politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Something has changed. For the first time I can see how Brexit
Options
Comments
-
May's deal is a pretty good compromise that gives leavers and remainers a lot of what they want. When the prospects of cancelling Brexit altogether looked non-existent I was in favour of it.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 wonder if leavers who have realised it isn't happening are coming behind the deal as being better than nothing. It is going to be hard to go through all this for the prize to be taken away at the last minute.0 -
Au contraire. Having a foot in each camp is the art of becoming a power couple.SandyRentool said:
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?)
0 -
Still make us feel better that one idiot has been ejected.Sean_F said:
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.rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1105786419035938816
Somebody put us all out of our misery. She needs to go.0 -
There are big differences by sex on quite a lot of topics. Women are (in general) more likely to believe in God than men, more tolerant of homosexuality, less tolerant of pornography, more likely to oppose the use of force in international affairs, more opposed to abortion, more moderately Eurosceptic (as opposed to being strongly pro or anti- the EU) and tend to produce larger numbers of undecided voters than men. In party-political terms, these differences tend to cancel each other out._Anazina_ said:
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.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.0 -
Morning Malc.malcolmg said:
Still make us feel better that one idiot has been ejected.Sean_F said:
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.rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1105786419035938816
Somebody put us all out of our misery. She needs to go.
What a toodo.0 -
Clarke’s also put his name to an amendment to revoke Article 50.Sean_F said:
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.TheScreamingEagles said:
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.Sean_F said:
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.rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1105786419035938816
Somebody put us all out of our misery. She needs to go.
There's only one man for the job, Ken Clarke.0 -
+1 from meTheScreamingEagles said:
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.Sean_F said:
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.rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1105786419035938816
Somebody put us all out of our misery. She needs to go.
There's only one man for the job, Ken Clarke.0 -
It basically guarantees a Remain win even if the majority of people want some form of Brexit.SeanT said:
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)edmundintokyo said:
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.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.
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 chaos0 -
Mr. F, women are also generally more risk averse (hence gamblers being mostly men).
0 -
I wonder what proportion of the country are effectively Thompsonites – they would much rather Remain than take any of the versions of Brexit that are on offer? I dare say such a grouping might command 10-15% of the population.
Essentially, you could split the UK by PB ethos
Recidivists – revokers
Thompsonites – reluctant Remainers
Smithsonians – second referenders
Tyndallites – EFTA/EEAers
Eaglistas – punishment No Dealers
Anazinans – pragmatic Dealers
SeanTeeshirts – all of the above, varying wildly within any given 24-hour period
0 -
PedantSunil_Prasannan said:
Cairnryan to Larne, surely (?)brendan16 said:
I better book my Stranraer to Larne ferry tickets now - before they sell out along with car dealers in NI.MarqueeMark said:
And why won't the DUP think this the best think they could ever have introduced to NI? Retail bonanza.....CarlottaVance said:0 -
Indeed so.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. F, women are also generally more risk averse (hence gamblers being mostly men).
0 -
It's the conclusion that I, and people like Richard Tyndall, David L, Casino Royale came to about four months ago.Recidivist said:
May's deal is a pretty good compromise that gives leavers and remainers a lot of what they want. When the prospects of cancelling Brexit altogether looked non-existent I was in favour of it.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 wonder if leavers who have realised it isn't happening are coming behind the deal as being better than nothing. It is going to be hard to go through all this for the prize to be taken away at the last minute.0 -
Indeed.Sean_F said:
There are big differences by sex on quite a lot of topics. Women are (in general) more likely to believe in God than men, more tolerant of homosexuality, less tolerant of pornography, more likely to oppose the use of force in international affairs, more opposed to abortion, more moderately Eurosceptic (as opposed to being strongly pro or anti- the EU) and tend to produce larger numbers of undecided voters than men. In party-political terms, these differences tend to cancel each other out._Anazina_ said:
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.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.0 -
If you are going to do this then far better to do it as AV and have May/No Deal/Remain as the three options. That way each option is treated equally._Anazina_ said:
Hmm, very flawed.SeanT said:
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)edmundintokyo said:
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.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.
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
It gives Remainers a huge perverse incentive to vote to No to May in Stage 1, so they have a chance to vote Remain at Stage 2.
Why not simply have May vs Remain?0 -
Rejecting May's deal whether you're in favour of leaving or remaining is a gamble, and men are more likely to gamble than women._Anazina_ said:
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.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.0 -
I'd much rather 'remain' and I'm not at all reluctant about it!_Anazina_ said:I wonder what proportion of the country are effectively Thompsonites – they would much rather Remain than take any of the versions of Brexit that are on offer? I dare say such a grouping might command 10-15% of the population.
Essentially, you could split the UK by PB ethos
Recidivists – revokers
Thompsonites – reluctant Remainers
Smithsonians – second referenders
Tyndallites – EFTA/EEAers
Eaglistas – punishment No Dealers
Anazinans – pragmatic Dealers
SeanTeeshirts – all of the above, varying wildly within any given 24-hour period0 -
I'd be mildly annoyed at Clarke becoming PM, as I decided against backing him at some hundreds to one a few months ago (precisely on this sort of chain of events occurring).
Anyway, I must be off into the strangely sunny gales of Yorkshire.0 -
Which just goes to show how absurd the position of Cash, Redwood, JRM is.williamglenn said:
Clarke’s also put his name to an amendment to revoke Article 50.Sean_F said:
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.TheScreamingEagles said:
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.Sean_F said:
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.rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1105786419035938816
Somebody put us all out of our misery. She needs to go.
There's only one man for the job, Ken Clarke.0 -
Lines from Glasgow to Ayr are stopped at Irvine today due to weather bringing down power linesSandyRentool said:
Last time I went to Stranraer was on the Euston - Stranraer overnight, piloted by a Class 20 forward from Ayr...Sunil_Prasannan said:
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!brendan16 said:
Yes - you are correct but Stranraer is the nearest major town and rail station to Cairnryan so my geography isn't that far off!Sunil_Prasannan said:
Cairnryan to Larne, surely (?)brendan16 said:
I better book my Stranraer to Larne ferry tickets now - before they sell out along with car dealers in NI.MarqueeMark said:
And why won't the DUP think this the best think they could ever have introduced to NI? Retail bonanza.....CarlottaVance said:0 -
No they couldn't for the very reason Brendan mentions in his last sentence.notme2 said:
And those reforms could easily have been carried out while remaining a member.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.
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!0 -
If a version of the deal does go through in the next few weeks then the ERG have done well and it fully justifies their position. They've pushed for the cleanest Brexit possible but at the same time have an acceptable version of it. If they had supported May's deal first time round there would be less leverage and no doubt she would make concessions more to the centre ground and Labour in order to get the deal passed.0
-
The problem with all 2 question approaches is that the resultant answer is the sane option is question 2.Richard_Tyndall said:
It basically guarantees a Remain win even if the majority of people want some form of Brexit.SeanT said:
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)edmundintokyo said:
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.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.
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
The only exception to that is
1) Do you want to leave the EU without a deal?
2) Do you want to remain in the EU or leave with May's Deal?
Where I wouldn't want to bet on the result of Question 2 but Question 1 has a clue cut answer...0 -
Morning GIN. A real stramash, time to lock the doors on the fools.GIN1138 said:
Morning Malc.malcolmg said:
Still make us feel better that one idiot has been ejected.Sean_F said:
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.rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1105786419035938816
Somebody put us all out of our misery. She needs to go.
What a toodo.0 -
Eliminate no deal on the basis that no sensible government or politician could afford to pass control over something so risky and damaging, and we are back to the deal v Remain referendum which we all know is the only one ever likely to be agreed. The only question is whether the deal is May's deal or some alternative soft Brexit EEA/CU deal yet to be agreed.Richard_Tyndall said:
If you are going to do this then far better to do it as AV and have May/No Deal/Remain as the three options. That way each option is treated equally._Anazina_ said:
Hmm, very flawed.SeanT said:
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)edmundintokyo said:
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.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.
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
It gives Remainers a huge perverse incentive to vote to No to May in Stage 1, so they have a chance to vote Remain at Stage 2.
Why not simply have May vs Remain?0 -
Which form of AV counting mechanism would you use though? That could well influence the result in unexpected ways...Richard_Tyndall said:
If you are going to do this then far better to do it as AV and have May/No Deal/Remain as the three options. That way each option is treated equally._Anazina_ said:
Hmm, very flawed.SeanT said:
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)edmundintokyo said:
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.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.
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
It gives Remainers a huge perverse incentive to vote to No to May in Stage 1, so they have a chance to vote Remain at Stage 2.
Why not simply have May vs Remain?0 -
"Rejecting May's deal whether you're in favour of leaving or remaining is a gamble, and men are more likely to gamble than women"
Didn't polling suggest women voted remain - by a small margin 51 to 49 - in 2016 and it was men who delivered the leave majority (55 to 45 in favour of leave)?
Of course like the vast majority of things in the world men also invented the EU!0 -
I think they were right to oppose the first time (as I myself did) but they should have banked the deal yesterday.Brom said:If a version of the deal does go through in the next few weeks then the ERG have done well and it fully justifies their position. They've pushed for the cleanest Brexit possible but at the same time have an acceptable version of it. If they had supported May's deal first time round there would be less leverage and no doubt she would make concessions more to the centre ground and Labour in order to get the deal passed.
They have overplayed their hand, got drunk on their own publicity and put the entire Brexit project at risk...0 -
If Clarke were to put himself forward on the basis of committing to enacting the result of the 2016 referendum but as he saw fit then I would support him like a shot. I may be heading for a fall with it but I trust him more than any other MP to keep his word for the sake for the democratic process.Morris_Dancer said:I'd be mildly annoyed at Clarke becoming PM, as I decided against backing him at some hundreds to one a few months ago (precisely on this sort of chain of events occurring).
Anyway, I must be off into the strangely sunny gales of Yorkshire.0 -
You cannot eliminate it. As it stands something like a third of the population say they support it.IanB2 said:
Eliminate no deal on the basis that no sensible government or politician could afford to pass control over something so risky and damaging, and we are back to the deal v Remain referendum which we all know is the only one ever likely to be agreed. The only question is whether the deal is May's deal or some alternative soft Brexit EEA/CU deal yet to be agreed.Richard_Tyndall said:
If you are going to do this then far better to do it as AV and have May/No Deal/Remain as the three options. That way each option is treated equally._Anazina_ said:
Hmm, very flawed.SeanT said:
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)edmundintokyo said:
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.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.
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
It gives Remainers a huge perverse incentive to vote to No to May in Stage 1, so they have a chance to vote Remain at Stage 2.
Why not simply have May vs Remain?0 -
Poor Theresa.TheScreamingEagles said:
0 -
We keep hearing that, and yet she keeps finding new ways to surprise us with her crapnessSean_F said:
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.rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1105786419035938816
Somebody put us all out of our misery. She needs to go.0 -
This thread has defected to the new one that is FINALLY open to comments on Vanilla0
-
I am not enough of an expert on it to say. TSE is your man for that.eek said:
Which form of AV counting mechanism would you use though? That could well influence the result in unexpected ways...Richard_Tyndall said:
If you are going to do this then far better to do it as AV and have May/No Deal/Remain as the three options. That way each option is treated equally._Anazina_ said:
Hmm, very flawed.SeanT said:
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)edmundintokyo said:
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.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.
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
It gives Remainers a huge perverse incentive to vote to No to May in Stage 1, so they have a chance to vote Remain at Stage 2.
Why not simply have May vs Remain?0 -
I did a thread on it recently.eek said:
Which form of AV counting mechanism would you use though? That could well influence the result in unexpected ways...Richard_Tyndall said:
If you are going to do this then far better to do it as AV and have May/No Deal/Remain as the three options. That way each option is treated equally._Anazina_ said:
Hmm, very flawed.SeanT said:
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)edmundintokyo said:
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.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.
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
It gives Remainers a huge perverse incentive to vote to No to May in Stage 1, so they have a chance to vote Remain at Stage 2.
Why not simply have May vs Remain?
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/03/03/a-second-referendum-conducted-under-av-maybe-the-only-way-to-end-the-brexit-impasse/0 -
It would be Parliament's decision, and they can and would eliminate it. After tonight's vote it will be easy and obvious.Richard_Tyndall said:
You cannot eliminate it. As it stands something like a third of the population say they support it.IanB2 said:
Eliminate no deal on the basis that no sensible government or politician could afford to pass control over something so risky and damaging, and we are back to the deal v Remain referendum which we all know is the only one ever likely to be agreed. The only question is whether the deal is May's deal or some alternative soft Brexit EEA/CU deal yet to be agreed.Richard_Tyndall said:
If you are going to do this then far better to do it as AV and have May/No Deal/Remain as the three options. That way each option is treated equally._Anazina_ said:
Hmm, very flawed.SeanT said:
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)edmundintokyo said:
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.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.
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
It gives Remainers a huge perverse incentive to vote to No to May in Stage 1, so they have a chance to vote Remain at Stage 2.
Why not simply have May vs Remain?0 -
Broadly I agree but I think it is highly likely there will be a 3rd vote. After Cox's advice yesterday that little has changed it would be hard to get on board without looking desperate. May's task is to get something minor that allows everyone to save face to jump on board with her deal - it shouldn't be as big a challenge as she is making it. Since the 1st vote 20-30 Labour MPs have shifted towards supporting May's deal under the right circumstances - if the ERG had backed May before these Labour leavers had then I suspect the 2nd and the 3rd versions of the deal would be softened knowing she had the ERG where she wanted them.GIN1138 said:
I think they were right to oppose the first time (as I myself did) but they should have banked the deal yesterday.Brom said:If a version of the deal does go through in the next few weeks then the ERG have done well and it fully justifies their position. They've pushed for the cleanest Brexit possible but at the same time have an acceptable version of it. If they had supported May's deal first time round there would be less leverage and no doubt she would make concessions more to the centre ground and Labour in order to get the deal passed.
They have overplayed their hand, got drunk on their own publicity and put the entire Brexit project at risk...
Previously I thought May's deal would pass 3rd time of asking. Now I reckon she'll squeeze it through 4th time lucky.0 -
This is the only philosophically coherent and morally defensible position. Respects the referendum yet serves justice._Anazina_ said:
Eaglistas – punishment No Dealers
The wrinkled sea beneath him crawls;
He watches from his mountain walls,
And like a thunderbolt he falls.
(Tennyson)0 -
-
A No Deal Brexit on 29th? Or a No Deal Brexit forever?TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Government has announce a move to more liberal import tariffs following a no-deal brexit.
82% of goods from EU would be zero rated (down from 100% obvs)
ROW would go to 92% zero rated (up from 56%)
That would have the overall effect of going from the current 80% of imports zero rated, to 87%.0 -
29th - the government motion.GIN1138 said:
A No Deal Brexit on 29th? Or a No Deal Brexit forever?TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Legally? No. In practice? Yes. And given there are several organisations in NI with smuggling experience in living memory (and possibly present memory), I assume they will be able to do so relatively quicklymalcolmg said:
Gun crime in GB (as opposed to NI) is so circumscribed criminals are reduced to passing individual guns from person to person. You can actually track an individual pistol between crimes. If border security falls away it's only a matter of time before somebody starts gun smuggling. So if gun crime expands over the next year or two, you know why.0 -
Eh? There's no border security at the moment.viewcode said:
Legally? No. In practice? Yes. And given there are several organisations in NI with smuggling experience in living memory (and possibly present memory), I assume they will be able to do so relatively quicklymalcolmg said:
Gun crime in GB (as opposed to NI) is so circumscribed criminals are reduced to passing individual guns from person to person. You can actually track an individual pistol between crimes. If border security falls away it's only a matter of time before somebody starts gun smuggling. So if gun crime expands over the next year or two, you know why.0 -
Think we're all meant to move here?
https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/7411/nancy-pelosi-says-trump-shouldn-t-be-impeached-other-us-developments#latest0 -
I don't think that's an official thread.GIN1138 said:Think we're all meant to move here?
https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/7411/nancy-pelosi-says-trump-shouldn-t-be-impeached-other-us-developments#latest0 -
This is the resistance.GIN1138 said:Think we're all meant to move here?
https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/7411/nancy-pelosi-says-trump-shouldn-t-be-impeached-other-us-developments#latest0 -
@Quincel took back control and unilaterally created it.MaxPB said:
I don't think that's an official thread.GIN1138 said:Think we're all meant to move here?
https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/7411/nancy-pelosi-says-trump-shouldn-t-be-impeached-other-us-developments#latest0 -
Oh!MaxPB said:
I don't think that's an official thread.GIN1138 said:Think we're all meant to move here?
https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/7411/nancy-pelosi-says-trump-shouldn-t-be-impeached-other-us-developments#latest
0 -
Sounds like anarchy.Richard_Nabavi said:
@Quincel took back control and unilaterally created it.MaxPB said:
I don't think that's an official thread.GIN1138 said:Think we're all meant to move here?
https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/7411/nancy-pelosi-says-trump-shouldn-t-be-impeached-other-us-developments#latest0 -
Backbenchers offering up soft questions, and May still useless.0
-
Does Quincel want to set up a People's Parliament ?Richard_Nabavi said:
@Quincel took back control and unilaterally created it.MaxPB said:
I don't think that's an official thread.GIN1138 said:Think we're all meant to move here?
https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/7411/nancy-pelosi-says-trump-shouldn-t-be-impeached-other-us-developments#latest0 -
-
So what? She's finished anyway, and she cannot pretend theres unity anyway.AlastairMeeks said:0 -
Comment voulez-vous gouverner un pays qui a deux cent quarante-six variétés de fromage?CarlottaVance said:0 -
I find the Guido Fawkes position and tone on all this rather interesting. Very dismissive of no deal fears, but seems to be far more amenable on some Brexit at least rather than risk no Brexit.0
-
Because we’ve already voted to leave_Anazina_ said:
Hmm, very flawed.SeanT said:
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)edmundintokyo said:
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.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.
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
It gives Remainers a huge perverse incentive to vote to No to May in Stage 1, so they have a chance to vote Remain at Stage 2.
Why not simply have May vs Remain?0 -
And therefore renders the whole process invalid - well of course it would already be invalid so I suppose if you are going to nobble the democratic process you might as well go all the way and make it thoroughly illegitimate.IanB2 said:
It would be Parliament's decision, and they can and would eliminate it. After tonight's vote it will be easy and obvious.0 -
2011 referendumTheScreamingEagles said:
I did a thread on it recently.eek said:
Which form of AV counting mechanism would you use though? That could well influence the result in unexpected ways...Richard_Tyndall said:
If you are going to do this then far better to do it as AV and have May/No Deal/Remain as the three options. That way each option is treated equally._Anazina_ said:
Hmm, very flawed.SeanT said:
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)edmundintokyo said:
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.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.
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
It gives Remainers a huge perverse incentive to vote to No to May in Stage 1, so they have a chance to vote Remain at Stage 2.
Why not simply have May vs Remain?
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/03/03/a-second-referendum-conducted-under-av-maybe-the-only-way-to-end-the-brexit-impasse/
No2AV 68%
Yes2AV 32%
0 -
I thought she already agreed to a free vote on itkle4 said:
So what? She's finished anyway, and she cannot pretend theres unity anyway.AlastairMeeks said:0 -
Hammond thinks they'll be a MV3..0
-
That was for the GE. It doesn't mean we cannot use it for other votes.Sunil_Prasannan said:
2011 referendumTheScreamingEagles said:
I did a thread on it recently.eek said:
Which form of AV counting mechanism would you use though? That could well influence the result in unexpected ways...Richard_Tyndall said:
If you are going to do this then far better to do it as AV and have May/No Deal/Remain as the three options. That way each option is treated equally._Anazina_ said:
Hmm, very flawed.SeanT said:
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)edmundintokyo said:
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.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.
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
It gives Remainers a huge perverse incentive to vote to No to May in Stage 1, so they have a chance to vote Remain at Stage 2.
Why not simply have May vs Remain?
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/03/03/a-second-referendum-conducted-under-av-maybe-the-only-way-to-end-the-brexit-impasse/
No2AV 68%
Yes2AV 32%0 -
But he has at least attempted to Brexit first, despite his own core beliefswilliamglenn said:
Clarke’s also put his name to an amendment to revoke Article 50.Sean_F said:
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.TheScreamingEagles said:
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.Sean_F said:
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.rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1105786419035938816
Somebody put us all out of our misery. She needs to go.
There's only one man for the job, Ken Clarke.0 -
I have to go back to my desk so I can't pursue this, but I'll leave you with this. You may be correct but you raise an interesting question. Namely "if I had a contraband article - guns, drugs, JRM's trust fund passcode, whatever - and I wanted to move it from Cork to Belfast to Liverpool to London, at what point would it be stopped?" It's a genuine question, I'm not trying to be clever.Richard_Nabavi said:
Eh? There's no border security at the moment.viewcode said:
Legally? No. In practice? Yes. And given there are several organisations in NI with smuggling experience in living memory (and possibly present memory), I assume they will be able to do so relatively quicklymalcolmg said:
Gun crime in GB (as opposed to NI) is so circumscribed criminals are reduced to passing individual guns from person to person. You can actually track an individual pistol between crimes. If border security falls away it's only a matter of time before somebody starts gun smuggling. So if gun crime expands over the next year or two, you know why.0 -
Amusing, but isn't it more likely it's just that volume of cheddar is as much as all other types combined? Just a guess.CarlottaVance said:0 -
Hammond being more on Brexit than economics directly here....0
-
You wouldn't be stopped routinely, but HMRC and the police try to catch you and might stop you anywhere, based on intelligence.viewcode said:I have to go back to my desk so I can't pursue this, but I'll leave you with this. You may be correct but you raise an interesting question. Namely "if I had a contraband article - guns, drugs, JRM's trust fund passcode, whatever - and I wanted to move it from Cork to Belfast to Liverpool to London, at what point would it be stopped?" It's a genuine question, I'm not trying to be clever.
0 -
He’s not got an incredibly easy job tbh: “go in there and waffle on a bit about the economy. Oh and remember there’s a massive train coming down the tracks in a fortnight but we genuinely don’t know how the hell we’re going to get out of the way in time, or whether we’ll be able to delay its arrival, so just do your best to make some genuine positive sounds about how everything’s going, ok? Oh and mention the massive train a few times because it might scare a few more into getting out of the way.”Slackbladder said:Hammond being more on Brexit than economics directly here....
0 -
But unless there is a specific form of Brexit that a majority support then remaining is the logical outcome. Personally I would be happy to see EFTA on the ballot paperRichard_Tyndall said:
It basically guarantees a Remain win even if the majority of people want some form of Brexit.SeanT said:
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)edmundintokyo said:
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.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.
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 chaos0 -
Indeed, but I dare say Deal is more likely to win under my One Stage proposal, and Remain more likely to win under the Two Stage proposal. So, you pays your money, you takes your choice.Charles said:
Because we’ve already voted to leave_Anazina_ said:
Hmm, very flawed.SeanT said:
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)edmundintokyo said:
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.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.
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
It gives Remainers a huge perverse incentive to vote to No to May in Stage 1, so they have a chance to vote Remain at Stage 2.
Why not simply have May vs Remain?0 -
I see that the Chancellor is confirming the old saying that a Phil Hammond joke is no laughing matter.0
-
Any sign of a delay to MTD... ?0
-
Retroactive implementation: Hammond signal end of fossil-fuel heating systems in all new houses from 2020
-
Cast's Walk Away just turned up on my random play. It's a sign I tell yer....
If you've heard all they got to say
You looked but turned away
Walkaway, walkaway
If you've said all you got to say
And now the words just slip away
Just walkaway, walkaway, walkaway
That's what they say, what they say,
what they say
You gotta walkaway0 -
Just to say that Vanilla has a problem which it is trying to fix0
-
More about protectionism, I'd guess - we're not bothered by imports of camembert or emmental, but producers of tasteless cheddar don't want competition from rival producers of tasteless cheese.kle4 said:
Amusing, but isn't it more likely it's just that volume of cheddar is as much as all other types combined? Just a guess.CarlottaVance said:0 -
At the moment (and a friend saw this when a staff member was arrested for being AWOL) the most likely place is as you cross between Belfast and Liverpool / Stranraer as that is the easiest place to identify you (usually when you land)..Richard_Nabavi said:
You wouldn't be stopped routinely, but HMRC and the police try to catch you and might stop you anywhere, based on intelligence.viewcode said:I have to go back to my desk so I can't pursue this, but I'll leave you with this. You may be correct but you raise an interesting question. Namely "if I had a contraband article - guns, drugs, JRM's trust fund passcode, whatever - and I wanted to move it from Cork to Belfast to Liverpool to London, at what point would it be stopped?" It's a genuine question, I'm not trying to be clever.
0
This discussion has been closed.