politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The flaw in going into an election about “the will of the peop

bigjohnowls said:

My Betfair P&L Last 30 days shows I should not bet on Horse Racing (Cricket going well)

American Football: -£12.23 | Australian Rules: £48.81 | Basketball: £154.10 | Cricket: £631.24 | Darts: £3.07 | Football: £351.83 | Golf: £86.79 | Horse Racing: -£323.08 | Rugby League: £73.40 | Rugby Union: £24.09 | Snooker: £133.66 | Tennis: -£31.03 | Volleyball: £5.18 Total P&L: £1,145.83

You know the old rule, you wish you'd put more money on winners and less on losers! Tis always the way.

Ishmael_Z said:

isam said:

Brexit opposers are as impossible to read as Sphinxes! Damn these infernal riddles

https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1166713597776543744?s=21

Naive of him, everyone in France hid the resistance in their cellar. In retrospect.

There was a book recently published which said (I paraphrase) that the French Resistance didn't really do much for the war effort but was hugely important for the national psyche.

RobD said:

DavidL said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/severincarrell/status/1167068504278863873

2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?

Not to mention a six week holiday.

I really don't think that there is anything left to be said. People need to choose. Its as simple as that.

RobD said:

DavidL said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/severincarrell/status/1167068504278863873

2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?

Not to mention a six week holiday.

This sanctimonious, sneering drivel is not doing you any favours

JBriskinindyref2 said:

bigjohnowls said:

My Betfair P&L Last 30 days shows I should not bet on Horse Racing (Cricket going well)

American Football: -£12.23 | Australian Rules: £48.81 | Basketball: £154.10 | Cricket: £631.24 | Darts: £3.07 | Football: £351.83 | Golf: £86.79 | Horse Racing: -£323.08 | Rugby League: £73.40 | Rugby Union: £24.09 | Snooker: £133.66 | Tennis: -£31.03 | Volleyball: £5.18 Total P&L: £1,145.83

Show off-

Cricket: -£12.58 | Football: -£24.87 | Motor Sport: £6.79 | Politics: -£28.24 Total P&L: -£58.90

Yes but some months i would take -£58.90

Of course -£28.24 on Politics is an instant ban from PB!

DavidL said:

RobD said:

DavidL said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/severincarrell/status/1167068504278863873

2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?

Not to mention a six week holiday.

I really don't think that there is anything left to be said. People need to choose. Its as simple as that.

Choose what?

Gallowgate said:

DavidL said:

RobD said:

DavidL said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/severincarrell/status/1167068504278863873

2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?

Not to mention a six week holiday.

I really don't think that there is anything left to be said. People need to choose. Its as simple as that.

Choose what?

MPs need to do something rather than constantly voting against everything.

Gallowgate said:

RobD said:

DavidL said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/severincarrell/status/1167068504278863873

2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?

Not to mention a six week holiday.

This sanctimonious, sneering drivel is not doing you any favours

Well if things were in such a perilous state, why didn’t MPs cancel summer recess as well?

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

RobD said:

DavidL said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/severincarrell/status/1167068504278863873

2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?

Not to mention a six week holiday.

I really don't think that there is anything left to be said. People need to choose. Its as simple as that.

Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.

Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"

That’s my view, too. To force a choice, a final decision.

Ishmael_Z said:

isam said:

Brexit opposers are as impossible to read as Sphinxes! Damn these infernal riddles

https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1166713597776543744?s=21

Naive of him, everyone in France hid the resistance in their cellar. In retrospect.

Her

https://twitter.com/severincarrell/status/1167072106351353857

Gallowgate said:

RobD said:

Gallowgate said:

DavidL said:

RobD said:

DavidL said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/severincarrell/status/1167068504278863873

2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?

Not to mention a six week holiday.

I really don't think that there is anything left to be said. People need to choose. Its as simple as that.

Choose what?

MPs need to do something rather than constantly voting against everything.

They haven’t been given the chance. Even in the indicative votes, the government did not properly engage. You need to give the house free votes otherwise it will always be the house voting against the government. That’s how our parliament works.

They had three chances to vote for May's Shit Deal.

Ironically, a year on Labour will end up voting for something very close to it by 31st October. Having swapped loser May for big winner Boris in the process. Whilst clinging on to Corbyn.

CarlottaVance said:

viewcode said:

MikeSmithson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I'm appalled by Ruth Davidson's remarks. "referenda"? Ye Gods. It is always referendums.

What I worked at BBC News in the late 70s we had two referendums going on in Scotland and Wales and the dictat came from high - the plural was referenda. At the time I was Duty Editor for Radios 1 and 2 news and felt almost embarrassed by this for our audiences. We used to get into all sorts of verbal contortions to avoid "referendums" but we never used the form referenda

Stadia is the plural of stadium, media is the plural of medium, quanta is the plural of quantum. Referenda is the plural of referendum. I am trying desperately not to use the word "labia" here...

The word referendum is derived from the Latin word referendum, which means what must be referred. Some believe that the plural form is referenda, following the Latin rules of pluralization. This is incorrect. Referendum is now considered an English word and follows the English rules of pluralization, simply adding an s to form the plural as in referendums.

https://grammarist.com/plurals/referendum/

Referendums is logically preferable as a plural form meaning 'ballots on one issue' (as a Latin gerund referendum has no plural). The Latin plural gerundive 'referenda', meaning 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues

It is closely related to agenda, "those matters which must be driven forward", from ago, to drive (cattle); and memorandum, "that matter which must be remembered", from memoro, to call to mind, corrigenda, from rego, to rule, make straight, those things which must be made straight (corrected), etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum

So a referenda on Brexit, anyone?

I went thru this the last time this happened. The source you cite (last time it was the Spectator and Sunil was doing the citing) rely on a two-stage process - firstly translate into English as a singular noun, then apply English rules to construct the plural as if it were an English singular. But I contend it would be more accurate if you construct the Latin plural then translate into English. Given the existence of other words, this is simpler and more consistent with English. Or, to consider your source directly, they are simply wrong when they say "This is incorrect".

kamski said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

AlastairMeeks said:

If no deal is The Will Of The People, no one seems to have told The People:

https://twitter.com/drjennings/status/1167013357620215809

@HYUFD will conveniently ignore this as it does not suit his agenda.

29% for May's Deal as a reasonable compromise is actually higher than soft Brexit on that poll, Remain is almost as divisive as No Deal is

You are turning into a parody of yourself. You do realise other people can read the chart for themselves?
54% is higher than 44%.
49% is not "almost" the same as 41%.
And the chart shows figures for "acceptable compromise" not "reasonable compromise".

If you're going to lie about everything, probably best not to lie so obviously.

I shouldn't worry, HYUFD is going to be doing a passable expression of an oozlum bird sometime between now and the end of October,.

(For those unfamiliar with the mythical creature, when startled, it will take off and fly around in ever-decreasing circles until it manages to fly up itself and disappear completely!

williamglenn said:

TOPPING said:

Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.

Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"

Boris can't bring back May's deal without blowing all his political capital for nothing. It would make more sense for him to blackmail parliament with a No Deal or Revoke choice at the end of October. He can get off the hook for Brexit while maintaining his purity.

Absolute wishful thinking. It will be Boris amended deal or no deal

williamglenn said:

TOPPING said:

Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.

Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"

Boris can't bring back May's deal without blowing all his political capital for nothing. It would make more sense for him to blackmail parliament with a No Deal or Revoke choice at the end of October. He can get off the hook for Brexit while maintaining his purity.

Yes, *his* purity, but what about the Tory Party's? Which would be the lesser evil for them? Disastrous either way, I should think.

RobD said:

Gallowgate said:

RobD said:

Gallowgate said:

RobD said:

DavidL said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/severincarrell/status/1167068504278863873

2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?

Not to mention a six week holiday.

This sanctimonious, sneering drivel is not doing you any favours

Well if things were in such a perilous state, why didn’t MPs cancel summer recess as well?

That’s not relevant.

How is it not? This whole furore has been about a loss of sitting days.

What is this really about?
If it’s just a normal constitutional procedure then there’s no need for it to be so long.
If it’s an act to teach MPs a lesson, then at least be honest about it.

williamglenn said:

TOPPING said:

Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.

Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"

Boris can't bring back May's deal without blowing all his political capital for nothing. It would make more sense for him to blackmail parliament with a No Deal or Revoke choice at the end of October. He can get off the hook for Brexit while maintaining his purity.

he can't do that either because if they go for revoke he will be slaughtered by Farage.

It is the/a/some kind of deal.

And he will stand there and say "do you want some?"

MarqueeMark said:

Gallowgate said:

RobD said:

Gallowgate said:

DavidL said:

RobD said:

DavidL said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/severincarrell/status/1167068504278863873

2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?

Not to mention a six week holiday.

I really don't think that there is anything left to be said. People need to choose. Its as simple as that.

Choose what?

MPs need to do something rather than constantly voting against everything.

They haven’t been given the chance. Even in the indicative votes, the government did not properly engage. You need to give the house free votes otherwise it will always be the house voting against the government. That’s how our parliament works.

They had three chances to vote for May's Shit Deal.

Ironically, a year on Labour will end up voting for something very close to it by 31st October. Having swapped loser May for big winner Boris in the process. Whilst clinging on to Corbyn.

It wasn't a shit deal but to expect any more enlightenment from you than from Mark Francois I appreciate is a big ask.

RobD said:

Gallowgate said:

RobD said:

Gallowgate said:

RobD said:

DavidL said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/severincarrell/status/1167068504278863873

2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?

Not to mention a six week holiday.

This sanctimonious, sneering drivel is not doing you any favours

Well if things were in such a perilous state, why didn’t MPs cancel summer recess as well?

That’s not relevant.

How is it not? This whole furore has been about a loss of sitting days.

Its not even about sitting days its about Prorogue of Parliament for longest period since .....

Recess day is not same as Prorogue day as MPs get to agree the former not the Latter

MarqueeMark said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

not_on_fire said:

Benpointer said:

ydoethur said:

Benpointer said:

viewcode said:

dixiedean said:

viewcode said:

dixiedean said:

Is this true that the decision to prorogue was taken by Johnson, Gove and Cox alone and without consultation with other Ministers? Just mentioned on WATO.

Yup. As I pointed out, you can do a lot with 3 PCs and a famous example is the authorisation of the Falklands TaskForce (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott). It worries me that I know this and MPs don't.

Does explain the relative absence of Cabinet Ministers out to defend it.

Interesting fact. The Cabinet is a standing subcommittee of the Privy Council. The trick to understanding the UK is that it's a mediaeval kingdom retrofitted to behave like a Westphalian state. Many of the old, dusty buttons and switches still have power and there are many tricks one can pull.

How is a legitimate Privy Council meeting can comprise only the Queen, the Leader of the HoC, the Leader of the HoL and the Government Chief Whip?

Don't they have any requirements for balance or a quorum?

Yes. Three plus the Sovereign is a quorum.

No, because the Council is to advise the queen and parties have no standing on it.

Blimey. I am sure Jezza's new written constitution will fix that.

The Privy Council will be replaced by a stage at Glastonbury

Which would be more nonsensical than the current arrangements because...?

...people don't chant "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" at the Privy Council?

Better Class As at the Privy Council?

They don't allow Radiohead at the Privy Council?

That's a convincing argument for the current constitutional arrangements. Radiohead are the one thing worse than Jacob Rees Mogg.

Gallowgate said:

RobD said:

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/severincarrell/status/1167072106351353857

Overreaching a bit, surely?

Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.

I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.

More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.

This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.

No one knew what A50 would entail? Not even MPs who passed the Act?

TOPPING said:

williamglenn said:

TOPPING said:

Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.

Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"

Boris can't bring back May's deal without blowing all his political capital for nothing. It would make more sense for him to blackmail parliament with a No Deal or Revoke choice at the end of October. He can get off the hook for Brexit while maintaining his purity.

he can't do that either because if they go for revoke he will be slaughtered by Farage.

It is the/a/some kind of deal.

And he will stand there and say "do you want some?"

Given the choice between leaving with No Deal and leaving with a version of May's Deal, if Johnson doesn't choose No Deal, Farage will slaughter him.

TOPPING said:

Charles said:

Beibheirli_C said:

TOPPING said:

A republican, such as yourself, does not love this country. He loves another country that this one, that the UK is not; one without a monarch as head of state. That means you are not a patriot.

The USA lacks a monarch and is full of republicans. Whatever anyone thinks of Americans, their patriotism rarely in doubt.

A monarch is not required to be a patriot.

Would you view an American citizen who campaigned for the Queen to be crowned as Queen of the US as a patriot?

Indeed. That was my point but I used Kim Jong-Un as an example.

so what else is on the Topping Requirements for someone else to be allowed to say they love Britain?
So far all I know is nobody is allowed to say that they think we should end the monarchy. But what about other constitutional changes eg:
wanting to end FPTP for elections?
wanting to get rid of the unelected House of Lords?
wanting to disestablish the CofE?

or other symbolic changes:
wanting to change the national flag?
wanting to change the national anthem?
wanting to change the colour of the passports?

I'm really curious what would be on your list, or is it solely a monarchy fetish?

And does it apply to other countries with the Queen as head of state eg:
are Australians who want the Queen to no longer be head of state of Australia allowed to say they love Australia?

Gallowgate said:

RobD said:

Gallowgate said:

RobD said:

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/severincarrell/status/1167072106351353857

Overreaching a bit, surely?

Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.

I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.

More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.

This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.

No one knew what A50 would entail? Not even MPs who passed the Act?

Of course they didn’t. Hence this shit show.

And it is now critical that the same MPs are allowed to sit for four additional days?

GarethoftheVale2 said:

malcolmg said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

Anyone got any tips for next SCON leader?

I'm not seeing any betting markets yet

Ladbrokes read it and laugh

Murdo Fraser
To Win
3/1
Jackson Carlaw
To Win
4/1
Adam Tomkins
To Win
6/1
Donald Cameron
To Win
8/1
Alister Jack
To Win
12/1
Annie Wells
To Win
12/1
Maurice Golden
To Win
12/1
Rachel Hamilton
To Win
12/1
Colin Clark
To Win
20/1
John Lamont
To Win
20/1
Stephen Kerr
To Win
20/1
Ross Thomson
To Win
25/1

Thanks. Who should the SCONs pick and who do you think they will pick?

I am wrong person to ask, I don't think if you put them all together that you would get a person suitable to run a bath. They are useless like Fraser , Tompkins, Carlaw , dodgy like Thomson and invisible like most of the rest.
DAVIDL would be best person as our resident Scottish Tory, I believe the only Tory in the village.

Gallowgate said:

RobD said:

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/severincarrell/status/1167072106351353857

Overreaching a bit, surely?

Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.

I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.

More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.

This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.

Bullshit. Those enacting Article 50 were in the perfect position to know what it entailed and the potential outcomes. If they claim they didn't then they are unfit to be in their jobs.

RobD said:

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/severincarrell/status/1167072106351353857

Overreaching a bit, surely?

Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.

I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.

I am no lawyer and will not pretend to be one, but it is a constitutional argument, based on the supreme court ruling in the Miller case. Existing citizens rights that are part of belonging to the EU can only be taken away by parliament, not the government.

I shall leave it up to the judges whether that is right or not, it would be helpful if it is.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/severincarrell/status/1167072106351353857

Lol.

Peter_the_Punter said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

williamglenn said:

TOPPING said:

Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.

Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"

Boris can't bring back May's deal without blowing all his political capital for nothing. It would make more sense for him to blackmail parliament with a No Deal or Revoke choice at the end of October. He can get off the hook for Brexit while maintaining his purity.

Absolute wishful thinking. It will be Boris amended deal or no deal

Which 'amended deal'? There's no sign of one being put on the table, and even less of the EU agreeing to one if it is.

I expect there to be a fudge after the EU meeting in mid October then it is chose time for the HOC, fudged deal or no deal

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/severincarrell/status/1167072106351353857

Overreaching a bit, surely?

Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.

I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.

I am no lawyer and will not pretend to be one, but it is a constitutional argument, based on the supreme court ruling in the Miller case. Existing citizens rights that are part of belonging to the EU can only be taken away by parliament, not the government.

I shall leave it up to the judges whether that is right or not, it would be helpful if it is.

The result of Miller was the A50 notification act, in which Parliament allowed the government to take away said rights by serving the notification.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

williamglenn said:

TOPPING said:

Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.

Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"

Boris can't bring back May's deal without blowing all his political capital for nothing. It would make more sense for him to blackmail parliament with a No Deal or Revoke choice at the end of October. He can get off the hook for Brexit while maintaining his purity.

Absolute wishful thinking. It will be Boris amended deal or no deal

Which 'amended deal'? There's no sign of one being put on the table, and even less of the EU agreeing to one if it is.

I expect there to be a fudge after the EU meeting in mid October then it is chose time for the HOC, fudged deal or no deal

Enough of a fudge for Boris Johnson not to blow his credibility by trying to ram it through the House of Commons?

williamglenn said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

williamglenn said:

TOPPING said:

Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.

Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"

Boris can't bring back May's deal without blowing all his political capital for nothing. It would make more sense for him to blackmail parliament with a No Deal or Revoke choice at the end of October. He can get off the hook for Brexit while maintaining his purity.

Absolute wishful thinking. It will be Boris amended deal or no deal

Which 'amended deal'? There's no sign of one being put on the table, and even less of the EU agreeing to one if it is.

I expect there to be a fudge after the EU meeting in mid October then it is chose time for the HOC, fudged deal or no deal

Enough of a fudge for Boris Johnson not to blow his credibility by trying to ram it through the House of Commons?

He has no need to. Boris can offer the HOC a choice and it is their decision

williamglenn said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

williamglenn said:

TOPPING said:

Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.

Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"

Boris can't bring back May's deal without blowing all his political capital for nothing. It would make more sense for him to blackmail parliament with a No Deal or Revoke choice at the end of October. He can get off the hook for Brexit while maintaining his purity.

Absolute wishful thinking. It will be Boris amended deal or no deal

Which 'amended deal'? There's no sign of one being put on the table, and even less of the EU agreeing to one if it is.

I expect there to be a fudge after the EU meeting in mid October then it is chose time for the HOC, fudged deal or no deal

Enough of a fudge for Boris Johnson not to blow his credibility by trying to ram it through the House of Commons?

Which way do you think Labour would vote if Johnson contrived a situation where the only options were deal or no deal?

Peter_the_Punter said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

williamglenn said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

williamglenn said:

TOPPING said:

Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.

Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"

Boris can't bring back May's deal without blowing all his political capital for nothing. It would make more sense for him to blackmail parliament with a No Deal or Revoke choice at the end of October. He can get off the hook for Brexit while maintaining his purity.

Absolute wishful thinking. It will be Boris amended deal or no deal

Which 'amended deal'? There's no sign of one being put on the table, and even less of the EU agreeing to one if it is.

I expect there to be a fudge after the EU meeting in mid October then it is chose time for the HOC, fudged deal or no deal

Enough of a fudge for Boris Johnson not to blow his credibility by trying to ram it through the House of Commons?

He has no need to. Boris can offer the HOC a choice and it is their decision

And which decision do you think would be least damaging a) to the Country and b) to the Conservative Party?

Leaving with a deal, and leaving with a deal.

RobD said:

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/severincarrell/status/1167072106351353857

Overreaching a bit, surely?

Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.

I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.

I am no lawyer and will not pretend to be one, but it is a constitutional argument, based on the supreme court ruling in the Miller case. Existing citizens rights that are part of belonging to the EU can only be taken away by parliament, not the government.

I shall leave it up to the judges whether that is right or not, it would be helpful if it is.

The result of Miller was the A50 notification act, in which Parliament allowed the government to take away said rights by serving the notification.

I have no interest in arguing the legal merits of his argument, I shall leave it to the judges who are better informed than either of us on such technicalities. Both sides are stretching conventions and the law to try and create/block no-deal. I wish there was a more consensual approach from all senior politicians but we are where we are, and I shall cheer on the anti no dealers from the sidelines.

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/severincarrell/status/1167072106351353857

Overreaching a bit, surely?

Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.

I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.

I am no lawyer and will not pretend to be one, but it is a constitutional argument, based on the supreme court ruling in the Miller case. Existing citizens rights that are part of belonging to the EU can only be taken away by parliament, not the government.

I shall leave it up to the judges whether that is right or not, it would be helpful if it is.

The result of Miller was the A50 notification act, in which Parliament allowed the government to take away said rights by serving the notification.

I have no interest in arguing the legal merits of his argument, I shall leave it to the judges who are better informed than either of us on such technicalities. Both sides are stretching conventions and the law to try and create/block no-deal. I wish there was a more consensual approach from all senior politicians but we are where we are, and I shall cheer on the anti no dealers from the sidelines.

At any point since A50 was triggered it has been in the gift of parliament to revoke it.

Pulpstar said:

JBriskinindyref2 said:

bigjohnowls said:

My Betfair P&L Last 30 days shows I should not bet on Horse Racing (Cricket going well)

American Football: -£12.23 | Australian Rules: £48.81 | Basketball: £154.10 | Cricket: £631.24 | Darts: £3.07 | Football: £351.83 | Golf: £86.79 | Horse Racing: -£323.08 | Rugby League: £73.40 | Rugby Union: £24.09 | Snooker: £133.66 | Tennis: -£31.03 | Volleyball: £5.18 Total P&L: £1,145.83

Show off-

Cricket: -£12.58 | Football: -£24.87 | Motor Sport: £6.79 | Politics: -£28.24 Total P&L: -£58.90

Cricket: £6.29 | Politics: £0.95 Total P&L: £7.24 - I'm a really incredibly small staker outside of politics

All my efforts on the horses over last month have resulted in an overall profit of £4.87. Like you I do not bet high stakes but have fair amount of bets mainly at weekends.

https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1167079167407644673?s=21

welshowl said:

Gallowgate said:

RobD said:

Gallowgate said:

RobD said:

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/severincarrell/status/1167072106351353857

Overreaching a bit, surely?

Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.

I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.

More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.

This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.

No one knew what A50 would entail? Not even MPs who passed the Act?

Of course they didn’t. Hence this shit show.

This is not some obscure regulation about deer feed in national parks or the like, Article 50 has had a centrality to proceedings since Lisbon was signed (you know the one we weren't allowed to vote down because G Brown ratted on a manifesto promise). If MP's really did not read up on what Article 50 meant and its workings on the greatest question for 50 years, why on God's earth should we entrust them with any time at all to screw things up further?

If they really didn't know about Article 50 they are clueless muppets, not fit for purpose, and should not use cutlery unsupervised.

Blair not Brown.

isam said:

https://twitter.com/titaniamcgrath/status/1167069250365874176?s=21

These people are not tight in the tattie, they need to get out and try a hard days work.

Peter_the_Punter said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

williamglenn said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

williamglenn said:

TOPPING said:

Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.

Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"

Boris can't bring back May's deal without blowing all his political capital for nothing. It would make more sense for him to blackmail parliament with a No Deal or Revoke choice at the end of October. He can get off the hook for Brexit while maintaining his purity.

Absolute wishful thinking. It will be Boris amended deal or no deal

Which 'amended deal'? There's no sign of one being put on the table, and even less of the EU agreeing to one if it is.

I expect there to be a fudge after the EU meeting in mid October then it is chose time for the HOC, fudged deal or no deal

Enough of a fudge for Boris Johnson not to blow his credibility by trying to ram it through the House of Commons?

He has no need to. Boris can offer the HOC a choice and it is their decision

And which decision do you think would be least damaging a) to the Country and b) to the Conservative Party?

Deal

AndyJS said:

I think one of the most important things at the moment is that Johnson clearly isn't afraid of an early election, whereas Theresa May and most of her cabinet definitely didn't want one for as long as possible.

"isn't afraid of" ------> "is desperately seeking to engineer"

williamglenn said:

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

williamglenn said:

TOPPING said:

Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.

Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"

Boris can't bring back May's deal without blowing all his political capital for nothing. It would make more sense for him to blackmail parliament with a No Deal or Revoke choice at the end of October. He can get off the hook for Brexit while maintaining his purity.

Absolute wishful thinking. It will be Boris amended deal or no deal

Which 'amended deal'? There's no sign of one being put on the table, and even less of the EU agreeing to one if it is.

I expect there to be a fudge after the EU meeting in mid October then it is chose time for the HOC, fudged deal or no deal

Enough of a fudge for Boris Johnson not to blow his credibility by trying to ram it through the House of Commons?

Which way do you think Labour would vote if Johnson contrived a situation where the only options were deal or no deal?

It's not possible for him to contrive that situation. No Deal can be averted even on October 31st.

Can it? I thought any request of extension or revocation required the executive’s cooperation.

DecrepitJohnL said:

welshowl said:

Gallowgate said:

RobD said:

Gallowgate said:

RobD said:

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/severincarrell/status/1167072106351353857

Overreaching a bit, surely?

Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.

I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.

More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.

This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.

No one knew what A50 would entail? Not even MPs who passed the Act?

Of course they didn’t. Hence this shit show.

This is not some obscure regulation about deer feed in national parks or the like, Article 50 has had a centrality to proceedings since Lisbon was signed (you know the one we weren't allowed to vote down because G Brown ratted on a manifesto promise). If MP's really did not read up on what Article 50 meant and its workings on the greatest question for 50 years, why on God's earth should we entrust them with any time at all to screw things up further?

If they really didn't know about Article 50 they are clueless muppets, not fit for purpose, and should not use cutlery unsupervised.

Blair not Brown.

I stand corrected on the personnel, but the point stands.

The referendum that never was, that could've inoculated the system and enforced some reform on the EU. Olympic standard idiocy not to have held it as promised.

Gallowgate said:

welshowl said:

Gallowgate said:

RobD said:

Gallowgate said:

RobD said:

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/severincarrell/status/1167072106351353857

Overreaching a bit, surely?

Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.

I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.

More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.

This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.

No one knew what A50 would entail? Not even MPs who passed the Act?

Of course they didn’t. Hence this shit show.

This is not some obscure regulation about deer feed in national parks or the like, Article 50 has had a centrality to proceedings since Lisbon was signed (you know the one we weren't allowed to vote down because G Brown ratted on a manifesto promise). If MP's really did not read up on what Article 50 meant and its workings on the greatest question for 50 years, why on God's earth should we entrust them with any time at all to screw things up further?

If they really didn't know about Article 50 they are clueless muppets, not fit for purpose, and should not use cutlery unsupervised.

I was also naive enough to think we had a sensible, grown up government who would produce a compromise to unite the nation.

Instead we’re left with a choice of shooting ourselves in the foot, or shooting ourselves in the head.

F*ck me, yeah?

Which part of May's withdrawal agreement do you object to ?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I have come to the conclusion that there are about 30 conservative mps who want to stop no deal, but they fear a vonc for the precise reason they are mainly from London and the South and are under serious threat from the Lib Dems. A GE now would be a wipe out for them.

Indeed labour only started panicking when the Lib Dems became a real threat to labour London seats including Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell and Thornberry and that threat still remains

LDs plummeting since Tory Swinson started making TV appearances. Next GE is Tory No Deal or Jezza.

Pulpstar said:

Gallowgate said:

welshowl said:

Gallowgate said:

RobD said:

Gallowgate said:

RobD said:

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/severincarrell/status/1167072106351353857

Overreaching a bit, surely?

Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.

I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.

More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.

This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.

No one knew what A50 would entail? Not even MPs who passed the Act?

Of course they didn’t. Hence this shit show.

This is not some obscure regulation about deer feed in national parks or the like, Article 50 has had a centrality to proceedings since Lisbon was signed (you know the one we weren't allowed to vote down because G Brown ratted on a manifesto promise). If MP's really did not read up on what Article 50 meant and its workings on the greatest question for 50 years, why on God's earth should we entrust them with any time at all to screw things up further?

If they really didn't know about Article 50 they are clueless muppets, not fit for purpose, and should not use cutlery unsupervised.

I was also naive enough to think we had a sensible, grown up government who would produce a compromise to unite the nation.

Instead we’re left with a choice of shooting ourselves in the foot, or shooting ourselves in the head.

F*ck me, yeah?

Which part of May's withdrawal agreement do you object to ?

The part where it takes us out of the Single Market.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I have come to the conclusion that there are about 30 conservative mps who want to stop no deal, but they fear a vonc for the precise reason they are mainly from London and the South and are under serious threat from the Lib Dems. A GE now would be a wipe out for them.

Indeed labour only started panicking when the Lib Dems became a real threat to labour London seats including Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell and Thornberry and that threat still remains

I conclude slightly differently. They don't want to VONC their own government because they will lose the whip and be imminently unemployed. If they merely break a 3 line whip, they can carry on as Con MPs as it is hard for the activists to deselect them.

GarethoftheVale2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I have come to the conclusion that there are about 30 conservative mps who want to stop no deal, but they fear a vonc for the precise reason they are mainly from London and the South and are under serious threat from the Lib Dems. A GE now would be a wipe out for them.

Indeed labour only started panicking when the Lib Dems became a real threat to labour London seats including Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell and Thornberry and that threat still remains

I conclude slightly differently. They don't want to VONC their own government because they will lose the whip and be imminently unemployed. If they merely break a 3 line whip, they can carry on as Con MPs as it is hard for the activists to deselect them.

Yes - good point - indeed both points are valid