politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Cooper-Letwin has probably killed Brexit

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. NorthWales, would such a vote be tabled and binding?

I am not an expert in Parliamentary procedure but without action we most certainly would no deal.

And just two days to take the action in the biggest crisis since WW2

I have always said that Brexit would go with a whimper rather than a bang. Its hard to get too excited on a lovely spring day when there is a big horse race and some interesting football. Leicester could leapfrog to 7th place if we win away at poor old Huddersfield. I expect it will be a while before we see them again in the PL.

I am in the Smoke on Friday for a meeting, was planning to pop to Parliament Square to see the circus in the evening. I expect an extension though. Tusk will have his way and 29/3/20 will be the new Brexit day.

I may not be popular but my family oppose the grand national on the grounds of the number of horses killed, often in agony, all for excitement. It is barbaric.

I hope you enjoy your football and let us hope by friday something tangeable will have happened with brexit

I take your point on horses dying, but am fairly utilitarian on these things. We kill thousands of animals each day to satisfy our whims and fancies. A horse race or a bacon butty? At least the horse gets a decent life first.

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Something for the weekend.

https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/1114443238134382592

It does make me laugh when pro-Remain posters paste a link to a Guardian article about Brexit as an objective source.

It's like me linking to the Express.

It inspires a little titter from me when Brexiteers characterise what is essentially a list of quotes from world media as subjective Remain propaganda.

At least we've not reached the stage where linking to those quotes is considered traitorous. Probably.

SandyRentool said:

It is blindingly obvious that the only way May could ever have got Labour to support any Brexit proposal she put before parliament is if Labour could demonstrate that they had battled for and achieved concessions from the Tories.

For 6 months May has failed to engage in that process and now, at the 11th hour, she hints at compromise but it turns out to be a sham.

She deserves the humiliation of having to Revoke, resign and go down in history as the worst PM of our lifetimes. If this leads to a Brucie Bonus of the splintering of the Tory Party then at least she will have a Legacy.

Elsewhere, it is a lovely spring morning , the lambs are frolicking in the fields and the coffee tastes good.

On Worst PM of our lifetime I really can't make up my mind whether that accolade should go to the incumbent, or her predecessor. I note he appears to have gone into hiding again, but to point to another longer-term consequence of his blithe recklessness, there is also this in the news this morning:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-47819952

Dr. Foxy, an interesting comparison. That said, food is required for us to live (and, although there are exceptions such as the giant tortoises of the Galapagos, generally it's a fantastically successful evolutionary accident for a species to be tasty for humans).

kle4 said:

isam said:

Casino_Royale said:

Good article David. And it all stems back to the disastrous GE2017.

As I think I've said many a time, I knew in my gut then it was all over. I've spent the last two years trying to deny it.

It's the hope that kills you. I can deal with despair.

This week May gave Corbyn a level of legitimacy he could only have dreamed of a year or two ago. How can the Tories warn that his Premiership would be a disaster when she invited him in to make the biggest decision in recent history?

Dominic Grieve is the man to blame for the whole mess, if it's true it were he who secured MPs having the final say on the deal. Had May's deal needed no ratification from the House, this would have all been over long ago

She didn't give him anything, that argument is one of the silliest of this week. He is backed by millions in the country and already a viable PM as a result whatever the government did. Recognising parliamentary arithmetic and making an appeal to him in the national Intetest was a sign of weakness and desperation but didn't add any legitimacy to him. Its simple fact that nothing has a majority and working together might.

Of all May's bad actions offering to just talk with the man because her position is weak is not one of them and I find it hilarious so many in her party found that action the final straw. It is so undeniably a partisan justification. The one time she at least attempts, to some small degree, to be non partisan, and she's condemned

How can Tories portray him at the next GE as a dangerous communist who would ruin the country, when they’ve invited him into Downing St to decide the nations future?

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Something for the weekend.

https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/1114443238134382592

It does make me laugh when pro-Remain posters paste a link to a Guardian article about Brexit as an objective source.

It's like me linking to the Express.

It inspires a little titter from me when Brexiteers characterise what is essentially a list of quotes from world media as subjective Remain propaganda.

At least we've not reached the stage where linking to those quotes is considered traitorous. Probably.

You are easily amused.

The quotations will be selective and/or requested. All newspapers do this.

The Mail will do it the other way round.

kle4 said:

Question before I nip off, an old question - does anyone enjoy horse racing without having bet on it?

I enjoy it much more without having a bet on it, same for most sport actually.

Recidivist said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Something for the weekend.

https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/1114443238134382592

It does make me laugh when pro-Remain posters paste a link to a Guardian article about Brexit as an objective source.

It's like me linking to the Express.

But are the Guardian and the Express comparable apart from their political position?

I don’t think the Guardian is much more serious. At best, somewhere between the Telegraph and the Mail.

Recidivist said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

Good article David. And it all stems back to the disastrous GE2017.

As I think I've said many a time, I knew in my gut then it was all over. I've spent the last two years trying to deny it.

It's the hope that kills you. I can deal with despair.

The Will of the People was to deny Strong and Stable her platform for government in an election that she called on her main policy of Brexit.

May then forshadowed Brexit herself, by constantly promising to go, yet never actually doing it.

I wouldn't put it like that. I'd say the election replicated the divisions of the referendum.

One of her big mistakes was to assume the country would rally behind given that decision had already been made.

That's a good point, and I was surprised that there wasn't an immediate shift in opinion behind Brexit after the referendum. So I would have made the same mistake. I wonder if this is such a visceral issue that it will take a generation for a consensus to emerge.

The problem was with the Government response to the vote. I voted remain along with 16 million others, and was deeply worried about the likely consequences of the referendum's outcome. Absolutely nothing I heard from the Government acknowledged those concerns, or provided any kind of reassurance.

Dura_Ace said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I may not be popular but my family oppose the grand national on the grounds of the number of horses killed, often in agony, all for excitement. It is barbaric.

I agree. It's a fucking disgrace. Getting plastered and racing horses to death isn't a great day out.

I disagree, it is a great day out and the horses have a great life , pampered does not come in to it.

isam said:

kle4 said:

isam said:

Casino_Royale said:

Good article David. And it all stems back to the disastrous GE2017.

As I think I've said many a time, I knew in my gut then it was all over. I've spent the last two years trying to deny it.

It's the hope that kills you. I can deal with despair.

This week May gave Corbyn a level of legitimacy he could only have dreamed of a year or two ago. How can the Tories warn that his Premiership would be a disaster when she invited him in to make the biggest decision in recent history?

Dominic Grieve is the man to blame for the whole mess, if it's true it were he who secured MPs having the final say on the deal. Had May's deal needed no ratification from the House, this would have all been over long ago

She didn't give him anything, that argument is one of the silliest of this week. He is backed by millions in the country and already a viable PM as a result whatever the government did. Recognising parliamentary arithmetic and making an appeal to him in the national Intetest was a sign of weakness and desperation but didn't add any legitimacy to him. Its simple fact that nothing has a majority and working together might.

Of all May's bad actions offering to just talk with the man because her position is weak is not one of them and I find it hilarious so many in her party found that action the final straw. It is so undeniably a partisan justification. The one time she at least attempts, to some small degree, to be non partisan, and she's condemned

How can Tories portray him at the next GE as a dangerous communist who would ruin the country, when they’ve invited him into Downing St to decide the nations future?

I dont know or care how they'll do that. But it doesn't mean they've legitimized him. He's already legitimate and given the Tory split wipes out their ability to pass anything Brexit related, he's essential in fact. Inviting him for talks was sensible and recognising the situation before them and the only thing I can criticise about it is I doubt how sincere the sides are.

But being open to seeing what the other side say when it is the only way to pass something I find impossible to criticise. Itd be like walking out of a meeting because a former member of your party was present.

kle4 said:

isam said:

Casino_Royale said:

Good article David. And it all stems back to the disastrous GE2017.

As I think I've said many a time, I knew in my gut then it was all over. I've spent the last two years trying to deny it.

It's the hope that kills you. I can deal with despair.

This week May gave Corbyn a level of legitimacy he could only have dreamed of a year or two ago. How can the Tories warn that his Premiership would be a disaster when she invited him in to make the biggest decision in recent history?

Dominic Grieve is the man to blame for the whole mess, if it's true it were he who secured MPs having the final say on the deal. Had May's deal needed no ratification from the House, this would have all been over long ago

She didn't give him anything, that argument is one of the silliest of this week. He is backed by millions in the country and already a viable PM as a result whatever the government did. Recognising parliamentary arithmetic and making an appeal to him in the national Intetest was a sign of weakness and desperation but didn't add any legitimacy to him. Its simple fact that nothing has a majority and working together might.

Of all May's bad actions offering to just talk with the man because her position is weak is not one of them and I find it hilarious so many in her party found that action the final straw. It is so undeniably a partisan justification. The one time she at least attempts, to some small degree, to be non partisan, and she's condemned

And, her party could make it unnecessary to talk to Corbyn by passing the WA.

The two most dishonest arguments lately have been:-

1. The ERG argument that the PM is failing to deliver Brexit, when so many of them have voted against it,
2. The Remain argument that Parliamentary deadlock makes a second referendum/revoke essential, when they've worked their hardest to create that deadlock.

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Something for the weekend.

https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/1114443238134382592

It does make me laugh when pro-Remain posters paste a link to a Guardian article about Brexit as an objective source.

It's like me linking to the Express.

It inspires a little titter from me when Brexiteers characterise what is essentially a list of quotes from world media as subjective Remain propaganda.

At least we've not reached the stage where linking to those quotes is considered traitorous. Probably.

You are easily amused.

The quotations will be selective and/or requested. All newspapers do this.

The Mail will do it the other way round.

'It does make me laugh' v. 'a little titter', I think I can judge who's the most easily amused (though coupled with piss boiling choler in one case).

Okay, back to the politics.

Thanks for the article, David, which is a decent summation of where we are. The irony is for all everyone's talk of "taking back control", the impotence of the Commons has been illustrated in the past few weeks. The core is the EU deals with the UK Government not the UK Parliament and the extent to which ANY PM is mandated by Parliament to follow courses of action is to me quite unclear.

In any case, as I've said repeatedly, the Commons voting down No Deal or making it "illegal" is akin to trying to legislate against rain. IF we do not have a WA in place and IF we can't get an extension from the EU, we leave next Friday evening.

I think there's a growing constituency for that - for the LEAVE supporter, No Deal looks the only way to leave at all currently. Extensions look and feel like attempts to thwart the process so have to be resisted. I agree most LEAVE supporters would have baulked at No Deal a few months ago but as the options have narrowed it looks the only clear way to ensure their choice is enacted.

The second group swinging to No Deal are those fed up with the whole thing. The "let's get it over with" Party are unfocused but popular. They contain both LEAVE and REMAIN supporters who simply feel the Government has other things it should be doing and are tired of the constant coverage of what seems to them to be a simple thing. Most would have been happy to see the WA passed.

Limiting the options polarises opinions - we all know this. On the other side, revocation has emerged as an option. Cancel it all, scrap it all, end it all - it sounds so easy but it would be political suicide for May and the Conservatives so it won't happen.

With the WA unable to clear the Commons, it's therefore down to May and the EU - Parliament is irrelevant now and may as well have packed up for Easter yesterday. I was puzzled by the 30/6 extension which made no sense but I presume it was a desperate attempt to hold the Cabinet together. Tusk, who has been more of a friend to the UK in this than many realise, has thrown a potential lifeline but plenty in the EU seemingly also want this over with.

I can't with certainty say that this time next week we will still be in the EU and that's astonishing and a measure of failure in and of itself.

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Something for the weekend.

https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/1114443238134382592

It does make me laugh when pro-Remain posters paste a link to a Guardian article about Brexit as an objective source.

It's like me linking to the Express.

It inspires a little titter from me when Brexiteers characterise what is essentially a list of quotes from world media as subjective Remain propaganda.

At least we've not reached the stage where linking to those quotes is considered traitorous. Probably.

You are easily amused.

The quotations will be selective and/or requested. All newspapers do this.

The Mail will do it the other way round.

'It does make me laugh' v. 'a little titter', I think I can judge who's the most easily amused (though coupled with piss boiling choler in one case).

And, in your case, using secretarian language to describe Unionists in Scotland.

I think we can all judge who’s in no place to pull up another on rhetoric.

Morris_Dancer said:

Dr. Foxy, humans are designed to eat both meat and fruit/vegetables. We're omnivorous by nature. If people choose to eschew meat, that's fair enough, but I'd strongly repudiate any suggestion eating meat is immoral.

Who "designed" humans? Meat is murder.

Casino_Royale said:

I’m on about 10 horses, but not Tiger Roll.

Way too short.

It does look very short for a GN fav. Nevertheless I think it is going to win. But unlike my closely argued and knowledge backed political insights (which everyone has no doubt clocked) this one is strictly 'in the waters'.

Dura_Ace said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Dr. Foxy, humans are designed to eat both meat and fruit/vegetables. We're omnivorous by nature. If people choose to eschew meat, that's fair enough, but I'd strongly repudiate any suggestion eating meat is immoral.

Who "designed" humans? Meat is murder.

Meat is good.

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Something for the weekend.

https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/1114443238134382592

It does make me laugh when pro-Remain posters paste a link to a Guardian article about Brexit as an objective source.

It's like me linking to the Express.

It inspires a little titter from me when Brexiteers characterise what is essentially a list of quotes from world media as subjective Remain propaganda.

At least we've not reached the stage where linking to those quotes is considered traitorous. Probably.

You are easily amused.

The quotations will be selective and/or requested. All newspapers do this.

The Mail will do it the other way round.

'It does make me laugh' v. 'a little titter', I think I can judge who's the most easily amused (though coupled with piss boiling choler in one case).

And, in your case, using secretarian language to describe Unionists in Scotland.

I think we can all judge who’s in no place to pull up another on rhetoric.

And unable to mount even a desultory defence, he's off on a tangent again.

I think I asked you to provide examples of this sectarian language previously and you diasappeared pretty sharpish. Have another go, why don't you?

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Something for the weekend.

https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/1114443238134382592

It does make me laugh when pro-Remain posters paste a link to a Guardian article about Brexit as an objective source.

It's like me linking to the Express.

It inspires a little titter from me when Brexiteers characterise what is essentially a list of quotes from world media as subjective Remain propaganda.

At least we've not reached the stage where linking to those quotes is considered traitorous. Probably.

You are easily amused.

The quotations will be selective and/or requested. All newspapers do this.

The Mail will do it the other way round.

'It does make me laugh' v. 'a little titter', I think I can judge who's the most easily amused (though coupled with piss boiling choler in one case).

And, in your case, using secretarian language to describe Unionists in Scotland.

I think we can all judge who’s in no place to pull up another on rhetoric.

And unable to mount even a desultory defence, he's off on a tangent again.

I think I asked you to provide examples of this sectarian language previously and you diasappeared pretty sharpish. Have another go, why don't you?

Do you deny you use the word “loyalist” every time you refer to Scottish Unionists?

I see you do it on here several times a month.

kle4 said:

isam said:

kle4 said:

isam said:

Casino_Royale said:

Good article David. And it all stems back to the disastrous GE2017.

As I think I've said many a time, I knew in my gut then it was all over. I've spent the last two years trying to deny it.

It's the hope that kills you. I can deal with despair.

This week May gave Corbyn a level of legitimacy he could only have dreamed of a year or two ago. How can the Tories warn that his Premiership would be a disaster when she invited him in to make the biggest decision in recent history?

Dominic Grieve is the man to blame for the whole mess, if it's true it were he who secured MPs having the final say on the deal. Had May's deal needed no ratification from the House, this would have all been over long ago

She didn't give him anything, that argument is one of the silliest of this week. He is backed by millions in the country and already a viable PM as a result whatever the government did. Recognising parliamentary arithmetic and making an appeal to him in the national Intetest was a sign of weakness and desperation but didn't add any legitimacy to him. Its simple fact that nothing has a majority and working together might.

Of all May's bad actions offering to just talk with the man because her position is weak is not one of them and I find it hilarious so many in her party found that action the final straw. It is so undeniably a partisan justification. The one time she at least attempts, to some small degree, to be non partisan, and she's condemned

How can Tories portray him at the next GE as a dangerous communist who would ruin the country, when they’ve invited him into Downing St to decide the nations future?

I dont know or care how they'll do that. But it doesn't mean they've legitimized him. He's already legitimate and given the Tory split wipes out their ability to pass anything Brexit related, he's essential in fact. Inviting him for talks was sensible and recognising the situation before them and the only thing I can criticise about it is I doubt how sincere the sides are.

But being open to seeing what the other side say when it is the only way to pass something I find impossible to criticise. Itd be like walking out of a meeting because a former member of your party was present.

Corbyn was dead right to not accept Umunna being there if it was supposed to be about leaders of parties getting together.

stodge said:

Casino_Royale said:

On the basis of your last sentence you should be a vegan then.

Racehorses are extremely well cared for and looked after. Welfare is taken extremely seriously. The National does not “kill or maim horses”, and such incidents remain a rare event.

A measure of that is or should be the number of those being pulled up as against those falling.

Jockeys, who are both superb horsemen and trained athletes, know when the horse has done its bit and it's time to call it a day. Ruby Walsh knew FAUGHEEN wasn't right on Thursday and pulled him out of the race. Even in the Foxhunters where the riders are amateur, a number called it a day before the last two.

Yet it is a sport with risk - it would be impossible to remove the risk without destroying the sport as we saw yesterday. I sincerely hope every horse in every race (not just the National) comes back safe and sound.

Indeed. All sport carries risk. As does all of life.

Some just adopt absurd sentimentality when it comes to animals as a way of externalising their own feelings which they struggle to manage with respect to their fellow human beings.

It’s a very British thing.

Dr. Foxy, excessive consumption of anything is bad for you.

I have some sympathy with a vegetarian perspective (although not technically required by it, Buddhism was the only religion I ever gave serious thought to adopting). The desire to control the behaviour of others or to hector those with the temerity to disagree is an unpleasant side of a vocal minority, though. And nothing persuades me less than a combination of emotional blackmail and authoritarian arrogance. The concept my diet should be determined by strangers high on their own holiness is not an impressive one.

Mr. Royale, I hope this wasn't your intention but that does read a little as an implied criticism of Mr. NorthWales, who is nothing if not civilised.

Morris_Dancer said:

Dr. Foxy, excessive consumption of anything is bad for you.

I have some sympathy with a vegetarian perspective (although not technically required by it, Buddhism was the only religion I ever gave serious thought to adopting). The desire to control the behaviour of others or to hector those with the temerity to disagree is an unpleasant side of a vocal minority, though. And nothing persuades me less than a combination of emotional blackmail and authoritarian arrogance. The concept my diet should be determined by strangers high on their own holiness is not an impressive one.

Mr. Royale, I hope this wasn't your intention but that does read a little as an implied criticism of Mr. NorthWales, who is nothing if not civilised.

Dogmatic animal rights rants grate my goat.

I expect better of someone of Mr. NorthWales’s intelligence.

Mr. Royale, I don't have especially strong views on horse racing, but it's entirely possible to disagree with someone without suggesting their opinion doesn't merely differ but that they're wrong for holding it. Reasonable people can, and do, reach differing conclusions when presented with the same arguments and evidence.

stodge said:

Okay, back to the politics.

Thanks for the article, David, which is a decent summation of where we are. The irony is for all everyone's talk of "taking back control", the impotence of the Commons has been illustrated in the past few weeks. The core is the EU deals with the UK Government not the UK Parliament and the extent to which ANY PM is mandated by Parliament to follow courses of action is to me quite unclear.

In any case, as I've said repeatedly, the Commons voting down No Deal or making it "illegal" is akin to trying to legislate against rain. IF we do not have a WA in place and IF we can't get an extension from the EU, we leave next Friday evening.

I think there's a growing constituency for that - for the LEAVE supporter, No Deal looks the only way to leave at all currently. Extensions look and feel like attempts to thwart the process so have to be resisted. I agree most LEAVE supporters would have baulked at No Deal a few months ago but as the options have narrowed it looks the only clear way to ensure their choice is enacted.

The second group swinging to No Deal are those fed up with the whole thing. The "let's get it over with" Party are unfocused but popular. They contain both LEAVE and REMAIN supporters who simply feel the Government has other things it should be doing and are tired of the constant coverage of what seems to them to be a simple thing. Most would have been happy to see the WA passed.

Limiting the options polarises opinions - we all know this. On the other side, revocation has emerged as an option. Cancel it all, scrap it all, end it all - it sounds so easy but it would be political suicide for May and the Conservatives so it won't happen.

With the WA unable to clear the Commons, it's therefore down to May and the EU - Parliament is irrelevant now and may as well have packed up for Easter yesterday. I was puzzled by the 30/6 extension which made no sense but I presume it was a desperate attempt to hold the Cabinet together. Tusk, who has been more of a friend to the UK in this than many realise, has thrown a potential lifeline but plenty in the EU seemingly also want this over with.

I can't with certainty say that this time next week we will still be in the EU and that's astonishing and a measure of failure in and of itself.

I'd actually now argue those in the EU who want this over and done with are being more of a friend to the UK than Mr Tusk with his interminable flextension.

Norm said:

stodge said:

Okay, back to the politics.

Thanks for the article, David, which is a decent summation of where we are. The irony is for all everyone's talk of "taking back control", the impotence of the Commons has been illustrated in the past few weeks. The core is the EU deals with the UK Government not the UK Parliament and the extent to which ANY PM is mandated by Parliament to follow courses of action is to me quite unclear.

In any case, as I've said repeatedly, the Commons voting down No Deal or making it "illegal" is akin to trying to legislate against rain. IF we do not have a WA in place and IF we can't get an extension from the EU, we leave next Friday evening.

I think there's a growing constituency for that - for the LEAVE supporter, No Deal looks the only way to leave at all currently. Extensions look and feel like attempts to thwart the process so have to be resisted. I agree most LEAVE supporters would have baulked at No Deal a few months ago but as the options have narrowed it looks the only clear way to ensure their choice is enacted.

The second group swinging to No Deal are those fed up with the whole thing. The "let's get it over with" Party are unfocused but popular. They contain both LEAVE and REMAIN supporters who simply feel the Government has other things it should be doing and are tired of the constant coverage of what seems to them to be a simple thing. Most would have been happy to see the WA passed.

Limiting the options polarises opinions - we all know this. On the other side, revocation has emerged as an option. Cancel it all, scrap it all, end it all - it sounds so easy but it would be political suicide for May and the Conservatives so it won't happen.

With the WA unable to clear the Commons, it's therefore down to May and the EU - Parliament is irrelevant now and may as well have packed up for Easter yesterday. I was puzzled by the 30/6 extension which made no sense but I presume it was a desperate attempt to hold the Cabinet together. Tusk, who has been more of a friend to the UK in this than many realise, has thrown a potential lifeline but plenty in the EU seemingly also want this over with.

I can't with certainty say that this time next week we will still be in the EU and that's astonishing and a measure of failure in and of itself.

I'd actually now argue those in the EU who want this over and done with are being more of a friend to the UK than Mr Tusk with his interminable flextension.

You think May is wrong to think No Deal would lead to the break up of the UK?

Norm said:

stodge said:

Okay, back to the politics.

Thanks for the article, David, which is a decent summation of where we are. The irony is for all everyone's talk of "taking back control", the impotence of the Commons has been illustrated in the past few weeks. The core is the EU deals with the UK Government not the UK Parliament and the extent to which ANY PM is mandated by Parliament to follow courses of action is to me quite unclear.

In any case, as I've said repeatedly, the Commons voting down No Deal or making it "illegal" is akin to trying to legislate against rain. IF we do not have a WA in place and IF we can't get an extension from the EU, we leave next Friday evening.

I think there's a growing constituency for that - for the LEAVE supporter, No Deal looks the only way to leave at all currently. Extensions look and feel like attempts to thwart the process so have to be resisted. I agree most LEAVE supporters would have baulked at No Deal a few months ago but as the options have narrowed it looks the only clear way to ensure their choice is enacted.

The second group swinging to No Deal are those fed up with the whole thing. The "let's get it over with" Party are unfocused but popular. They contain both LEAVE and REMAIN supporters who simply feel the Government has other things it should be doing and are tired of the constant coverage of what seems to them to be a simple thing. Most would have been happy to see the WA passed.

Limiting the options polarises opinions - we all know this. On the other side, revocation has emerged as an option. Cancel it all, scrap it all, end it all - it sounds so easy but it would be political suicide for May and the Conservatives so it won't happen.

With the WA unable to clear the Commons, it's therefore down to May and the EU - Parliament is irrelevant now and may as well have packed up for Easter yesterday. I was puzzled by the 30/6 extension which made no sense but I presume it was a desperate attempt to hold the Cabinet together. Tusk, who has been more of a friend to the UK in this than many realise, has thrown a potential lifeline but plenty in the EU seemingly also want this over with.

I can't with certainty say that this time next week we will still be in the EU and that's astonishing and a measure of failure in and of itself.

I'd actually now argue those in the EU who want this over and done with are being more of a friend to the UK than Mr Tusk with his interminable flextension.

No Donald Tusk is the realist. People who want it over and done with are simply not taking into account the fact that this issue is still hotly contested and until a consensus emerges it will continue to disrupt the EU quite badly while completely wrecking any kind of progress on anything political in the UK.

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Something for the weekend.

https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/1114443238134382592

It does make me laugh when pro-Remain posters paste a link to a Guardian article about Brexit as an objective source.

It's like me linking to the Express.

I want to remain now but I find the self pitying obsession with foreign reporting on Brexit to be wearying and unconvincing, not least since it usually comes from a place assuming most of the country shares in delusions of hard right perceptions of our place in the world and the horror of that not being true.

I think that the focus on foreign reporting is driven in part, at least, by how some on the Brexit side seem to believe the UK is viewed in the world: as a powerful force that everyone casts envious eyes at. For what it's worth, the views of the foreign press pretty much reflect what I have seen and heard on my travels - though clearly others on here have seen and heard differently.

One thing that does stand out for me - because it is such a unique reaction amidst the general hilarity and perplexity - is how Swedes I speak to view it all. Almost all those I speak to (and I speak to quite a few for work) are genuinely upset by it. They really do hold the UK in high regard, have huge affection for us and just hate what is happening. It's actually quite moving.

Casino_Royale said:

Dura_Ace said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Dr. Foxy, humans are designed to eat both meat and fruit/vegetables. We're omnivorous by nature. If people choose to eschew meat, that's fair enough, but I'd strongly repudiate any suggestion eating meat is immoral.

Who "designed" humans? Meat is murder.

Genuine question, do you actually believe the shit you write on here?

What have you done with my Crossrail, CR?

Blimey, yesterday it was alleged Australian anglo-phobia, today whether it's ethical to eat meat.

You never know what filling you're going to get in your Brexit sandwich with PB!

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Royale, I don't have especially strong views on horse racing, but it's entirely possible to disagree with someone without suggesting their opinion doesn't merely differ but that they're wrong for holding it. Reasonable people can, and do, reach differing conclusions when presented with the same arguments and evidence.

It’s not evidence based and nor is the conclusion reasonable. That’s the problem. I didn’t and don’t expect someone like him to be an animal rights moron.

Anyway, I’m off. We have guests today and I have plenty of better things to do than engage in tedious arguments on here.

Who rattled Casino's cage?

Crossrail has been delayed again

Benpointer said:

Blimey, yesterday it was alleged Australian anglo-phobia, today whether it's ethical to eat meat.

You never know what filling you're going to get in your Brexit sandwich with PB!

I can go on about restoration of the Wuffingas kingdom of east Anglia if you like, I'm probably overdue

Casino_Royale said:

Dogmatic animal rights rants grate my goat.

I expect better of someone of Mr. NorthWales’s intelligence.

People who label disussions on animal rights as "Dogmatic animal rights rants" angers my goat (i would not let anyone grate her).

Sadly I have learnt not to expect better from Mr Royale

Theuniondivvie said:

Personally the one absolute constant I've taken from the last 2 & 1/2 years is that when someone says x* has been killed because of y, they will be proved wrong in short order. Of course something has to happen at some point with (hopefully metaphorical) deaths along the way, but I'm not sure if we've reached that point.

*x = Brexit, soft Brexit, hard Brexit, People's Vote, CU, FoM, May, May's deal, Corbyn, Tory Party, Labour party, Farage, UKIP, the Union, Scottish Indy etc. SLab could be the exception that proves the rule, mind, though they were pretty corpse like in the first place.

Indeed.

A week ago DH was predicting the exact opposite:

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/03/30/no-deal-remains-imminent-and-likely/

another_richard said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Personally the one absolute constant I've taken from the last 2 & 1/2 years is that when someone says x* has been killed because of y, they will be proved wrong in short order. Of course something has to happen at some point with (hopefully metaphorical) deaths along the way, but I'm not sure if we've reached that point.

*x = Brexit, soft Brexit, hard Brexit, People's Vote, CU, FoM, May, May's deal, Corbyn, Tory Party, Labour party, Farage, UKIP, the Union, Scottish Indy etc. SLab could be the exception that proves the rule, mind, though they were pretty corpse like in the first place.

Indeed.

A week ago DH was predicting the exact opposite:

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/03/30/no-deal-remains-imminent-and-likely/

A week is a long time in politics.

eristdoof said:

Casino_Royale said:

Dogmatic animal rights rants grate my goat.

I expect better of someone of Mr. NorthWales’s intelligence.

People who label disussions on animal rights as "Dogmatic animal rights rants" angers my goat (i would not let anyone grate her).

Sadly I have learnt not to expect better from Mr Royale

Nonsense, grated goat is delicious, and anyone who says otherwise is a libtard gaylord poncyboots.

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. NorthWales, would such a vote be tabled and binding?

I am not an expert in Parliamentary procedure but without action we most certainly would no deal.

And just two days to take the action in the biggest crisis since WW2

I have always said that Brexit would go with a whimper rather than a bang. Its hard to get too excited on a lovely spring day when there is a big horse race and some interesting football. Leicester could leapfrog to 7th place if we win away at poor old Huddersfield. I expect it will be a while before we see them again in the PL.

I am in the Smoke on Friday for a meeting, was planning to pop to Parliament Square to see the circus in the evening. I expect an extension though. Tusk will have his way and 29/3/20 will be the new Brexit day.

I may not be popular but my family oppose the grand national on the grounds of the number of horses killed, often in agony, all for excitement. It is barbaric.

I hope you enjoy your football and let us hope by friday something tangeable will have happened with brexit

I take your point on horses dying, but am fairly utilitarian on these things. We kill thousands of animals each day to satisfy our whims and fancies. A horse race or a bacon butty? At least the horse gets a decent life first.

+1, really, though I'd ban the use of the whip except where safety is involved. The National is pretty grim, though, for the reasons BigG says.

geoffw said:

Benpointer said:

What an excellent article Mr Herdson - one of the best I can remember on PB, and there have been many good ones. Well-reasoned, and very clearly set out.

Whether the projections are right of course, only time will tell.

Thanks!

Let me echo that, and thanks too to Stodge for an excellent comment.

Take away the impossible and all that remains is No Deal, Revoke or her deal.

Though it's not impossible, Revoke would be, to me, quite astonishing: the negation of the largest popular vote in UK history and sure political suicide for the Tory party and politicians. With the UK backed into the EU the popular clamour to get out and/or disrupt the EU project would rise to unbearable levels. Realising that makes it anathema not only to our (sensible) politicians but also to the (sensible) Europeans. So I think unless it is kicked yet again into the long grass, either the May-deal or No-deal will be decided next week.

I agree that Revoke is highly unlikely to happen, but I don't see it killing the Tories off if it did. One major lesson of the Newport West election, surely, is that the majority of people are just not that politically engaged. The Conservative party no longer exists as a meaningful single entity, but it continues to lead most polls and its vote held up pretty well on Thursday. FPTP invites people to vote against the worst option - and for many voters that will remain the Labour party (and vice versa, of course).

Ishmael_Z said:

Sean_F said:

stodge said:

Casino_Royale said:

On the basis of your last sentence you should be a vegan then.

Racehorses are extremely well cared for and looked after. Welfare is taken extremely seriously. The National does not “kill or maim horses”, and such incidents remain a rare event.

A measure of that is or should be the number of those being pulled up as against those falling.

Jockeys, who are both superb horsemen and trained athletes, know when the horse has done its bit and it's time to call it a day. Ruby Walsh knew FAUGHEEN wasn't right on Thursday and pulled him out of the race. Even in the Foxhunters where the riders are amateur, a number called it a day before the last two.

Yet it is a sport with risk - it would be impossible to remove the risk without destroying the sport as we saw yesterday. I sincerely hope every horse in every race (not just the National) comes back safe and sound.

As an aside, if you want to buy a horse, racehorses that failed to make the grade are a good choice, as they're cheap, and very well socialised..

If only they had better feet.

They have these "hooves" things. They're horses.

[Ah, my coat... ]

williamglenn said:

Norm said:

stodge said:

Okay, back to the politics.

Thanks for the article, David, which is a decent summation of where we are. The irony is for all everyone's talk of "taking back control", the impotence of the Commons has been illustrated in the past few weeks. The core is the EU deals with the UK Government not the UK Parliament and the extent to which ANY PM is mandated by Parliament to follow courses of action is to me quite unclear.

In any case, as I've said repeatedly, the Commons voting down No Deal or making it "illegal" is akin to trying to legislate against rain. IF we do not have a WA in place and IF we can't get an extension from the EU, we leave next Friday evening.

I think there's a growing constituency for that - for the LEAVE supporter, No Deal looks the only way to leave at all currently. Extensions look and feel like attempts to thwart the process so have to be resisted. I agree most LEAVE supporters would have baulked at No Deal a few months ago but as the options have narrowed it looks the only clear way to ensure their choice is enacted.

The second group swinging to No Deal are those fed up with the whole thing. The "let's get it over with" Party are unfocused but popular. They contain both LEAVE and REMAIN supporters who simply feel the Government has other things it should be doing and are tired of the constant coverage of what seems to them to be a simple thing. Most would have been happy to see the WA passed.

Limiting the options polarises opinions - we all know this. On the other side, revocation has emerged as an option. Cancel it all, scrap it all, end it all - it sounds so easy but it would be political suicide for May and the Conservatives so it won't happen.

With the WA unable to clear the Commons, it's therefore down to May and the EU - Parliament is irrelevant now and may as well have packed up for Easter yesterday. I was puzzled by the 30/6 extension which made no sense but I presume it was a desperate attempt to hold the Cabinet together. Tusk, who has been more of a friend to the UK in this than many realise, has thrown a potential lifeline but plenty in the EU seemingly also want this over with.

I can't with certainty say that this time next week we will still be in the EU and that's astonishing and a measure of failure in and of itself.

I'd actually now argue those in the EU who want this over and done with are being more of a friend to the UK than Mr Tusk with his interminable flextension.

You think May is wrong to think No Deal would lead to the break up of the UK?

The Scottish separatists will look to break up the UK regardless of what we do. Even if we remain they'll say let not put our future in the hand of English Nationalists again and we can only ensure that by leaving..

Theuniondivvie said:

eristdoof said:

Casino_Royale said:

Dogmatic animal rights rants grate my goat.

I expect better of someone of Mr. NorthWales’s intelligence.

People who label disussions on animal rights as "Dogmatic animal rights rants" angers my goat (i would not let anyone grate her).

Sadly I have learnt not to expect better from Mr Royale

Nonsense, grated goat is delicious, and anyone who says otherwise is a libtard gaylord poncyboots.

Surely the correct idiom is "get my goat", not 'grate' or 'anger' (the latter espescially as goat is slang for anger, so anger my goat = anger my anger).

isam said:

edmundintokyo said:

On topic, I don't think TMay would have crashed out when she could have extended, so it doesn't really matter what Cooper-Letwin do, although they've closed off one real but unlikely pathway to No Deal.

Brexit is on life support because the government, MPs, business, unions and the civil service and the rest of the EU never wanted to do it, and it was only happening because the voters wanted to do it, but faced with a specific thing the voters now don't want to do it either. It's only still a thing because of inertia, and it's safer for everybody to let it just grind slowly to a halt rather than throwing themselves in front of it.

Please tell me you’re not coming to the conclusion that “voters now don’t want to do it either” because of the view of people on opinion poll panels?

Yes, opinion polls are a good way to poll opinion.

There are other good ways like having a national referendum, and there's a good argument that if you think opinion has changed you should have one of those rather than just revoking based on polling and the general vibe, but the evidence as it currently stands is that the voters would rather remain than do any specific brexit.

Pulpstar said:

I think if we revoke, the polls will swing sharply to "out" as the betrayal narrative will be very strong.
If we leave with no deal then there will likely be a majority who would have preferred to remain.

And if we leave with WDA+CU the issue fades and attention focuses on other issues.

Norm said:

The best way to get the first stage over and done with is by accepting the WA. That is more likely if the EU say no more.

The problem with getting the first stage over and done is that after the first stage you have the second stage, which is the part where the British will have to suck up all the unpopular concessions...

OldKingCole said:

dyedwoolie said:

Benpointer said:

Blimey, yesterday it was alleged Australian anglo-phobia, today whether it's ethical to eat meat.

You never know what filling you're going to get in your Brexit sandwich with PB!

I can go on about restoration of the Wuffingas kingdom of east Anglia if you like, I'm probably overdue

Where would you find the descendants of the kings? Or would we start gain with a newly convened Witan?

You can be pretty sure direct descendant of Wotan Seant will be in the mix.

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Dr. Foxy, humans are designed to eat both meat and fruit/vegetables. We're omnivorous by nature. If people choose to eschew meat, that's fair enough, but I'd strongly repudiate any suggestion eating meat is immoral.

Eating meat is a choice, we are not constrained by our biology.

I am not suggesting that it is immoral, though others might, but it is immoral to not consider the implications for animal welfare, and the health of the planet from excessive meat consumption.

I’d say the morality, such as it is, is one of overpopulating the planet.

Yes. Climate change is being driven by the increasing world population.

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

geoffw said:

Benpointer said:

What an excellent article Mr Herdson - one of the best I can remember on PB, and there have been many good ones. Well-reasoned, and very clearly set out.

Whether the projections are right of course, only time will tell.

Thanks!

Let me echo that, and thanks too to Stodge for an excellent comment.

Take away the impossible and all that remains is No Deal, Revoke or her deal.

Though it's not impossible, Revoke would be, to me, quite astonishing: the negation of the largest popular vote in UK history and sure political suicide for the Tory party and politicians. With the UK backed into the EU the popular clamour to get out and/or disrupt the EU project would rise to unbearable levels. Realising that makes it anathema not only to our (sensible) politicians but also to the (sensible) Europeans. So I think unless it is kicked yet again into the long grass, either the May-deal or No-deal will be decided next week.

I agree that Revoke is highly unlikely to happen, but I don't see it killing the Tories off if it did. One major lesson of the Newport West election, surely, is that the majority of people are just not that politically engaged. The Conservative party no longer exists as a meaningful single entity, but it continues to lead most polls and its vote held up pretty well on Thursday. FPTP invites people to vote against the worst option - and for many voters that will remain the Labour party (and vice versa, of course).

Yes, Labour and Tory probably only still exist because of tribal hatred of the other from people indoctrinated as children. If there are no chance of the other winning power, millions of people wouldn’t vote for ‘their’ Party

I think it's a lot more than tribal hatred and indoctrination. Labour got a lot of votes from people in 2017 who wanted to stop the kind of Brexit May was proposing at that time, or who wanted to stop the Dementia tax or whatever. Likewise, the Tories got a lot of votes because a lot of voters wanted to stop Corbyn. That's not tribal, it's rational, issues-based decision-making. The problem is the voting system. if you want serious change that has to go. While it remains the Tory and Labour hegemony is baked in.

another_richard said:

stodge said:

Morning all

As an aside on the Grand National, even though I'm a racing fan, I don't worship the race or Cheltenham the way so many do. I much prefer Royal Ascot and the flat these days.

I'd make two points about the race and how the changes have affected it - first, it's a better race in terms of horse quality than it used to be. The Gold Cup fourth is carrying top weight, the bottom weight is a former Scottish National winner. The no-hopers who used to get into the race 20 or 30 years ago are gone.

So you have better horses and better riders. At the same time, however, the fences have been made "easier". The impact is to make the race akin to the Scottish or Welsh National but with different jumps. It's a quality long distance handicap chase. The corollary of that is better horses over easier fences go quicker and speed kills. Horses travelling at speed are more at risk than the plodder who just stops so I'd argue the changes have made the race more of a risk to the horse than otherwise.

A keen horse racing fan I know told me the same a few years ago.

Many years ago I read a comment from a gambler to the effect that if horses were meant to jump they'd have legs like kangaroos.