has created conditions where no opposition MP would want to work with her.

Not really. Opposition MPs (with a few honourable exceptions) aren't interested in a workable solution. They just want an excuse to mouth absurd slogans such as 'opposing a Tory Brexit', which by definition would be any form of Brexit the government was involved with. In any case they are as deluded as the ERG in terms of what the EU might accept.

You're both right.

May has made no serious efforts to reach out to the Opposition, but even if she did, all but a handful of the Opposition would vote against anything she proposed.

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1105786419035938816

Somebody put us all out of our misery. She needs to go.

MV3 might make some sense once other real or imaginary options have been voted on and/or shot down.

Slackbladder said:

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1105787594242211845

So which is it..

Actually a referendum is the only solution it seems now. But on what?

May vs Remain i guess.

OT, but that BuzzFeed piece is abysmally written. Meandering, structureless, barely coherent at times.

I know sub-editors are viewed as an expensive frippery these days but a competent sub could have tidied that up in 15 minutes.

SeanT said:

edmundintokyo said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. T's idea of a two-stage referendum (May's deal yes/no, then if no wins, leave with no deal or remain) might be the least bad credible option.

That's not the least bad credible option, it's an incredibly terrible option, because the weird bit of conditionality ("if no wins...") encourages Remainers to vote tactically for No Deal. Keep it simple and delete the "if no wins" and it's definitely plausible, although I'd be surprised if the government wanted to try Cameron's "ask the voters if they want to try something bad with poorly-defined implications" trick again.

I don’t think you understand the proposal (which wasn’t mine originally, by the way, it was someone else on here - apologies but I have forgotten who)

Hardcore Leavers are understandably going to be mightily pissed off at voting again, so to satisfy them (if that’s possible) the first stage should just be a choice of Brexits. However we can’t ignore the fact that 48% of voters wanted Remain and all polls show Remain is now in the lead, so Remain has to be a choice at some stage.

Ergo

Stage 1. The vote is on May’s deal - Yes or No. If Yes, we take the deal, if No, we move on to

Stage 2. No deal (the only alternative Brexit to May’s deal), versus Remain - a simple choice

It’s not perfect, but it’s the most democratic way out of this mess, I reckon. And FWIW I think May’s deal would have a pretty good chance of passing at Stage 1. So in that case we Brexit, sans chaos

I was one of the advocates at the time, though didn't actually come up with the formulation.
It >might< still work, but the chances of getting parliament to vote for it, and the EU to agree to an extension during which it would be voted on, seem exceeding slim now.

Boles on the radio this morning, sounding sensible...
Tory MP Nick Boles, who has voted twice in favour of Theresa May's deal, tells BBC Radio 5 live that the prime minister "hasn’t allowed Parliament to explore what alternative compromises we might support".

"We’ve never been allowed to debate and vote on anything other than her deal," he says.

He calls Mrs May a "control freak" who has "very clear red lines".

He says the UK is a "laughing stock" with trading partners who "all have their heads in their hands".

Mr Boles says the PM needs to resign "as soon as" a Brexit deal is agreed.

"Not now because the government needs to be led," he says.

"The truth is we can't afford to take the time out to choose someone else.

"Should she go as soon as... the ink is dry on some deal? Absolutely.

"So I'm not in any sense a fan of her staying for any moment longer than necessary, but right now it is necessary that she continues to conduct these negotiations."

brendan16 said:

CarlottaVance said:

One reason for a short extension (if any...)

https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1105780261214662656

Perhaps Guy would also like to cancel the EU elections in Italy, Sweden, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Spain, France, Netherlands etc etc - basically anywhere where votes might not vote in large numbers for the tired EPP/ALDE/Socialist tripartite club but pick populist parties instead?!

If he could I think he would.

Foxy said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Streeter said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

"This deal is getting worse all the time!" - Lando Calrissian.

Do you still Be Leave, my chirpy chum?

Um, this may raise a few eyebrows on here, but it's getting to the point that I may abstain or even vote Remain if there's another referendum...

In honour of the restoration of your sanity have a butchers at this beautiful map

https://twitter.com/simongerman600/status/1105213060153778181?s=19

You can see the old border between the German and Russian Empires in Poland quite clearly.

brendan16 said:

JosiasJessop said:

brendan16 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Meanwhile, in Tory leadership contender matters:

https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1105764295483240448

Probably not the most subtle description by Boris but given police budgets are constrained shouldn't the priority be on tackling crimes happening now where the perpetrator is still alive and can be prosecuted - dead people cannot commit crimes anymore whereas criminals not caught can do?

In large parts of the country there is literally no visible police presence at all. Even in London the only place I am guaranteed to see police officers on a daily basis is around Parliament.

Because if police are in short supply and budgets are constrained don't we need to prioritise e.g. once all the knife crimes are solved we can allocate resources to twitter spats and cases where the perpetrator died a decade ago?

Well, no. Some of this 'historic' abuse isn't necessarily historic, especially if people are suffering the consequences, even if the culprit is dead.

Then there's always the issue of letting culprits know that, however long ago it occurred, you might still be investigated and prosecuted.

Finally, there's the fact that in many cases there are systematic failings that need clearing up: just look at yesterday's prosecution of an officer who abused many boys at a detention centre.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-47258310

Isn't the answer to fund counselling for the victims - and allow police officers to get out and stop crimes actually happening now or at least catch the perpetrators?

Perhaps if we had more police patrolling the streets instead of patrolling twitter or doing desk work the knife crime epidemic might not be so bad - as the police are now essentially invisible in terms of street presence (except of course around Parliament!).

'Patrolling twitter' has little to do with Boris' comments, which were about sexual crimes against children.

Boris is bang out of order on this.

Questions 1,6, and 10 might be awkward for Mrs May

https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/1105790934271315969

Can we please wake up from this nightmare??

Anyone notice that in an hour or so we have a budget?? A FREAKING budget, yet we get nothing from it...

Philip_Thompson said:

GIN1138 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

GIN1138 said:

Can someone remind me why "Malthouse" is bad (won't pass) and Spellman/Dromey is good (will pass) ?

I've lost track of all the various amendments and amendments to amendments...

https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1105788261753073676

Dromey/Spellman is ruling out no deal right?

How's that any different to voting against no deal which is the main motion today?

Dunno. I'm pretty much lost now with all Parliament shenanigans?

Pulpstar said:

GIN1138 said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1105786419035938816

Somebody put us all out of our misery. She needs to go.

I think all this is making Theresa ill.

For her own well being someone needs to tell her to go.

Noone can doubt her work ethic !

"My, she is tenacious, isn't she?"

TheScreamingEagles said:

brendan16 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'll be updating this metaphor this weekend.

https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/722391453599723520

Oddly wasn't that the manifesto every Tory MP was elected on - and Mrs May made very clear what her position was until a few months ago (and technically remains her position).

Given the above represents the relationship 85% of the world has with the EU its perfectly practical as an aspiration - although clearly its not going to be delivered in 16 days!

Don't be dense.

Going from membership of the single market and customs union to WTO terms will be bloody disruptive.

Can you list me ten countries that have successfully left the single market?

I didn't say it could happen over night but much of this could be delivered via a future trade deal without having freedom of movement. Isn't that what May's deal was aiming for as an outcome - when that is what she claimed anyway?

Just because no one has left the single market doesn't mean no one could as applies to any trading or international body. No one had left the Commonwealth - until Ireland did!

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1105786419035938816

Somebody put us all out of our misery. She needs to go.

It would not put us out of our misery. If people wanted to get rid of May, they should have done so in 2017 or 2018. Changing PM now is pointless.

We need an experienced cabinet minister, preferably a lawyer, and someone committed to us leaving the EU as Prime Minister to navigate us through this mess.

There's only one man for the job, Ken Clarke.

As I said yesterday, it's a funny world in which Ken Clarke is doing more to achieve Brexit than people like Bill Cash, JRM, and John Redwood.

He's always been a consistent democrat.

Pulpstar said:

GIN1138 said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1105786419035938816

Somebody put us all out of our misery. She needs to go.

I think all this is making Theresa ill.

For her own well being someone needs to tell her to go.

Noone can doubt her work ethic !

Let's not confuse activity with progress.

Its not just the country MPs are digging a hole for:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1105786833676361728

MaxPB said:

Free vote on Malthouse. Don't see how it passes. It's voting for something that isn't on offer. The deal won't change now and the PM needs to get real with the party. The deal is the only path to brexit.

The deal won't pass. As long as people cling to that which has twice been humiliatingly rejected there's no chance of any real progress.

notme2 said:

CarlottaVance said:

As one of the civil servants said to the Heath Government on the EEC's requirements for British accession - "Here it is, swallow it all and swallow it now, its not going to change."

https://twitter.com/Usherwood/status/1105762078906826752

Since the day we entered to the day we leave we have never got a penny more than we've put in. Not one. It was never a comfortable organisation for us. We have influenced it, and it has influenced us, much for the better on both cases. But we have never led it. It is and always has been led by a France and German axis.

You can't really look at just the money we put into the EU and received back as the whole picture. Look at us in the 1970's compared to now and then pick another EU country and see how well we've done compared to them.

brendan16 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

brendan16 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'll be updating this metaphor this weekend.

https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/722391453599723520

Oddly wasn't that the manifesto every Tory MP was elected on - and Mrs May made very clear what her position was until a few months ago (and technically remains her position).

Given the above represents the relationship 85% of the world has with the EU its perfectly practical as an aspiration - although clearly its not going to be delivered in 16 days!

Don't be dense.

Going from membership of the single market and customs union to WTO terms will be bloody disruptive.

Can you list me ten countries that have successfully left the single market?

I didn't say it could happen over night but much of this could be delivered via a future trade deal without having freedom of movement. Isn't that what May's deal was aiming for as an outcome - when that is what she claimed anyway?

Just because no one has left the single market doesn't mean no one could as applies to any trading or international body. No one had left the Commonwealth - until Ireland did!

Burma left in 1948.

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Free vote on Malthouse. Don't see how it passes. It's voting for something that isn't on offer. The deal won't change now and the PM needs to get real with the party. The deal is the only path to brexit.

The deal won't pass. As long as people cling to that which has twice been humiliatingly rejected there's no chance of any real progress.

Then we remain.

JRM seems to have gone quiet...

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Free vote on Malthouse. Don't see how it passes. It's voting for something that isn't on offer. The deal won't change now and the PM needs to get real with the party. The deal is the only path to brexit.

The deal won't pass. As long as people cling to that which has twice been humiliatingly rejected there's no chance of any real progress.

Then we remain.

The sooner everyone realises this the better.

brendan16 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1105786419035938816

Somebody put us all out of our misery. She needs to go.

MV3 might make some sense once other real or imaginary options have been voted on and/or shot down.

Lets just say is 28 March, the EU has come up with some unacceptable conditions for an extension (or cannot agree the terms amongst the EU 27) and the choice is revoke completely, leave with no deal within 24 hours or May's deal.

Is that how May's deal finally passes - as the ERG and some Labour MPs back down to avoid chaos?

Maybe, although it's already so late that chaos can't be avoided completely.

GIN1138 said:

JRM seems to have gone quiet...

Hopefully it's dawning on the c*** that his antics have lead to remain.

GIN1138 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

GIN1138 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

GIN1138 said:

Can someone remind me why "Malthouse" is bad (won't pass) and Spellman/Dromey is good (will pass) ?

I've lost track of all the various amendments and amendments to amendments...

https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1105788261753073676

Dromey/Spellman is ruling out no deal right?

How's that any different to voting against no deal which is the main motion today?

Dunno. I'm pretty much lost now with all Parliament shenanigans?

Here is my understanding..!

So, the previous Cooper amendment would have ruled out No Deal by forcing the government to seek an extension in the event that no deal was agreed by a certain date (I think this week). The amendment was withdrawn because the PM promised a vote to rule out No Deal today.

However, the actual wording that the government is putting forth today in the first sentence says that the House rejects leaving without a deal - but THEN says that this is the default position unless a deal is agreed!
In other words it doesn't actually include any mechanism to prevent No Deal.

Dromey/Spelman apparently doesn't include that last bit about the default position (but doesn't force the government to revoke or ask for a delay either....?)

Sean_F said:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/z912fd4gnq/BrexitDeal_190312.pdf

A very big shift among Leave supporters in favour of the Deal, but probably too late.

I would trust that the general public have a better grasp of the reality of no-deal than the ERG do.

Sean_F said:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/z912fd4gnq/BrexitDeal_190312.pdf

A very big shift among Leave supporters in favour of the Deal, but probably too late.

Splits by sex on these surveys are very often striking. It rather makes a mockery of those who claim men and women think similarly. The empirical evidence frequently suggests the opposite.

Freggles said:

GIN1138 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

GIN1138 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

GIN1138 said:

Can someone remind me why "Malthouse" is bad (won't pass) and Spellman/Dromey is good (will pass) ?

I've lost track of all the various amendments and amendments to amendments...

https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1105788261753073676

Dromey/Spellman is ruling out no deal right?

How's that any different to voting against no deal which is the main motion today?

Dunno. I'm pretty much lost now with all Parliament shenanigans?

Here is my understanding..!

So, the previous Cooper amendment would have ruled out No Deal by forcing the government to seek an extension in the event that no deal was agreed by a certain date (I think this week). The amendment was withdrawn because the PM promised a vote to rule out No Deal today.

However, the actual wording that the government is putting forth today in the first sentence says that the House rejects leaving without a deal - but THEN says that this is the default position unless a deal is agreed!
In other words it doesn't actually include any mechanism to prevent No Deal.

Dromey/Spelman apparently doesn't include that last bit about the default position (but doesn't force the government to revoke or ask for a delay either....?)

Right think I'm with you....

Just discovered that the box for new comments is at the bottom of the page on vanilla!

Anyway, I have also just discovered that Philip Davies voted FOR the deal last night. What is the point of having a wing-nut Tory MP as my elected representative if he fails to do damage to the government at every opportunity?

(Interestingly, his other half voted against - was he on the sofa last night?)

Sunil_Prasannan said:

brendan16 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

brendan16 said:

MarqueeMark said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/ProfBrianCox/status/1105743522215399425

And why won't the DUP think this the best think they could ever have introduced to NI? Retail bonanza.....

I better book my Stranraer to Larne ferry tickets now - before they sell out along with car dealers in NI.

Cairnryan to Larne, surely (?)

Yes - you are correct but Stranraer is the nearest major town and rail station to Cairnryan so my geography isn't that far off!

I spent a number of days in Glasgow back in September and October, but I couldn't do Ayr to Stranraer because of the closure due to that "unstable" hotel next to Ayr station!

Last time I went to Stranraer was on the Euston - Stranraer overnight, piloted by a Class 20 forward from Ayr...

_Anazina_ said:

Sean_F said:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/z912fd4gnq/BrexitDeal_190312.pdf

A very big shift among Leave supporters in favour of the Deal, but probably too late.

Splits by sex on these surveys are very often striking. It rather makes a mockery of those who claim men and women think similarly. The empirical evidence frequently suggests the opposite.

Yes, women more likely to say "don't know", which is probably a very fair answer!