politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ladbrokes make it 6/4 that there’ll be another Brexit referend

Nigelb said:

malcolmg said:

Nigelb said:

malcolmg said:

Chris said:

Alanbrooke said:

Cyclefree said:

Alanbrooke said:

Cyclefree said:

edmundintokyo said:

They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.

Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.

Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothing

maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.

Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/flint-admits-i-havent-read-lisbon-treaty-6900498.html

See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?

A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?

Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?

Think it is you that is stupid , MP's have had months and months to read it. Any that have not should be jailed.

Eh ?
We are talking about an as yet un-agreed and obviously therefore unpublished agreement.

I thought we were talking about the WA, that is only document Boris will be bringing back. May have a few extra comma's or full stops but little else.

If that's really the case, which is... unlikely, then it would probably take a good few hours to make sure it really is the WA, and not something similar with a few strange clauses sneaked in.

Nigelb said:

malcolmg said:

Nigelb said:

malcolmg said:

Chris said:

Alanbrooke said:

Cyclefree said:

Alanbrooke said:

Cyclefree said:

edmundintokyo said:

They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.

Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.

Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothing

maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.

Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/flint-admits-i-havent-read-lisbon-treaty-6900498.html

See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?

A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?

Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?

Think it is you that is stupid , MP's have had months and months to read it. Any that have not should be jailed.

Eh ?
We are talking about an as yet un-agreed and obviously therefore unpublished agreement.

I thought we were talking about the WA, that is only document Boris will be bringing back. May have a few extra comma's or full stops but little else.

If that's really the case, which is... unlikely, then it would probably take a good few hours to make sure it really is the WA, and not something similar with a few strange clauses sneaked in.

bigjohnowls said:

https://twitter.com/melaniekmelvin/status/1183702776678932480/photo/1

rottenborough said:

El_Capitano said:

Given that Factory Records went spectacularly bust after sending the Happy Mondays to Barbados to discover crack cocaine, I'm not sure this is a great precedent.

They had to go to Barbados to discover crack cocaine?

El_Capitano said:

MTimT said:

There is a growing body of management science and systems science saying that the best way forward in complex adaptive systems is simply to act, and then react to what the action results in, rather than seek to analyze and plan in detail. We may well be riven as to what action should be taken, but we may also be at a point where any action is better than continued paralysis.

This sounds suspiciously like Tony Wilson's interpretation of praxis:

In the Channel Four television documentary New Order: Play At Home, Factory Records owner Tony Wilson describes praxis as “Doing something because you have the urge to do it, inventing the reasons later.” Elsewhere, Wilson has been quoted as saying “You learn why you do something by doing it. The Theory of Independence was discovered in the act of putting out your own records, doing very well, being friends with your artists and not ripping them off. And by 1981, we were all doing it.” Which perfectly sums up the Factory ethos.

viewcode said:

Tabman said:

If the odds on a Remain victory are 4/1 (25%), surely that means Leave is 1/4 (75%) in a second referendum?

Given the polls show a small but consistent Remain majority, why is this?

4/1 is 20%. It's d/(n+d), so 1/(4+1) = 1/5 = 0.2
1/4 is 80%. It's d/(n+d), so 4/(1+4) = 4/5 = 0.8

Chris said:

malcolmg said:

Chris said:

Alanbrooke said:

Cyclefree said:

Alanbrooke said:

Cyclefree said:

edmundintokyo said:

oxfordsimon said:

GIN1138 said:

LOL! Basically the doors are going to be locked and they're not being let out until something is agreed!

FFS they have talked and talked and talked about this. We have had more bloviating MPs rattling on about their entrenched positions on this than on any other subject in our history.

The time for talking is over. None of them have anything new to say.

This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.

They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.

Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.

Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothing

maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.

Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/flint-admits-i-havent-read-lisbon-treaty-6900498.html

See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?

A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?

Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?

Think it is you that is stupid , MP's have had months and months to read it. Any that have not should be jailed.

?
They've had "months and months" to read an agreement that hasn't been reached yet, let alone written down?

You are a follower of the late Dr J. B. Rhine, I presume?

Nigelb said:

Chris said:

malcolmg said:

Nigelb said:

malcolmg said:

Chris said:

Alanbrooke said:

Cyclefree said:

Alanbrooke said:

Cyclefree said:

edmundintokyo said:

This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.

They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.

Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.

Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothing

maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.

Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/flint-admits-i-havent-read-lisbon-treaty-6900498.html

See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?

A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?

Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?

Think it is you that is stupid , MP's have had months and months to read it. Any that have not should be jailed.

Eh ?
We are talking about an as yet un-agreed and obviously therefore unpublished agreement.

I thought we were talking about the WA, that is only document Boris will be bringing back. May have a few extra comma's or full stops but little else.

You thought we were talking about whether MPs would vote this weekend to approve Theresa May's Withdrawal Agreement?

Seriously?

< /irony >

rottenborough said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Morris_Dancer said:

On voter ID:
https://twitter.com/anthonyjwells/status/1183722196117737478

And how will these voters prove their identity to the council, and why can't this alternative proof be used at the polling station?

More to the point, how many will bother. Another way to slowly kill democracy.

dyedwoolie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

dyedwoolie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

edmundintokyo said:

dyedwoolie said:

edmundintokyo said:

dyedwoolie said:

NickPalmer said:

Do we actually know for sure that the Queen's Speech will not get a majority? I don't have a feeling for how all the Tory expulsees are feeling, but perhaps some of them think the speech is fine except for the, cough, unfortunate references to Brexit and want to keep channels open to a possible return one day, so will vote for it?

The rebels seem to be in 2 camps. Those that might return are the majority, maybe 12 to 15, the rest seem to have the fire of zealots and are 'neverweres'. Hammond, Grieve, Greening, perhaps Gauke, Rudd'........

That doesn't seem like enough to pass, but are any of the TIGs / ex-Labour independents potentially amenable?

I think the rebel rebels will abstain. Some indies will be amenable, possibly enough. It will be very very tight. Kate Hoey is a possible yes vote, omara and mann will be effective abstentions. Hermon 'might' vote in favour or abstain. Austin, Lewis might abstain but will likely vote against. If the majority of rebels vote yes and a few abstain I think it squeezes through. If hammond and co vote against its going down.......

I wonder how much solidarity the ex-Cons have. If they can stick together it seems like a decent opportunity for them to say, sure we'll vote for you, but only if you restore the whip. If you don't want our support, you won't get it.

I expect any vote on Brexit and/or the QS will be precisely that.

Vote for it and you are reinstated and the official conservative candidate at the GE

Except Grieve and Hammond and maybe Worzel Gummidge/Letwin

I expect it to apply to them all to be honest. If they vote for brexit and the QS they should be the candidate at the next election

Hard thinking for Hammond and Grieve but Letwin is standing down anyway

I think Hammond and Grieve have burned their bridges. Having said that they wint vote for Brexit anyway so its not I guess

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

malcolmg said:

Nigelb said:

malcolmg said:

Chris said:

Alanbrooke said:

Cyclefree said:

Alanbrooke said:

Cyclefree said:

edmundintokyo said:

They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.

Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.

Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothing

maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.

Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/flint-admits-i-havent-read-lisbon-treaty-6900498.html

See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?

A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?

Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?

Think it is you that is stupid , MP's have had months and months to read it. Any that have not should be jailed.

Eh ?
We are talking about an as yet un-agreed and obviously therefore unpublished agreement.

I thought we were talking about the WA, that is only document Boris will be bringing back. May have a few extra comma's or full stops but little else.

If that's really the case, which is... unlikely, then it would probably take a good few hours to make sure it really is the WA, and not something similar with a few strange clauses sneaked in.

any half decent lawyer or civil servant would issue a marked up copy with the changes and brief the relevant parties in advance.

MTimT said:

Chris said:

MTimT said:

Chris said:

Alanbrooke said:

Chris said:

MTimT said:

Cyclefree said:

I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.

You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.

Jesus wept.

Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.

She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.

Indeed and since the same people have done nothing meaningful in the last 5 months why will the do anything meaningful in 5 hours ?

That's meant to be an argument for rushing into a decision without thinking about it properly?

Why am I surprised? It's the story of the Brexiteers' lives, after all.

Sounds like Nancy Pelosi. "We have to pass this bill to find out what's in it"

Can anyone really be so stupid?

You have to read it to know what's in it.

But you don't really. Someone has to read it, politicians are rarely the person who does.

In fact, the details are not what is important here - it is the politics which are, the broad strokes. For the rest, the politicians trust the civil servants to get the legalities right.

bigjohnowls said:

Give peas a chance, "3 officers to arrest a Broccoli just think how many would be needed for a bag of sprouts"

https://twitter.com/Journotopia/status/1183430912748466178

rottenborough said:

Mexicanpete said:

rottenborough said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Morris_Dancer said:

On voter ID:
https://twitter.com/anthonyjwells/status/1183722196117737478

And how will these voters prove their identity to the council, and why can't this alternative proof be used at the polling station?

More to the point, how many will bother. Another way to slowly kill democracy.

Anything that disenfranchises someone who intended to vote for Corbyn can't be all that bad.

Slippery slope that one.

malcolmg said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

malcolmg said:

Nigelb said:

malcolmg said:

Chris said:

Alanbrooke said:

Cyclefree said:

Alanbrooke said:

Cyclefree said:

edmundintokyo said:

They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.

Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.

Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothing

maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.

Its been the way we have worked in the EU for ages. Why werent you yelling then ?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/flint-admits-i-havent-read-lisbon-treaty-6900498.html

See what I mean about Alanbrooke's arguments being implausibly stupid?

A Labour minister admitted ten years ago she hadn't read a treaty. So that means it's reasonable to force MPs to decide on an agreement without even giving anyone a chance to read it?

Does this level of stupidity come naturally, or is surgical intervention required?

Think it is you that is stupid , MP's have had months and months to read it. Any that have not should be jailed.

Eh ?
We are talking about an as yet un-agreed and obviously therefore unpublished agreement.

I thought we were talking about the WA, that is only document Boris will be bringing back. May have a few extra comma's or full stops but little else.

If that's really the case, which is... unlikely, then it would probably take a good few hours to make sure it really is the WA, and not something similar with a few strange clauses sneaked in.

any half decent lawyer or civil servant would issue a marked up copy with the changes and brief the relevant parties in advance.

Exactly , only changes will be date and Theresa May deleted / Boris Buffoon inserted

TGOHF2 said:

They do it all over Europe.

But in the Uk it’s wacist.

Noo said:

Chris said:

Alanbrooke said:

Chris said:

MTimT said:

Cyclefree said:

I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.

You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.

Jesus wept.

Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.

She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.

Indeed and since the same people have done nothing meaningful in the last 5 months why will the do anything meaningful in 5 hours ?

That's meant to be an argument for rushing into a decision without thinking about it properly?

Why am I surprised? It's the story of the Brexiteers' lives, after all.

I've been coming to the conclusion that people who are still in favour of Brexit are a strong distillation of people who don't understand why processes are important. It's a strong overlap with the traditional right-wing approach to things: criminals? Hang em! Baddies in foreign lands? Nuke em! Don't like the ECJ? Leave without a deal!
Complex issues, simple answers that don't work. And if it's shown to not* be working, fuck it, go faster.

* split infinitive especially for LuckyGuy1883

Charles said:

Chris said:

MTimT said:

Cyclefree said:

I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.

You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.

Jesus wept.

Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.

She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.

you're assuming people will read it before they decide

Richard_Tyndall said:

Noo said:

Chris said:

Alanbrooke said:

Chris said:

MTimT said:

Cyclefree said:

I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.

You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.

Jesus wept.

Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.

She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.

Indeed and since the same people have done nothing meaningful in the last 5 months why will the do anything meaningful in 5 hours ?

That's meant to be an argument for rushing into a decision without thinking about it properly?

Why am I surprised? It's the story of the Brexiteers' lives, after all.

I've been coming to the conclusion that people who are still in favour of Brexit are a strong distillation of people who don't understand why processes are important. It's a strong overlap with the traditional right-wing approach to things: criminals? Hang em! Baddies in foreign lands? Nuke em! Don't like the ECJ? Leave without a deal!
Complex issues, simple answers that don't work. And if it's shown to not* be working, fuck it, go faster.

* split infinitive especially for LuckyGuy1883

I have been coming to the conclusion that Remainers are a bunch of arrogant fuckwits who would sell their own children into sex slavery for the sake of a few extra quid.

You see its easy to write provocative and unfounded attacks on websites. Easy, but not necessarily wise.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Noo said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Noo said:

Chris said:

Alanbrooke said:

Chris said:

MTimT said:

Cyclefree said:

I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.

You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.

Jesus wept.

Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.

She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.

Indeed and since the same people have done nothing meaningful in the last 5 months why will the do anything meaningful in 5 hours ?

That's meant to be an argument for rushing into a decision without thinking about it properly?

Why am I surprised? It's the story of the Brexiteers' lives, after all.

I've been coming to the conclusion that people who are still in favour of Brexit are a strong distillation of people who don't understand why processes are important. It's a strong overlap with the traditional right-wing approach to things: criminals? Hang em! Baddies in foreign lands? Nuke em! Don't like the ECJ? Leave without a deal!
Complex issues, simple answers that don't work. And if it's shown to not* be working, fuck it, go faster.

* split infinitive especially for LuckyGuy1883

I have been coming to the conclusion that Remainers are a bunch of arrogant fuckwits who would sell their own children into sex slavery for the sake of a few extra quid.

You see its easy to write provocative and unfounded attacks on websites. Easy, but not necessarily wise.

Wrong again.
We sell our own children into sex slavery for the sake of a few extra Euros.

So you value your kids even less than I thought...

malcolmg said:

MTimT said:

Chris said:

MTimT said:

Chris said:

Alanbrooke said:

Chris said:

MTimT said:

Cyclefree said:

I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.

You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.

Jesus wept.

Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.

She just pointed out it would take about 5 hours to read it.

Indeed and since the same people have done nothing meaningful in the last 5 months why will the do anything meaningful in 5 hours ?

That's meant to be an argument for rushing into a decision without thinking about it properly?

Why am I surprised? It's the story of the Brexiteers' lives, after all.

Sounds like Nancy Pelosi. "We have to pass this bill to find out what's in it"

Can anyone really be so stupid?

You have to read it to know what's in it.

But you don't really. Someone has to read it, politicians are rarely the person who does.

In fact, the details are not what is important here - it is the politics which are, the broad strokes. For the rest, the politicians trust the civil servants to get the legalities right.

Most of the politicians would not understand it even if they did read it, most would struggle to tie their shoelaces.

TGOHF2 said:

Scott_P said:

TGOHF2 said:

They do it all over Europe.

But in the Uk it’s wacist.

They have ID cards all over Europe

I thought you wanted Brexit so we didn't have to do that...

Oh.

I can see why most of your posts are other people’s tweets - your own though process resembles spaghetti after being in a blender.

TGOHF2 said:

Remember kids - guns don’t kill people - rappers do.


https://twitter.com/bbcpolitics/status/1183756554933170178?s=21

Burgessian said:

malcolmg said:

Burgessian said:

ozymandias said:

Byronic said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

When even a Scottish Tory thinks you're fcuking up, you're really fcuking up

https://twitter.com/murdo_fraser/status/1183712603803136000?s=20.

Some of the replies from the Unionist fraternity are a joy to behold.

Even I think the sentences handed down by Madrid are draconian and grossly disproportionate. I commented as much this morning.

Does that make me an honorary Nit?

I agree.

The sentences are extraordinary. I would comment that I have voted SNP when I lived in Scotland, but did not and do not support independence

The sentences aren't just "extraordinary" they are stupid. The one way to stoke Catalan grievance, and fire up the Catindy debate once again, is to hand down brutal punishments. Amazingly, this is exactly what Madrid has done. They are still Bourbons in Castile: forgetting nothing, but learning nothing.

There's a painful echo here of the moronic way the British punished the rebels of the 1916 Easter Rising. If they'd been treated reasonably, and cleverly, the fires of Irish nationalism might have gone out. Instead the British executed almost all of them, even the ones who were so badly wounded they had to be tied to a chair, so as to be shot.

I get the feeling Madrid would like to shoot the Calatan rebels, if only it was permitted. This will not end well.

But surely the civilising, progressive, open and democratising EU, vanguard of human rights and freedom of speech will ensure such sentences are swiftly condemned and overturned.

Remember that this is the same Kingdom of Spain which will have a veto over the conditions that an independent Scotland would have once it entered negotiations to re-enter the EU. Wonder if that has been wargamed at the NatFest?

You moron , the Spanish Government has already stated many times that it is none of their business and that they would NOT veto Scotland joining EU if it met the joining rules.

Are you seriously suggesting there will be no negotiations about access to fishing grounds etc etc. The negotiations would be long and arduous and the EU would have Scotland over a barrel. Only a moron would be incapable of seeing that.

Andy_JS said:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1183663961687908352

AlastairMeeks said:

Sandpit said:

Voter ID: an interesting debate.

1. I think we should wait to carefully critique the proposals when they are published, rather than immediately jumping to American talking points on both sides. There’s literally a hundred other systems out there that are not what happens in the USA. See healthcare for another example of this phenomenon.

2. There have been several court cases of voter fraud, but from memory these were mostly registration and postal voting fraud rather than impersonation at polling stations. Will the proposals address these problems as well?

3. The implementation needs to be careful in that it doesn’t unduly burden people with paperwork, so for example all existing verified welfare claimants and pensioners should be automatically sent a card.

4. The concept of voter identification is already in use in other countries, including many which don’t have a Compulsory national ID card Scheme. It would be good to read and observe how things work abroad to design a best practice at home.

5. Ignore all mentions of the USA with regard to voter ID. Did I mention that one before? Twitter today is full of Americans talking about this.

It's a solution in search of a problem. It will result in far more people being prevented from voting than the cases of voter fraud that currently exist. The only sensible inference is that it is being introduced for political advantage.

Burgessian said:

malcolmg said:

Burgessian said:

ozymandias said:

Byronic said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

When even a Scottish Tory thinks you're fcuking up, you're really fcuking up

https://twitter.com/murdo_fraser/status/1183712603803136000?s=20.

Some of the replies from the Unionist fraternity are a joy to behold.

Even I think the sentences handed down by Madrid are draconian and grossly disproportionate. I commented as much this morning.

Does that make me an honorary Nit?

I agree.

The sentences are extraordinary. I would comment that I have voted SNP when I lived in Scotland, but did not and do not support independence

The sentences aren't just "extraordinary" they are stupid. The one way to stoke Catalan grievance, and fire up the Catindy debate once again, is to hand down brutal punishments. Amazingly, this is exactly what Madrid has done. They are still Bourbons in Castile: forgetting nothing, but learning nothing.

There's a painful echo here of the moronic way the British punished the rebels of the 1916 Easter Rising. If they'd been treated reasonably, and cleverly, the fires of Irish nationalism might have gone out. Instead the British executed almost all of them, even the ones who were so badly wounded they had to be tied to a chair, so as to be shot.

I get the feeling Madrid would like to shoot the Calatan rebels, if only it was permitted. This will not end well.

But surely the civilising, progressive, open and democratising EU, vanguard of human rights and freedom of speech will ensure such sentences are swiftly condemned and overturned.

Remember that this is the same Kingdom of Spain which will have a veto over the conditions that an independent Scotland would have once it entered negotiations to re-enter the EU. Wonder if that has been wargamed at the NatFest?

You moron , the Spanish Government has already stated many times that it is none of their business and that they would NOT veto Scotland joining EU if it met the joining rules.

Are you seriously suggesting there will be no negotiations about access to fishing grounds etc etc. The negotiations would be long and arduous and the EU would have Scotland over a barrel. Only a moron would be incapable of seeing that.

rcs1000 said:

Re voter ID, the solution is simple.

If you have no photo ID, then the staff at the polling station take a photo of you.

Not many criminals are Keen to have photos of themselves committing crimes. And those who do not have photo id are not disenfranchised.

Problem solved.

Mexicanpete said:

rcs1000 said:

Re voter ID, the solution is simple.

If you have no photo ID, then the staff at the polling station take a photo of you.

Not many criminals are Keen to have photos of themselves committing crimes. And those who do not have photo id are not disenfranchised.

Problem solved.

Nice idea but if the whole point is to disenfranchise those not voting for Boris it doesn't work.

JBriskinindyref2 said:

Andy_JS said:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1183663961687908352

Lazy Sleazy Separatists on the slide

Nigel_Foremain said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Sandpit said:

Voter ID: an interesting debate.

1. I think we should wait to carefully critique the proposals when they are published, rather than immediately jumping to American talking points on both sides. There’s literally a hundred other systems out there that are not what happens in the USA. See healthcare for another example of this phenomenon.

2. There have been several court cases of voter fraud, but from memory these were mostly registration and postal voting fraud rather than impersonation at polling stations. Will the proposals address these problems as well?

3. The implementation needs to be careful in that it doesn’t unduly burden people with paperwork, so for example all existing verified welfare claimants and pensioners should be automatically sent a card.

4. The concept of voter identification is already in use in other countries, including many which don’t have a Compulsory national ID card Scheme. It would be good to read and observe how things work abroad to design a best practice at home.

5. Ignore all mentions of the USA with regard to voter ID. Did I mention that one before? Twitter today is full of Americans talking about this.

It's a solution in search of a problem. It will result in far more people being prevented from voting than the cases of voter fraud that currently exist. The only sensible inference is that it is being introduced for political advantage.

I cannot think of any rational argument against having voters ID properly checked. People use ID for everything else. If they wish to participate then they should provide proper ID. I would also like to see scrapping of postal votes except in very exceptional circumstances. And any more referenda on complex issues should require an IQ certificate (only kidding on the last one...well, maybe!)

Nigel_Foremain said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Sandpit said:

Voter ID: an interesting debate.

1. I think we should wait to carefully critique the proposals when they are published, rather than immediately jumping to American talking points on both sides. There’s literally a hundred other systems out there that are not what happens in the USA. See healthcare for another example of this phenomenon.

2. There have been several court cases of voter fraud, but from memory these were mostly registration and postal voting fraud rather than impersonation at polling stations. Will the proposals address these problems as well?

3. The implementation needs to be careful in that it doesn’t unduly burden people with paperwork, so for example all existing verified welfare claimants and pensioners should be automatically sent a card.

4. The concept of voter identification is already in use in other countries, including many which don’t have a Compulsory national ID card Scheme. It would be good to read and observe how things work abroad to design a best practice at home.

5. Ignore all mentions of the USA with regard to voter ID. Did I mention that one before? Twitter today is full of Americans talking about this.

It's a solution in search of a problem. It will result in far more people being prevented from voting than the cases of voter fraud that currently exist. The only sensible inference is that it is being introduced for political advantage.

I cannot think of any rational argument against having voters ID properly checked. People use ID for everything else. If they wish to participate then they should provide proper ID. I would also like to see scrapping of postal votes except in very exceptional circumstances. And any more referenda on complex issues should require an IQ certificate (only kidding on the last one...well, maybe!)

GIN1138 said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1183724409061855234

Nowhere near long enough surely?

LOL! Basically the doors are going to be locked and they're not being let out until something is agreed!

MTimT said:

Cyclefree said:

I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.

You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.

Jesus wept.

Cyclefree, you know I respect you. However, pretty much everyone is in entrenched positions and it will not take much more than a nano second for everyone to decide which side of the fence they sit on.

The more I research the issue of dealing with risk in complex adaptive systems, them more I appreciate the damage of analysis paralysis. Surely, we've been past that point in the UK where inaction and uncertainty is what is causing the bulk of the damage for at least a year, perhaps more like two.

There is a growing body of management science and systems science saying that the best way forward in complex adaptive systems is simply to act, and then react to what the action results in, rather than seek to analyze and plan in detail. We may well be riven as to what action should be taken, but we may also be at a point where any action is better than continued paralysis.

HYUFD said:

Burgessian said:

HYUFD said:

WingsoverScotland turning against the EU this afternoon after it fails to stand up for the jailed Catalan nationalists against the Spanish government.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/faith-is-always-blind/

If the SNP then follow suit and back the Catalans against Spain, the EU and Spanish government will then have no complaint when Boris blocks indyref2 and will show no enthusiasm for an Independent Scotland joining the EU either

The SNP, by backing the Catalans, have already poisoned their relationship with the Spanish - who will royally screw them if an independent Scotland ever came knocking at the EU's door seeking entry. Fishing rights would only be the start.

Yes, in that sense Boris can happily play Spain off against the SNP and ignore Sturgeon

JBriskinindyref2 said:

Carnyx said:

The NI dual identity case has been decided - rather strange.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/14/uk-court-rules-against-derry-woman-in-irish-identity-case

"People born in Northern Ireland are legally British, unless they register a change in citizenship, even if they identify as Irish under rights granted in the Good Friday agreement, a UK court has ruled."

UK OK

Good Friday Agreement pretty much defunked now. Time for the shinners to pick up their rifles again and we can get back to business as usual.

JBriskinindyref2 said:

Carnyx said:

The NI dual identity case has been decided - rather strange.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/14/uk-court-rules-against-derry-woman-in-irish-identity-case

"People born in Northern Ireland are legally British, unless they register a change in citizenship, even if they identify as Irish under rights granted in the Good Friday agreement, a UK court has ruled."

UK OK

Good Friday Agreement pretty much defunked now. Time for the shinners to pick up their rifles again and we can get back to business as usual.

Carnyx said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

Burgessian said:

HYUFD said:

WingsoverScotland turning against the EU this afternoon after it fails to stand up for the jailed Catalan nationalists against the Spanish government.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/faith-is-always-blind/

If the SNP then follow suit and back the Catalans against Spain, the EU and Spanish government will then have no complaint when Boris blocks indyref2 and will show no enthusiasm for an Independent Scotland joining the EU either

The SNP, by backing the Catalans, have already poisoned their relationship with the Spanish - who will royally screw them if an independent Scotland ever came knocking at the EU's door seeking entry. Fishing rights would only be the start.

Yes, in that sense Boris can happily play Spain off against the SNP and ignore Sturgeon

Dear God, we can only hope these loons don't breed with each other

Afternoon, Malky. What I don't understand is the notion that the Tories post-Brexit and the Spanish Gmt will be on tdhe same side, like Mr Cameron and Sr Rajoy were. Has anything been agreed with/about Gibraltar, for instance? Or fishing?