politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB’s huge post-Corbyn increase in members has had almost no i

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Why do you see Schengen as more of a political project than the customs union and single market? Non-EU members like Norway and Switzerland are in Schengen.

This is not a criticism of the EU, but the basic idea of Schengen seems to me to be very naïve and flawed. Freedom of Movement is a great idea but you don't need open borders for that. Schengen took away some important powers for Government's to monitor and control who could and could not move into their territories. It certainly seems to have facilitated the attacks in Paris by allowing people to move freely across borders with weapons and it is no surprise that quite a few countries have now chosen to suspend it indefinitely.

Allowing people to move in and out of your country is a good thing (IMHO) . Not actually knowing who is doing so seems both stupid and reckless.

I’m sure the main driver for Schengen is to eliminate the costs of maintaining physical infrastructure along borders that are next to impossible to fully secure anyway. AIUI minor roads along France’s borders were only occasionally policed with random checkpoints long before Schengen, and let’s not forget that passports and visas as we understand them today are only around a century old. Schengen has lots of other ways to keep tabs on people’s movements, such as ANPR cameras, compulsory police registration of hotel guests etc.

GIN1138 said:

TGOHF said:

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1115286676367183872

LOL! What a ridiculous question.

Sounds like a Kay Burley special
Bring back hanging or kittens called Kevin?

kinabalu said:

isam said:

Doesn't it say something about PB though, that I seem to be the only person on here motivated to vote Leave by immigration control, despite it being the biggest motivator of Leave voters?

PB is 'polite company' - on the whole - and people can be reluctant to admit in polite company that their Leave vote was driven by a desire to make it harder for foreigners to come and live here.

It sounds more cerebral and civilized to say that their main concern was sovereignty.

I keep my front door locked. That says no more about me than that I want to chose those I let in (and those I try to keep out).

AlastairMeeks said:

OldKingCole said:

Sometimes I wonder if there's an equivalent to Pb in, say Germany, where people discuss what on earth is going on in the once stable UK.

Or, maybe Ireland, where translation issues would be easier!

One of my German partners was scandalised to discover that people should do anything as frivolous as betting on anything as serious as politics.

Perhaps he would consider it more proper to enter into something like the 1785 bet between Lord Cholmondeley and Lord Derby:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks's

AlastairMeeks said:

OldKingCole said:

Sometimes I wonder if there's an equivalent to Pb in, say Germany, where people discuss what on earth is going on in the once stable UK.

Or, maybe Ireland, where translation issues would be easier!

One of my German partners was scandalised to discover that people should do anything as frivolous as betting on anything as serious as politics.

Anglo-Saxon clearly have very little residual Germanic genes then. Or perhaps it's a residuum from the Britons.

Gardenwalker said:

isam said:

Gardenwalker said:

Either May agrees a CU-with-a-lock tonight, or we are facing an extension to end of December.

Said extension will allow time for a new Tory leader who will look to call a new election. If that goes ahead, Jeremy is PM.

To save the country, May should agree a referendum on her deal. It saves her deal, saves her honour, saves her country. I believe it is also best, long term, for her Party.

...and what would be the other options on the ballot?

Your suggestion of Deal / Remain / Keep Negotiating was a good one. Although would have to be AV or a multiple vote.

Thanks, yes I think Remain would have to get over 50% to carry the vote.

SandyRentool said:

Torby_Fennel said:

Sorry for the late reply, as I've been out leafleting, but in the previous thread eristdoof asked me what I'm comparing this year's positive Lib Dem canvassing responses to.

The answer is I'm comparing to last year, 2018. In my city the wards are all triple member wards with one of the three council seats in each ward up for election each year in turn (excluding the one year in four that we have county council elections instead).

Local elections every year! There can't be many parts of the country that are blessed in that way.

Blessing or curse... we're not sure which. Still, it keeps us on our toes...

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1115283929559371777

Look everyone, we need to pretend we're potentially going to agree something so the EU can pretend that's a reason to have a long extension for no reason, ok?

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Why do you see Schengen as more of a political project than the customs union and single market? Non-EU members like Norway and Switzerland are in Schengen.

This is not a criticism of the EU, but the basic idea of Schengen seems to me to be very naïve and flawed. Freedom of Movement is a great idea but you don't need open borders for that. Schengen took away some important powers for Government's to monitor and control who could and could not move into their territories. It certainly seems to have facilitated the attacks in Paris by allowing people to move freely across borders with weapons and it is no surprise that quite a few countries have now chosen to suspend it indefinitely.

Allowing people to move in and out of your country is a good thing (IMHO) . Not actually knowing who is doing so seems both stupid and reckless.

So you think we should abolish the CTA and have passport controls on the Irish border?

Well both the British and Irish Governments already know there are issues with the CTA which is why the 2011 agreement established the basis for moving to electronic monitoring of people moving across the border. In addition in 1997 the Irish changed their legislation so they can now demand to see identification from anyone entering Eire from anywhere else in the CTA and can refuse entry.

If the Con-Lab talks don't come up with a deal by breakfast time tomorrow, Tezzie will trot off to Berlin and Paris with nothing to justify an exentsion. I hope Macron tells her to bugger off, then it will be Revoke O'clock on Friday evening. And the Tory Party will implode over the weekend.

OldKingCole said:

AlastairMeeks said:

OldKingCole said:

Sometimes I wonder if there's an equivalent to Pb in, say Germany, where people discuss what on earth is going on in the once stable UK.

Or, maybe Ireland, where translation issues would be easier!

One of my German partners was scandalised to discover that people should do anything as frivolous as betting on anything as serious as politics.

Anglo-Saxon clearly have very little residual Germanic genes then. Or perhaps it's a residuum from the Britons.

They put a big bet on in 33, but it didn't pay off. Perhaps that discouraged them?

Richard_Nabavi said:

AlastairMeeks said:

OldKingCole said:

Sometimes I wonder if there's an equivalent to Pb in, say Germany, where people discuss what on earth is going on in the once stable UK.

Or, maybe Ireland, where translation issues would be easier!

One of my German partners was scandalised to discover that people should do anything as frivolous as betting on anything as serious as politics.

Perhaps he would consider it more proper to enter into something like the 1785 bet between Lord Cholmondeley and Lord Derby:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks's

I had no idea that the mile high club had such ancient antecedents.

Gardenwalker said:

isam said:

Gardenwalker said:

Either May agrees a CU-with-a-lock tonight, or we are facing an extension to end of December.

Said extension will allow time for a new Tory leader who will look to call a new election. If that goes ahead, Jeremy is PM.

To save the country, May should agree a referendum on her deal. It saves her deal, saves her honour, saves her country. I believe it is also best, long term, for her Party.

...and what would be the other options on the ballot?

Your suggestion of Deal / Remain / Keep Negotiating was a good one. Although would have to be AV or a multiple vote.

You wouldn't even have Leave on the paper?

isam said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

AndrewSpencer said:

TOPPING said:

You seem like a sensible enough bloke, coming on here with your reasonable and well-argued points. What were the key reasons you voted Leave?

[Sorry messed up the quoting!] Thank you! Partly Bennite (though I'm a Tory), in that I don't like that once we (or any nation) agree to a proposed EU policy there is essentially no way of undoing it, partly Washingtonian/Jeffersonian (friendly relations with all nations, entangling alliances with none) and partly pragmatic (we've never signed up to the main political projects of the EU [Schengen and the Euro] and are unlikely to do so and yet the EU is increasingly and understandably focused on the interests of Eurozone members). I don't much like elements of May's WA but I think it gives us the time we need to negotiate some form of free trade agreement with the EU while avoiding thee disruption of no deal.

That is pretty much my view as well. Mine is somewhat more extreme to the extent I favour massive decentralisation of power and the EU is pretty much the exact opposite of that.

Doesn't it say something about PB though, that I seem to be the only person on here motivated to vote Leave by immigration control, despite it being the biggest motivator of Leave voters?

I've said several times I couldn't give a fig about immigration as it has very little impact on me personally. What I do care about is the direct effect it has on pressure for public services, housing etc, particularly for the poor. I'm also concerned about allowing people who don't share our values to settle here - the parents protesting LGBT tolerance lessons in Birmingham being a recent example. There is also the utterly absurd situation where a highly skilled worker from outside the EU has to jump through hoops to get here whereas any old numpty from inside the EU can come here and work in a car wash, sell the big issue, etc.

What I want is for immigration to be controllable, and for the politicians responsible for deciding how many people we allow in to have to make a case for that number to the electorate, then be held democratically accountable for those choices. For years we've seen successive politicians shrug their shoulders and say there's nothing they can do. Ultimately immigration is a smaller piece of a larger puzzle called sovereignty. I believe our politicians should be held accountable, not just for immigration but for all the decisions that affect us. And that is why I voted to leave.

AlastairMeeks said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

AlastairMeeks said:

OldKingCole said:

Sometimes I wonder if there's an equivalent to Pb in, say Germany, where people discuss what on earth is going on in the once stable UK.

Or, maybe Ireland, where translation issues would be easier!

One of my German partners was scandalised to discover that people should do anything as frivolous as betting on anything as serious as politics.

Perhaps he would consider it more proper to enter into something like the 1785 bet between Lord Cholmondeley and Lord Derby:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks's

I had no idea that the mile high club had such ancient antecedents.

Gotta love a dry, serious summary of something amusing

There is no further indication that the bet was paid, or even how they would check it if it was claimed.

OldKingCole said:

AlastairMeeks said:

OldKingCole said:

Sometimes I wonder if there's an equivalent to Pb in, say Germany, where people discuss what on earth is going on in the once stable UK.

Or, maybe Ireland, where translation issues would be easier!

One of my German partners was scandalised to discover that people should do anything as frivolous as betting on anything as serious as politics.

Anglo-Saxon clearly have very little residual Germanic genes then. Or perhaps it's a residuum from the Britons.

We are mongrels

kyf_100 said:

isam said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

AndrewSpencer said:

TOPPING said:

You seem like a sensible enough bloke, coming on here with your reasonable and well-argued points. What were the key reasons you voted Leave?

[Sorry messed up the quoting!] Thank you! Partly Bennite (though I'm a Tory), in that I don't like that once we (or any nation) agree to a proposed EU policy there is essentially no way of undoing it, partly Washingtonian/Jeffersonian (friendly relations with all nations, entangling alliances with none) and partly pragmatic (we've never signed up to the main political projects of the EU [Schengen and the Euro] and are unlikely to do so and yet the EU is increasingly and understandably focused on the interests of Eurozone members). I don't much like elements of May's WA but I think it gives us the time we need to negotiate some form of free trade agreement with the EU while avoiding thee disruption of no deal.

That is pretty much my view as well. Mine is somewhat more extreme to the extent I favour massive decentralisation of power and the EU is pretty much the exact opposite of that.

Doesn't it say something about PB though, that I seem to be the only person on here motivated to vote Leave by immigration control, despite it being the biggest motivator of Leave voters?

I've said several times I couldn't give a fig about immigration as it has very little impact on me personally. What I do care about is the direct effect it has on pressure for public services, housing etc, particularly for the poor. I'm also concerned about allowing people who don't share our values to settle here - the parents protesting LGBT tolerance lessons in Birmingham being a recent example. There is also the utterly absurd situation where a highly skilled worker from outside the EU has to jump through hoops to get here whereas any old numpty from inside the EU can come here and work in a car wash, sell the big issue, etc.

What I want is for immigration to be controllable, and for the politicians responsible for deciding how many people we allow in to have to make a case for that number to the electorate, then be held democratically accountable for those choices. For years we've seen successive politicians shrug their shoulders and say there's nothing they can do. Ultimately immigration is a smaller piece of a larger puzzle called sovereignty. I believe our politicians should be held accountable, not just for immigration but for all the decisions that affect us. And that is why I voted to leave.

You want the state to "pick winners" at the level of individuals?

SandyRentool said:

Torby_Fennel said:

Sorry for the late reply, as I've been out leafleting, but in the previous thread eristdoof asked me what I'm comparing this year's positive Lib Dem canvassing responses to.

The answer is I'm comparing to last year, 2018. In my city the wards are all triple member wards with one of the three council seats in each ward up for election each year in turn (excluding the one year in four that we have county council elections instead).

Local elections every year! There can't be many parts of the country that are blessed in that way.

It's quite common, I believe - the idea is to keep a level of party activism all the time and to effect change gradually rather than have a sudden swing from one party to another. Whether the voters like being consulted/pestered more often I don't know.

nico67 said:

Sky Data poll

48% worried about no deal

33% excited about no deal

Good grief who are these 33% . It’s astonishing a third of the public want to inflict harm on the country .

They think the rules are the same as for Noel Edmonds' former TV show?

ReggieCide said:

That's way too sensible for on 'ere.

:-)

Will do my absolute best to ensure no recurrence.

isam said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

AndrewSpencer said:

TOPPING said:

AndrewSpencer said:

isam said:

Her deal vs Remain might as well be called "The Establishment Stitch Up".To have the option that got 48% of the vote last time vs a portion of the option that got 52%, and that has been widely criticised by the people who campaigned for the 52% winner is so crooked it surely cant even be considered.

It has certainly been mentioned as a possibility, so I imagine it would be under consideration by May. This is, of course, part of the problem with a second referendum - what will the question be? I seriously doubt that (unless a so-called confirmatory vote is appended to a successful Con-Lab agreement) this parliament could agree a question or an electorate.

You seem like a sensible enough bloke, coming on here with your reasonable and well-argued points. What were the key reasons you voted Leave?

[Sorry messed up the quoting!] Thank you! Partly Bennite (though I'm a Tory), in that I don't like that once we (or any nation) agree to a proposed EU policy there is essentially no way of undoing it, partly Washingtonian/Jeffersonian (friendly relations with all nations, entangling alliances with none) and partly pragmatic (we've never signed up to the main political projects of the EU [Schengen and the Euro] and are unlikely to do so and yet the EU is increasingly and understandably focused on the interests of Eurozone members). I don't much like elements of May's WA but I think it gives us the time we need to negotiate some form of free trade agreement with the EU while avoiding thee disruption of no deal.

That is pretty much my view as well. Mine is somewhat more extreme to the extent I favour massive decentralisation of power and the EU is pretty much the exact opposite of that.

Doesn't it say something about PB though, that I seem to be the only person on here motivated to vote Leave by immigration control, despite it being the biggest motivator of Leave voters?

Not the only one, though I suspect most leave voters were motivated by both political/sovereignty issues and immigration to a greater or lesser extent. But yes the demographics of PB Leavers seems to tend towards the more liberal end, which is...niche.

NickPalmer said:

SandyRentool said:

Torby_Fennel said:

Sorry for the late reply, as I've been out leafleting, but in the previous thread eristdoof asked me what I'm comparing this year's positive Lib Dem canvassing responses to.

The answer is I'm comparing to last year, 2018. In my city the wards are all triple member wards with one of the three council seats in each ward up for election each year in turn (excluding the one year in four that we have county council elections instead).

Local elections every year! There can't be many parts of the country that are blessed in that way.

It's quite common, I believe - the idea is to keep a level of party activism all the time and to effect change gradually rather than have a sudden swing from one party to another. Whether the voters like being consulted/pestered more often I don't know.

It seems like a dreadful system to me, maximising expense while doing nothing to raise turnout.

In Sweden, all elections for all levels of government take place on the same day every 4 years. That sounds like a much better solution.

rural_voter said:

nico67 said:

Sky Data poll

48% worried about no deal

33% excited about no deal

Good grief who are these 33% . It’s astonishing a third of the public want to inflict harm on the country .

They think the rules are the same as for Noel Edmonds' former TV show?

That 33% is probably the cap on the Tories future electoral support in a base case no deal outcome.....

https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/1115292906116538368

Big_G_NorthWales said:

GIN1138 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

If the Con-Lab talks don't come up with a deal by breakfast time tomorrow, Tezzie will trot off to Berlin and Paris with nothing to justify an exentsion. I hope Macron tells her to bugger off, then it will be Revoke O'clock on Friday evening. And the Tory Party will implode over the weekend.

And tell me is that your desired end result or do you not care for our Country

Sandy might think an "imploding" Tory party is in the interests of the country (especially it if paves the way to Corbyn becoming PM )

TM will not revoke under any circumstances

You mean like she wouldn't call an early general election?
Delay Brexit?
Water any of her red lines?

Yeah, right. I wouldn't put too much on that belief.

brokenwheel said:

isam said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

AndrewSpencer said:

TOPPING said:

AndrewSpencer said:

isam said:

Her deal vs Remain might as well be called "The Establishment Stitch Up".To have the option that got 48% of the vote last time vs a portion of the option that got 52%, and that has been widely criticised by the people who campaigned for the 52% winner is so crooked it surely cant even be considered.

It has certainly been mentioned as a possibility, so I imagine it would be under consideration by May. This is, of course, part of the problem with a second referendum - what will the question be? I seriously doubt that (unless a so-called confirmatory vote is appended to a successful Con-Lab agreement) this parliament could agree a question or an electorate.

You seem like a sensible enough bloke, coming on here with your reasonable and well-argued points. What were the key reasons you voted Leave?

[Sorry messed up the quoting!] Thank you! Partly Bennite (though I'm a Tory), in that I don't like that once we (or any nation) agree to a proposed EU policy there is essentially no way of undoing it, partly Washingtonian/Jeffersonian (friendly relations with all nations, entangling alliances with none) and partly pragmatic (we've never signed up to the main political projects of the EU [Schengen and the Euro] and are unlikely to do so and yet the EU is increasingly and understandably focused on the interests of Eurozone members). I don't much like elements of May's WA but I think it gives us the time we need to negotiate some form of free trade agreement with the EU while avoiding thee disruption of no deal.

That is pretty much my view as well. Mine is somewhat more extreme to the extent I favour massive decentralisation of power and the EU is pretty much the exact opposite of that.

Doesn't it say something about PB though, that I seem to be the only person on here motivated to vote Leave by immigration control, despite it being the biggest motivator of Leave voters?

Not the only one, though I suspect most leave voters were motivated by both political/sovereignty issues and immigration to a greater or lesser extent. But yes the demographics of PB Leavers seems to tend towards the more liberal end, which is...niche.

Not really. As I keep repeating, a poll by Yougov shortly before the referendum showed that 42% of Leave voters would be happy with an EFTA type arrangement that retained FoM whilst 45% wanted to end FoM.

It was not a majority view amongst Leavers but it certainly wasn't niche either.

At the 2015 local elections, Labour got a projected national share of 30%. It'll be interesting to see what they get this time. I think it could be around 30% again.

brokenwheel said:

isam said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

AndrewSpencer said:

TOPPING said:

AndrewSpencer said:

isam said:

Her deal vs Remain might as well be called "The Establishment Stitch Up".To have the option that got 48% of the vote last time vs a portion of the option that got 52%, and that has been widely criticised by the people who campaigned for the 52% winner is so crooked it surely cant even be considered.

It has certainly been mentioned as a possibility, so I imagine it would be under consideration by May. This is, of course, part of the problem with a second referendum - what will the question be? I seriously doubt that (unless a so-called confirmatory vote is appended to a successful Con-Lab agreement) this parliament could agree a question or an electorate.

You seem like a sensible enough bloke, coming on here with your reasonable and well-argued points. What were the key reasons you voted Leave?

[Sorry messed up the quoting!] Thank you! Partly Bennite (though I'm a Tory), in that I don't like that once we (or any nation) agree to a proposed EU policy there is essentially no way of undoing it, partly Washingtonian/Jeffersonian (friendly relations with all nations, entangling alliances with none) and partly pragmatic (we've never signed up to the main political projects of the EU [Schengen and the Euro] and are unlikely to do so and yet the EU is increasingly and understandably focused on the interests of Eurozone members). I don't much like elements of May's WA but I think it gives us the time we need to negotiate some form of free trade agreement with the EU while avoiding thee disruption of no deal.

That is pretty much my view as well. Mine is somewhat more extreme to the extent I favour massive decentralisation of power and the EU is pretty much the exact opposite of that.

Doesn't it say something about PB though, that I seem to be the only person on here motivated to vote Leave by immigration control, despite it being the biggest motivator of Leave voters?

Not the only one, though I suspect most leave voters were motivated by both political/sovereignty issues and immigration to a greater or lesser extent. But yes the demographics of PB Leavers seems to tend towards the more liberal end, which is...niche.

More like the OCD end!

nico67 said:

Sky Data poll

48% worried about no deal

33% excited about no deal

Good grief who are these 33% . It’s astonishing a third of the public want to inflict harm on the country .

Not mutually exclusive. In fact worry and excitement often go together. Laser eye surgery is a great example. Excitement at the prospect of a life without spectacles. Worry about it going wrong and needing a guide dog. So you weigh it up, are you more excited or more worried? If the former you go for it, the latter and you don't.

So the poll question should have been, No Deal Brexit, does it worry you more than it excites you, or the opposite? That would have been far more meaningful.

Oh for heaven's sake. I need a break.

nico67 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

IanB2 said:

Breaking: Cross-bench amendment to Cooper-Letwin passes the Lords, providing the PM with more flexibility over an extension

Does that mean more delay when it comes back to the HOC as it has been amended

Depends if they accept it . If yes no delay it gets Royal Consent . Indeed this amendment is co authored by Lord Pannick , who I trust implicitly and has a minimum extension point past May 22. The problem with the original bill is the time constraints .

Let’s say the Commons wants 6 months and the EU say no 9 months May couldn’t agree that and would have to come back to the Commons on Thursday to get their permission , the EU summit would have finished and how do you then quickly agree that with them . Perhaps the EU would agree to something which then needs to be rubber stamped but there’s not a great deal of time to play with .

Thank you for that. Seems sensible for once

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

If the Con-Lab talks don't come up with a deal by breakfast time tomorrow, Tezzie will trot off to Berlin and Paris with nothing to justify an exentsion. I hope Macron tells her to bugger off, then it will be Revoke O'clock on Friday evening. And the Tory Party will implode over the weekend.

And tell me is that your desired end result or do you not care for our Country

The implosion of the Tory Party is indeed my desired result, and I think that would be good for the country.

Given the choice of Revoke or No Deal, I'll go with Revoke. And I believe the majority of the electorate would now vote Remain in a second Ref., so fair enough.

The implosion of the conservative party is going hand in hand with the implosion of labour, if recent polls are to be believed.

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

If the Con-Lab talks don't come up with a deal by breakfast time tomorrow, Tezzie will trot off to Berlin and Paris with nothing to justify an exentsion. I hope Macron tells her to bugger off, then it will be Revoke O'clock on Friday evening. And the Tory Party will implode over the weekend.

And tell me is that your desired end result or do you not care for our Country

The implosion of the Tory Party is indeed my desired result, and I think that would be good for the country.

Given the choice of Revoke or No Deal, I'll go with Revoke. And I believe the majority of the electorate would now vote Remain in a second Ref., so fair enough.

The median voter wants neither but Brexit with a Deal just Tories and Leavers preferred choice is No Deal and Labour voters and Remainers preferred choice is revoke. However as Deltapoll showed a plurality of both Tory and Labour voters back Deal plus Customs Union so finally we could find an imperfect solution but one the country could accept

kinabalu said:

nico67 said:

Sky Data poll

48% worried about no deal

33% excited about no deal

Good grief who are these 33% . It’s astonishing a third of the public want to inflict harm on the country .

Not mutually exclusive. In fact worry and excitement often go together. Laser eye surgery is a great example. Excitement at the prospect of a life without spectacles. Worry about it going wrong and needing a guide dog. So you weigh it up, are you more excited or more worried? If the former you go for it, the latter and you don't.

So the poll question should have been, No Deal Brexit, does it worry you more than it excites you, or the opposite? That would have been far more meaningful.

Oh for heaven's sake. I need a break.

Don't we all but I am more relaxed as this seems to be heading for a lengthy extension, EU elections, a conservative leadership race, and a new PM and cabinet by the mid summer.

There is a part of me, but only a very small part, that would like Boris to take this on and see the EU still insist on a backstop, deal or no deal

ReggieCide said:

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

If the Con-Lab talks don't come up with a deal by breakfast time tomorrow, Tezzie will trot off to Berlin and Paris with nothing to justify an exentsion. I hope Macron tells her to bugger off, then it will be Revoke O'clock on Friday evening. And the Tory Party will implode over the weekend.

And tell me is that your desired end result or do you not care for our Country

The implosion of the Tory Party is indeed my desired result, and I think that would be good for the country.

Given the choice of Revoke or No Deal, I'll go with Revoke. And I believe the majority of the electorate would now vote Remain in a second Ref., so fair enough.

who needs another referendum when we can have a guesserendum ?

We can have a second Ref after we revoke, if May's successor can come up with a question to put on the ballot.

On topic, Tories, Labour and LDs have put up candidates in both Epping District seats but only the Tories have put up a full slate for town council

eek said:

https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/1115292906116538368

If I was a Con candidate I really wouldn't bother...

TheWhiteRabbit said:

nico67 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

nico67 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

IanB2 said:

Breaking: Cross-bench amendment to Cooper-Letwin passes the Lords, providing the PM with more flexibility over an extension

Does that mean more delay when it comes back to the HOC as it has been amended

Depends if they accept it . If yes no delay it gets Royal Consent . Indeed this amendment is co authored by Lord Pannick , who I trust implicitly and has a minimum extension point past May 22. The problem with the original bill is the time constraints .

Let’s say the Commons wants 6 months and the EU say no 9 months May couldn’t agree that and would have to come back to the Commons on Thursday to get their permission , the EU summit would have finished and how do you then quickly agree that with them . Perhaps the EU would agree to something which then needs to be rubber stamped but there’s not a great deal of time to play with .

Thank you for that. Seems sensible for once

You’re welcome. Lord Pannick is the QC who won the Gina Miller case . He’s a brilliant lawyer , I followed that case and read the entire manuscript of proceedings . I know I should get out more !

That case was crucial for our rights and was one of the most important decisions in recent history. Whilst the rabid right wing press was whipping up the hate , they forget to tell readers that if the government had won they could in future use that decision to strip our rights in domestic law by Royal Perogative .

Good lawyer, bad client.

Always the way

To you maybe, Gina Miller is an absolute heroine to me .

nico67 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

nico67 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

IanB2 said:

Breaking: Cross-bench amendment to Cooper-Letwin passes the Lords, providing the PM with more flexibility over an extension

Does that mean more delay when it comes back to the HOC as it has been amended

Depends if they accept it . If yes no delay it gets Royal Consent . Indeed this amendment is co authored by Lord Pannick , who I trust implicitly and has a minimum extension point past May 22. The problem with the original bill is the time constraints .

Let’s say the Commons wants 6 months and the EU say no 9 months May couldn’t agree that and would have to come back to the Commons on Thursday to get their permission , the EU summit would have finished and how do you then quickly agree that with them . Perhaps the EU would agree to something which then needs to be rubber stamped but there’s not a great deal of time to play with .

Thank you for that. Seems sensible for once

You’re welcome. Lord Pannick is the QC who won the Gina Miller case . He’s a brilliant lawyer , I followed that case and read the entire manuscript of proceedings . I know I should get out more !

That case was crucial for our rights and was one of the most important decisions in recent history. Whilst the rabid right wing press was whipping up the hate , they forget to tell readers that if the government had won they could in future use that decision to strip our rights in domestic law by Royal Perogative .

I also agreed with the Miller case even though the result was clearly going to be bad for my preferred Brexit choice. But to be honest the Government don't need Royal Prerogative to strip most of our rights. They already have the malodorous Civil Contingencies Act to allow them to do that.

SandyRentool said:

ReggieCide said:

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

If the Con-Lab talks don't come up with a deal by breakfast time tomorrow, Tezzie will trot off to Berlin and Paris with nothing to justify an exentsion. I hope Macron tells her to bugger off, then it will be Revoke O'clock on Friday evening. And the Tory Party will implode over the weekend.

And tell me is that your desired end result or do you not care for our Country

The implosion of the Tory Party is indeed my desired result, and I think that would be good for the country.

Given the choice of Revoke or No Deal, I'll go with Revoke. And I believe the majority of the electorate would now vote Remain in a second Ref., so fair enough.

who needs another referendum when we can have a guesserendum ?

We can have a second Ref after we revoke, if May's successor can come up with a question to put on the ballot.

you want BOTH - that's "not another one" squared! Would the EU be any happier than Brenda?

Chris_A said:

Shady just tipped Johnny Mercer on the BBC PM programme.

Is it possible to become PM from the backbenches?

And his majority in Plymouth Moor View is only 5,000. He might not even be an MP after the next election....

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1115299837380050944

Is there any doubt now that May is pursuing an exist from Brexit strategy?

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1115299837380050944

Is there any doubt now that May is pursuing an exist from Brexit strategy?

To be honest practical move

GIN1138 said:

Chris_A said:

Shady just tipped Johnny Mercer on the BBC PM programme.

Is it possible to become PM from the backbenches?

And his majority in Plymouth Moor View is only 5,000. He might not even be an MP after the next election....

Nearly the same as Boris Johnson's majority.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Not really. As I keep repeating, a poll by Yougov shortly before the referendum showed that 42% of Leave voters would be happy with an EFTA type arrangement that retained FoM whilst 45% wanted to end FoM.

It was not a majority view amongst Leavers but it certainly wasn't niche either.

Exactly the response you'd expect to such a black and white question if the underlying attitude was normally distributed, as I implied by saying most people will have a mix of views.

Hence the number of people at the extremes, totally unconcerned with immigration or totally unconcerned about sovereignty, are niche.

dyedwoolie said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1115299651048103936?s=20

Obviously. Corbyn doesn't want one. And they think they can get this through and then no confidence the government

They will not get LD or SNP support for a VONC if they block a referendum though

GIN1138 said:

eek said:

https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/1115292906116538368

If I was a Con candidate I really wouldn't bother...

Don't you think both main parties are likely to do equally badly?

I think too much emphasis is on the WA and not the WAIB.

The latter could end up causing a lot of problems . That has to pass both Houses and is amendable .

Those seeking a second vote might still get that chance . Personally it’s not my preferred choice even though I’m hugely pro EU .

AndyJS said:

GIN1138 said:

eek said:

https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/1115292906116538368

If I was a Con candidate I really wouldn't bother...

Don't you think both main parties are likely to do equally badly?

No.

Past experience suggests people will vote Labour come what may (look how well Brown did in 2010 for example)

Labour will do quite badly in Leave voting areas in the north but that won't help Con as they'll all go to UKIP and Brexit Party.

But Con will get an absolute drubbing in these EU elections. They're lucky its a PR election so they should keep some MEPs. If it was FPTP they would probably be looking at a Scotland/Wales 1997 style total wipe out.