Do you think that May's government has had the Wisdom of Solomon? Do you think it has used the time we had as effectively as it could? Negotiated as smartly as it could?
Or do you think this could have been done better?
If the former, more time is pointless. If the latter, more time gives us a do-over. Call this a Mulligan and try again.
Whether someone else with a different plan could have done better I do not know, but I don't think 'starting over' is really starting over. Attitudes on both sides have hardened after two years of time wasting bollocks and acrimony. It's not really starting from scratch, and I suspect that even an approach that might have been have worked if adopted at the start, would not be effective now. So I do believe it is largely pointless to drag this out. If it must be no deal, or remain, let that happen now, not after a long delay. And as I believe you have suggested, even deciding remain now does not mean we could not try again if the country really still wants to go again. And it buys us even more time than a delay, since we can delay A50 as long as we want.
If its to be remain or no deal, who is to determine that? I don't think it would be appropriate for May to determine whether it is remain or no deal.
If there is an election there is a chance to break the impasse. Attitudes are hard now too because there's a lack of trust and time.
My proposal for a while has been to extend to what would have been the end of the transition and try to negotiate during that time, with a new leader. A new leader will be given space to try for something and the time will be there to talk properly. If it becomes clear it will be deal or no deal we can go for that by the end of what would have been the transition anyway.
A 21 month extension has a lot of logic behind it.
A second referendum is a minority pursuit. Its about as popular as squash, or badminton, from what I can see.
It isn't going to happen.
I don't think it's quite that definitive; Most of the opposition votes are definitely there, and once you've accepted an extension or two that gives moderate Tories cover, in the form of "this is what we need to do to stop the delays and make Brexit happen".
But I agree the path with the least stop energy to overcome is never ending extensions, at least for the foreseeable future.
Never going to happen. Once we get into long postponements it is over.
Then it's over.
By this time next week Parliament will have voted for an extension.
Then the tory party is torn apart and we get turned into Venezuela.
Interesting times ....
If any of you thought Brexit would do damage just wait for Corbyn and the trots.
I don't think the Tory Party will be torn apart actually. A 21 month extension is what makes sense as a next step, during which time May must be replaced and any 'tearing apart' should be done in the form of a leadership contest.
Last time May won the contest with the rather vapid pledge that 'Brexit means Brexit'. That won't happen next time. Anyone who seeks to be Leader should put their ideas for what should happen next on the line and stand and be counted for it. If its anything as devoid of meaning as Brexit means Brexit then they deserve to fail.
Do you think that May's government has had the Wisdom of Solomon? Do you think it has used the time we had as effectively as it could? Negotiated as smartly as it could?
Or do you think this could have been done better?
If the former, more time is pointless. If the latter, more time gives us a do-over. Call this a Mulligan and try again.
Whether someone else with a different plan could have done better I do not know, but I don't think 'starting over' is really starting over. Attitudes on both sides have hardened after two years of time wasting bollocks and acrimony. It's not really starting from scratch, and I suspect that even an approach that might have been have worked if adopted at the start, would not be effective now. So I do believe it is largely pointless to drag this out. If it must be no deal, or remain, let that happen now, not after a long delay. And as I believe you have suggested, even deciding remain now does not mean we could not try again if the country really still wants to go again. And it buys us even more time than a delay, since we can delay A50 as long as we want.
If its to be remain or no deal, who is to determine that? I don't think it would be appropriate for May to determine whether it is remain or no deal.
If there is an election there is a chance to break the impasse. Attitudes are hard now too because there's a lack of trust and time.
My proposal for a while has been to extend to what would have been the end of the transition and try to negotiate during that time, with a new leader. A new leader will be given space to try for something and the time will be there to talk properly. If it becomes clear it will be deal or no deal we can go for that by the end of what would have been the transition anyway.
A 21 month extension has a lot of logic behind it.
Still 16.5 on Betfair exchange.
A 21 month extension makes sense as a next step, but it doesn't mean it will be the final step. It is what should be done if the deal gets rejected this week though, a 3 month extension effectively takes us back to where we were in December . . . what would that achieve?
Haven't seen much comment about this but if her deal is rejected and A50 is extended next week will Theresa May resign (as she will have totally failed on the mission she set herself when she became leader in July 2016) ?
Surely at the point of extension the Tories will need to find a new leader who can come up with a new plan for where we go next?
I don't think she's going to resign whatever happens, and Tory MPs can't attempt to change the leadership for another 9 months.
Do you think that May's government has had the Wisdom of Solomon? Do you think it has used the time we had as effectively as it could? Negotiated as smartly as it could?
Or do you think this could have been done better?
If the former, more time is pointless. If the latter, more time gives us a do-over. Call this a Mulligan and try again.
Whether someone else with a different plan could have done better I do not know, but I don't think 'starting over' is really starting over. Attitudes on both sides have hardened after two years of time wasting bollocks and acrimony. It's not really starting from scratch, and I suspect that even an approach that might have been have worked if adopted at the start, would not be effective now. So I do believe it is largely pointless to drag this out. If it must be no deal, or remain, let that happen now, not after a long delay. And as I believe you have suggested, even deciding remain now does not mean we could not try again if the country really still wants to go again. And it buys us even more time than a delay, since we can delay A50 as long as we want.
If its to be remain or no deal, who is to determine that? I don't think it would be appropriate for May to determine whether it is remain or no deal.
If there is an election there is a chance to break the impasse. Attitudes are hard now too because there's a lack of trust and time.
My proposal for a while has been to extend to what would have been the end of the transition and try to negotiate during that time, with a new leader. A new leader will be given space to try for something and the time will be there to talk properly. If it becomes clear it will be deal or no deal we can go for that by the end of what would have been the transition anyway.
A 21 month extension has a lot of logic behind it.
Still 16.5 on Betfair exchange.
It has no logic at all as far as the EU is concerned. It means they will need fresh elections in less than 2 years time.
Never going to happen. Once we get into long postponements it is over.
Then it's over.
By this time next week Parliament will have voted for an extension.
Then the tory party is torn apart and we get turned into Venezuela.
Interesting times ....
If any of you thought Brexit would do damage just wait for Corbyn and the trots.
Extension is already built into the polls, as long as the Tories don't actually revoke Article 50 and Remain can kicking won't do too much damage
The poll quoted in the thread header shows that only half the public expect an extension.
More expect an extension than expect Leave with either a Deal or No Deal combined, in fact 18% more
Which is irrelevant. You claimed that an extension is priced in, it may be with 49% of the public.
20% though don't have a clue what's going to happen and 31% are due for a shock when we don't exit on 29/3. More than half the public has not priced in an extension.
At the bottom of the article there is a handy flowchart. The yellowy and salmony parts of that flowchart give two routes by which we do not leave on 29/3/2019.
The salmony part requires the PM to agree 2nd referendum (ain’t going to happen) and the yellow part requires the EU agreeing a short extension for no reason . So maybe he does have a point
Do you think that May's government has had the Wisdom of Solomon? Do you think it has used the time we had as effectively as it could? Negotiated as smartly as it could?
Or do you think this could have been done better?
If the former, more time is pointless. If the latter, more time gives us a do-over. Call this a Mulligan and try again.
Whether someone else with a different plan could have done better I do not know, but I don't think 'starting over' is really starting over. Attitudes on both sides have hardened after two years of time wasting bollocks and acrimony. It's not really starting from scratch, and I suspect that even an approach that might have been have worked if adopted at the start, would not be effective now. So I do believe it is largely pointless to drag this out. If it must be no deal, or remain, let that happen now, not after a long delay. And as I believe you have suggested, even deciding remain now does not mean we could not try again if the country really still wants to go again. And it buys us even more time than a delay, since we can delay A50 as long as we want.
If its to be remain or no deal, who is to determine that? I don't think it would be appropriate for May to determine whether it is remain or no deal.
If there is an election there is a chance to break the impasse. Attitudes are hard now too because there's a lack of trust and time.
My proposal for a while has been to extend to what would have been the end of the transition and try to negotiate during that time, with a new leader. A new leader will be given space to try for something and the time will be there to talk properly. If it becomes clear it will be deal or no deal we can go for that by the end of what would have been the transition anyway.
A 21 month extension has a lot of logic behind it.
Still 16.5 on Betfair exchange.
It has no logic at all as far as the EU is concerned. It means they will need fresh elections in less than 2 years time.
No they won't, any more than they needed new elections whenever there was an expansion. If there's a 21 month extension we elect our MEPs (as the EU law already stipulates) and once we leave that is dealt with accordingly.
It has no logic at all as far as the EU is concerned. It means they will need fresh elections in less than 2 years time.
I don't think it does, surely they just keep the existing seat allocations, and the British MEPs stop showing up??? The 27 get a few less MEPs than they would if the UK left on time, but it's not a huge difference, because most of them are being left empty for new accession states.
Never going to happen. Once we get into long postponements it is over.
Then it's over.
By this time next week Parliament will have voted for an extension.
Then the tory party is torn apart and we get turned into Venezuela.
Interesting times ....
If any of you thought Brexit would do damage just wait for Corbyn and the trots.
Extension is already built into the polls, as long as the Tories don't actually revoke Article 50 and Remain can kicking won't do too much damage
The poll quoted in the thread header shows that only half the public expect an extension.
More expect an extension than expect Leave with either a Deal or No Deal combined, in fact 18% more
Which is irrelevant. You claimed that an extension is priced in, it may be with 49% of the public.
20% though don't have a clue what's going to happen and 31% are due for a shock when we don't exit on 29/3. More than half the public has not priced in an extension.
No it absolutely is not irrelevant, an 18% lead for extension of Article 50 over those believing we will Brexit on Brexit Day is a huge lead given for months we have had nothing but 'Brexit means Brexit' and we leave on March 29th.
Given 72% turned out to vote in the referendum the 20% who don't know probably don't care either as they did not bother to vote in the referendum in the first place
At the bottom of the article there is a handy flowchart. The yellowy and salmony parts of that flowchart give two routes by which we do not leave on 29/3/2019.
The salmony part requires the PM to agree 2nd referendum (ain’t going to happen) and the yellow part requires the EU agreeing a short extension for no reason . So maybe he does have a point
That's where the flow chart is wrong.
The yellow flow-chart is the start of what is going to happen, but then for some reason it follows on straight path with no forks (except for MPs going for no deal).
There's absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that a "short, limited extension" is all that we will ask for. Once we are voting on an extension, someone is going to table an amendment to make it a lengthier one. Where's that fork in the chart?
On the chart there's no room for the EU to reject a short extension and propose a longer one. Why not?
Similarly who says at the end of a short extension we won't request another extension?
At the bottom of the article there is a handy flowchart. The yellowy and salmony parts of that flowchart give two routes by which we do not leave on 29/3/2019.
The salmony part requires the PM to agree 2nd referendum (ain’t going to happen) and the yellow part requires the EU agreeing a short extension for no reason . So maybe he does have a point
Richard Nabavi posted a link to a Guardian article some weeks ago that said that the EU would do that, albeit reluctantly. I'll see if I can dig it out.
Never going to happen. Once we get into long postponements it is over.
Then it's over.
By this time next week Parliament will have voted for an extension.
Then the tory party is torn apart and we get turned into Venezuela.
Interesting times ....
If any of you thought Brexit would do damage just wait for Corbyn and the trots.
Extension is already built into the polls, as long as the Tories don't actually revoke Article 50 and Remain can kicking won't do too much damage
The poll quoted in the thread header shows that only half the public expect an extension.
More expect an extension than expect Leave with either a Deal or No Deal combined, in fact 18% more
Which is irrelevant. You claimed that an extension is priced in, it may be with 49% of the public.
20% though don't have a clue what's going to happen and 31% are due for a shock when we don't exit on 29/3. More than half the public has not priced in an extension.
No it absolutely is not irrelevant, an 18% lead for extension of Article 50 over those believing we will Brexit on Brexit Day is a huge lead given for months we have had nothing but 'Brexit means Brexit' and we leave on March 29th.
Given 72% turned out to vote in the referendum the 20% who don't know probably don't care either as they did not bother to vote in the referendum in the first place
This isn't a plurality vote. It is not a lead. It is not asking what people want to happen. This is just measuring expectations. A minimum of half the public thinks the wrong thing is going to happen (or don't know).
If we leave on time then 49% were wrong and a further 20% didn't know that would happen.
If we don't leave on time then 31% were wrong and a further 20% didn't know that would happen.
Either way there will be a lot of people who did not see this coming. That could affect what they think or do next.
At the bottom of the article there is a handy flowchart. The yellowy and salmony parts of that flowchart give two routes by which we do not leave on 29/3/2019.
The salmony part requires the PM to agree 2nd referendum (ain’t going to happen) and the yellow part requires the EU agreeing a short extension for no reason . So maybe he does have a point
That's where the flow chart is wrong.
The yellow flow-chart is the start of what is going to happen, but then for some reason it follows on straight path with no forks (except for MPs going for no deal).
There's absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that a "short, limited extension" is all that we will ask for. Once we are voting on an extension, someone is going to table an amendment to make it a lengthier one. Where's that fork in the chart?
On the chart there's no room for the EU to reject a short extension and propose a longer one. Why not?
Similarly who says at the end of a short extension we won't request another extension?
All sorts of possibilities are just ignored.
I cannot see TM or the Tory party agreeing to a long extension it would tare them apart
Theresa May got EU leaders in November to say that this is the only deal possible in order to help her sell it. Now she tells them they have to change the deal to help her sell it.
Why should they trust that she can sell any deal at all?
She is a once-in-a-generation pathological liar. I think the EU worked this out quite early on in the game and are now just waiting for some political upheaval in the UK to give them somebody else with whom they can work.
No, the British govenment was from the very start in a weak position, because they wanted to leave the EU. The British Prime-minister was not someone who could turn this disadvatage around. Now everyone realises that the British position is a choice between a rock or a hard place, but everyone in the UK is still demanding nice fluffy soft cushions. Not everyone can agree on the colour of the nice fluffy cusions, but cushions are what we want. Britons still believe that the EU will offer some sort of nice fluffy cushions once the EU realises that rocks are too hard for british people.
At the bottom of the article there is a handy flowchart. The yellowy and salmony parts of that flowchart give two routes by which we do not leave on 29/3/2019.
The salmony part requires the PM to agree 2nd referendum (ain’t going to happen) and the yellow part requires the EU agreeing a short extension for no reason . So maybe he does have a point
Richard Nabavi posted a link to a Guardian article some weeks ago that said that the EU would do that, albeit reluctantly. I'll see if I can dig it out.
That article speaks about a 21 month extension but says the EU won't want to be seen to be the ones to do it.
They may not need to. The one thing we can guarantee is that May's proposal will not be the only thing voted on, when May puts forward on the 14th a vote to have a 2 month extension at least one MP will put forward an amendment to that to change it into a 21 month extension. The Speaker will call that amendment.
If Parliament votes to request a 21 month extension, the EU can get what it wants without being seen to be the one to request that.
At the bottom of the article there is a handy flowchart. The yellowy and salmony parts of that flowchart give two routes by which we do not leave on 29/3/2019.
The salmony part requires the PM to agree 2nd referendum (ain’t going to happen) and the yellow part requires the EU agreeing a short extension for no reason . So maybe he does have a point
That's where the flow chart is wrong.
The yellow flow-chart is the start of what is going to happen, but then for some reason it follows on straight path with no forks (except for MPs going for no deal).
There's absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that a "short, limited extension" is all that we will ask for. Once we are voting on an extension, someone is going to table an amendment to make it a lengthier one. Where's that fork in the chart?
On the chart there's no room for the EU to reject a short extension and propose a longer one. Why not?
Similarly who says at the end of a short extension we won't request another extension?
All sorts of possibilities are just ignored.
I cannot see TM or the Tory party agreeing to a long extension it would tare them apart
Its not up to the Tory Party alone. Once May has put it to a vote, Cooper or Grieves or someone like that will propose a 21 month amendment. The Speaker will call that amendment. Whether he should or not is immaterial, he will. Parliament will most likely accept that amendment. Then what, May says she won't request what Parliament has voted on? I don't think so.
At the bottom of the article there is a handy flowchart. The yellowy and salmony parts of that flowchart give two routes by which we do not leave on 29/3/2019.
The salmony part requires the PM to agree 2nd referendum (ain’t going to happen) and the yellow part requires the EU agreeing a short extension for no reason . So maybe he does have a point
That's where the flow chart is wrong.
The yellow flow-chart is the start of what is going to happen, but then for some reason it follows on straight path with no forks (except for MPs going for no deal).
There's absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that a "short, limited extension" is all that we will ask for. Once we are voting on an extension, someone is going to table an amendment to make it a lengthier one. Where's that fork in the chart?
On the chart there's no room for the EU to reject a short extension and propose a longer one. Why not?
Similarly who says at the end of a short extension we won't request another extension?
All sorts of possibilities are just ignored.
I cannot see TM or the Tory party agreeing to a long extension it would tear them apart
Pretty sure people have said that about any extension, no deal, referendum and probably even the deal. Some more than others to be sure. But you cannot resolve the factions at play, they need to tear apart a bit. Even more than with the Tiggers.
At the bottom of the article there is a handy flowchart. The yellowy and salmony parts of that flowchart give two routes by which we do not leave on 29/3/2019.
The salmony part requires the PM to agree 2nd referendum (ain’t going to happen) and the yellow part requires the EU agreeing a short extension for no reason . So maybe he does have a point
Richard Nabavi posted a link to a Guardian article some weeks ago that said that the EU would do that, albeit reluctantly. I'll see if I can dig it out.
That article speaks about a 21 month extension but says the EU won't want to be seen to be the ones to do it.
They may not need to. The one thing we can guarantee is that May's proposal will not be the only thing voted on, when May puts forward on the 14th a vote to have a 2 month extension at least one MP will put forward an amendment to that to change it into a 21 month extension. The Speaker will call that amendment.
If Parliament votes to request a 21 month extension, the EU can get what it wants without being seen to be the one to request that.
The middle path is that TMay asks for 3 months, and the EU says, "that's bad because of the elections, but you can have 1 month or 21 months, pick one". Then either parliament votes for 21 months or they do 1 month then come back the same time next month and request the 21 months.
Never going to happen. Once we get into long postponements it is over.
Then it's over.
By this time next week Parliament will have voted for an extension.
Then the tory party is torn apart and we get turned into Venezuela.
Interesting times ....
If any of you thought Brexit would do damage just wait for Corbyn and the trots.
Extension is already built into the polls, as long as the Tories don't actually revoke Article 50 and Remain can kicking won't do too much damage
The poll quoted in the thread header shows that only half the public expect an extension.
More expect an extension than expect Leave with either a Deal or No Deal combined, in fact 18% more
Which is irrelevant. You claimed that an extension is priced in, it may be with 49% of the public.
20% though don't have a clue what's going to happen and 31% are due for a shock when we don't exit on 29/3. More than half the public has not priced in an extension.
No it absolutely is not irrelevant, an 18% lead for extension of Article 50 over those believing we will Brexit on Brexit Day is a huge lead given for months we have had nothing but 'Brexit means Brexit' and we leave on March 29th.
Given 72% turned out to vote in the referendum the 20% who don't know probably don't care either as they did not bother to vote in the referendum in the first place
This isn't a plurality vote. It is not a lead. It is not asking what people want to happen. This is just measuring expectations. A minimum of half the public thinks the wrong thing is going to happen (or don't know).
If we leave on time then 49% were wrong and a further 20% didn't know that would happen.
If we don't leave on time then 31% were wrong and a further 20% didn't know that would happen.
Either way there will be a lot of people who did not see this coming. That could affect what they think or do next.
No, only 31% think we are going to actually Brexit on Brexit Day, so already less than a third of the electorate thinks we are going to leave on the day we were told day in day out since the vote we would leave, that is absolutely astonishing on any definition
I live in this ward. Not surprised. Green candidate is very well known and liked locally. He knocked on my door last weekend. Only billboards I saw put up around here were for the Greens. They did a great campaign. I'd have voted for him if he had been an independent.
No, only 31% think we are going to actually Brexit on Brexit Day, so already less than a third of the electorate thinks we are going to leave on the day we were told day in day out since the vote we would leave, that is absolutely astonishing on any definition
It is not astonishing to anyone who's been paying attention to the news whatsoever. In fact all things considered it is shocking that as many as 31% [which is 39% excluding Don't Knows] still expect it.
That means that 31% of the population [39% excluding Don't Knows] are in for a shock. How they react to that shock is absolutely not priced in to the polls.
If I were TMay I think I'd be interested in the 21 months in that you don't *necessarily* need the deadline to pass the deal and exit. Maybe no deadline any time soon is better: Say to the hardliners, "You want Brexit. Vote for my deal and it will happen straight away. Until you do we stay in the EU. Your move."
At the bottom of the article there is a handy flowchart. The yellowy and salmony parts of that flowchart give two routes by which we do not leave on 29/3/2019.
The salmony part requires the PM to agree 2nd referendum (ain’t going to happen) and the yellow part requires the EU agreeing a short extension for no reason . So maybe he does have a point
Richard Nabavi posted a link to a Guardian article some weeks ago that said that the EU would do that, albeit reluctantly. I'll see if I can dig it out.
That article speaks about a 21 month extension but says the EU won't want to be seen to be the ones to do it.
They may not need to. The one thing we can guarantee is that May's proposal will not be the only thing voted on, when May puts forward on the 14th a vote to have a 2 month extension at least one MP will put forward an amendment to that to change it into a 21 month extension. The Speaker will call that amendment.
If Parliament votes to request a 21 month extension, the EU can get what it wants without being seen to be the one to request that.
The middle path is that TMay asks for 3 months, and the EU says, "that's bad because of the elections, but you can have 1 month or 21 months, pick one". Then either parliament votes for 21 months or they do 1 month then come back the same time next month and request the 21 months.
Nah, 1 month is pointless. Plus Parliament votes first. Parliament votes first on the 14th before the EU meets on the 21st.
If I'm right and Cooper/Boles/Grieves/Corbyn/A N Other puts a 21 month amendment in first, then the EU will have no reason to propose it on the 21st. Either Parliament will have already voted for 21 months, in which case they don't need to suggest it; or Parliament will have already rejected 21 months in which case they won't suggest it.
Nah, 1 month is pointless. Plus Parliament votes first. Parliament votes first on the 14th before the EU meets on the 21st.
If I'm right and Cooper/Boles/Grieves/Corbyn/A N Other puts a 21 month amendment in first, then the EU will have no reason to propose it on the 21st. Either Parliament will have already voted for 21 months, in which case they don't need to suggest it; or Parliament will have already rejected 21 months in which case they won't suggest it.
I take your point about the problem with the sequencing.
How do Cooper/Boles/Grieves/Corbyn/A N Other justify doing 21 months? I mean, their whole thing is that they're averting No Deal, it seems hard to explain a delay that long without the justification that it's all the EU will allow.
Maybe everyone's planning on going somewhere in the middle like 6 months or 1 year and they're leaking 21 months to numb our brains and make it sound short.
No, only 31% think we are going to actually Brexit on Brexit Day, so already less than a third of the electorate thinks we are going to leave on the day we were told day in day out since the vote we would leave, that is absolutely astonishing on any definition
It is not astonishing to anyone who's been paying attention to the news whatsoever. In fact all things considered it is shocking that as many as 31% [which is 39% excluding Don't Knows] still expect it.
That means that 31% of the population [39% excluding Don't Knows] are in for a shock. How they react to that shock is absolutely not priced in to the polls.
Given about half of those expect to leave with a Deal anyway I doubt it makes much difference
Nah, 1 month is pointless. Plus Parliament votes first. Parliament votes first on the 14th before the EU meets on the 21st.
If I'm right and Cooper/Boles/Grieves/Corbyn/A N Other puts a 21 month amendment in first, then the EU will have no reason to propose it on the 21st. Either Parliament will have already voted for 21 months, in which case they don't need to suggest it; or Parliament will have already rejected 21 months in which case they won't suggest it.
I take your point about the problem with the sequencing.
How do Cooper/Boles/Grieves/Corbyn/A N Other justify doing 21 months? I mean, their whole thing is that they're averting No Deal, it seems hard to explain a delay that long without the justification that it's all the EU will allow.
Maybe everyone's planning on going somewhere in the middle like 6 months or 1 year and they're leaking 21 months to numb your brain and make it sound short.
Remember that 21 months doesn't preclude leaving earlier than that if we can pass the withdrawal agreement. The exit date doesn't have to coincide with the end of the A50 period.
Sensible, if No Deal is voted down by the Commons that leaves May's Deal or Bino/EUref2 left standing, she can then finally start to turn the thumbscrews on the ERG
Nah, 1 month is pointless. Plus Parliament votes first. Parliament votes first on the 14th before the EU meets on the 21st.
If I'm right and Cooper/Boles/Grieves/Corbyn/A N Other puts a 21 month amendment in first, then the EU will have no reason to propose it on the 21st. Either Parliament will have already voted for 21 months, in which case they don't need to suggest it; or Parliament will have already rejected 21 months in which case they won't suggest it.
I take your point about the problem with the sequencing.
How do Cooper/Boles/Grieves/Corbyn/A N Other justify doing 21 months? I mean, their whole thing is that they're averting No Deal, it seems hard to explain a delay that long without the justification that it's all the EU will allow.
Maybe everyone's planning on going somewhere in the middle like 6 months or 1 year and they're leaking 21 months to numb our brains and make it sound short.
It is very easy to justify a 21 month delay. That takes the time that we were committed to by the budget period anyway and it is the only way to provide the time to allow anything meaningful to happen, whether it be a renegotiation or a referendum or anything else.
How do you justify a 2 month delay? What does it achieve?
No, only 31% think we are going to actually Brexit on Brexit Day, so already less than a third of the electorate thinks we are going to leave on the day we were told day in day out since the vote we would leave, that is absolutely astonishing on any definition
It is not astonishing to anyone who's been paying attention to the news whatsoever. In fact all things considered it is shocking that as many as 31% [which is 39% excluding Don't Knows] still expect it.
That means that 31% of the population [39% excluding Don't Knows] are in for a shock. How they react to that shock is absolutely not priced in to the polls.
Given about half of those expect to leave with a Deal anyway I doubt it makes much difference
Nah, 1 month is pointless. Plus Parliament votes first. Parliament votes first on the 14th before the EU meets on the 21st.
If I'm right and Cooper/Boles/Grieves/Corbyn/A N Other puts a 21 month amendment in first, then the EU will have no reason to propose it on the 21st. Either Parliament will have already voted for 21 months, in which case they don't need to suggest it; or Parliament will have already rejected 21 months in which case they won't suggest it.
I take your point about the problem with the sequencing.
How do Cooper/Boles/Grieves/Corbyn/A N Other justify doing 21 months? I mean, their whole thing is that they're averting No Deal, it seems hard to explain a delay that long without the justification that it's all the EU will allow.
Maybe everyone's planning on going somewhere in the middle like 6 months or 1 year and they're leaking 21 months to numb your brain and make it sound short.
Remember that 21 months doesn't preclude leaving earlier than that if we can pass the withdrawal agreement. The exit date doesn't have to coincide with the end of the A50 period.
Fair point. So the justification is, "these last-minute cliff-edge lemming threats aren't helping". Seems plausible.
Sensible, if No Deal is voted down by the Commons that leaves May's Deal or Bino/EUref2 left standing, she can then finally start to turn the thumbscrews on the ERG
No Deal only gets voted down after May's Deal is voted down.
That leaves BINO/EUref2/renegotiation as what is left standing.
It is very easy to justify a 21 month delay. That takes the time that we were committed to by the budget period anyway and it is the only way to provide the time to allow anything meaningful to happen, whether it be a renegotiation or a referendum or anything else.
How do you justify a 2 month delay? What does it achieve?
It achieves avoiding the car crash while you wait for [other faction] to put the country first and agree the compromise that will result in an actual resolution. I know, nobody's going to do that, but it's a coherent line for any individual MP or faction.
Don't forget Corbyn in all this. Corbyn doesn't want a referendum, he wants an election. He can say that May has failed and call for a 21 month extension saying that gives time for an election and for the election winner to talk to the EU. It also buys time for him to not need to push hard on a referendum since it brings his desired election preference back into play.
If Corbyn pushes an amendment the Speaker will always call it. Corbyn can't get an election and talk to the EU within a 3 month window. He has no reason to prefer a tiny extension.
It is very easy to justify a 21 month delay. That takes the time that we were committed to by the budget period anyway and it is the only way to provide the time to allow anything meaningful to happen, whether it be a renegotiation or a referendum or anything else.
How do you justify a 2 month delay? What does it achieve?
It achieves avoiding the car crash while you wait for [other faction] to put the country first and agree the compromise that will result in an actual resolution. I know, nobody's going to do that, but it's a coherent line for any individual MP or faction.
2 months isn't long enough to agree anything new. The only thing that can be agreed in 2 months is the existing deal that's been [by this point] twice rejected already, which is why May wants a short extension.
Any faction other than May or No Dealers win from a longer extension.
Sensible, if No Deal is voted down by the Commons that leaves May's Deal or Bino/EUref2 left standing, she can then finally start to turn the thumbscrews on the ERG
No Deal only gets voted down after May's Deal is voted down.
That leaves BINO/EUref2/renegotiation as what is left standing.
No, it leaves May Deal vote 3 or BINO/EUref2 as the likely alternative after No Deal is voted down (by likely more than May's Deal is voted down).
No 10 are clear they expect the Deal to fail again on a 2nd vote, albeit with a few more Labour MPs from Leave seats backing it, then the Deal to scrape home on a 3rd vote as most of the ERG finally cave
Sensible, if No Deal is voted down by the Commons that leaves May's Deal or Bino/EUref2 left standing, she can then finally start to turn the thumbscrews on the ERG
No Deal only gets voted down after May's Deal is voted down.
That leaves BINO/EUref2/renegotiation as what is left standing.
No, it leaves May Deal vote 3 or BINO/EUref2 as the likely alternative after No Deal is voted down (by likely more than May's Deal is voted down).
No 10 are clear they expect the Deal to fail again on a 2nd vote, albeit with a few more Labour MPs from Leave seats backing it, then the Deal to scrape home on a 3rd vote as most of the ERG finally cave
"No 10 are clear ..."
... well if they're clear that they'll win what they want the third time around that must be true. They've not been wrong so far have they?
It is very easy to justify a 21 month delay. That takes the time that we were committed to by the budget period anyway and it is the only way to provide the time to allow anything meaningful to happen, whether it be a renegotiation or a referendum or anything else.
How do you justify a 2 month delay? What does it achieve?
It achieves avoiding the car crash while you wait for [other faction] to put the country first and agree the compromise that will result in an actual resolution. I know, nobody's going to do that, but it's a coherent line for any individual MP or faction.
It is very easy to justify a 21 month delay. That takes the time that we were committed to by the budget period anyway and it is the only way to provide the time to allow anything meaningful to happen, whether it be a renegotiation or a referendum or anything else.
How do you justify a 2 month delay? What does it achieve?
It achieves avoiding the car crash while you wait for [other faction] to put the country first and agree the compromise that will result in an actual resolution. I know, nobody's going to do that, but it's a coherent line for any individual MP or faction.
Theresa May is a world championship can kicker.
Exactly. Why would she merely kick the can like some lower-league amateur, when she can kick the can on kicking the can?
Manafort sentenced to a mere 47 months. Appears to have lucked into a strangely sympathetic judge - “a previously blameless life...” is an unusual description in the context.
Theoretical question: imagine Barbados has 5 murders a year (not true) and London has 130 murders a year (roughly true). Which has the higher murder rate? Answer = Barbados, (when taking the population into account). A lot of the general public would probably instinctively feel that Barbados is safer, even if you informed them of the respective populations.
Nah, 1 month is pointless. Plus Parliament votes first. Parliament votes first on the 14th before the EU meets on the 21st.
If I'm right and Cooper/Boles/Grieves/Corbyn/A N Other puts a 21 month amendment in first, then the EU will have no reason to propose it on the 21st. Either Parliament will have already voted for 21 months, in which case they don't need to suggest it; or Parliament will have already rejected 21 months in which case they won't suggest it.
I take your point about the problem with the sequencing.
How do Cooper/Boles/Grieves/Corbyn/A N Other justify doing 21 months? I mean, their whole thing is that they're averting No Deal, it seems hard to explain a delay that long without the justification that it's all the EU will allow.
Maybe everyone's planning on going somewhere in the middle like 6 months or 1 year and they're leaking 21 months to numb our brains and make it sound short.
It is very easy to justify a 21 month delay. That takes the time that we were committed to by the budget period anyway and it is the only way to provide the time to allow anything meaningful to happen, whether it be a renegotiation or a referendum or anything else.
How do you justify a 2 month delay? What does it achieve?
It's really not easy to justify a 21 month delay, if you have been screaming that the uncertainty over Brexit is losing jobs. The last thing industry needs is another 21 months where they can't plan.
Plus, Westminster would just go "Phew!" - and put off any meaningful decision on Brexit for another 20 months. Putting us back to where we are today. (Albeit, with the collective reputation of politicians several notches lower. And with the Brexit Party and the TIGs with 21 months of organisation time to uproot the current political class.)
The flaw in that logic is that changing the Labour Leader will solve their immediate problem, changing May may or may not solve the problem if the next leader is a certain Brexiter (Boris would be fine if he went to the country immediately, Rabb less so).
It is very easy to justify a 21 month delay. That takes the time that we were committed to by the budget period anyway and it is the only way to provide the time to allow anything meaningful to happen, whether it be a renegotiation or a referendum or anything else.
How do you justify a 2 month delay? What does it achieve?
It achieves avoiding the car crash while you wait for [other faction] to put the country first and agree the compromise that will result in an actual resolution. I know, nobody's going to do that, but it's a coherent line for any individual MP or faction.
2 months isn't long enough to agree anything new. The only thing that can be agreed in 2 months is the existing deal that's been [by this point] twice rejected already, which is why May wants a short extension.
Any faction other than May or No Dealers win from a longer extension.
I think you’re a good example of the sort of ERG MP who used to be Remain but is now hard Brexit.
It is very easy to justify a 21 month delay. That takes the time that we were committed to by the budget period anyway and it is the only way to provide the time to allow anything meaningful to happen, whether it be a renegotiation or a referendum or anything else.
How do you justify a 2 month delay? What does it achieve?
It achieves avoiding the car crash while you wait for [other faction] to put the country first and agree the compromise that will result in an actual resolution. I know, nobody's going to do that, but it's a coherent line for any individual MP or faction.
Is it okay for a white person to describe themselves as non-coloured?
No
How about White? I assume that is racist too?
You can call yourself what you want provided you aren’t describing yourself by reference to someone else by a term they don’t like.
Call other people by the descriptors they want unless you have a compelling reason otherwise (referencing Tommy Robinson’s real name is arguably such a case but even there I’m wary). So Cape Coloureds are coloured, but otherwise the term should be avoided. That you might not understand why it’s offensive is beside the point: it’s basic manners.
Nah, 1 month is pointless. Plus Parliament votes first. Parliament votes first on the 14th before the EU meets on the 21st.
If I'm right and Cooper/Boles/Grieves/Corbyn/A N Other puts a 21 month amendment in first, then the EU will have no reason to propose it on the 21st. Either Parliament will have already voted for 21 months, in which case they don't need to suggest it; or Parliament will have already rejected 21 months in which case they won't suggest it.
I take your point about the problem with the sequencing.
How do Cooper/Boles/Grieves/Corbyn/A N Other justify doing 21 months? I mean, their whole thing is that they're averting No Deal, it seems hard to explain a delay that long without the justification that it's all the EU will allow.
Maybe everyone's planning on going somewhere in the middle like 6 months or 1 year and they're leaking 21 months to numb our brains and make it sound short.
It is very easy to justify a 21 month delay. That takes the time that we were committed to by the budget period anyway and it is the only way to provide the time to allow anything meaningful to happen, whether it be a renegotiation or a referendum or anything else.
How do you justify a 2 month delay? What does it achieve?
It's really not easy to justify a 21 month delay, if you have been screaming that the uncertainty over Brexit is losing jobs. The last thing industry needs is another 21 months where they can't plan.
Plus, Westminster would just go "Phew!" - and put off any meaningful decision on Brexit for another 20 months. Putting us back to where we are today. (Albeit, with the collective reputation of politicians several notches lower. And with the Brexit Party and the TIGs with 21 months of organisation time to uproot the current political class.)
Indeed but those who've been screaming to end the uncertainty on the government side are already backing the deal. Those 400+ MPs who've rejected the deal have other priorities.
A bit sad if we are so weak of mind that the activities, propaganda and adverts on social media influence us to a significant extent.
And a possible first
A bit more sad if we deny the influence of social media, propaganda and advertising simply because our side won. Why do you think companies run adverts to sell us everything from cars to soap if it has no effect on sales? The question that should spring to our lips on seeing this American report is: where is the British report?
Mr. JohnL, on a lighter note, this does slightly remind me of when I'd just bought a watch on Amazon. The site then e-mailed me suggesting I might be interested in *these* watches, as if I were some sort of Hindu god with fifty wrists that each needed a watch...
Mr. Doethur, boom boom!
Mr. Meeks, perhaps.
As Commander and Conquer Red Alert taught us, time will tell.
A bit sad if we are so weak of mind that the activities, propaganda and adverts on social media influence us to a significant extent.
And a possible first
Not to mention breathless Guardian reporting of dodgy senate reports of, well, nothing(?), which themselves are no less propaganda efforts.
Lest we forget, the US sought strongly to influence the result in accordance with its own stated geopolitical aims, or were they just acting as kindly and altruistic friends?
There is a huge difference between seeking to influence by openly stating a preference and seeking to manipulate using corrupt financing and unattributable propaganda.
There isn't any doubt at all that both the USA and the USSR repeatedly did both.
It is very easy to justify a 21 month delay. That takes the time that we were committed to by the budget period anyway and it is the only way to provide the time to allow anything meaningful to happen, whether it be a renegotiation or a referendum or anything else.
How do you justify a 2 month delay? What does it achieve?
It achieves avoiding the car crash while you wait for [other faction] to put the country first and agree the compromise that will result in an actual resolution. I know, nobody's going to do that, but it's a coherent line for any individual MP or faction.
It is very easy to justify a 21 month delay. That takes the time that we were committed to by the budget period anyway and it is the only way to provide the time to allow anything meaningful to happen, whether it be a renegotiation or a referendum or anything else.
How do you justify a 2 month delay? What does it achieve?
It achieves avoiding the car crash while you wait for [other faction] to put the country first and agree the compromise that will result in an actual resolution. I know, nobody's going to do that, but it's a coherent line for any individual MP or faction.
Nah, 1 month is pointless. Plus Parliament votes first. Parliament votes first on the 14th before the EU meets on the 21st.
If I'm right and Cooper/Boles/Grieves/Corbyn/A N Other puts a 21 month amendment in first, then the EU will have no reason to propose it on the 21st. Either Parliament will have already voted for 21 months, in which case they don't need to suggest it; or Parliament will have already rejected 21 months in which case they won't suggest it.
I take your point about the problem with the sequencing.
How do Cooper/Boles/Grieves/Corbyn/A N Other justify doing 21 months? I mean, their whole thing is that they're averting No Deal, it seems hard to explain a delay that long without the justification that it's all the EU will allow.
Maybe everyone's planning on going somewhere in the middle like 6 months or 1 year and they're leaking 21 months to numb our brains and make it sound short.
It is very easy to justify a 21 month delay. That takes the time that we were committed to by the budget period anyway and it is the only way to provide the time to allow anything meaningful to happen, whether it be a renegotiation or a referendum or anything else.
How do you justify a 2 month delay? What does it achieve?
It's really not easy to justify a 21 month delay, if you have been screaming that the uncertainty over Brexit is losing jobs. The last thing industry needs is another 21 months where they can't plan.
Plus, Westminster would just go "Phew!" - and put off any meaningful decision on Brexit for another 20 months. Putting us back to where we are today. (Albeit, with the collective reputation of politicians several notches lower. And with the Brexit Party and the TIGs with 21 months of organisation time to uproot the current political class.)
Compared with the current mess, knowing where we will be for at least the next 21 months would be certainty. Even if the deal passes we would be in the same position, anyway.
It is very easy to justify a 21 month delay. That takes the time that we were committed to by the budget period anyway and it is the only way to provide the time to allow anything meaningful to happen, whether it be a renegotiation or a referendum or anything else.
How do you justify a 2 month delay? What does it achieve?
It achieves avoiding the car crash while you wait for [other faction] to put the country first and agree the compromise that will result in an actual resolution. I know, nobody's going to do that, but it's a coherent line for any individual MP or faction.
Theresa May is a world championship can kicker.
I’m bored.
Crufts 2019 starts today!
Your suggestion to relieve ennui is barking?
It's a wooftastic idea! Live feed on YouTube for the next four days, and highlights on C4 and More4
It is very easy to justify a 21 month delay. That takes the time that we were committed to by the budget period anyway and it is the only way to provide the time to allow anything meaningful to happen, whether it be a renegotiation or a referendum or anything else.
How do you justify a 2 month delay? What does it achieve?
It achieves avoiding the car crash while you wait for [other faction] to put the country first and agree the compromise that will result in an actual resolution. I know, nobody's going to do that, but it's a coherent line for any individual MP or faction.
Theresa May is a world championship can kicker.
I’m bored.
Crufts 2019 starts today!
Started yesterday.
My dog's sister is showing. She was filming for Emmerdale earlier this week....
Nah, 1 month is pointless. Plus Parliament votes first. Parliament votes first on the 14th before the EU meets on the 21st.
If I'm right and Cooper/Boles/Grieves/Corbyn/A N Other puts a 21 month amendment in first, then the EU will have no reason to propose it on the 21st. Either Parliament will have already voted for 21 months, in which case they don't need to suggest it; or Parliament will have already rejected 21 months in which case they won't suggest it.
I take your point about the problem with the sequencing.
How do Cooper/Boles/Grieves/Corbyn/A N Other justify doing 21 months? I mean, their whole thing is that they're averting No Deal, it seems hard to explain a delay that long without the justification that it's all the EU will allow.
Maybe everyone's planning on going somewhere in the middle like 6 months or 1 year and they're leaking 21 months to numb our brains and make it sound short.
It is very easy to justify a 21 month delay. That takes the time that we were committed to by the budget period anyway and it is the only way to provide the time to allow anything meaningful to happen, whether it be a renegotiation or a referendum or anything else.
How do you justify a 2 month delay? What does it achieve?
It's really not easy to justify a 21 month delay, if you have been screaming that the uncertainty over Brexit is losing jobs. The last thing industry needs is another 21 months where they can't plan.
Plus, Westminster would just go "Phew!" - and put off any meaningful decision on Brexit for another 20 months. Putting us back to where we are today. (Albeit, with the collective reputation of politicians several notches lower. And with the Brexit Party and the TIGs with 21 months of organisation time to uproot the current political class.)
Compared with the current mess, knowing where we will be for at least the next 21 months would be certainty. Even if the deal passes we would be in the same position, anyway.
Certainty? I take it you are not involved in industrial planning...
It is very easy to justify a 21 month delay. That takes the time that we were committed to by the budget period anyway and it is the only way to provide the time to allow anything meaningful to happen, whether it be a renegotiation or a referendum or anything else.
How do you justify a 2 month delay? What does it achieve?
It achieves avoiding the car crash while you wait for [other faction] to put the country first and agree the compromise that will result in an actual resolution. I know, nobody's going to do that, but it's a coherent line for any individual MP or faction.
Theresa May is a world championship can kicker.
I’m bored.
Crufts 2019 starts today!
Your suggestion to relieve ennui is barking?
It's a wooftastic idea! Live feed on YouTube for the next four days, and highlights on C4 and More4
It is very easy to justify a 21 month delay. That takes the time that we were committed to by the budget period anyway and it is the only way to provide the time to allow anything meaningful to happen, whether it be a renegotiation or a referendum or anything else.
How do you justify a 2 month delay? What does it achieve?
It achieves avoiding the car crash while you wait for [other faction] to put the country first and agree the compromise that will result in an actual resolution. I know, nobody's going to do that, but it's a coherent line for any individual MP or faction.
Theresa May is a world championship can kicker.
I’m bored.
Crufts 2019 starts today!
Your suggestion to relieve ennui is barking?
It's a wooftastic idea! Live feed on YouTube for the next four days, and highlights on C4 and More4
It is very easy to justify a 21 month delay. That takes the time that we were committed to by the budget period anyway and it is the only way to provide the time to allow anything meaningful to happen, whether it be a renegotiation or a referendum or anything else.
How do you justify a 2 month delay? What does it achieve?
It achieves avoiding the car crash while you wait for [other faction] to put the country first and agree the compromise that will result in an actual resolution. I know, nobody's going to do that, but it's a coherent line for any individual MP or faction.
Theresa May is a world championship can kicker.
I’m bored.
Crufts 2019 starts today!
Your suggestion to relieve ennui is barking?
It's a wooftastic idea! Live feed on YouTube for the next four days, and highlights on C4 and More4
It is very easy to justify a 21 month delay. That takes the time that we were committed to by the budget period anyway and it is the only way to provide the time to allow anything meaningful to happen, whether it be a renegotiation or a referendum or anything else.
How do you justify a 2 month delay? What does it achieve?
It achieves avoiding the car crash while you wait for [other faction] to put the country first and agree the compromise that will result in an actual resolution. I know, nobody's going to do that, but it's a coherent line for any individual MP or faction.
Theresa May is a world championship can kicker.
I’m bored.
Crufts 2019 starts today!
Your suggestion to relieve ennui is barking?
It's a wooftastic idea! Live feed on YouTube for the next four days, and highlights on C4 and More4
It is very easy to justify a 21 month delay. That takes the time that we were committed to by the budget period anyway and it is the only way to provide the time to allow anything meaningful to happen, whether it be a renegotiation or a referendum or anything else.
How do you justify a 2 month delay? What does it achieve?
It achieves avoiding the car crash while you wait for [other faction] to put the country first and agree the compromise that will result in an actual resolution. I know, nobody's going to do that, but it's a coherent line for any individual MP or faction.
Theresa May is a world championship can kicker.
I’m bored.
Crufts 2019 starts today!
Your suggestion to relieve ennui is barking?
It's a wooftastic idea! Live feed on YouTube for the next four days, and highlights on C4 and More4
Hmm... Whilst I don't think it is the most likely outcome (I think we will have a short delay to compensate for the fact that the dog ate the government's homework) I would say that the prospects of us leaving on 29th March with a deal are a lot better than 12%. Maybe up to to 30%, with 35% leaving in May before the Euro elections with a deal and 30% not leaving at all with 5% leaving with no deal. Big increase in the probability of not leaving at all over the last month.
It is very easy to justify a 21 month delay. That takes the time that we were committed to by the budget period anyway and it is the only way to provide the time to allow anything meaningful to happen, whether it be a renegotiation or a referendum or anything else.
How do you justify a 2 month delay? What does it achieve?
It achieves avoiding the car crash while you wait for [other faction] to put the country first and agree the compromise that will result in an actual resolution. I know, nobody's going to do that, but it's a coherent line for any individual MP or faction.
Theresa May is a world championship can kicker.
I’m bored.
Crufts 2019 starts today!
Your suggestion to relieve ennui is barking?
It's a wooftastic idea! Live feed on YouTube for the next four days, and highlights on C4 and More4
So it will dog us everywhere we go?
Hounded endlessly, for sure.
I see the wags are out.
Very good. I'll go off with my tail between my legs.
A 21 month extension makes sense as reduces uncertainty of leaving with no deal. It also takes us close to the end of the parliamentary cycle in Scotland. The appearance of elections is in my view going to settle brexit. I am now thinking it will get softer not harder.
A bit sad if we are so weak of mind that the activities, propaganda and adverts on social media influence us to a significant extent.
And a possible first
Not to mention breathless Guardian reporting of dodgy senate reports of, well, nothing(?), which themselves are no less propaganda efforts.
Lest we forget, the US sought strongly to influence the result in accordance with its own stated geopolitical aims, or were they just acting as kindly and altruistic friends?
It is very easy to justify a 21 month delay. That takes the time that we were committed to by the budget period anyway and it is the only way to provide the time to allow anything meaningful to happen, whether it be a renegotiation or a referendum or anything else.
How do you justify a 2 month delay? What does it achieve?
It achieves avoiding the car crash while you wait for [other faction] to put the country first and agree the compromise that will result in an actual resolution. I know, nobody's going to do that, but it's a coherent line for any individual MP or faction.
Comments
Interesting times ....
If any of you thought Brexit would do damage just wait for Corbyn and the trots.
Still 16.5 on Betfair exchange.
But I agree the path with the least stop energy to overcome is never ending extensions, at least for the foreseeable future.
Last time May won the contest with the rather vapid pledge that 'Brexit means Brexit'. That won't happen next time. Anyone who seeks to be Leader should put their ideas for what should happen next on the line and stand and be counted for it. If its anything as devoid of meaning as Brexit means Brexit then they deserve to fail.
20% though don't have a clue what's going to happen and 31% are due for a shock when we don't exit on 29/3. More than half the public has not priced in an extension.
Given 72% turned out to vote in the referendum the 20% who don't know probably don't care either as they did not bother to vote in the referendum in the first place
The yellow flow-chart is the start of what is going to happen, but then for some reason it follows on straight path with no forks (except for MPs going for no deal).
There's absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that a "short, limited extension" is all that we will ask for. Once we are voting on an extension, someone is going to table an amendment to make it a lengthier one. Where's that fork in the chart?
On the chart there's no room for the EU to reject a short extension and propose a longer one. Why not?
Similarly who says at the end of a short extension we won't request another extension?
All sorts of possibilities are just ignored.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/28/extension-article-50-must-be-one-off-brussels-eu27-uk-brexit-delay
If we leave on time then 49% were wrong and a further 20% didn't know that would happen.
If we don't leave on time then 31% were wrong and a further 20% didn't know that would happen.
Either way there will be a lot of people who did not see this coming. That could affect what they think or do next.
They may not need to. The one thing we can guarantee is that May's proposal will not be the only thing voted on, when May puts forward on the 14th a vote to have a 2 month extension at least one MP will put forward an amendment to that to change it into a 21 month extension. The Speaker will call that amendment.
If Parliament votes to request a 21 month extension, the EU can get what it wants without being seen to be the one to request that.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6784379/Theresa-allow-MPs-free-vote-No-Deal.html
That means that 31% of the population [39% excluding Don't Knows] are in for a shock. How they react to that shock is absolutely not priced in to the polls.
If I'm right and Cooper/Boles/Grieves/Corbyn/A N Other puts a 21 month amendment in first, then the EU will have no reason to propose it on the 21st. Either Parliament will have already voted for 21 months, in which case they don't need to suggest it; or Parliament will have already rejected 21 months in which case they won't suggest it.
How do Cooper/Boles/Grieves/Corbyn/A N Other justify doing 21 months? I mean, their whole thing is that they're averting No Deal, it seems hard to explain a delay that long without the justification that it's all the EU will allow.
Maybe everyone's planning on going somewhere in the middle like 6 months or 1 year and they're leaking 21 months to numb our brains and make it sound short.
How do you justify a 2 month delay? What does it achieve?
That leaves BINO/EUref2/renegotiation as what is left standing.
If Corbyn pushes an amendment the Speaker will always call it. Corbyn can't get an election and talk to the EU within a 3 month window. He has no reason to prefer a tiny extension.
Any faction other than May or No Dealers win from a longer extension.
No 10 are clear they expect the Deal to fail again on a 2nd vote, albeit with a few more Labour MPs from Leave seats backing it, then the Deal to scrape home on a 3rd vote as most of the ERG finally cave
... well if they're clear that they'll win what they want the third time around that must be true. They've not been wrong so far have they?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0002zd9
Appears to have lucked into a strangely sympathetic judge - “a previously blameless life...” is an unusual description in the context.
Theoretical question: imagine Barbados has 5 murders a year (not true) and London has 130 murders a year (roughly true). Which has the higher murder rate? Answer = Barbados, (when taking the population into account). A lot of the general public would probably instinctively feel that Barbados is safer, even if you informed them of the respective populations.
Plus, Westminster would just go "Phew!" - and put off any meaningful decision on Brexit for another 20 months. Putting us back to where we are today. (Albeit, with the collective reputation of politicians several notches lower. And with the Brexit Party and the TIGs with 21 months of organisation time to uproot the current political class.)
Elon Musk, the bait-and-switch merchant:
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/03/teslas-self-driving-strategy-is-outdated-and-possibly-dangerous/
Call other people by the descriptors they want unless you have a compelling reason otherwise (referencing Tommy Robinson’s real name is arguably such a case but even there I’m wary). So Cape Coloureds are coloured, but otherwise the term should be avoided. That you might not understand why it’s offensive is beside the point: it’s basic manners.
Do we expect more defections shortly after the 12 March vote?
Oddly, the people who roundly mocked me at the time now claim it was self-evident.
Mr. Doethur, boom boom!
Mr. Meeks, perhaps.
As Commander and Conquer Red Alert taught us, time will tell.
My dog's sister is showing. She was filming for Emmerdale earlier this week....
Have a good morning.