politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As we approach the slightly later than planned day of reckonin

bigjohnowls said:

Get some food down you Tom

https://twitter.com/LabourList/status/1109152980576534528

Ishmael_Z said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

What is so frustrating is that there are some of us on the Leave side who proposed exactly what Alastair is talking about within a day or so of the referendum. But of course we have no power and no political ambition so were never going to be listened to.

It is also worth pointing out that some Remainers' answer to the suggestion that we should treat this as a cross party/cross opinion issue was to say stuff that this will be your problem not ours. Which is hardly on keeping with the sort of reconciliation that Alastair talks about.

But Richard, it is your problem not Remainers'. Remainers don't have any interest in seeing Brexit work.

And that’s where the concern arises

The country has chosen to leave the EU, however that is defined

Within that framework you have a moral obligation to try and make the country as prosperous and successful as possible.

Of course you have the right to argue we should rejoin the EU at some point in the future but your argument implies that it is ok to either undermine the UK or to seek to ignore a democratic vote

I'm arguing neither of those things. When Leavers are still painting themselves in woad and labelling anyone who argues for any form of engagement with the EU as traitors, there is no obligation on those who do not subscribe to the cult to lend their shoulders to the wheel. If you assess that the best way of making the country as prosperous and successful as possible is to let this fiasco sink under its own weight, that's a respectable position. Let Leavers prove you wrong.

Let the muppets show themselves up. They've certainly managed that.

No. You said very simply that you have no interest in making the democratic choice of the country workable

Your arrogance is distasteful, sir

If you don't think it's workable as secured there is no moral requirement to engage in a fools' errand, especially one won in such a malign fashion. If those who won the referendum have no interest in your perspective, there is no moral requirement to offer it when it is unwanted.

You can't force people who think that the chosen course of action is malign and idiotic to assist you. You especially can't force them if you're calling them quislings and doubting their patriotism.

There is a moral requirement to accept the democratic result of a referendum and to seek to optimise the outcome within the framework voted for.

Would you like to tell the ERG that, please?

bigjohnowls said:

Get some food down you Tom

https://twitter.com/LabourList/status/1109152980576534528

kle4 said:

IanB2 said:

kle4 said:

bigjohnowls said:

Whats happened to t'petition stuck on 3,420,786 for 15 mins now

The deep state.

It has passed 3.5 million

You mean the deep state is not able to control us? Damn it.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Charles said:

Optimise the outcome *for the country* within the constraints set. Not the same.

For example I believe it was a tragedy that Ireland was ever divided. But now it has been, so long as NI wants to remain part of the U.K. it should be able to.

And I will work to optimise the outcome for the U.K. within the constraint of a divided island.

I think.it is worth reminding Alastair that a few days after the referendum he wrote that .

"The thread of allegiance has been broken."

He turned his back on the country as soon as it voted to Leave and his petulance has continued ever since.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

viewcode said:

bigjohnowls said:

Get some food down you Tom

https://twitter.com/LabourList/status/1109152980576534528

He's turning into quite a handsome chap.

"Should've gone to SpecSavers!"

hamiltonace said:

WhisperingOracle said:

IanB2 said:

kle4 said:

bigjohnowls said:

Whats happened to t'petition stuck on 3,420,786 for 15 mins now

The deep state.

It has passed 3.5 million

As I mentioned earlier, at the current rate - assuming a lot, but perfectly possible - it will reach 17.4 million after the original deadline, but before the Macron deadline - in about a fortnight.

Not sure about the maths there. The rate of votes added is around 1 million every 12 hours. At that rate the 17.4 million will hit on the 29th March late evening.

At some point we will hit saturation in certain areas. Bristol West is now at 16% and leads closely from Edinburgh North. Areas such as South Yorkshire are the home of Brexit and sit at around 2%.

Richard_Tyndall said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Charles said:

Optimise the outcome *for the country* within the constraints set. Not the same.

For example I believe it was a tragedy that Ireland was ever divided. But now it has been, so long as NI wants to remain part of the U.K. it should be able to.

And I will work to optimise the outcome for the U.K. within the constraint of a divided island.

I think.it is worth reminding Alastair that a few days after the referendum he wrote that .

"The thread of allegiance has been broken."

He turned his back on the country as soon as it voted to Leave and his petulance has continued ever since.

I stand by that. The country that could vote for such a vile campaign is not the country I once loved. The fiasco since springs from that.

Well in that case your article is sanctimonious, hypocritical rubbish. You don't get to say you have turned your back on the country and then moan when no one reaches out to you.

Richard_Tyndall said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Charles said:

Optimise the outcome *for the country* within the constraints set. Not the same.

For example I believe it was a tragedy that Ireland was ever divided. But now it has been, so long as NI wants to remain part of the U.K. it should be able to.

And I will work to optimise the outcome for the U.K. within the constraint of a divided island.

I think.it is worth reminding Alastair that a few days after the referendum he wrote that .

"The thread of allegiance has been broken."

He turned his back on the country as soon as it voted to Leave and his petulance has continued ever since.

I stand by that. The country that could vote for such a vile campaign is not the country I once loved. The fiasco since springs from that.

Well in that case your article is sanctimonious, hypocritical rubbish. You don't get to say you have turned your back on the country and then moan when no one reaches out to you.

As I say, this is the winners’ problem. You can rail at me personally as much as you like and at the end it will still be the same problem for the winners that none of them have engaged with in three years.

Clearly that is yet another false statement from you given that I and other Leavers on here have tried to find a consensus ever since the referendum but you and your closed mind simply weren't interested in any form of compromise. You reveal your hypocrisy in every posting.

Richard_Nabavi said:

It seems to me that the most significant development today is that the DUP's opposition to the deal, far from softening, seems to be hardening:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2019/mar/22/brexit-latest-news-eu-summit-extend-delay-article-50-eu-says-uk-will-leave-in-three-weeks-with-no-deal-unless-mps-back-agreement-or-decide-plan-b-politics-live?page=with:block-5c94fefce4b0a5422e639bb8#block-5c94fefce4b0a5422e639bb8

That means not only that the current deal is dead, but also that they they won't vote for any deal which includes the backstop, and therefore that they won't vote for any deal at all. But they say they "want a deal which delivers on the referendum result and which works for all parts of the UK and for the EU as well." It's unicorn-hunting.

Therefore, if we are to find a way out of the impasse, it's going to have to be done without DUP votes. Is that possible? I'd have thought very difficult indeed (and that's without even considering whether they then withdraw support from the Conservative minority government).

None of this bodes well for any kind of orderly resolution of the current stalemate.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Charles said:

Bollocks

Malign individuals deliberately misrepresented what she meant by “citizens of nowhere” - it was tax-dodging individuals and companies not ordinary Remain voters. Sadly people like you fell for it.

That's bollocks. I watched the speech live in its entirety. I have never dodged a penny in tax. I heard the speech as a petty-minded attack on people who are open to the world, and I can tell you that work colleagues and friends heard it in exactly those terms too. People from abroad who have made their home here and pay their taxes told me they never imagined they'd hear a British PM say something like that. It was a watershed moment for many (not me, I've had May's number for years).

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It seems to me that the most significant development today is that the DUP's opposition to the deal, far from softening, seems to be hardening:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2019/mar/22/brexit-latest-news-eu-summit-extend-delay-article-50-eu-says-uk-will-leave-in-three-weeks-with-no-deal-unless-mps-back-agreement-or-decide-plan-b-politics-live?page=with:block-5c94fefce4b0a5422e639bb8#block-5c94fefce4b0a5422e639bb8

That means not only that the current deal is dead, but also that they they won't vote for any deal which includes the backstop, and therefore that they won't vote for any deal at all. But they say they "want a deal which delivers on the referendum result and which works for all parts of the UK and for the EU as well." It's unicorn-hunting.

Therefore, if we are to find a way out of the impasse, it's going to have to be done without DUP votes. Is that possible? I'd have thought very difficult indeed (and that's without even considering whether they then withdraw support from the Conservative minority government).

None of this bodes well for any kind of orderly resolution of the current stalemate.

I really hate this phrase unicorn-hunting. One country being in control of its own customs and not trapped in a "backstop" with its neighbours isn't a unicorn, its normal status quo.

The backstop is the real unicorn. I've asked many times and never had a reply can you name me ANY nation in the world which is trapped whereby it is legally bound to follow another nations (or group of nations) customs and regulations without getting a say in them and without a right to exit that arrangement?

AlastairMeeks said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I'm arguing neither of those things. When Leavers are still painting themselves in woad and labelling anyone who argues for any form of engagement with the EU as traitors, there is no obligation on those who do not subscribe to the cult to lend their shoulders to the wheel. If you assess that the best way of making the country as prosperous and successful as possible is to let this fiasco sink under its own weight, that's a respectable position. Let Leavers prove you wrong.

Let the muppets show themselves up. They've certainly managed that.

No. You said very simply that you have no interest in making the democratic choice of the country workable

Your arrogance is distasteful, sir

If you don't think it's workable as secured there is no moral requirement to engage in a fools' errand, especially one won in such a malign fashion. If those who won the referendum have no interest in your perspective, there is no moral requirement to offer it when it is unwanted.

You can't force people who think that the chosen course of action is malign and idiotic to assist you. You especially can't force them if you're calling them quislings and doubting their patriotism.

There is a moral requirement to accept the democratic result of a referendum and to seek to optimise the outcome within the framework voted for.

To accept it? Yes. To work to optimise something you consider misconceived and malign? No.

Optimise the outcome *for the country* within the constraints set. Not the same.

For example I believe it was a tragedy that Ireland was ever divided. But now it has been, so long as NI wants to remain part of the U.K. it should be able to.

And I will work to optimise the outcome for the U.K. within the constraint of a divided island.

But I think the optimal outcome for Britain, given the referendum campaign fought, is for it to fail under its own contradictions. This judgement has been reinforced by the way in which those who gleefully pandered to xenophobia have conducted themselves since. So I will watch and wait for that.

Luckyguy1983 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I'm arguing neither of those things. When Leavers are still painting themselves in woad and labelling anyone who argues for any form of engagement with the EU as traitors, there is no obligation on those who do not subscribe to the cult to lend their shoulders to the wheel. If you assess that the best way of making the country as prosperous and successful as possible is to let this fiasco sink under its own weight, that's a respectable position. Let Leavers prove you wrong.

Let the muppets show themselves up. They've certainly managed that.

No. You said very simply that you have no interest in making the democratic choice of the country workable

Your arrogance is distasteful, sir

If you don't think it's workable as secured there is no moral requirement to engage in a fools' errand, especially one won in such a malign fashion. If those who won the referendum have no interest in your perspective, there is no moral requirement to offer it when it is unwanted.

You can't force people who think that the chosen course of action is malign and idiotic to assist you. You especially can't force them if you're calling them quislings and doubting their patriotism.

There is a moral requirement to accept the democratic result of a referendum and to seek to optimise the outcome within the framework voted for.

To accept it? Yes. To work to optimise something you consider misconceived and malign? No.

Optimise the outcome *for the country* within the constraints set. Not the same.

For example I believe it was a tragedy that Ireland was ever divided. But now it has been, so long as NI wants to remain part of the U.K. it should be able to.

And I will work to optimise the outcome for the U.K. within the constraint of a divided island.

But I think the optimal outcome for Britain, given the referendum campaign fought, is for it to fail under its own contradictions. This judgement has been reinforced by the way in which those who gleefully pandered to xenophobia have conducted themselves since. So I will watch and wait for that.

To desire the country to fail, because it is leaving a set of treaties is, to put it kindly, a niche view. Many Americans are big fans of NAFTA I am sure, but wouldn't desire America to fail if it left.

AlastairMeeks said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I'm arguing neither of those things. When Leavers are still painting themselves in woad and labelling anyone who argues for any form of engagement with the EU as traitors, there is no obligation on those who do not subscribe to the cult to lend their shoulders to the wheel. If you assess that the best way of making the country as prosperous and successful as possible is to let this fiasco sink under its own weight, that's a respectable position. Let Leavers prove you wrong.

Let the muppets show themselves up. They've certainly managed that.

No. You said very simply that you have no interest in making the democratic choice of the country workable

Your arrogance is distasteful, sir

If you don't think it's workable as secured there is no moral requirement to engage in a fools' errand, especially one won in such a malign fashion. If those who won the referendum have no interest in your perspective, there is no moral requirement to offer it when it is unwanted.

You can't force people who think that the chosen course of action is malign and idiotic to assist you. You especially can't force them if you're calling them quislings and doubting their patriotism.

There is a moral requirement to accept the democratic result of a referendum and to seek to optimise the outcome within the framework voted for.

To accept it? Yes. To work to optimise something you consider misconceived and malign? No.

Optimise the outcome *for the country* within the constraints set. Not the same.

For example I believe it was a tragedy that Ireland was ever divided. But now it has been, so long as NI wants to remain part of the U.K. it should be able to.

And I will work to optimise the outcome for the U.K. within the constraint of a divided island.

But I think the optimal outcome for Britain, given the referendum campaign fought, is for it to fail under its own contradictions. This judgement has been reinforced by the way in which those who gleefully pandered to xenophobia have conducted themselves since. So I will watch and wait for that.

To desire the country to fail, because it is leaving a set of treaties is, to put it kindly, a niche view. Many Americans are big fans of NAFTA I am sure, but wouldn't desire America to fail if it left.

Brexit to fail.

Luckyguy1983 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I'm arguing neither of those things. When Leavers are still painting themselves in woad and labelling anyone who argues for any form of engagement with the EU as traitors, there is no obligation on those who do not subscribe to the cult to lend their shoulders to the wheel. If you assess that the best way of making the country as prosperous and successful as possible is to let this fiasco sink under its own weight, that's a respectable position. Let Leavers prove you wrong.

Let the muppets show themselves up. They've certainly managed that.

No. You said very simply that you have no interest in making the democratic choice of the country workable

Your arrogance is distasteful, sir

If you don't think it's workable as secured there is no moral requirement to engage in a fools' errand, especially one won in such a malign fashion. If those who won the referendum have no interest in your perspective, there is no moral requirement to offer it when it is unwanted.

You can't force people who think that the chosen course of action is malign and idiotic to assist you. You especially can't force them if you're calling them quislings and doubting their patriotism.

There is a moral requirement to accept the democratic result of a referendum and to seek to optimise the outcome within the framework voted for.

To accept it? Yes. To work to optimise something you consider misconceived and malign? No.

Optimise the outcome *for the country* within the constraints set. Not the same.

For example I believe it was a tragedy that Ireland was ever divided. But now it has been, so long as NI wants to remain part of the U.K. it should be able to.

And I will work to optimise the outcome for the U.K. within the constraint of a divided island.

But I think the optimal outcome for Britain, given the referendum campaign fought, is for it to fail under its own contradictions. This judgement has been reinforced by the way in which those who gleefully pandered to xenophobia have conducted themselves since. So I will watch and wait for that.

To desire the country to fail, because it is leaving a set of treaties is, to put it kindly, a niche view. Many Americans are big fans of NAFTA I am sure, but wouldn't desire America to fail if it left.

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It seems to me that the most significant development today is that the DUP's opposition to the deal, far from softening, seems to be hardening:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2019/mar/22/brexit-latest-news-eu-summit-extend-delay-article-50-eu-says-uk-will-leave-in-three-weeks-with-no-deal-unless-mps-back-agreement-or-decide-plan-b-politics-live?page=with:block-5c94fefce4b0a5422e639bb8#block-5c94fefce4b0a5422e639bb8

That means not only that the current deal is dead, but also that they they won't vote for any deal which includes the backstop, and therefore that they won't vote for any deal at all. But they say they "want a deal which delivers on the referendum result and which works for all parts of the UK and for the EU as well." It's unicorn-hunting.

Therefore, if we are to find a way out of the impasse, it's going to have to be done without DUP votes. Is that possible? I'd have thought very difficult indeed (and that's without even considering whether they then withdraw support from the Conservative minority government).

None of this bodes well for any kind of orderly resolution of the current stalemate.

I really hate this phrase unicorn-hunting. One country being in control of its own customs and not trapped in a "backstop" with its neighbours isn't a unicorn, its normal status quo.

The backstop is the real unicorn. I've asked many times and never had a reply can you name me ANY nation in the world which is trapped whereby it is legally bound to follow another nations (or group of nations) customs and regulations without getting a say in them and without a right to exit that arrangement?

You can hate what you like, but an orderly exit is not available without the backstop.

If that's the case it is only because the EU are demanding the impossible. They're demanding unicorns. Again can you name any nation in the world in that situation?

Unicorns don't exist, so the backstop can't exist either. So its either no deal, or no exit.

Pulpstar said:

Remain probably means the ERG will win the war within the Tories to be honest.

algarkirk said:

Stereotomy said:

Tony Blair claims that TIG demonstrates there's a "big open space of land that's fertile" in the centre of British politics. If anything they seem to be well on their way to proving the opposite.

The gap is not there. The gap is in the area of centre left/social democrat economics combined with social traditionalism/conservatism.

Peter_the_Punter said:

Pulpstar said:

Remain probably means the ERG will win the war within the Tories to be honest.

If the Tories are serious about remaining the Party of Government, they should shrug of the ERG and its allies.

Philip_Thompson said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Charles said:

Bollocks

Malign individuals deliberately misrepresented what she meant by “citizens of nowhere” - it was tax-dodging individuals and companies not ordinary Remain voters. Sadly people like you fell for it.

That's bollocks. I watched the speech live in its entirety. I have never dodged a penny in tax. I heard the speech as a petty-minded attack on people who are open to the world, and I can tell you that work colleagues and friends heard it in exactly those terms too. People from abroad who have made their home here and pay their taxes told me they never imagined they'd hear a British PM say something like that. It was a watershed moment for many (not me, I've had May's number for years).

But we also value something else: the spirit of citizenship.

That spirit that means you respect the bonds and obligations that make our society work. That means a commitment to the men and women who live around you, who work for you, who buy the goods and services you sell.

That spirit that means recognising the social contract that says you train up local young people before you take on cheap labour from overseas.

That spirit that means you do as others do, and pay your fair share of tax.

But today, too many people in positions of power behave as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road, the people they employ, the people they pass in the street.

But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means.

So if you’re a boss who earns a fortune but doesn’t look after your staff…

An international company that treats tax laws as an optional extra…

A household name that refuses to work with the authorities even to fight terrorism…

A director who takes out massive dividends while knowing that the company pension is about to go bust…

I’m putting you on warning. This can’t go on anymore.

A change has got to come. And this party – the Conservative Party – is going to make that change.

You thought that was aimed at you?

bigjohnowls said:

Get some food down you Tom

https://twitter.com/LabourList/status/1109152980576534528

DougSeal said:

Charles said:

DougSeal said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

What is so frustrating is that there are some of us on the Leave side who proposed exactly what Alastair is talking about within a day or so of the referendum. But of course we have no power and no political ambition so were never going to be listened to.

I

But Richard, it is your problem not Remainers'. Remainers don't have any interest in seeing Brexit work.

Let the muppets show themselves up. They've certainly managed that.

No. You said very simply that you have no interest in making the democratic choice of the country workable

Your arrogance is distasteful, sir

Brexit became unworkable on 29 March 2017. May lost the chance to get remainers on board a few months earlier with “citizens of nowhere”. You call people disloyal, traitorous even, and then act offended when they don’t do as you wish?

Bollocks

Malign individuals deliberately misrepresented what she meant by “citizens of nowhere” - it was tax-dodging individuals and companies not ordinary Remain voters. Sadly people like you fell for it.

Don’t give me that crap. Go you think I’m green? Can you point me to the reference to tax in the paragraph that read -

“If you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means.”.

Yes, there was a reference to international tax dodgers, but that came later in the speech. Here she was making a very deliberate nationalistic point that came from a long line of “rootless cosmopolitan” tropes that only lead one way. Remainers have been maligned and told they don’t count since the referendum. How many posts here have started with “as a leave voter I didn’t vote for...”? Our views have been discounted from day one “Remoaners”, “Suck it up”, “We didn’t vote for a deal”. How do we work with that? EEA? Not “real” Brexit? Customs Union? Same. Now, seemingly, only leaving with no deal honours the result

In a democracy or a dictatorship you have a duty to oppose where you think that a mistake has been made, even if you are outnumbered 65 million to one. There is no duty to aid and abet a catastrophe.

First paragraph of the link (I think intelligence squared is unbiased) sums it up

https://www.intelligencesquared.com/events/if-you-believe-you-are-a-citizen-of-the-world-you-are-a-citizen-of-nowhere/

Richard_Nabavi said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Charles said:

Bollocks

Malign individuals deliberately misrepresented what she meant by “citizens of nowhere” - it was tax-dodging individuals and companies not ordinary Remain voters. Sadly people like you fell for it.

That's bollocks. I watched the speech live in its entirety. I have never dodged a penny in tax. I heard the speech as a petty-minded attack on people who are open to the world, and I can tell you that work colleagues and friends heard it in exactly those terms too. People from abroad who have made their home here and pay their taxes told me they never imagined they'd hear a British PM say something like that. It was a watershed moment for many (not me, I've had May's number for years).

Here you go:

But we also value something else: the spirit of citizenship.

That spirit that means you respect the bonds and obligations that make our society work. That means a commitment to the men and women who live around you, who work for you, who buy the goods and services you sell.

That spirit that means recognising the social contract that says you train up local young people before you take on cheap labour from overseas.

That spirit that means you do as others do, and pay your fair share of tax.

But today, too many people in positions of power behave as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road, the people they employ, the people they pass in the street.

But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means.

So if you’re a boss who earns a fortune but doesn’t look after your staff…

An international company that treats tax laws as an optional extra…

A household name that refuses to work with the authorities even to fight terrorism…

A director who takes out massive dividends while knowing that the company pension is about to go bust…

I’m putting you on warning. This can’t go on anymore.

A change has got to come. And this party – the Conservative Party – is going to make that change.

Charles was entirely right. It's a disgrace that so many people have chosen to misrepresent what Theresa May said.

Richard_Nabavi said:

edmundintokyo said:

1) Pro-deal Tories vote for Kyle-Wilson or similar to get brexit done
2) Brexit with deal, or don't, depending on the result

This is the only known way out of the treacle, as has been clear since at least the first MV.

I used to think that was a way out, but having seen the hardening of attitudes in the Conservative party, plus the evident opposition of the Labour leadership and quite a number of Labour MPs, I'm sceptical that it's feasible. It's near-impossible for parliament to impose a referendum on an executive which doesn't want one, and even if that weren't the case there would be guerrilla warfare by the hard-liners to stop it.

But who knows? All options look impossible.

Luckyguy1983 said:

It would be nice, as a thought exercise, to see if there's really any common ground between hardcore remainers and leavers on PB, on even the blandest and most inoffensive aspirations. For example, we appear to both want the country to be wealthy. We appear to both want the country to be outward looking. Perhaps there are more examples of common ground.

Luckyguy1983 said:

It would be nice, as a thought exercise, to see if there's really any common ground between hardcore remainers and leavers on PB, on even the blandest and most inoffensive aspirations. For example, we appear to both want the country to be wealthy. We appear to both want the country to be outward looking. Perhaps there are more examples of common ground.

HYUFD said:

algarkirk said:

Stereotomy said:

Tony Blair claims that TIG demonstrates there's a "big open space of land that's fertile" in the centre of British politics. If anything they seem to be well on their way to proving the opposite.

The gap is not there. The gap is in the area of centre left/social democrat economics combined with social traditionalism/conservatism. It is too often called populism. (Matthew Goodwin explains it well).

Corbynism combined with the ERG and UKIP/The Brexit Party then

AndyJS said:

bigjohnowls said:

Revokers struggling to get 5m

Currently 14m short of 17.4m

Leavers are less likely to be online of course, so it's not a level playing field.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Philip_Thompson said:

If that's the case it is only because the EU are demanding the impossible. They're demanding unicorns. Again can you name any nation in the world in that situation?

Unicorns don't exist, so the backstop can't exist either. So its either no deal, or no exit.

In that case no exit is the only remaining option which any responsible government could go for, although for my part I really can't see what the fuss is about. The backstop is an exceptionally good deal from our point of view, what used to be called the 'common market' without the freedom of movement obligations, the CAP, the CFP, ever-closer union, the political structures - and without having to pay a centime in fees. What's not to like? The only drawback is that we wouldn't have a say in regulations which the Leavers claim we don't have any real say in anyway, and which in practice we'll follow even if there's no deal at all.

Pulpstar said:

Can Graham Brady receive letters again yet ?

Pulpstar said:

A week to go till the Tories insane porno ban isnt it ?

AlastairMeeks said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

A week to go till the Tories insane porno ban isnt it ?

It is not a porno ban, just an age vericatio requirement to access it e.g. with driving license etc which 70% of the public supports

Watch that percentage drop like a stone as a big chunk of the adult male population realises they need to tell the government before they have a hand shandy.

matt said:

Considering oneself a “citizen of the world” is a niche hobby and I say that working in an office which is genuinely multinational. But the May speech sought to associate anyone who disagreed with her vision of a quasi-totalitarian state (if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn’t be worried etc) with being the enemy. To disagree is to be a traitor. That’s my take of the context.

She’s the small minded bigot inadvertently promoted to the big stage, Corbyn’s Labour would be no different. In both their hands there’s nothing liberal about democracy - both seek to draw their authority from “the people” in the most malevolent way possible.

dixiedean said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It would be nice, as a thought exercise, to see if there's really any common ground between hardcore remainers and leavers on PB, on even the blandest and most inoffensive aspirations. For example, we appear to both want the country to be wealthy. We appear to both want the country to be outward looking. Perhaps there are more examples of common ground.

We appear to enjoy attacking each other on niche political websites.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

A week to go till the Tories insane porno ban isnt it ?

I thought they were still trying to figure out how it would actually work.

AlastairMeeks said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

A week to go till the Tories insane porno ban isnt it ?

It is not a porno ban, just an age vericatio requirement to access it e.g. with driving license etc which 70% of the public supports

Watch that percentage drop like a stone as a big chunk of the adult male population realises they need to tell the government before they have a hand shandy.

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

A week to go till the Tories insane porno ban isnt it ?

Has anyone checked whether it breaches EU law?

Philip_Thompson said:

AndyJS said:

Pulpstar said:

Can Graham Brady receive letters again yet ?

He can receive letters but they can't be officially tallied until 12 months after the previous vote of confidence.

Would be interesting if 51% of MPs signed an open letter calling for her to go.

Though I imagine to get to 51% might take some payroll vote MPs so that probably can't happen.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

A week to go till the Tories insane porno ban isnt it ?

I thought they were still trying to figure out how it would actually work.

Oh, Is it on hold - unlike MTD !

Not on hold exactly, but the date and exact arrangements haven't yet been finalised:

The legislation to introduce the age restriction was approved by parliament two years ago but the implementation date has been repeatedly delayed. Despite speculation the ban could be implemented on 1 April, those with knowledge of the process say there is no chance of that date being met.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/mar/16/uk-online-porn-age-verification-launch

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

AndyJS said:

Pulpstar said:

Can Graham Brady receive letters again yet ?

He can receive letters but they can't be officially tallied until 12 months after the previous vote of confidence.

Would be interesting if 51% of MPs signed an open letter calling for her to go.

Though I imagine to get to 51% might take some payroll vote MPs so that probably can't happen.

May is irrelevant and given last December's vote cannot be challenged until the Brexit process is over, Parliament is about to take control and move towards BINO as Kwarteng made clear today

AndyJS said:

Very strange — the total number of signatures has increased several times but Bristol West has been stuck on 23,087.