politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Get ready for the no deal Blame Game
Options
Comments
-
Mark Francois looked delighted about it.Philip_Thompson said:For the first time I think it's actually going to be a No Deal on Friday isn't it?
This is August 1914. Not many actually want war/no deal, but everyone is too entrenched and stubborn to compromise to avoid it.0 -
Is no deal will be fine the modern day equivalent to it'll all be over by Christmas?Philip_Thompson said:For the first time I think it's actually going to be a No Deal on Friday isn't it?
This is August 1914. Not many actually want war/no deal, but everyone is too entrenched and stubborn to compromise to avoid it.0 -
A society is as strong as its institutions. It’s not a free hit ignoring the democratic will. It has consequences for the nation, when you weaken those institutions you weaken the nation.Ishmael_Z said:
With a great big "Meh."GreenHeron said:
Technically you are correct but I'm not concerned about technicalities. I'm concerned about what people will do if it is proven that their democratic voice counts for nothing. How do you expect people to react when the ballot box ceases to be a viable way of expressing one's opinion?Ishmael_Z said:
I cannot see that any basic democratic principle is being infringed. The deomcratic obligation was to pay due attention to the result and to give Leave a reasonable amount of time to demonstrate that the result was capable of enactment. We have done all that.GreenHeron said:
Technically it was an advisory referendum so therefore no need to implement it but when the government who called the referendum promise, in government literature, said specifically that what the people decide will be implemented, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the result will be implemented, and to claim that disregarding the first result in the hope of getting the right result second time is somehow more democratic than implementing the first result first is misleading at best.Ishmael_Z said:
Why is it not democratic? That is a claim that needs justifying rather than just making. If I ask for tea then change my mind and say, actually, coffee, what is the point in making me drink the tea first before I get the coffee?GreenHeron said:
Well count me down as one of those weird people. Allowing people to vote without implementing what they decided is not democratic. The vote must be implemented first, then if people want to call another vote to rejoin then that would be perfectly democratic.Anorak said:Weird people even think to argue against this. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1108674754800701445
It has long been my view that if the people make a mistake, then that mistake must be delivered fully. The strongest and most productive governments of my lifetime have come on the back of bad times and possibly mistakes. The winter of discontent yielded Thatcher, the dysfunctionality of the Major years yielded the boom around the Millennium and the successful early Blair years, the 2008 financialne who thinks the deal is awful and No Deal a reckless risk, at least in the short term. The long term implications of revoke, however, I believe to be much much worse.0 -
I still can't actually believe that so many Remainers are playing his game. There's a deal there, has been for months, I was certain - certain - that Remainers would accept such a soft Brexit transition deal to avoid risk of no deal.Pulpstar said:
Mark Francois looked delighted about it.Philip_Thompson said:For the first time I think it's actually going to be a No Deal on Friday isn't it?
This is August 1914. Not many actually want war/no deal, but everyone is too entrenched and stubborn to compromise to avoid it.
I was wrong.0 -
Most people involved think they can win total victory over their opponents.Philip_Thompson said:For the first time I think it's actually going to be a No Deal on Friday isn't it?
This is August 1914. Not many actually want war/no deal, but everyone is too entrenched and stubborn to compromise to avoid it.0 -
Not again. The problem with these "remainers crying wolf" type arguments is that they fail to take into account what happened at the end of that particular fable.Philip_Thompson said:
Similar to us crashing out of the ERM?eek said:
Yep - if the Tories think Revoke is bad, wait until they see the result of No Deal is 1 year down the line...IanB2 said:
Both make a fair few people very upset but one damages real lives whereas the other leaves things be.eek said:
True but remember this is a game of avoiding the blame. May's deal is dead as a Dodo (in fact I suspect resurrecting the Dodo is more likely) which leaves No Deal or revoke as the options left.TudorRose said:
If we've revoked under May then the remaining six members of the Tory party can unanimously elect Grieve as leader.eek said:
Won't it were Boris to be the leader?TudorRose said:
.... which won't stand up if we've just revoked (which was the premise of the original post).eek said:
The idea that the Brexit Party will win election seats is unlikely - it's not like the Tories won't be standing as a leave party...dyedwoolie said:
Well, technically but PM Farage says 'we are leaving with no deal and until you agree an immediate date I will veto everything etc etc'williamglenn said:
That's not true under EU law. The only way to bring forward the exit date is via a negotiated agreement. 'No Deal' by definition is the absence of an agreement and only happens after the two years.dyedwoolie said:
Incorrect. There is no need for a two year period. It is only there if negotiation is requiredwilliamglenn said:
PM Farage would come up against the limits of state power just as May has. It's not possible to 'no deal' without the two year Article 50 period.dyedwoolie said:
PM Farsge takes us out no deal, no referendum, no negotiation
Given those options which one has more recovery options...
The problem we remainers have is that counterfactuals don't make the news, the press never turns up when the plane lands safely, but I've seen enough evidence to convince me that the cumulative small effects of a no-deal scenario would be an absolute disaster. The only way I can"prove" that is to let it happen. Which clearly I don't want.0 -
I expect we would be out and emergency measures agreed for a one to two year period to mitigate the damage across EuropeHarris_Tweed said:
How would you expect that to work? Are we still members and subject to the Treaties (in which case, to all intents and purposes, it becomes a faffing extension during which we can still revoke or, probably, come up with Unicorns Plus). I thought everyone had been very clear that a transition period only applies to Deal - this is the first suggestion I've seen otherwise.. apart from Davis getting it arse-about-face in some Q&A.Big_G_NorthWales said:
They have an emergency head of state meeting penciled in for next Thursday and that is the crisis meeting for everyone, as no deal happens next dayTudorRose said:
I think we run out of time next week if TM's deal is not passed. The EU will not extend unless they have that guarantee.Big_G_NorthWales said:Reading the thread there are many well intentioned ideas how to resolve the issue including revoke, as a second referendum is now all but impossible with the EU elections in May and our need to pass legislation to participate which is unlikely between now and the 11th April
The only realistic choices are TM deal - no deal - revoke and all in a week
Our mps have to make a decision and stick to it
We run out of time on the 22nd May altogether
I expect them to agree a transition period to no deal at that time
(And if we're not actual members, then I suspect there are a lot of laws which aren't in place for any sort of special third country status).0 -
Plunging us through three years of political crisis is hardly nothingGreenHeron said:
Technically you are correct but I'm not concerned about technicalities. I'm concerned about what people will do if it is proven that their democratic voice counts for nothing. How do you expect people to react when the ballot box ceases to be a viable way of expressing one's opinion?Ishmael_Z said:
I cannot see that any basic democratic principle is being infringed. The deomcratic obligation was to pay due attention to the result and to give Leave a reasonable amount of time to demonstrate that the result was capable of enactment. We have done all that.GreenHeron said:
Technically it was an advisory referendum so therefore no need to implement it but when the government who called the referendum promise, in government literature, said specifically that what the people decide will be implemented, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the result will be implemented, and to claim that disregarding the first result in the hope of getting the right result second time is somehow more democratic than implementing the first result first is misleading at best.Ishmael_Z said:
Why is it not democratic? That is a claim that needs justifying rather than just making. If I ask for tea then change my mind and say, actually, coffee, what is the point in making me drink the tea first before I get the coffee?GreenHeron said:
Well count me down as one of those weird people. Allowing people to vote without implementing what they decided is not democratic. The vote must be implemented first, then if people want to call another vote to rejoin then that would be perfectlmocratic.Anorak said:Weird people even think to argue against this. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1108674754800701445
It has long been my view that if the people make a mistake, then that mistake must be delivered fully. The strongest and most productive governments of my lifetime have come on the back of bad times and possibly mistakes. The winter of discontent yielded Thatcher, the dysfunctionality of the Major years yielded the boom around the Millennium and the successful early Blair years, the 2008 financial crisis yielded a highly competent coalition government.
It really worries me how many people are happy to ditch basic democratic principles because they don't like a decision the people have made, and expect that by doing so, that precedent will not be used against them in the future and there will be no long term effect of such a decision. And I say this as someone who thinks the deal is awful and No Deal a reckless risk, at least in the short term. The long term implications of revoke, however, I believe to be much much worse.0 -
Obviously right. We are looking for the least bad solution, not a good solution.notme2 said:
A society is as strong as its institutions. It’s not a free hit ignoring the democratic will. It has consequences for the nation, when you weaken those institutions you weaken the nation.Ishmael_Z said:
With a great big "Meh."GreenHeron said:
Technically you are correct but I'm not concerned about technicalities. I'm concerned about what people will do if it is proven that their democratic voice counts for nothing. How do you expect people to react when the ballot box ceases to be a viable way of expressing one's opinion?Ishmael_Z said:
I cannot see that any basic democratic principle is being infringed. The deomcratic obligation was to pay due attention to the result and to give Leave a reasonable amount of time to demonstrate that the result was capable of enactment. We have done all that.GreenHeron said:
Technically it was an advisory referendum so therefore no need to implement it but when the government who called the referendum promise, in government literature, said specifically that what the people decide will be implemented, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the result will be implemented, and to claim that disregarding the first result in the hope of getting the right result second time is somehow more democratic than implementing the first result first is misleading at best.Ishmael_Z said:
Why is it not democratic? That is a claim that needs justifying rather than just making. If I ask for tea then change my mind and say, actually, coffee, what is the point in making me drink the tea first before I get the coffee?GreenHeron said:
Well count me down as one of those weird people. Allowing people to vote without implementing what they decided is not democratic. The vote must be implemented first, then if people want to call another vote to rejoin then that would be perfectly democratic.Anorak said:Weird people even think to argue against this. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1108674754800701445
It has long been my view that if the people make a mistake, then that mistake must be delivered fully. The strongest and most productive governments of my lifetime have come on the back of bad times and possibly mistakes. The winter of discontent yielded Thatcher, the dysfunctionality of the Major years yielded the boom around the Millennium and the successful early Blair years, the 2008 financialne who thinks the deal is awful and No Deal a reckless risk, at least in the short term. The long term implications of revoke, however, I believe to be much much worse.0 -
Mr. Thompson, reminds me a little of many (including me) being of the view, for years/months, that Remain would easily win about 60/40.0
-
I certainly hope so. Although any other outcome that leaves May humiliated and broken is also just fine.Philip_Thompson said:For the first time I think it's actually going to be a No Deal on Friday isn't it?
0 -
I actually don't understand the stance of Labour in all of this. They are sleepwalking into No Deal and about to take the blame for it. The mind boggles.0
-
It will be perfectly valid as the ballot box will be used to ASK THE SAME PEOPLE.GreenHeron said:
Technically you are correct but I'm not concerned about technicalities. I'm concerned about what people will do if it is proven that their democratic voice counts for nothing. How do you expect people to react when the ballot box ceases to be a viable way of expressing one's opinion?Ishmael_Z said:
I cannot see that any basic democratic principle is being infringed. The deomcratic obligation was to pay due attention to the result and to give Leave a reasonable amount of time to demonstrate that the result was capable of enactment. We have done all that.GreenHeron said:
Technically it was an advisory referendum so therefore no need to implement it but when the government who called the referendum promise, in government literature, said specifically that what the people decide will be implemented, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the result will be implemented, and to claim that disregarding the first result in the hope of getting the right result second time is somehow more democratic than implementing the first result first is misleading at best.Ishmael_Z said:
Why is it not democratic? That is a claim that needs justifying rather than just making. If I ask for tea then change my mind and say, actually, coffee, what is the point in making me drink the tea first before I get the coffee?GreenHeron said:
Well count me down as one of those weird people. Allowing people to vote without implementing what they decided is not democratic. The vote must be implemented first, then if people want to call another vote to rejoin then that would be perfectly democratic.Anorak said:Weird people even think to argue against this. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1108674754800701445
It has long been my view that if the people make a mistake, then that mistake must be delivered fully. The strongest and most d No Deal a reckless risk, at least in the short term. The long term implications of revoke, however, I believe to be much much worse.
Sorry to shout but many anti-second reffers act as though a completely different set of people will be asked. The Dutch, say, or that recently-discovered tribe in Papua New Guinea. Whereas it will be the very same British people. How on earth can that be undemocratic?0 -
If nothing else Brexit has shown what a Scottish independence referendum victory will actually be like, except it will be this times 10, or maybe a 100.Philip_Thompson said:
Hope they'd be as flippant about Sindy being reversed if it all just proves too difficult.Scott_P said:0 -
Its what Corbyn wants, and he think he won't get the blame for it.MaxPB said:I actually don't understand the stance of Labour in all of this. They are sleepwalking into No Deal and about to take the blame for it. The mind boggles.
0 -
I wonder what gave his guy away? Has he never watched The Wire?
Drugs kingpin who partied in clubs, drove speedboats, supercars and a hoverboard and supplied £2m of cocaine to the South East is jailed for 15 years
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6834007/Drugs-kingpin-jailed-15-years-supplying-2m-cocaine.html0 -
The so-called 'deal' is a pile of shite. I'd rather like a referendum to ratify it - or not, proving my point - but it appears that this won't happen.Ishmael_Z said:
I cannot see that any basic democratic principle is being infringed. The deomcratic obligation was to pay due attention to the result and to give Leave a reasonable amount of time to demonstrate that the result was capable of enactment. We have done all that.GreenHeron said:
Technically it was an advisory referendum so therefore no need to implement it but when the government who called the referendum promise, in government literature, said specifically that what the people decide will be implemented, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the result will be implemented, and to claim that disregarding the first result in the hope of getting the right result second time is somehow more democratic than implementing the first result first is misleading at best.Ishmael_Z said:
Why is it not democratic? That is a claim that needs justifying rather than just making. If I ask for tea then change my mind and say, actually, coffee, what is the point in making me drink the tea first before I get the coffee?GreenHeron said:
Well count me down as one of those weird people. Allowing people to vote without implementing what they decided is not democratic. The vote must be implemented first, then if people want to call another vote to rejoin then that would be perfectly democratic.Anorak said:Weird people even think to argue against this. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1108674754800701445
It has long been my view that if the people make a mistake, then that mistake must be delivered fully. The strongest and most productive governments of my lifetime have come on the back of bad times and possibly mistakes. The winter of discontent yielded Thatcher, the dysfunctionality of the Major years yielded the boom around the Millennium and the successful early Blair years, the 2008 financial crisis yielded a highly competent coalition government.
It really worries me how many people are happy to ditch basic democratic principles because they don't like a decision the people have made, and expect that by doing so, that precedent will not be used against them in the future and there will be no long term effect of such a decision. And I say this as someone who thinks the deal is awful and No Deal a reckless risk, at least in the short term. The long term implications of revoke, however, I believe to be much much worse.0 -
You will no doubt be able to speedily point out the posts you made making the same point when the judiciary were attacked by Leavers as enemies of the people, and when Leavers attacked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Governor of the Bank of England, the BBC, the House of Lords, the Speaker and every other institution that raised points that were inconvenient to Leavers at one point or another.notme2 said:
A society is as strong as its institutions. It’s not a free hit ignoring the democratic will. It has consequences for the nation, when you weaken those institutions you weaken the nation.Ishmael_Z said:
With a great big "Meh."GreenHeron said:
Technically you are correct but I'm not concerned about technicalities. I'm concerned about what people will do if it is proven that their democratic voice counts for nothing. How do you expect people to react when the ballot box ceases to be a viable way of expressing one's opinion?Ishmael_Z said:
I cannot see that any basic democratic principle is being infringed. The deomcratic obligation was to pay due attention to the result and to give Leave a reasonable amount of time to demonstrate that the result was capable of enactment. We have done all that.GreenHeron said:
Technically it was an advisory referendum so therefore no need to implement it but when the government who called the referendum promise, in government literature, said specifically that what the people decide will be implemented, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the result will be implemented, and to claim that disregarding the first result in the hope of getting the right result second time is somehow more democratic than implementing the first result first is misleading at best.Ishmael_Z said:
Why is it not democratic? That is a claim that needs justifying rather than just making. If I ask for tea then change my mind and say, actually, coffee, what is the point in making me drink the tea first before I get the coffee?
It has long been my view that if the people make a mistake, then that mistake must be delivered fully. The strongest and most productive governments of my lifetime have come on the back of bad times and possibly mistakes. The winter of discontent yielded Thatcher, the dysfunctionality of the Major years yielded the boom around the Millennium and the successful early Blair years, the 2008 financialne who thinks the deal is awful and No Deal a reckless risk, at least in the short term. The long term implications of revoke, however, I believe to be much much worse.0 -
Mr. glw, ironically, if the SNP had won that then Scotland would be out of the EU and we'd be in it.
0 -
They will spin it as May's crap deal, if only the Tories had listened to our much much better deal. That is why even now Jezza is still pushing this line of short delay to totally renegotiate the whole thing.MaxPB said:I actually don't understand the stance of Labour in all of this. They are sleepwalking into No Deal and about to take the blame for it. The mind boggles.
0 -
The overwhelming majority of the HoC are either May dealers (250 odd) or even softer Brexiteers (Lucy Powell and some others) or remainers, so the ERG wing's desire for a no deal ought to be dead in the water by now..Philip_Thompson said:
I still can't actually believe that so many Remainers are playing his game. There's a deal there, has been for months, I was certain - certain - that Remainers would accept such a soft Brexit transition deal to avoid risk of no deal.Pulpstar said:
Mark Francois looked delighted about it.Philip_Thompson said:For the first time I think it's actually going to be a No Deal on Friday isn't it?
This is August 1914. Not many actually want war/no deal, but everyone is too entrenched and stubborn to compromise to avoid it.
I was wrong.0 -
Will they still think that and act that way right to us going over the cliff?Sean_F said:
Most people involved think they can win total victory over their opponents.Philip_Thompson said:For the first time I think it's actually going to be a No Deal on Friday isn't it?
This is August 1914. Not many actually want war/no deal, but everyone is too entrenched and stubborn to compromise to avoid it.
Unlike the Italian Job we can't just wrap up the credits at 10.59pm next Friday leaving this never resolved.0 -
My simile between some premiership footballers and MPs is stronger than I thought. On one side, footballers earning a £100,000 a week stop playing for a manager because he's not nice enough to them, never mind the fans who pay their wages. And now we have MPs who will vote against a deal to spite the PM who's not nice enough to them, never mind the country.
One lot are seen as spoilt children, the other lot retain some sympathy because they wear the right shirt on match day. Who is the most childish? A tricky one.0 -
I was too.Philip_Thompson said:
I still can't actually believe that so many Remainers are playing his game. There's a deal there, has been for months, I was certain - certain - that Remainers would accept such a soft Brexit transition deal to avoid risk of no deal.Pulpstar said:
Mark Francois looked delighted about it.Philip_Thompson said:For the first time I think it's actually going to be a No Deal on Friday isn't it?
This is August 1914. Not many actually want war/no deal, but everyone is too entrenched and stubborn to compromise to avoid it.
I was wrong.0 -
Even taking into account that we're in a 'weirdly unified in purpose SNP' rather than 'SNP civil war' media cycle, there's zero chance in the event of indy of the SNP being anywhere close to the level of the fissiparous, self immolating, incompetent Tory party.Philip_Thompson said:
Hope they'd be as flippant about Sindy being reversed if it all just proves too difficult.Scott_P said:0 -
Mr. Pulpstar, aye.0
-
Caz was always one of my favourites from the Blair/Brown years.Tissue_Price said:
0 -
People who want no deal will be delighted. Many Remainers will also be delighted, because they think that if we're eating grass for a few months, it will bring us to our senses.Philip_Thompson said:
Will they still think that and act that way right to us going over the cliff?Sean_F said:
Most people involved think they can win total victory over their opponents.Philip_Thompson said:For the first time I think it's actually going to be a No Deal on Friday isn't it?
This is August 1914. Not many actually want war/no deal, but everyone is too entrenched and stubborn to compromise to avoid it.
Unlike the Italian Job we can't just wrap up the credits at 10.59pm next Friday leaving this never resolved.0 -
The EU communique tonight may well be a big moment
No extension without deal signed
No extension for further negotiations
An extension for a GE or referendum only if we take part in the EU elections in May and limited to 31st Dec 2019
That would be interesting0 -
All those things are right, they all attack the institutions and they all chip away at them. Revoking Brexit (rather then just having a second referendum) is to not chip away. But to smash it to pieces with a gigantic mallet.AlastairMeeks said:
You will no doubt be able to speedily point out the posts you made making the same point when the judiciary were attacked by Leavers as enemies of the people, and when Leavers attacked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Governor of the Bank of England, the BBC, the House of Lords, the Speaker and every other institution that raised points that were inconvenient to Leavers at one point or another.notme2 said:
A society is as strong as its institutions. It’s not a free hit ignoring the democratic will. It has consequences for the nation, when you weaken those institutions you weaken the nation.Ishmael_Z said:
With a great big "Meh."GreenHeron said:
Technically you are correct but I'm not concerned about technicalities. I'm concerned about what people will do if it is proven that their democratic voice counts for nothing. How do you expect people to react when the ballot box ceases to be a viable way of expressing one's opinion?Ishmael_Z said:
I cannot see that any basic democratic principle is being infringed. The deomcratic obligation was to pay due attention to the result and to give Leave a reasonable amount of time to demonstrate that the result was capable of enactment. We have done all that.GreenHeron said:
Technically it was an advisory referendum so therefore no need to implement it but when the government who called the referendum promise, in government literature, said specifically that what the people decide will be implemented, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the result will be implemented, and to claim that disregarding the first result in the hope of getting the right result second time is somehow more democratic than implementing the first result first is misleading at best.Ishmael_Z said:
Why is it not democratic? That is a claim that needs justifying rather than just making. If I ask for tea then change my mind and say, actually, coffee, what is the point in making me drink the tea first before I get the coffee?
It has long been my view that if the people make a mistake, then that mistake must be delivered fully. The strongest and most productive governments of my lifetime have come onncialne who thinks the deal is awful and No Deal a reckless risk, at least in the short term. The long term implications of revoke, however, I believe to be much much worse.0 -
-
MPs like footballers (because clubs consider them an asset) are far too hard to sack, and so they get away with behaviour that would result in most of us being fired.CD13 said:My simile between some premiership footballers and MPs is stronger than I thought. On one side, footballers earning a £100,000 a week stop playing for a manager because he's not nice enough to them, never mind the fans who pay their wages. And now we have MPs who will vote against a deal to spite the PM who's not nice enough to them, never mind the country.
One lot are seen as spoilt children, the other lot retain some sympathy because they wear the right shirt on match day. Who is the most childish? A tricky one.0 -
MP should, and only should vote on what is provided in front of them, witht he best judgement of what is best.
If they're not doing that, and we have a no-deal, which the vast majority of them don't want, and the public don't want, then it will be failure of both government and parliment.
Thats very very very serious, as how can the public have faith in any MP, and any party if this happens.0 -
I see. So things that don’t bother you are ok and things that do bother you are not ok.notme2 said:
All those things are right, they all attack the institutions and they all chip away at them. Revoking Brexit (rather then just having a second referendum) is to not chip away. But to smash it to pieces with a gigantic mallet.AlastairMeeks said:
You will no doubt be able to speedily point out the posts you made making the same point when the judiciary were attacked by Leavers as enemies of the people, and when Leavers attacked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Governor of the Bank of England, the BBC, the House of Lords, the Speaker and every other institution that raised points that were inconvenient to Leavers at one point or another.notme2 said:
A society is as strong as its institutions. It’s not a free hit ignoring the democratic will. It has consequences for the nation, when you weaken those institutions you weaken the nation.Ishmael_Z said:
With a great big "Meh."GreenHeron said:
Technically you are correct but I'm not concerned about technicalities. I'm concerned about what people will do if it is proven that their democratic voice counts for nothing. How do you expect people to react when the ballot box ceases to be a viable way of expressing one's opinion?Ishmael_Z said:
I cannot see that any basic democratic principle is being infringed. The deomcratic obligation was to pay due attention to the result and to give Leave a reasonable amount of time to demonstrate that the result was capable of enactment. We have done all that.GreenHeron said:
Technically it was an advisory referendum so therefore no need to implement it but when the government who called the referendum promise, in government literature, said specifically that what the people decide will be implemented, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the result will be implemented, and to claim that disregarding the first result in the hope of getting the right result second time is somehow more democratic than implementing the first result first is misleading at best.
It has long been my view that if the people make a mistake, then that mistake must be delivered fully. The strongest and most productive governments of my lifetime have come onncialne who thinks the deal is awful and No Deal a reckless risk, at least in the short term. The long term implications of revoke, however, I believe to be much much worse.0 -
That might not be true in their own countries, of course.SouthamObserver said:Remarkably, it seems that the one group that will not get the blame is the EU27. Whatever happens now our politicians have ensured that they will own it. I am pretty sure that was not supposed to be the plan!
0 -
I don't understand why May said what she did last night? She could have made a similar message but phrased it a bit differently and come across completely different.
She should have simply said that the time for negotiations and indecision is over so Parliament needs to make a decision. She has written to the EU to request an extension to Article 50 and they have said they will give one if Parliament backs the deal. So her deal will be put one last time on Friday (22nd) and if it passes then we will leave with a deal, if it doesn't pass then the government will immediately invoke Operation Yellowhammer and spend the final 7 days preparing for no deal. She urges Parliament to choose a deal over no deal.0 -
I'll have to have a look at that.Charles said:
That’s why Sliding Gerber is much more effective at getting to a palatable outcomeDavidL said:
This is what happens when you use the blackwood convention. It always ends in tears.TOPPING said:
At the moment we're in seven spades redoubled with a void in the suit and partner has just put down Jxx.SquareRoot said:
a revoke can costs two tricks IIRC.. an unwelcome outcomeOblitusSumMe said:
It's close as to whether the revoke petition becomes the most signed (on the official online platform) by 9am.AlastairMeeks said:So how’s that building of a consensus for Brexit going?
0 -
I referred to this a few weeks ago as "railway timetable theory". There is a semiserious theory that once the troops had mobilised ww1 became unstoppable because they had to catch the right trains to get to the front.Philip_Thompson said:For the first time I think it's actually going to be a No Deal on Friday isn't it?
This is August 1914. Not many actually want war/no deal, but everyone is too entrenched and stubborn to compromise to avoid it.0 -
In Denmark the only criticism of the government is being slow to prepare for no deal but even that is muted - this is seen as the UK going nuts and every single Dane I know is bemused and sad about the UK leaving but I haven't seen any criticism of EU behaviour.Richard_Nabavi said:
That might not be true in their own countries, of course.SouthamObserver said:Remarkably, it seems that the one group that will not get the blame is the EU27. Whatever happens now our politicians have ensured that they will own it. I am pretty sure that was not supposed to be the plan!
0 -
Quite amazing - it looks like 300 odd remain MPs are going to end up following the ERG's wishes, and risk taking us into no-deal.0
-
Blackwood and Gerber should be about keeping you out of bad slams not getting you into good ones.DavidL said:
I'll have to have a look at that.Charles said:
That’s why Sliding Gerber is much more effective at getting to a palatable outcomeDavidL said:
This is what happens when you use the blackwood convention. It always ends in tears.TOPPING said:
At the moment we're in seven spades redoubled with a void in the suit and partner has just put down Jxx.SquareRoot said:
a revoke can costs two tricks IIRC.. an unwelcome outcomeOblitusSumMe said:
It's close as to whether the revoke petition becomes the most signed (on the official online platform) by 9am.AlastairMeeks said:So how’s that building of a consensus for Brexit going?
0 -
I can assure you that I will not be delighted by no-deal. I will be repulsed.Sean_F said:
People who want no deal will be delighted. Many Remainers will also be delighted, because they think that if we're eating grass for a few months, it will bring us to our senses.Philip_Thompson said:
Will they still think that and act that way right to us going over the cliff?Sean_F said:
Most people involved think they can win total victory over their opponents.Philip_Thompson said:For the first time I think it's actually going to be a No Deal on Friday isn't it?
This is August 1914. Not many actually want war/no deal, but everyone is too entrenched and stubborn to compromise to avoid it.
Unlike the Italian Job we can't just wrap up the credits at 10.59pm next Friday leaving this never resolved.0 -
I think it is perfectly reasonable to not reward demagoguery. If MPs voted for her deal now, it would be a lesson to all future PMs that the way to scare MPs is to go full on speaking for the "volk".Scott_P said:0 -
-
*cough*viewcode said:
I referred to this a few weeks ago as "railway timetable theory". There is a semiserious theory that once the troops had mobilised ww1 became unstoppable because they had to catch the right trains to get to the front.Philip_Thompson said:For the first time I think it's actually going to be a No Deal on Friday isn't it?
This is August 1914. Not many actually want war/no deal, but everyone is too entrenched and stubborn to compromise to avoid it.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/07/25/brace-yourselves-for-the-impending-train-wreck-of-the-brexit-negotiations/0 -
As this is likely to be the final meeting between May and old duffers in the EU I wonder whether we'll have fireworks tonight?Big_G_NorthWales said:The EU communique tonight may well be a big moment
No extension without deal signed
No extension for further negotiations
An extension for a GE or referendum only if we take part in the EU elections in May and limited to 31st Dec 2019
That would be interesting0 -
I'm not sure bridge analogies are appropriate here. Right now Brexit is more like playing snap with a toddler.AlastairMeeks said:
Blackwood and Gerber should be about keeping you out of bad slams not getting you into good ones.DavidL said:
I'll have to have a look at that.Charles said:
That’s why Sliding Gerber is much more effective at getting to a palatable outcomeDavidL said:
This is what happens when you use the blackwood convention. It always ends in tears.TOPPING said:
At the moment we're in seven spades redoubled with a void in the suit and partner has just put down Jxx.SquareRoot said:
a revoke can costs two tricks IIRC.. an unwelcome outcomeOblitusSumMe said:
It's close as to whether the revoke petition becomes the most signed (on the official online platform) by 9am.AlastairMeeks said:So how’s that building of a consensus for Brexit going?
0 -
-
Well done herTissue_Price said:0 -
I won't be delighted. I expect the scare stories are overblown, but I think No Deal will cause hardship for some people, quite unnecessarily.viewcode said:
I can assure you that I will not be delighted by no-deal. I will be repulsed.Sean_F said:
People who want no deal will be delighted. Many Remainers will also be delighted, because they think that if we're eating grass for a few months, it will bring us to our senses.Philip_Thompson said:
Will they still think that and act that way right to us going over the cliff?Sean_F said:
Most people involved think they can win total victory over their opponents.Philip_Thompson said:For the first time I think it's actually going to be a No Deal on Friday isn't it?
This is August 1914. Not many actually want war/no deal, but everyone is too entrenched and stubborn to compromise to avoid it.
Unlike the Italian Job we can't just wrap up the credits at 10.59pm next Friday leaving this never resolved.0 -
ExactlySlackbladder said:
Its what Corbyn wants, and he think he won't get the blame for it.MaxPB said:I actually don't understand the stance of Labour in all of this. They are sleepwalking into No Deal and about to take the blame for it. The mind boggles.
0 -
Which is why the one-third should have the cojones to resign. Even someone as tin-eared as May would have difficulty "keeping buggering on" if her Chancellor, inter alia, resigned.CarlottaVance said:
But putting trust in Philip Hammond's dynamism is a fool's errand.0 -
Ministers being told what to say by Spin Doctors is hardly a new development?Scott_P said:
And this government is nowhere near as ruthless at it as Bad Al was.0 -
There's a fundamental breakdown of parliment if this happens, and it will have huge ramifications and fallout.Andrew said:Quite amazing - it looks like 300 odd remain MPs are going to end up following the ERG's wishes, and risk taking us into no-deal.
0 -
In the event of a revoke of article 50 there will be great vengeance and furious anger on those who have facilitated it, unlike anything we have witnessed in this country for the last 350 years.AlastairMeeks said:
I see. So things that don’t bother you are ok and things that do bother you are not ok.notme2 said:
All those things are right, they all attack the institutions and they all chip away at them. Revoking Brexit (rather then just having a second referendum) is to not chip away. But to smash it to pieces with a gigantic mallet.AlastairMeeks said:
You will no doubt be able to speedily point out the posts you made making the same point when the judiciary were attacked by Leavers as enemies of er.notme2 said:
A society is as strong as its institutions. It’s not a free hit ignoring the democratic will. It has consequences for the nation, when you weaken those institutions you weaken the nation.Ishmael_Z said:
With a great big "Meh."GreenHeron said:
Technically you are correct but I'm not concerned about technicalities. I'm concerned about what people will do if it is proven that their democratic voice counts for nothing. How do you expect people to react when the ballot box ceases to be a viable way of expressing one's opinion?Ishmael_Z said:
I cannot see that any basic We have done all that.GreenHeron said:
Technically it was an advisory referendum so therefore no need to implement it but when the government who called the referendum promise, in government literature, said specifically that what the people decide will be implemented, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the result will be implemented, and to claim that disregarding the first result in the hope of getting the right result second time is somehow moreand No Deal a reckless risk, at least in the short term. The long term implications of revoke, however, I believe to be much much worse.
Some things just undermine trust, in an accumulative way, such as governments reneging on manifesto commitments, even a second referendum resulting in a different result. All go towards this. But on such a divisive issue as this, to have a referendum and then to wilfully ignore and revoke the result is unprecedented.
Reference was made a few posts down to the SINDY referendum. If in an alternative universe the Scots had voted to leave the UK, and the UK government just decided that it no longer should carry out the will of the Scots people.
What do you think the outcome would be?0 -
Floater said:
ExactlySlackbladder said:
Its what Corbyn wants, and he think he won't get the blame for it.MaxPB said:I actually don't understand the stance of Labour in all of this. They are sleepwalking into No Deal and about to take the blame for it. The mind boggles.
He and his inner circle think it will be seen as Tory No Deal chaotic exit and the empty shelves will guarantee him the keys to No.10.
Cynical beyond words, who knows if they are right.0 -
Well he will not.Slackbladder said:
Its what Corbyn wants, and he think he won't get the blame for it.MaxPB said:I actually don't understand the stance of Labour in all of this. They are sleepwalking into No Deal and about to take the blame for it. The mind boggles.
Oppositions do not as in 1992.0 -
She doesn't even speak for the volk, seeing as 50%* of us don't want any of this crap.148grss said:
I think it is perfectly reasonable to not reward demagoguery. If MPs voted for her deal now, it would be a lesson to all future PMs that the way to scare MPs is to go full on speaking for the "volk".Scott_P said:
* and rising.0 -
Although, the government and the EU did reach agreement in the end. Parliament however, cannot.AlastairMeeks said:
*cough*viewcode said:
I referred to this a few weeks ago as "railway timetable theory". There is a semiserious theory that once the troops had mobilised ww1 became unstoppable because they had to catch the right trains to get to the front.Philip_Thompson said:For the first time I think it's actually going to be a No Deal on Friday isn't it?
This is August 1914. Not many actually want war/no deal, but everyone is too entrenched and stubborn to compromise to avoid it.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/07/25/brace-yourselves-for-the-impending-train-wreck-of-the-brexit-negotiations/0 -
Any option from here (Except May's deal passing) is a fundamental failure of parliament.Slackbladder said:
There's a fundamental breakdown of parliment if this happens, and it will have huge ramifications and fallout.Andrew said:Quite amazing - it looks like 300 odd remain MPs are going to end up following the ERG's wishes, and risk taking us into no-deal.
0 -
notme2 said:
I think the striking inconsistency that Leavers show, having spent the last three years seeking to dismantle every aspect of civic life that might offer the least impediment to their malign fantasy, and now worrying about this, amounts to stinking hypocrisy.AlastairMeeks said:
In the event of a revoke of article 50 there will be great vengeance and furious anger on those who have facilitated it, unlike anything we have witnessed in this country for the last 350 years.notme2 said:
I see. So things that don’t bother you are ok and things that do bother you are not ok.AlastairMeeks said:
All those things are right, they all attack the institutions and they all chip away at them. Revoking Brexit (rather then just having a second referendum) is to not chip away. But to smash it to pieces with a gigantic mallet.notme2 said:
You will no doubt be able to speedily point out the posts you made making the same point when the judiciary were attacked by Leavers as enemies of er.Ishmael_Z said:
A society is as strong as its institutions. It’s not a free hit ignoring the democratic will. It has consequences for the nation, when you weaken those institutions you weaken the nation.GreenHeron said:
With a great big "Meh."Ishmael_Z said:
Technically you are correct but I'm not concerned about technicalities. I'm concerned about what people will do if it is proven that their democratic voice counts for nothing. How do you expect people to react when the ballot box ceases to be a viable way of expressing one's opinion?
Some things just undermine trust, in an accumulative way, such as governments reneging on manifesto commitments, even a second referendum resulting in a different result. All go towards this. But on such a divisive issue as this, to have a referendum and then to wilfully ignore and revoke the result is unprecedented.
Reference was made a few posts down to the SINDY referendum. If in an alternative universe the Scots had voted to leave the UK, and the UK government just decided that it no longer should carry out the will of the Scots people.
What do you think the outcome would be?0 -
A J P Taylor, wasn't it? More than _semi_ serious, I think.viewcode said:
I referred to this a few weeks ago as "railway timetable theory". There is a semiserious theory that once the troops had mobilised ww1 became unstoppable because they had to catch the right trains to get to the front.Philip_Thompson said:For the first time I think it's actually going to be a No Deal on Friday isn't it?
This is August 1914. Not many actually want war/no deal, but everyone is too entrenched and stubborn to compromise to avoid it.0 -
That's the point. No one can claim to speak for the people. The entire "will of the people" nonsense is fash 101. She should not be rewarded for that.rottenborough said:
She doesn't even speak for the volk, seeing as 50%* of us don't want any of this crap.148grss said:
I think it is perfectly reasonable to not reward demagoguery. If MPs voted for her deal now, it would be a lesson to all future PMs that the way to scare MPs is to go full on speaking for the "volk".Scott_P said:
* and rising.0 -
-
From Umberto Eco on Ur-Fascism
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/
13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say. In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view—one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. To have a good instance of qualitative populism we no longer need the Piazza Venezia in Rome or the Nuremberg Stadium. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.
Because of its qualitative populism Ur-Fascism must be against “rotten” parliamentary governments. One of the first sentences uttered by Mussolini in the Italian parliament was “I could have transformed this deaf and gloomy place into a bivouac for my maniples”—“maniples” being a subdivision of the traditional Roman legion. As a matter of fact, he immediately found better housing for his maniples, but a little later he liquidated the parliament. Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.
This is what May tried to do last night.0 -
6 by-elections today. Labour defences in Basildon, Kensington, Newcastle under Lyme, and Southend, LD defence in Durham, and Ind (former UKIP) in Thurrock. So unusually no Con defences.0
-
And what leavers are doing today.148grss said:From Umberto Eco on Ur-Fascism
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/
13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say. In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view—one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. To have a good instance of qualitative populism we no longer need the Piazza Venezia in Rome or the Nuremberg Stadium. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.
Because of its qualitative populism Ur-Fascism must be against “rotten” parliamentary governments. One of the first sentences uttered by Mussolini in the Italian parliament was “I could have transformed this deaf and gloomy place into a bivouac for my maniples”—“maniples” being a subdivision of the traditional Roman legion. As a matter of fact, he immediately found better housing for his maniples, but a little later he liquidated the parliament. Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.
This is what May tried to do last night.0 -
Mr. Gin, the only surprising thing about notes on lines to take for ministers being interviewed is that some journalists are apparently surprised by it.0
-
Clearly we need a pb bridge evening at some point.AlastairMeeks said:
Blackwood and Gerber should be about keeping you out of bad slams not getting you into good ones.DavidL said:
I'll have to have a look at that.Charles said:
That’s why Sliding Gerber is much more effective at getting to a palatable outcomeDavidL said:
This is what happens when you use the blackwood convention. It always ends in tears.TOPPING said:
At the moment we're in seven spades redoubled with a void in the suit and partner has just put down Jxx.SquareRoot said:
a revoke can costs two tricks IIRC.. an unwelcome outcomeOblitusSumMe said:
It's close as to whether the revoke petition becomes the most signed (on the official online platform) by 9am.AlastairMeeks said:So how’s that building of a consensus for Brexit going?
0 -
We just don't know what will happen, do we? That's why Theresa May's behaviour is so absolutely irresponsible.Sean_F said:
I won't be delighted. I expect the scare stories are overblown, but I think No Deal will cause hardship for some people, quite unnecessarily.viewcode said:
I can assure you that I will not be delighted by no-deal. I will be repulsed.Sean_F said:
People who want no deal will be delighted. Many Remainers will also be delighted, because they think that if we're eating grass for a few months, it will bring us to our senses.Philip_Thompson said:
Will they still think that and act that way right to us going over the cliff?Sean_F said:
Most people involved think they can win total victory over their opponents.Philip_Thompson said:For the first time I think it's actually going to be a No Deal on Friday isn't it?
This is August 1914. Not many actually want war/no deal, but everyone is too entrenched and stubborn to compromise to avoid it.
Unlike the Italian Job we can't just wrap up the credits at 10.59pm next Friday leaving this never resolved.
Our modern, high-tech society is oh-so efficient, but oh-so fragile. There's only one way of finding out just how much of our infrastructure will stop working if we leave with No Deal in eight days' time. It looks as though our government is going to answer that question for us.0 -
Yes, Theresa's clearly in a massive huff and her attitude to parliament is 'You've pissed on my deal so No Deal it is. Suck it up.'rottenborough said:0 -
Thatcher and Blair never much cared for the 57% who didn't vote for them. The majority of voters hated much of what Thatcher did - and did she care as she did what she thought was right for the country.148grss said:
That's the point. No one can claim to speak for the people. The entire "will of the people" nonsense is fash 101. She should not be rewarded for that.rottenborough said:
She doesn't even speak for the volk, seeing as 50%* of us don't want any of this crap.148grss said:
I think it is perfectly reasonable to not reward demagoguery. If MPs voted for her deal now, it would be a lesson to all future PMs that the way to scare MPs is to go full on speaking for the "volk".Scott_P said:
* and rising.
No one speaks for the people - just the people who originally voted for them. But we did have two recent national votes - one in which 85% of voters backed parties pledging to leave the EU and another in which voters decided by 52 to 48 per cent to leave the EU. But apparently polls - most of which got both elections badly wrong - online petitions and marches now out rank those votes of 35 odd million people?
If the majority of pollsters had got it right remain would have won by up to 10% (as populus predicted on 23 June 2016) and Mrs May would now have a 100 seat plus majority. And none of the issues we face today would be happening.
Shame we have to have actual elections isn't it.....0 -
Labour's triangluation is still a wonder to behold !0
-
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/233104 we're up to 52 signatures
0 -
As a Remain voter, I think the best thing to do is Leave. Softly. That is what a 52% / 48% vote for leave suggests, as does the Tories losing their majority. The government, until this week, has not sincerely tried to engage the other parties. That is necessary in a hung parliament. This backwards thinking that Hunt came out with this morning, that a hung parliament means MPs should defer even MORE to the government line, is totally stupid.brendan16 said:
Thatcher and Blair never much cared for the 57% who didn't vote for them. The majority of voters hated much of what Thatcher did - and did she care as she did what she thought was right for the country.148grss said:
That's the point. No one can claim to speak for the people. The entire "will of the people" nonsense is fash 101. She should not be rewarded for that.rottenborough said:
She doesn't even speak for the volk, seeing as 50%* of us don't want any of this crap.148grss said:
I think it is perfectly reasonable to not reward demagoguery. If MPs voted for her deal now, it would be a lesson to all future PMs that the way to scare MPs is to go full on speaking for the "volk".Scott_P said:
* and rising.
No one speaks for the people - just the people who originally voted for them. But we did have two recent national votes - one in which 85% of voters backed parties pledging to leave the EU and another in which voters decided by 52 to 48 per cent to leave the EU. But apparently polls - most of which got both elections badly wrong - online petitions and marches now out rank those votes of 35 odd million people?
If the majority of pollsters had got it right remain would have won by up to 10% (as populus predicted on 23 June 2016) and Mrs May would now have a 100 seat plus majority. And none of the issues we face today would be happening.
Shame we have to have actual elections isn't it.....0 -
NEW THREADPulpstar said:https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/233104 we're up to 52 signatures
0 -
New thread.0
This discussion has been closed.