On topic, I don't think TMay would have crashed out when she could have extended, so it doesn't really matter what Cooper-Letwin do, although they've closed off one real but unlikely pathway to No Deal.
Brexit is on life support because the government, MPs, business, unions and the civil service and the rest of the EU never wanted to do it, and it was only happening because the voters wanted to do it, but faced with a specific thing the voters now don't want to do it either. It's only still a thing because of inertia, and it's safer for everybody to let it just grind slowly to a halt rather than throwing themselves in front of it.
Please tell me you’re not coming to the conclusion that “voters now don’t want to do it either” because of the view of people on opinion poll panels?
Yes, opinion polls are a good way to poll opinion.
There are other good ways like having a national referendum, and there's a good argument that if you think opinion has changed you should have one of those rather than just revoking based on polling and the general vibe, but the evidence as it currently stands is that the voters would rather remain than do any specific brexit.
They’re a good way of polling the opinion of people who are over engaged in politics.
I'm not saying they're perfect but in the absence of other evidence the natural assumption would be that people not on the panels move the same way as people who are, and if they're not the trend with people not on the panels could be moving away from Brexit just as easily as it could be moving towards it.
What an excellent article Mr Herdson - one of the best I can remember on PB, and there have been many good ones. Well-reasoned, and very clearly set out.
Whether the projections are right of course, only time will tell.
Thanks!
Let me echo that, and thanks too to Stodge for an excellent comment.
Take away the impossible and all that remains is No Deal, Revoke or her deal.
Though it's not impossible, Revoke would be, to me, quite astonishing: the negation of the largest popular vote in UK history and sure political suicide for the Tory party and politicians. With the UK backed into the EU the popular clamour to get out and/or disrupt the EU project would rise to unbearable levels. Realising that makes it anathema not only to our (sensible) politicians but also to the (sensible) Europeans. So I think unless it is kicked yet again into the long grass, either the May-deal or No-deal will be decided next week.
I agree that Revoke is highly unlikely to happen, but I don't see it killing the Tories off if it did. One major lesson of the Newport West election, surely, is that the majority of people are just not that politically engaged. The Conservative party no longer exists as a meaningful single entity, but it continues to lead most polls and its vote held up pretty well on Thursday. FPTP invites people to vote against the worst option - and for many voters that will remain the Labour party (and vice versa, of course).
Yes, Labour and Tory probably only still exist because of tribal hatred of the other from people indoctrinated as children. If there are no chance of the other winning power, millions of people wouldn’t vote for ‘their’ Party
I think it's a lot more than tribal hatred and indoctrination. Labour got a lot of votes from people in 2017 who wanted to stop the kind of Brexit May was proposing at that time, or who wanted to stop the Dementia tax or whatever. Likewise, the Tories got a lot of votes because a lot of voters wanted to stop Corbyn. That's not tribal, it's rational, issues-based decision-making. The problem is the voting system. if you want serious change that has to go. While it remains the Tory and Labour hegemony is baked in.
100 years ago you'd have said that the Liberal and Tory hegemony was baked in. Then there was a major shake up......
"the Prime Minister and her advisers have pursued an approach that will now be used in university courses on international relations as a textbook case of how not to negotiate."
...... and it's safer for everybody to let it just grind slowly to a halt rather than throwing themselves in front of it.
Grind to a halt seems to be the most appropriate summary. Short-term incentives tend to delay, as all options on the table seem unpalatable. Meanwhile, for more strategic remainers there's the long-term incentive that endless delay will eventually lead to it being overturned - either through a referendum to break the impasse, or a new Labour leader using the issue to win an election.
Probably Brexit will happen in the next few weeks, or it never will. Thus the question: is there a common appetite between May and Corbyn to manipulate the HoC into choosing something?
Dr. Foxy, humans are designed to eat both meat and fruit/vegetables. We're omnivorous by nature. If people choose to eschew meat, that's fair enough, but I'd strongly repudiate any suggestion eating meat is immoral.
Eating meat is a choice, we are not constrained by our biology.
I am not suggesting that it is immoral, though others might, but it is immoral to not consider the implications for animal welfare, and the health of the planet from excessive meat consumption.
I’d say the morality, such as it is, is one of overpopulating the planet.
Yes. Climate change is being driven by the increasing world population.
Do you think that the similar populations of England and Tanzania are having a similar effect on climate change, or does level of resource usage per capita also have a place?
What an excellent article Mr Herdson - one of the best I can remember on PB, and there have been many good ones. Well-reasoned, and very clearly set out.
Whether the projections are right of course, only time will tell.
Thanks!
Let me echo that, and thanks too to Stodge for an excellent comment.
Take away the impossible and all that remains is No Deal, Revoke or her deal.
Though it's not impossible, Revoke would be, to me, quite astonishing: the negation of the largest popular vote in UK history and sure political suicide for the Tory party and politicians. With the UK backed into the EU the popular clamour to get out and/or disrupt the EU project would rise to unbearable levels. Realising that makes it anathema not only to our (sensible) politicians but also to the (sensible) Europeans. So I think unless it is kicked yet again into the long grass, either the May-deal or No-deal will be decided next week.
I agree that Revoke is highly unlikely to happen, but I don't see it killing the Tories off if it did. One major lesson of the Newport West election, surely, is that the majority of people are just not that politically engaged. The Conservative party no longer exists as a meaningful single entity, but it continues to lead most polls and its vote held up pretty well on Thursday. FPTP invites people to vote against the worst option - and for many voters that will remain the Labour party (and vice versa, of course).
The Tory vote did not hold up well, it lost nearly a quarter of voteshare against an opponent losing even more and that despite the unwinding of popular incumbency; that’s pretty much unheard of in a two horse race. The swing away from both parties was entirely consistent with the latest YouGov. The lesson of Newport seems to have been people are in a bit of a plague on all your houses mood. So the real issue is voters sitting on their hands. I suspect come a GE Labour will find it easier to pull back enough of the hand sitters than the Tories will.
...... and it's safer for everybody to let it just grind slowly to a halt rather than throwing themselves in front of it.
Grind to a halt seems to be the most appropriate summary. Short-term incentives tend to delay, as all options on the table seem unpalatable. Meanwhile, for more strategic remainers there's the long-term incentive that endless delay will eventually lead to it being overturned - either through a referendum to break the impasse, or a new Labour leader using the issue to win an election.
Probably Brexit will happen in the next few weeks, or it never will. Thus the question: is there a common appetite between May and Corbyn to manipulate the HoC into choosing something?
I think there's another window when the next leader after TMay takes over, assuming she doesn't go on and on. Tory members definitely want to do Brexit, and they'll have to tell a good story about how they're going to get it done if they want to get the job.
Blimey, yesterday it was alleged Australian anglo-phobia, today whether it's ethical to eat meat.
You never know what filling you're going to get in your Brexit sandwich with PB!
I can go on about restoration of the Wuffingas kingdom of east Anglia if you like, I'm probably overdue
Where would you find the descendants of the kings? Or would we start gain with a newly convened Witan?
Oh a newly convened Witan. Let the fittest rule. As for someone's suggestion of the Son of Wotan SeanT, hes disqualified by being a pasty munching peninsular boy. Wrong arse end of the island
What an excellent article Mr Herdson - one of the best I can remember on PB, and there have been many good ones. Well-reasoned, and very clearly set out.
Whether the projections are right of course, only time will tell.
Thanks!
Let me echo that, and thanks too to Stodge for an excellent comment.
Take away the impossible and all that remains is No Deal, Revoke or her deal.
Though it's not impossible, Revoke would be, to me, quite astonishing: the negation of the largest popular vote in UK history and sure political suicide for the Tory party and politicians. With the UK backed into the EU the popular clamour to get out and/or disrupt the EU project would rise to unbearable levels. Realising that makes it anathema not only to our (sensible) politicians but also to the (sensible) Europeans. So I think unless it is kicked yet again into the long grass, either the May-deal or No-deal will be decided next week.
I agree that Revoke is highly unlikely to happen, but I don't see it killing the Tories off if it did. One major lesson of the Newport West election, surely, is that the majority of people are just not that politically engaged. The Conservative party no longer exists as a meaningful single entity, but it continues to lead most polls and its vote held up pretty well on Thursday. FPTP invites people to vote against the worst option - and for many voters that will remain the Labour party (and vice versa, of course).
The Tory vote did not hold up well, it lost nearly a quarter of voteshare against an opponent losing even more, despite the unwinding of popular incumbency; that’s pretty much unheard of in a two horse race. The swing away from both parties was entirely consistent with the latest YouGov. The lesson of Newport seems to have been people are in a bit of a plague on all your houses mood. So the real issue is voters sitting on their hands. I suspect come a GE Labour will find it easier to pull back enough of the hand sitters than the Tories will.
Yes, the nominal swing to Con is a bit of an odd way to express a swing against both parties.
Con voters are both more reliable at turning out and also less willing to vote tactically. Brexit will be damaging for the Tories but not an extinction event.
"the Prime Minister and her advisers have pursued an approach that will now be used in university courses on international relations as a textbook case of how not to negotiate."
Goodwin in the Telegraph
Yet they got the agreement.
Its our politicians who don't want it.
May failed hugely to negotiate support in the HoC.
What an excellent article Mr Herdson - one of the best I can remember on PB, and there have been many good ones. Well-reasoned, and very clearly set out.
Whether the projections are right of course, only time will tell.
Thanks!
Let me echo that, and thanks too to Stodge for an excellent comment.
Take away the impossible and all that remains is No Deal, Revoke or her deal.
Though it's not impossible, Revoke would be, to me, quite astonishing: the negation of the largest popular vote in UK history and sure political suicide for the Tory party and politicians. With the UK backed into the EU the popular clamour to get out and/or disrupt the EU project would rise to unbearable levels. Realising that makes it anathema not only to our (sensible) politicians but also to the (sensible) Europeans. So I think unless it is kicked yet again into the long grass, either the May-deal or No-deal will be decided next week.
I agree that Revoke is highly unlikely to happen, but I don't see it killing the Tories off if it did. One major lesson of the Newport West election, surely, is that the majority of people are just not that politically engaged. The Conservative party no longer exists as a meaningful single entity, but it continues to lead most polls and its vote held up pretty well on Thursday. FPTP invites people to vote against the worst option - and for many voters that will remain the Labour party (and vice versa, of course).
The Tory vote did not hold up well, it lost nearly a quarter of voteshare against an opponent losing even more, despite the unwinding of popular incumbency; that’s pretty much unheard of in a two horse race. The swing away from both parties was entirely consistent with the latest YouGov. The lesson of Newport seems to have been people are in a bit of a plague on all your houses mood. So the real issue is voters sitting on their hands. I suspect come a GE Labour will find it easier to pull back enough of the hand sitters than the Tories will.
Yes, the nominal swing to Con is a bit of an odd way to express a swing against both parties.
Con voters are both more reliable at turning out and also less willing to vote tactically. Brexit will be damaging for the Tories but not an extinction event.
Con voters are both more reliable at turning out... in foul weather, which I believe it was. I think their result may have flattered their true position. It helped May puncture the ERG naysayers a bit though.
In any case, as I've said repeatedly, the Commons voting down No Deal or making it "illegal" is akin to trying to legislate against rain. IF we do not have a WA in place and IF we can't get an extension from the EU, we leave next Friday evening.
I think there's a growing constituency for that - for the LEAVE supporter, No Deal looks the only way to leave at all currently. Extensions look and feel like attempts to thwart the process so have to be resisted. I agree most LEAVE supporters would have baulked at No Deal a few months ago but as the options have narrowed it looks the only clear way to ensure their choice is enacted.
The second group swinging to No Deal are those fed up with the whole thing. The "let's get it over with" Party are unfocused but popular. They contain both LEAVE and REMAIN supporters who simply feel the Government has other things it should be doing and are tired of the constant coverage of what seems to them to be a simple thing. Most would have been happy to see the WA passed.
Limiting the options polarises opinions - we all know this. On the other side, revocation has emerged as an option. Cancel it all, scrap it all, end it all - it sounds so easy but it would be political suicide for May and the Conservatives so it won't happen.
With the WA unable to clear the Commons, it's therefore down to May and the EU - Parliament is irrelevant now and may as well have packed up for Easter yesterday. I was puzzled by the 30/6 extension which made no sense but I presume it was a desperate attempt to hold the Cabinet together. Tusk, who has been more of a friend to the UK in this than many realise, has thrown a potential lifeline but plenty in the EU seemingly also want this over with.
I can't with certainty say that this time next week we will still be in the EU and that's astonishing and a measure of failure in and of itself.
I'd actually now argue those in the EU who want this over and done with are being more of a friend to the UK than Mr Tusk with his interminable flextension.
No Donald Tusk is the realist. People who want it over and done with are simply not taking into account the fact that this issue is still hotly contested and until a consensus emerges it will continue to disrupt the EU quite badly while completely wrecking any kind of progress on anything political in the UK.
The best way to get the first stage over and done with is by accepting the WA. That is more likely if the EU say no more.
It makes more sense not to start the first stage until we are clearly committed to continuing the whole process. Opinion isn't moving much, but the direction of travel clearly isn't in favour of Brexit.
The article also mentions America has Trump, Brazil Bolsonaro etc. If Article 50 is revoked as looks increasingly possible I would expect we would follow them and Italy with Salvini etc with a surge for a right-wing populist like Boris or Farage
I really think Boris is done. I don't know why JRM is supporting him - I suppose it just suits him for the time being not to stick his head above the parapet.
Oh no, absolutely not. Boris already leads Tory members and Tory voters polls, the more Brexit is delayed, if it is not revoked and cancelled completely, the more Boris' chances grow as Tory members and indeed many MPs will not touch any Cabinet member with a barge pole and Boris becomes the best if not the only chance to keep Corbyn out of No 10
"the Prime Minister and her advisers have pursued an approach that will now be used in university courses on international relations as a textbook case of how not to negotiate."
Goodwin in the Telegraph
Yet they got the agreement.
Its our politicians who don't want it.
May failed hugely to negotiate support in the HoC.
True but she can't be blamed that the ERG meekly supported what she was doing and then had their tantrum when the negotiation was complete.
They should have opposed May from 2016 onwards if they wanted their 100% Hard Brexit rather than May's 80% Hard Brexit.
But, of course, back in 2016 they would have been cheering May's Deal to the rafters.
What an excellent article Mr Herdson - one of the best I can remember on PB, and there have been many good ones. Well-reasoned, and very clearly set out.
Whether the projections are right of course, only time will tell.
Thanks!
Let me echo that, and thanks too to Stodge for an excellent comment.
Take away the impossible and all that remains is No Deal, Revoke or her deal.
Though it's not impossible, Revoke would be, to me, quite astonishing: the negation of the largest popular vote in UK history and sure political suicide for the Tory party and politicians. With the UK backed into the EU the popular clamour to get out and/or disrupt the EU project would rise to unbearable levels. Realising that makes it anathema not only to our (sensible) politicians but also to the (sensible) Europeans. So I think unless it is kicked yet again into the long grass, either the May-deal or No-deal will be decided next week.
I agree that Revoke is highly unlikely to happen, but I don't see it killing the Tories off if it did. One major lesson of the Newport West election, surely, is that the majority of people are just not that politically engaged. The Conservative party no longer exists as a meaningful single entity, but it continues to lead most polls and its vote held up pretty well on Thursday. FPTP invites people to vote against the worst option - and for many voters that will remain the Labour party (and vice versa, of course).
The Tory vote did not hold up well, it lost nearly a quarter of voteshare against an opponent losing even more, despite the unwinding of popular incumbency; that’s pretty much unheard of in a two horse race. The swing away from both parties was entirely consistent with the latest YouGov. The lesson of Newport seems to have been people are in a bit of a plague on all your houses mood. So the real issue is voters sitting on their hands. I suspect come a GE Labour will find it easier to pull back enough of the hand sitters than the Tories will.
Yes, the nominal swing to Con is a bit of an odd way to express a swing against both parties.
Con voters are both more reliable at turning out and also less willing to vote tactically. Brexit will be damaging for the Tories but not an extinction event.
But I suspect a large number of the voters the Cons are shedding are Cons who switched to UKIP at their zenith and returned after the referendum. So actually they may very well be willing never to return.
Kind of depends on what you mean by extinction level event; I doubt the Tories are going to be in LD territory any time soon, but they may not ever be a party of government again.
What an excellent article Mr Herdson - one of the best I can remember on PB, and there have been many good ones. Well-reasoned, and very clearly set out.
Whether the projections are right of course, only time will tell.
Thanks!
Let me echo that, and thanks too to Stodge for an excellent comment.
Take away the impossible and all that remains is No Deal, Revoke or her deal.
Though it's not impossible, Revoke would be, to me, quite astonishing: the negation of the largest popular vote in UK history and sure political suicide for the Tory party and politicians. With
I agree that Revoke is highly unlikely to happen, but I don't see it killing the Tories off if it did. One major lesson of the Newport West election, surely, is that the majority of people are just not that politically engaged. The Conservative party no longer exists as a meaningful single entity, but it continues to lead most polls and its vote held up pretty well on Thursday. FPTP invites people to vote against the worst option - and for many voters that will remain the Labour party (and vice versa, of course).
The Tory vote did not hold up well, it lost nearly a quarter of voteshare against an opponent losing even more, despite the unwinding of popular incumbency; that’s pretty much unheard of in a two horse race. The swing away from both parties was entirely consistent with the latest YouGov. The lesson of Newport seems to have been people are in a bit of a plague on all your houses mood. So the real issue is voters sitting on their hands. I suspect come a GE Labour will find it easier to pull back enough of the hand sitters than the Tories will.
Yes, the nominal swing to Con is a bit of an odd way to express a swing against both parties.
Con voters are both more reliable at turning out and also less willing to vote tactically. Brexit will be damaging for the Tories but not an extinction event.
But I suspect a large number of the voters the Cons are shedding are Cons who switched to UKIP at their zenith and returned after the referendum. So actually they may very well be willing never to return.
Kind of depends on what you mean by extinction level event; I doubt the Tories are going to be in LD territory any time soon, but they may not ever be a party of government again.
They will be unless they get overtaken by a new party like Farage's new Brexit Party as the main party of the right, or end up only getting into power after merging with the latter
"the Prime Minister and her advisers have pursued an approach that will now be used in university courses on international relations as a textbook case of how not to negotiate."
Goodwin in the Telegraph
Yet they got the agreement.
Its our politicians who don't want it.
May failed hugely to negotiate support in the HoC.
True but she can't be blamed that the ERG meekly supported what she was doing and then had their tantrum when the negotiation was complete.
They should have opposed May from 2016 onwards if they wanted their 100% Hard Brexit rather than May's 80% Hard Brexit.
But, of course, back in 2016 they would have been cheering May's Deal to the rafters.
The Mansionhouse speech was nothing like how the WA turned out.
Dr. Foxy, excessive consumption of anything is bad for you.
I have some sympathy with a vegetarian perspective (although not technically required by it, Buddhism was the only religion I ever gave serious thought to adopting). The desire to control the behaviour of others or to hector those with the temerity to disagree is an unpleasant side of a vocal minority, though. And nothing persuades me less than a combination of emotional blackmail and authoritarian arrogance. The concept my diet should be determined by strangers high on their own holiness is not an impressive one.
Mr. Royale, I hope this wasn't your intention but that does read a little as an implied criticism of Mr. NorthWales, who is nothing if not civilised.
Dogmatic animal rights rants grate my goat.
I expect better of someone of Mr. NorthWales’s intelligence.
Excuse me. It is not a rant when we as a family object to the unnecesary maiming and killing of horses in the grand national. I have no problem with horse racing, just the killing
It does make me laugh when pro-Remain posters paste a link to a Guardian article about Brexit as an objective source.
It's like me linking to the Express.
It inspires a little titter from me when Brexiteers characterise what is essentially a list of quotes from world media as subjective Remain propaganda.
At least we've not reached the stage where linking to those quotes is considered traitorous. Probably.
Um, unless it's all the quotes on the subject, from all the world media, ever, then of course subjective is what it is. What do you think it is?
As suggested by someone else, it would be good to get a list of pieces from the world media giving opposing views about the state the UK is in for a more 'objective' view.
I thought the most amusing section in the Guardian list was from the Russian commentator.
'Beyond Britain’s former empire, reactions have been just as forthright. After the 2016 Brexit referendum, Russia’s most recognisable television host, Dmitry Kiselyov, enthusiastically hailed a result delivered by “the bold British”.
Now even the veteran propagandist is looking a bit bored, barely needing to twist the facts to achieve his main goal: making the UK appear a complete basket case. “Our ideas of a certain civilised way of doing business in the west are once again being challenged,” he said last month.'
This lad seems to agree with the Guardian's world media digest.
On topic, I don't think TMay would have crashed out when she could have extended, so it doesn't really matter what Cooper-Letwin do, although they've closed off one real but unlikely pathway to No Deal.
Brexit is on life support because the government, MPs, business, unions and the civil service and the rest of the EU never wanted to do it, and it was only happening because the voters wanted to do it, but faced with a specific thing the voters now don't want to do it either. It's only still a thing because of inertia, and it's safer for everybody to let it just grind slowly to a halt rather than throwing themselves in front of it.
Please tell me you’re not coming to the conclusion that “voters now don’t want to do it either” because of the view of people on opinion poll panels?
Yes, opinion polls are a good way to poll opinion.
There are other good ways like having a national referendum, and there's a good argument that if you think opinion has changed you should have one of those rather than just revoking based on polling and the general vibe, but the evidence as it currently stands is that the voters would rather remain than do any specific brexit.
They’re a good way of polling the opinion of people who are over engaged in politics.
I'm not saying they're perfect but in the absence of other evidence the natural assumption would be that people not on the panels move the same way as people who are, and if they're not the trend with people not on the panels could be moving away from Brexit just as easily as it could be moving towards it.
My view is that polling on hypotheticals/events far into the future is pretty pointless. The last three UK GE's and the EU referendum turned out almost completely differently to how the polls predicted they would by that measure. I realise people on here put a lot of faith in them, and I dont want to get into a big argument about it, its just the way I (dont) use them
What an excellent article Mr Herdson - one of the best I can remember on PB, and there have been many good ones. Well-reasoned, and very clearly set out.
Whether the projections are right of course, only time will tell.
Thanks!
Let me echo that, and thanks too to Stodge for an excellent comment.
Take away the impossible and all that remains is No Deal, Revoke or her deal.
Though it's not impossible, Revoke would be, to me, quite astonishing: the negation of the largest popular vote in UK history and sure political suicide for the Tory party and politicians. With the UK backed into the EU the popular clamour to get out and/or disrupt the EU project would rise to unbearable levels. Realising that makes it anathema not only to our (sensible) politicians but also to the (sensible) Europeans. So I think unless it is kicked yet again into the long grass, either the May-deal or No-deal will be decided next week.
I agree that Revoke is highly unlikely to happen, but I don't see it killing the Tories off if it did. One major lesson of the Newport West election, surely, is that the majority of people are just not that politically engaged. The Conservative party no longer exists as a meaningful single entity, but it continues to lead most polls and its vote held up pretty well on Thursday. FPTP invites people to vote against the worst option - and for many voters that will remain the Labour party (and vice versa, of course).
The Tory vote did not hold up well, it lost nearly a quarter of voteshare against an opponent losing even more and that despite the unwinding of popular incumbency; that’s pretty much unheard of in a two horse race. The swing away from both parties was entirely consistent with the latest YouGov. The lesson of Newport seems to have been people are in a bit of a plague on all your houses mood. So the real issue is voters sitting on their hands. I suspect come a GE Labour will find it easier to pull back enough of the hand sitters than the Tories will.
UKIP increased their number of votes by a factor of 1.8 on half the previous turnout. The only other party to increase votes in any substantial way were the Greens
"the Prime Minister and her advisers have pursued an approach that will now be used in university courses on international relations as a textbook case of how not to negotiate."
Goodwin in the Telegraph
Yet they got the agreement.
Its our politicians who don't want it.
May failed hugely to negotiate support in the HoC.
True but she can't be blamed that the ERG meekly supported what she was doing and then had their tantrum when the negotiation was complete.
They should have opposed May from 2016 onwards if they wanted their 100% Hard Brexit rather than May's 80% Hard Brexit.
But, of course, back in 2016 they would have been cheering May's Deal to the rafters.
The Mansionhouse speech was nothing like how the WA turned out.
It was a big mistake pandering to her nutters when she should have been doing the opposite
On topic, I don't think TMay would have crashed out when she could have extended, so it doesn't really matter what Cooper-Letwin do, although they've closed off one real but unlikely pathway to No Deal.
Brexit is on life support because the government, MPs, business, unions and the civil service and the rest of the EU never wanted to do it, and it was only happening because the voters wanted to do it, but faced with a specific thing the voters now don't want to do it either. It's only still a thing because of inertia, and it's safer for everybody to let it just grind slowly to a halt rather than throwing themselves in front of it.
Please tell me you’re not coming to the conclusion that “voters now don’t want to do it either” because of the view of people on opinion poll panels?
Yes, opinion polls are a good way to poll opinion.
There are other good ways like having a national referendum, and there's a good argument that if you think opinion has changed you should have one of those rather than just revoking based on polling and the general vibe, but the evidence as it currently stands is that the voters would rather remain than do any specific brexit.
They’re a good way of polling the opinion of people who are over engaged in politics.
I'm not saying they're perfect but in the absence of other evidence the natural assumption would be that people not on the panels move the same way as people who are, and if they're not the trend with people not on the panels could be moving away from Brexit just as easily as it could be moving towards it.
My view is that polling on hypotheticals/events far into the future is pretty pointless. The last three UK GE's and the EU referendum turned out almost completely differently to how the polls predicted they would by that measure. I realise people on here put a lot of faith in them, and I dont want to get into a big argument about it, its just the way I (dont) use them
So you don't exclude the possibility that Remain could win 70-30 in a second referendum?
On topic, I don't think TMay would have crashed out when she could have extended, so it doesn't really matter what Cooper-Letwin do, although they've closed off one real but unlikely pathway to No Deal.
Brexit is on life support because the government, MPs, business, unions and the civil service and the rest of the EU never wanted to do it, and it was only happening because the voters wanted to do it, but faced with a specific thing the voters now don't want to do it either. It's only still a thing because of inertia, and it's safer for everybody to let it just grind slowly to a halt rather than throwing themselves in front of it.
Please tell me you’re not coming to the conclusion that “voters now don’t want to do it either” because of the view of people on opinion poll panels?
Yes, opinion polls are a good way to poll opinion.
There are other good ways like having a national referendum, and there's a good argument that if you think opinion has changed you should have one of those rather than just revoking based on polling and the general vibe, but the evidence as it currently stands is that the voters would rather remain than do any specific brexit.
They’re a good way of polling the opinion of people who are over engaged in politics.
I'm not saying they're perfect but in the absence of other evidence the natural assumption would be that people not on the panels move the same way as people who are, and if they're not the trend with people not on the panels could be moving away from Brexit just as easily as it could be moving towards it.
My view is that polling on hypotheticals/events far into the future is pretty pointless. The last three UK GE's and the EU referendum turned out almost completely differently to how the polls predicted they would by that measure. I realise people on here put a lot of faith in them, and I dont want to get into a big argument about it, its just the way I (dont) use them
So you don't exclude the possibility that Remain could win 70-30 in a second referendum?
I don't like to spoil anyone's wet dreams, so crack on
"the Prime Minister and her advisers have pursued an approach that will now be used in university courses on international relations as a textbook case of how not to negotiate."
Goodwin in the Telegraph
Yet they got the agreement.
Its our politicians who don't want it.
May failed hugely to negotiate support in the HoC.
True but she can't be blamed that the ERG meekly supported what she was doing and then had their tantrum when the negotiation was complete.
They should have opposed May from 2016 onwards if they wanted their 100% Hard Brexit rather than May's 80% Hard Brexit.
But, of course, back in 2016 they would have been cheering May's Deal to the rafters.
The Mansionhouse speech was nothing like how the WA turned out.
It was a big mistake pandering to her nutters when she should have been doing the opposite
Sorry, I meant her Lancaster House speech. How did it "pander to her nutters"?
"the Prime Minister and her advisers have pursued an approach that will now be used in university courses on international relations as a textbook case of how not to negotiate."
Goodwin in the Telegraph
Yet they got the agreement.
Its our politicians who don't want it.
May failed hugely to negotiate support in the HoC.
True but she can't be blamed that the ERG meekly supported what she was doing and then had their tantrum when the negotiation was complete.
They should have opposed May from 2016 onwards if they wanted their 100% Hard Brexit rather than May's 80% Hard Brexit.
But, of course, back in 2016 they would have been cheering May's Deal to the rafters.
The Mansionhouse speech was nothing like how the WA turned out.
Are you really saying you thought that May was negotiating towards a different result ?
You only have to think back to May's comments about "red, white and blue Brexit" and "Brexit means Brexit" to see that she was going to negotiate flexibly and arrive at a compromise agreement.
Personally I'm a little surprised that May's Deal is actually so far to the Hard end of the spectrum.
What an excellent article Mr Herdson - one of the best I can remember on PB, and there have been many good ones. Well-reasoned, and very clearly set out.
Whether the projections are right of course, only time will tell.
Thanks!
Let me echo that, and thanks too to Stodge for an excellent comment.
Take away the impossible and all that remains is No Deal, Revoke or her deal.
Though it's not impossible, Revoke would be, to me, quite astonishing: the negation of the largest popular vote in UK history and sure political suicide for the Tory party and politicians. With the UK backed into the EU the popular clamour to get out and/or disrupt the EU project would rise to unbearable levels. Realising that makes it anathema not only to our (sensible) politicians but also to the (sensible) Europeans. So I think unless it is kicked yet again into the long grass, either the May-deal or No-deal will be decided next week.
I agree that Revoke is highly unlikely to happen, but I don't see it killing the Tories off if it did. One major lesson of the Newport West election, surely, is that the majority of people are just not that politically engaged. The Conservative party no longer exists as a meaningful single entity, but it continues to lead most polls and its vote held up pretty well on Thursday. FPTP invites people to vote against the worst option - and for many voters that will remain the Labour party (and vice versa, of course).
The Tory vote did not hold up well, it lost nearly a quarter of voteshare against an opponent losing even more, despite the unwinding of popular incumbency; that’s pretty much unheard of in a two horse race. The swing away from both parties was entirely consistent with the latest YouGov. The lesson of Newport seems to have been people are in a bit of a plague on all your houses mood. So the real issue is voters sitting on their hands. I suspect come a GE Labour will find it easier to pull back enough of the hand sitters than the Tories will.
Yes, the nominal swing to Con is a bit of an odd way to express a swing against both parties.
Con voters are both more reliable at turning out and also less willing to vote tactically. Brexit will be damaging for the Tories but not an extinction event.
Con voters are both more reliable at turning out... in foul weather, which I believe it was. I think their result may have flattered their true position. It helped May puncture the ERG naysayers a bit though.
Important to remember also a significant fraction of the votes were likely postal, so not necessarily “up to date” as it were.
What an excellent article Mr Herdson - one of the best I can remember on PB, and there have been many good ones. Well-reasoned, and very clearly set out.
Whether the projections are right of course, only time will tell.
Thanks!
Let me echo that, and thanks too to Stodge for an excellent comment.
Take away the impossible and all that remains is No Deal, Revoke or her deal.
Though it's not impossible, Revoke would be, to me, quite astonishing: the negation of the largest popular vote in UK history and sure political suicide for the Tory party and politicians. With the UK backed into the EU the popular clamour to get out and/or disrupt the EU project would rise to unbearable levels. Realising that makes it anathema not only to our (sensible) politicians but also to the (sensible) Europeans. So I think unless it is kicked yet again into the long grass, either the May-deal or No-deal will be decided next week.
I agree that Revoke is highly unlikely to happen, but I don't see it killing the Tories off if it did. One major lesson of the Newport West election, surely, is that the majority of people are just not that politically engaged. The Conservative party no longer exists as a meaningful single entity, but it continues to lead most polls and its vote held up pretty well on Thursday. FPTP invites people to vote against the worst option - and for many voters that will remain the Labour party (and vice versa, of course).
The Tory vote did not hold up well, it lost nearly a quarter of voteshare against an opponent losing even more and that despite the unwinding of popular incumbency; that’s pretty much unheard of in a two horse race. The swing away from both parties was entirely consistent with the latest YouGov. The lesson of Newport seems to have been people are in a bit of a plague on all your houses mood. So the real issue is voters sitting on their hands. I suspect come a GE Labour will find it easier to pull back enough of the hand sitters than the Tories will.
Yes, describing a loss of nearly 10,000 votes as "held up pretty well" doesn't seem right.
Overall, the view I'm getting from others (and it may be my echo chamber) is that Labour are pro-Remain, the Tories are pro-Leave, May is trying to keep her party intact, and Jezza is just playing silly buggers.
Blame will be attached accordingly
It is different in my echo chamber.
People are sick of this incompetent farce by the Tories, no one blames Labour for a Tory/UKIP fiasco. They just want it over, and no longer care how.
My killer bit of anecdata: My secretary (Sixty something, horsey set, Tory voting, ex police) has signed the Revoke petition.
Its easy to write that, not sure its true. Most think a plague on all their houses. Corbyn is just as intransigent.
Sure, we all know that, but when governments screw up it is not the opposition that gets the blame.
May's sole tactic has been to bludgeon her deal through by running down the clock, but the EU27 are only going to let No Deal happen by a conscious UK choice. Her tactic has repeatedly failed, yet she sticks to it.
May cannot command control of her own cabinet. This is a disintegrating government. Labour cannot be blamed for that, merely for exploiting the situation.
Very partisan post and there is no indication labour are being absolved of blame. Both parties are plummeting in the polls, TM is ahead of Corbyn, and the Newport by election demonstrated a swing to the conservatives in a rock sold labour seat
It is time supporters of both the main parties accepted that between them they have failed the country and each deserves to reap the reward at the ballot box at the next GE
Newport West is far from being a rock solid Labour seat - more a semi-marginal that was Tory -held from 1983 to 1987.I strongly suspect that in Wales Labour is held back by having been running the Welsh Assembly for twent years - though that would probably be much less relevant in a general election.
"the Prime Minister and her advisers have pursued an approach that will now be used in university courses on international relations as a textbook case of how not to negotiate."
Goodwin in the Telegraph
Yet they got the agreement.
Its our politicians who don't want it.
May failed hugely to negotiate support in the HoC.
True but she can't be blamed that the ERG meekly supported what she was doing and then had their tantrum when the negotiation was complete.
They should have opposed May from 2016 onwards if they wanted their 100% Hard Brexit rather than May's 80% Hard Brexit.
But, of course, back in 2016 they would have been cheering May's Deal to the rafters.
The Mansionhouse speech was nothing like how the WA turned out.
It was a big mistake pandering to her nutters when she should have been doing the opposite
Especially when the country was so divided. After all Leave's majority wasn't much more than marginal.
"the Prime Minister and her advisers have pursued an approach that will now be used in university courses on international relations as a textbook case of how not to negotiate."
Goodwin in the Telegraph
Yet they got the agreement.
Its our politicians who don't want it.
May failed hugely to negotiate support in the HoC.
True but she can't be blamed that the ERG meekly supported what she was doing and then had their tantrum when the negotiation was complete.
They should have opposed May from 2016 onwards if they wanted their 100% Hard Brexit rather than May's 80% Hard Brexit.
But, of course, back in 2016 they would have been cheering May's Deal to the rafters.
The Mansionhouse speech was nothing like how the WA turned out.
Are you really saying you thought that May was negotiating towards a different result ?
You only have to think back to May's comments about "red, white and blue Brexit" and "Brexit means Brexit" to see that she was going to negotiate flexibly and arrive at a compromise agreement.
Personally I'm a little surprised that May's Deal is actually so far to the Hard end of the spectrum.
Lancaster House only mentions the Irish border in terms of the CTA. There is nothing on the GFA or the dreaded backstop trap into which she stumbled during the negotiations.
"the Prime Minister and her advisers have pursued an approach that will now be used in university courses on international relations as a textbook case of how not to negotiate."
Goodwin in the Telegraph
Yet they got the agreement.
Its our politicians who don't want it.
May failed hugely to negotiate support in the HoC.
True but she can't be blamed that the ERG meekly supported what she was doing and then had their tantrum when the negotiation was complete.
They should have opposed May from 2016 onwards if they wanted their 100% Hard Brexit rather than May's 80% Hard Brexit.
But, of course, back in 2016 they would have been cheering May's Deal to the rafters.
The Mansionhouse speech was nothing like how the WA turned out.
It was a big mistake pandering to her nutters when she should have been doing the opposite
Especially when the country was so divided. After all Leave's majority wasn't much more than marginal.
Exactly so. And that should have been the first item on the leavers' agenda. How do you build the support for such a huge and hazardous project?
It does make me laugh when pro-Remain posters paste a link to a Guardian article about Brexit as an objective source.
It's like me linking to the Express.
It inspires a little titter from me when Brexiteers characterise what is essentially a list of quotes from world media as subjective Remain propaganda.
At least we've not reached the stage where linking to those quotes is considered traitorous. Probably.
Um, unless it's all the quotes on the subject, from all the world media, ever, then of course subjective is what it is. What do you think it is?
As suggested by someone else, it would be good to get a list of pieces from the world media giving opposing views about the state the UK is in for a more 'objective' view.
I thought the most amusing section in the Guardian list was from the Russian commentator.
'Beyond Britain’s former empire, reactions have been just as forthright. After the 2016 Brexit referendum, Russia’s most recognisable television host, Dmitry Kiselyov, enthusiastically hailed a result delivered by “the bold British”.
Now even the veteran propagandist is looking a bit bored, barely needing to twist the facts to achieve his main goal: making the UK appear a complete basket case. “Our ideas of a certain civilised way of doing business in the west are once again being challenged,” he said last month.'
This lad seems to agree with the Guardian's world media digest.
It does make me laugh when pro-Remain posters paste a link to a Guardian article about Brexit as an objective source.
It's like me linking to the Express.
It inspires a little titter from me when Brexiteers characterise what is essentially a list of quotes from world media as subjective Remain propaganda.
At least we've not reached the stage where linking to those quotes is considered traitorous. Probably.
Um, unless it's all the quotes on the subject, from all the world media, ever, then of course subjective is what it is. What do you think it is?
As suggested by someone else, it would be good to get a list of pieces from the world media giving opposing views about the state the UK is in for a more 'objective' view.
I thought the most amusing section in the Guardian list was from the Russian commentator.
'Beyond Britain’s former empire, reactions have been just as forthright. After the 2016 Brexit referendum, Russia’s most recognisable television host, Dmitry Kiselyov, enthusiastically hailed a result delivered by “the bold British”.
Now even the veteran propagandist is looking a bit bored, barely needing to twist the facts to achieve his main goal: making the UK appear a complete basket case. “Our ideas of a certain civilised way of doing business in the west are once again being challenged,” he said last month.'
This lad seems to agree with the Guardian's world media digest.
"the Prime Minister and her advisers have pursued an approach that will now be used in university courses on international relations as a textbook case of how not to negotiate."
Goodwin in the Telegraph
Yet they got the agreement.
Its our politicians who don't want it.
May failed hugely to negotiate support in the HoC.
True but she can't be blamed that the ERG meekly supported what she was doing and then had their tantrum when the negotiation was complete.
They should have opposed May from 2016 onwards if they wanted their 100% Hard Brexit rather than May's 80% Hard Brexit.
But, of course, back in 2016 they would have been cheering May's Deal to the rafters.
The Mansionhouse speech was nothing like how the WA turned out.
It was a big mistake pandering to her nutters when she should have been doing the opposite
Especially when the country was so divided. After all Leave's majority wasn't much more than marginal.
Exactly so. And that should have been the first item on the leavers' agenda. How do you build the support for such a huge and hazardous project?
For some of us it was. Then the Tory party chose May as leader and any chance of compromise went up in smoke
It does make me laugh when pro-Remain posters paste a link to a Guardian article about Brexit as an objective source.
It's like me linking to the Express.
It inspires a little titter from me when Brexiteers characterise what is essentially a list of quotes from world media as subjective Remain propaganda.
At least we've not reached the stage where linking to those quotes is considered traitorous. Probably.
Um, unless it's all the quotes on the subject, from all the world media, ever, then of course subjective is what it is. What do you think it is?
Feel free to post your own list of admiring articles on our dash for freedom...
"the Prime Minister and her advisers have pursued an approach that will now be used in university courses on international relations as a textbook case of how not to negotiate."
Goodwin in the Telegraph
Yet they got the agreement.
Its our politicians who don't want it.
May failed hugely to negotiate support in the HoC.
True but she can't be blamed that the ERG meekly supported what she was doing and then had their tantrum when the negotiation was complete.
They should have opposed May from 2016 onwards if they wanted their 100% Hard Brexit rather than May's 80% Hard Brexit.
But, of course, back in 2016 they would have been cheering May's Deal to the rafters.
The Mansionhouse speech was nothing like how the WA turned out.
It was a big mistake pandering to her nutters when she should have been doing the opposite
Especially when the country was so divided. After all Leave's majority wasn't much more than marginal.
Exactly so. And that should have been the first item on the leavers' agenda. How do you build the support for such a huge and hazardous project?
For some of us it was. Then the Tory party chose May as leader and any chance of compromise went up in smoke
You don't think the xenophobic campaign had anything to do with it?
"the Prime Minister and her advisers have pursued an approach that will now be used in university courses on international relations as a textbook case of how not to negotiate."
Goodwin in the Telegraph
Yet they got the agreement.
Its our politicians who don't want it.
May failed hugely to negotiate support in the HoC.
True but she can't be blamed that the ERG meekly supported what she was doing and then had their tantrum when the negotiation was complete.
They should have opposed May from 2016 onwards if they wanted their 100% Hard Brexit rather than May's 80% Hard Brexit.
But, of course, back in 2016 they would have been cheering May's Deal to the rafters.
The Mansionhouse speech was nothing like how the WA turned out.
Are you really saying you thought that May was negotiating towards a different result ?
You only have to think back to May's comments about "red, white and blue Brexit" and "Brexit means Brexit" to see that she was going to negotiate flexibly and arrive at a compromise agreement.
Personally I'm a little surprised that May's Deal is actually so far to the Hard end of the spectrum.
Lancaster House only mentions the Irish border in terms of the CTA. There is nothing on the GFA or the dreaded backstop trap into which she stumbled during the negotiations.
The 'dreaded backstop' LOL.
Possible future alignment on some widget regulations in a few years for a few years.
Instead you would prefer Liam Fox attempting to conduct trade deals.
"the Prime Minister and her advisers have pursued an approach that will now be used in university courses on international relations as a textbook case of how not to negotiate."
Goodwin in the Telegraph
Yet they got the agreement.
Its our politicians who don't want it.
May failed hugely to negotiate support in the HoC.
True but she can't be blamed that the ERG meekly supported what she was doing and then had their tantrum when the negotiation was complete.
They should have opposed May from 2016 onwards if they wanted their 100% Hard Brexit rather than May's 80% Hard Brexit.
But, of course, back in 2016 they would have been cheering May's Deal to the rafters.
The Mansionhouse speech was nothing like how the WA turned out.
It was a big mistake pandering to her nutters when she should have been doing the opposite
Especially when the country was so divided. After all Leave's majority wasn't much more than marginal.
Exactly so. And that should have been the first item on the leavers' agenda. How do you build the support for such a huge and hazardous project?
For some of us it was. Then the Tory party chose May as leader and any chance of compromise went up in smoke
You don't think the xenophobic campaign had anything to do with it?
How can anyone say the Leave campaigns ran xenophobic campaigns is beyond me.
"the Prime Minister and her advisers have pursued an approach that will now be used in university courses on international relations as a textbook case of how not to negotiate."
Goodwin in the Telegraph
Yet they got the agreement.
Its our politicians who don't want it.
May failed hugely to negotiate support in the HoC.
True but she can't be blamed that the ERG meekly supported what she was doing and then had their tantrum when the negotiation was complete.
They should have opposed May from 2016 onwards if they wanted their 100% Hard Brexit rather than May's 80% Hard Brexit.
But, of course, back in 2016 they would have been cheering May's Deal to the rafters.
The Mansionhouse speech was nothing like how the WA turned out.
It was a big mistake pandering to her nutters when she should have been doing the opposite
Especially when the country was so divided. After all Leave's majority wasn't much more than marginal.
Exactly so. And that should have been the first item on the leavers' agenda. How do you build the support for such a huge and hazardous project?
For some of us it was. Then the Tory party chose May as leader and any chance of compromise went up in smoke
The irony is had one of the Tory leavers been anointed we may well have ended up with a compromise with them selling it as the best they could get. There may have been grumbling but it could have got enough support to get over the line.
Everything that has happened since however has trashed trust in politicians and only hardened attitudes.
Dr. Foxy, excessive consumption of anything is bad for you.
I have some sympathy with a vegetarian perspective (although not technically required by it, Buddhism was the only religion I ever gave serious thought to adopting). The desire to control the behaviour of others or to hector those with the temerity to disagree is an unpleasant side of a vocal minority, though. And nothing persuades me less than a combination of emotional blackmail and authoritarian arrogance. The concept my diet should be determined by strangers high on their own holiness is not an impressive one.
Mr. Royale, I hope this wasn't your intention but that does read a little as an implied criticism of Mr. NorthWales, who is nothing if not civilised.
Dogmatic animal rights rants grate my goat.
I expect better of someone of Mr. NorthWales’s intelligence.
Excuse me. It is not a rant when we as a family object to the unnecesary maiming and killing of horses in the grand national. I have no problem with horse racing, just the killing
There haven't been any deaths in the Grand National for 7 years and the survival rate has been well over 98% over the last 20 years. The organisers are constantly assessing the right balance of safety and challenge in the race. Horses are graceful animals that jump as well as run - just as they do in the wild, without the veterinary care - and due to their bone structure that does carry some risk. As long as their welfare is taken care of and they enjoy the race there's nothing wrong with that.
Regarding my frustration: this is a betting website. I came on here to get tips from esteemed and experienced punters, and not have that insight derailed by a hyperbolic debate that's high on emotion and very low on facts re: animal rights. You did exactly the same last year.
I'd hope you'd show a bit more respect for those of us that love the horses and the sport and save it for another day.
Personally I'm a little surprised that May's Deal is actually so far to the Hard end of the spectrum.
I think Blind Brexit is the most accurate description for the Maybot 'deal' because the Future Relationship is up for grabs and depends very much on the PM and the government (and the parliament) we have in place for Phase 2.
It can look Hard or Soft depending on how it catches the light and on who is doing the looking. It is Hard because the language in the Political Declaration speaks of leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union. But it is Soft because the legally binding Irish Backstop in the Withdrawal Agreement steers to the UK remaining in the Customs Union for the foreseeable future.
This could have been clever since it allows both sides to see what they want. By the same token it is not so clever in that it allows both sides to see what they do NOT want and unfortunately (for the Absolute Girl) it has gone that way. It looks Soft to the Hard Nuts and Hard to the Softies. Or even if it doesn't it allows them to argue that way for their own partisan purposes.
Still, it is not dead. As a package it probably is but not the Withdrawal Agreement. That remains very much alive and kicking unless and until we either leave the EU without a deal or revoke article 50 and stay.
"the Prime Minister and her advisers have pursued an approach that will now be used in university courses on international relations as a textbook case of how not to negotiate."
Goodwin in the Telegraph
Yet they got the agreement.
Its our politicians who don't want it.
May failed hugely to negotiate support in the HoC.
True but she can't be blamed that the ERG meekly supported what she was doing and then had their tantrum when the negotiation was complete.
They should have opposed May from 2016 onwards if they wanted their 100% Hard Brexit rather than May's 80% Hard Brexit.
But, of course, back in 2016 they would have been cheering May's Deal to the rafters.
The Mansionhouse speech was nothing like how the WA turned out.
It was a big mistake pandering to her nutters when she should have been doing the opposite
Especially when the country was so divided. After all Leave's majority wasn't much more than marginal.
It might have been helpful if some Remainers hadn't pedaled ever lie they could think of in the aftermath of the Referendum.
It does make me laugh when pro-Remain posters paste a link to a Guardian article about Brexit as an objective source.
It's like me linking to the Express.
It inspires a little titter from me when Brexiteers characterise what is essentially a list of quotes from world media as subjective Remain propaganda.
At least we've not reached the stage where linking to those quotes is considered traitorous. Probably.
Um, unless it's all the quotes on the subject, from all the world media, ever, then of course subjective is what it is. What do you think it is?
Feel free to post your own list of admiring articles on our dash for freedom...
Not sure why you'd expect me to spend my time trying to prove what would be obvious to a GCSE history student? A collection of quotes from a newspaper is clearly a subjective source of information. Nobody here would describe it anything else, and it's absurd that Union Divvy can't just admit he 'misspoke' or whatever he wants to call it.
Right ok, long post rather than admit you were wrong?
I'll leave pure objectivity to you aggregators of 'quotes on the subject, from all the world media, ever'. Meanwhile, if you could just provide one link to a piece saying how swimmingly Brexit is going from that massive database you've put together, that would be great.
"the Prime Minister and her advisers have pursued an approach that will now be used in university courses on international relations as a textbook case of how not to negotiate."
Goodwin in the Telegraph
Yet they got the agreement.
Its our politicians who don't want it.
May failed hugely to negotiate support in the HoC.
True but she can't be blamed that the ERG meekly supported what she was doing and then had their tantrum when the negotiation was complete.
They should have opposed May from 2016 onwards if they wanted their 100% Hard Brexit rather than May's 80% Hard Brexit.
But, of course, back in 2016 they would have been cheering May's Deal to the rafters.
The Mansionhouse speech was nothing like how the WA turned out.
It was a big mistake pandering to her nutters when she should have been doing the opposite
Especially when the country was so divided. After all Leave's majority wasn't much more than marginal.
It might have been helpful if some Remainers hadn't pedaled ever lie they could think of in the aftermath of the Referendum.
Its difficult to 'reach out' to people like this:
Sounds very much like what Boris Johnson was saying after the referendum.
"the Prime Minister and her advisers have pursued an approach that will now be used in university courses on international relations as a textbook case of how not to negotiate."
Goodwin in the Telegraph
Yet they got the agreement.
Its our politicians who don't want it.
May failed hugely to negotiate support in the HoC.
True but she can't be blamed that the ERG meekly supported what she was doing and then had their tantrum when the negotiation was complete.
They should have opposed May from 2016 onwards if they wanted their 100% Hard Brexit rather than May's 80% Hard Brexit.
But, of course, back in 2016 they would have been cheering May's Deal to the rafters.
The Mansionhouse speech was nothing like how the WA turned out.
It was a big mistake pandering to her nutters when she should have been doing the opposite
Especially when the country was so divided. After all Leave's majority wasn't much more than marginal.
Exactly so. And that should have been the first item on the leavers' agenda. How do you build the support for such a huge and hazardous project?
For some of us it was. Then the Tory party chose May as leader and any chance of compromise went up in smoke
You don't think the xenophobic campaign had anything to do with it?
A lot of people on the Remain side think it is racist and xenophobic to want immigration controls that are tighter than FOM. As FOM was the entire reason the referendum was being held, and Leaves best chance of winning was to major on immigration, it was inevitable the campaign would be called racist and xenophobic
Personally I'm a little surprised that May's Deal is actually so far to the Hard end of the spectrum.
I think Blind Brexit is the most accurate description for the Maybot 'deal' because the Future Relationship is up for grabs and depends very much on the PM and the government (and the parliament) we have in place for Phase 2.
It can look Hard or Soft depending on how it catches the light and on who is doing the looking. It is Hard because the language in the Political Declaration speaks of leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union. But it is Soft because the legally binding Irish Backstop in the Withdrawal Agreement steers to the UK remaining in the Customs Union for the foreseeable future.
This could have been clever since it allows both sides to see what they want. By the same token it is not so clever in that it allows both sides to see what they do NOT want and unfortunately (for the Absolute Girl) it has gone that way. It looks Soft to the Hard Nuts and Hard to the Softies. Or even if it doesn't it allows them to argue that way for their own partisan purposes.
Still, it is not dead. As a package it probably is but not the Withdrawal Agreement. That remains very much alive and kicking unless and until we either leave the EU without a deal or revoke article 50 and stay.
Certainly - the future relationship was always going to be 'up for grabs' in future years just as anything government does is dependent upon the prevailing political view in future years.
And this is one of the mistakes of the ERG mindset - having a crash out No Deal doesn't guarantee the UK being out of the EU forever but rather increases the risks of rejoining quickly if things go wrong.
What May's Deal does is allow an orderly exit and creates a starting point towards the Hard level of Brexit.
It does make me laugh when pro-Remain posters paste a link to a Guardian article about Brexit as an objective source.
It's like me linking to the Express.
It inspires a little titter from me when Brexiteers characterise what is essentially a list of quotes from world media as subjective Remain propaganda.
At least we've not reached the stage where linking to those quotes is considered traitorous. Probably.
Um, unless it's all the quotes on the subject, from all the world media, ever, then of course subjective is what it is. What do you think it is?
Feel free to post your own list of admiring articles on our dash for freedom...
Not sure why you'd expect me to spend my time trying to prove what would be obvious to a GCSE history student? A collection of quotes from a newspaper is clearly a subjective source of information. Nobody here would describe it anything else, and it's absurd that Union Divvy can't just admit he 'misspoke' or whatever he wants to call it.
I don’t expect anything from you. But if you engage in a debate, it’s not particularly convincing to expect your opponents to do all the work for you.
And your quibbling is pretty feeble. The basic point seems to be true - internationally the reaction to Brexit (Russia and Trump excepted) appears to be a mixture of puzzlement, dismay and mockery.
Dr. Foxy, excessive consumption of anything is bad for you.
I have some sympathy with a vegetarian perspective (although not technically required by it, Buddhism was the only religion I ever gave serious thought to adopting). The desire to control the behaviour of others or to hector those with the temerity to disagree is an unpleasant side of a vocal minority, though. And nothing persuades me less than a combination of emotional blackmail and authoritarian arrogance. The concept my diet should be determined by strangers high on their own holiness is not an impressive one.
Mr. Royale, I hope this wasn't your intention but that does read a little as an implied criticism of Mr. NorthWales, who is nothing if not civilised.
Dogmatic animal rights rants grate my goat.
I expect better of someone of Mr. NorthWales’s intelligence.
Excuse me. It is not a rant when we as a family object to the unnecesary maiming and killing of horses in the grand national. I have no problem with horse racing, just the killing
There haven't been any deaths in the Grand National for 7 years and the survival rate has been well over 98% over the last 20 years. The organisers are constantly assessing the right balance of safety and challenge in the race. Horses are graceful animals that jump as well as run - just as they do in the wild, without the veterinary care - and due to their bone structure that does carry some risk. As long as their welfare is taken care of and they enjoy the race there's nothing wrong with that.
Regarding my frustration: this is a betting website. I came on here to get tips from esteemed and experienced punters, and not have that insight derailed by a hyperbolic debate that's high on emotion and very low on facts re: animal rights. You did exactly the same last year.
I'd hope you'd show a bit more respect for those of us that love the horses and the sport and save it for another day.
"the Prime Minister and her advisers have pursued an approach that will now be used in university courses on international relations as a textbook case of how not to negotiate."
Goodwin in the Telegraph
Yet they got the agreement.
Its our politicians who don't want it.
May failed hugely to negotiate support in the HoC.
True but she can't be blamed that the ERG meekly supported what she was doing and then had their tantrum when the negotiation was complete.
They should have opposed May from 2016 onwards if they wanted their 100% Hard Brexit rather than May's 80% Hard Brexit.
But, of course, back in 2016 they would have been cheering May's Deal to the rafters.
The Mansionhouse speech was nothing like how the WA turned out.
It was a big mistake pandering to her nutters when she should have been doing the opposite
Especially when the country was so divided. After all Leave's majority wasn't much more than marginal.
It might have been helpful if some Remainers hadn't pedaled ever lie they could think of in the aftermath of the Referendum.
Its difficult to 'reach out' to people like this:
Sounds very much like what Boris Johnson was saying after the referendum.
It does make me laugh when pro-Remain posters paste a link to a Guardian article about Brexit as an objective source.
It's like me linking to the Express.
It inspires a little titter from me when Brexiteers characterise what is essentially a list of quotes from world media as subjective Remain propaganda.
At least we've not reached the stage where linking to those quotes is considered traitorous. Probably.
Um, unless it's all the quotes on the subject, from all the world media, ever, then of course subjective is what it is. What do you think it is?
Feel free to post your own list of admiring articles on our dash for freedom...
Not sure why you'd expect me to spend my time trying to prove what would be obvious to a GCSE history student? A collection of quotes from a newspaper is clearly a subjective source of information. Nobody here would describe it anything else, and it's absurd that Union Divvy can't just admit he 'misspoke' or whatever he wants to call it.
I don’t expect anything from you. But if you engage in a debate, it’s not particularly convincing to expect your opponents to do all the work for you.
And your quibbling is pretty feeble. The basic point seems to be true - internationally the reaction to Brexit (Russia and Trump excepted) appears to be a mixture of puzzlement, dismay and mockery.
As I said, feel freee to prove us wrong.
And subjective doesn't mean biased, necessarily. They could easily be entirely representative.
Dr. Foxy, excessive consumption of anything is bad for you.
I have some sympathy with a vegetarian perspective (although not technically required by it, Buddhism was the only religion I ever gave serious thought to adopting). The desire to control the behaviour of others or to hector those with the temerity to disagree is an unpleasant side of a vocal minority, though. And nothing persuades me less than a combination of emotional blackmail and authoritarian arrogance. The concept my diet should be determined by strangers high on their own holiness is not an impressive one.
Mr. Royale, I hope this wasn't your intention but that does read a little as an implied criticism of Mr. NorthWales, who is nothing if not civilised.
Dogmatic animal rights rants grate my goat.
I expect better of someone of Mr. NorthWales’s intelligence.
Excuse me. It is not a rant when we as a family object to the unnecesary maiming and killing of horses in the grand national. I have no problem with horse racing, just the killing
There haven't been any deaths in the Grand National for 7 years and the survival rate has been well over 98% over the last 20 years. The organisers are constantly assessing the right balance of safety and challenge in the race. Horses are graceful animals that jump as well as run - just as they do in the wild, without the veterinary care - and due to their bone structure that does carry some risk. As long as their welfare is taken care of and they enjoy the race there's nothing wrong with that.
Regarding my frustration: this is a betting website. I came on here to get tips from esteemed and experienced punters, and not have that insight derailed by a hyperbolic debate that's high on emotion and very low on facts re: animal rights. You did exactly the same last year.
I'd hope you'd show a bit more respect for those of us that love the horses and the sport and save it for another day.
I'd probably start watching football if the players had a 98% survival rate. Much more exciting!
On the basis of your last sentence you should be a vegan then.
Racehorses are extremely well cared for and looked after. Welfare is taken extremely seriously. The National does not “kill or maim horses”, and such incidents remain a rare event.
A measure of that is or should be the number of those being pulled up as against those falling.
Jockeys, who are both superb horsemen and trained athletes, know when the horse has done its bit and it's time to call it a day. Ruby Walsh knew FAUGHEEN wasn't right on Thursday and pulled him out of the race. Even in the Foxhunters where the riders are amateur, a number called it a day before the last two.
Yet it is a sport with risk - it would be impossible to remove the risk without destroying the sport as we saw yesterday. I sincerely hope every horse in every race (not just the National) comes back safe and sound.
As an aside, if you want to buy a horse, racehorses that failed to make the grade are a good choice, as they're cheap, and very well socialised..
If only they had better feet.
They have these "hooves" things. They're horses.
[Ah, my coat... ]
The hoof is the hard exterior. The whole thing is a foot.
Weirdly, the hoof is the hard exterior of...the middle finger. Horses feet have mutated ove the aeons: the I, II, IV and V digits have been lost, and what we call the "hoof" is a keratinised outlayer of the end of the remaining middle finger.
Dr. Foxy, excessive consumption of anything is bad for you.
I have some sympathy with a vegetarian perspective (although not technically required by it, Buddhism was the only religion I ever gave serious thought to adopting). The desire to control the behaviour of others or to hector those with the temerity to disagree is an unpleasant side of a vocal minority, though. And nothing persuades me less than a combination of emotional blackmail and authoritarian arrogance. The concept my diet should be determined by strangers high on their own holiness is not an impressive one.
Mr. Royale, I hope this wasn't your intention but that does read a little as an implied criticism of Mr. NorthWales, who is nothing if not civilised.
Dogmatic animal rights rants grate my goat.
I expect better of someone of Mr. NorthWales’s intelligence.
Excuse me. It is not a rant when we as a family object to the unnecesary maiming and killing of horses in the grand national. I have no problem with horse racing, just the killing
There haven't been any deaths in the Grand National for 7 years and the survival rate has been well over 98% over the last 20 years. The organisers are constantly assessing the right balance of safety and challenge in the race. Horses are graceful animals that jump as well as run - just as they do in the wild, without the veterinary care - and due to their bone structure that does carry some risk. As long as their welfare is taken care of and they enjoy the race there's nothing wrong with that.
Regarding my frustration: this is a betting website. I came on here to get tips from esteemed and experienced punters, and not have that insight derailed by a hyperbolic debate that's high on emotion and very low on facts re: animal rights. You did exactly the same last year.
I'd hope you'd show a bit more respect for those of us that love the horses and the sport and save it for another day.
I'd probably start watching football if the players had a 98% survival rate. Much more exciting!
On the basis of your last sentence you should be a vegan then.
Racehorses are extremely well cared for and looked after. Welfare is taken extremely seriously. The National does not “kill or maim horses”, and such incidents remain a rare event.
A measure of that is or should be the number of those being pulled up as against those falling.
Jockeys, who are both superb horsemen and trained athletes, know when the horse has done its bit and it's time to call it a day. Ruby Walsh knew FAUGHEEN wasn't right on Thursday and pulled him out of the race. Even in the Foxhunters where the riders are amateur, a number called it a day before the last two.
Yet it is a sport with risk - it would be impossible to remove the risk without destroying the sport as we saw yesterday. I sincerely hope every horse in every race (not just the National) comes back safe and sound.
As an aside, if you want to buy a horse, racehorses that failed to make the grade are a good choice, as they're cheap, and very well socialised..
If only they had better feet.
They have these "hooves" things. They're horses.
[Ah, my coat... ]
The hoof is the hard exterior. The whole thing is a foot.
Weirdly, the hoof is the hard exterior of...the middle finger. Horses feet have mutated ove the aeons: the I, II, IV and V digits have been lost, and what we call the "hoof" is a keratinised outlayer of the end of the remaining middle finger.
Certainly - the future relationship was always going to be 'up for grabs' in future years just as anything government does is dependent upon the prevailing political view in future years.
And this is one of the mistakes of the ERG mindset - having a crash out No Deal doesn't guarantee the UK being out of the EU forever but rather increases the risks of rejoining quickly if things go wrong.
What May's Deal does is allow an orderly exit and creates a starting point towards the Hard level of Brexit.
It does. And if they have confidence in their vision they ought to be going for it. Get out, diverge over the years and decades to come, based on events, trends, elections etc. Took us nearly half a century to integrate this far, why assume that the opposite should take less than 5 years. Seems a bit silly. And one thing is absolutely certain, if you don't get out you do not diverge at all. We are not going through this again.
"the Prime Minister and her advisers have pursued an approach that will now be used in university courses on international relations as a textbook case of how not to negotiate."
Goodwin in the Telegraph
Yet they got the agreement.
Its our politicians who don't want it.
May failed hugely to negotiate support in the HoC.
True but she can't be blamed that the ERG meekly supported what she was doing and then had their tantrum when the negotiation was complete.
They should have opposed May from 2016 onwards if they wanted their 100% Hard Brexit rather than May's 80% Hard Brexit.
But, of course, back in 2016 they would have been cheering May's Deal to the rafters.
The Mansionhouse speech was nothing like how the WA turned out.
It was a big mistake pandering to her nutters when she should have been doing the opposite
Especially when the country was so divided. After all Leave's majority wasn't much more than marginal.
It might have been helpful if some Remainers hadn't pedaled ever lie they could think of in the aftermath of the Referendum.
Its difficult to 'reach out' to people like this:
Sounds very much like what Boris Johnson was saying after the referendum.
Dr. Foxy, excessive consumption of anything is bad for you.
I have some sympathy with a vegetarian perspective (although not technically required by it, Buddhism was the only religion I ever gave serious thought to adopting). The desire to control the behaviour of others or to hector those with the temerity to disagree is an unpleasant side of a vocal minority, though. And nothing persuades me less than a combination of emotional blackmail and authoritarian arrogance. The concept my diet should be determined by strangers high on their own holiness is not an impressive one.
Mr. Royale, I hope this wasn't your intention but that does read a little as an implied criticism of Mr. NorthWales, who is nothing if not civilised.
Dogmatic animal rights rants grate my goat.
I expect better of someone of Mr. NorthWales’s intelligence.
Excuse me. It is not a rant when we as a family object to the unnecesary maiming and killing of horses in the grand national. I have no problem with horse racing, just the killing
There haven't been any deaths in the Grand National for 7 years and the survival rate has been well over 98% over the last 20 years. The organisers are constantly assessing the right balance of safety and challenge in the race. Horses are graceful animals that jump as well as run - just as they do in the wild, without the veterinary care - and due to their bone structure that does carry some risk. As long as their welfare is taken care of and they enjoy the race there's nothing wrong with that.
Regarding my frustration: this is a betting website. I came on here to get tips from esteemed and experienced punters, and not have that insight derailed by a hyperbolic debate that's high on emotion and very low on facts re: animal rights. You did exactly the same last year.
I'd hope you'd show a bit more respect for those of us that love the horses and the sport and save it for another day.
I'd probably start watching football if the players had a 98% survival rate. Much more exciting!
Couldn't be more boring.
There was of course a time when an F1 driver had only a 33% chance of surviving a career in the sport.
Dr. Foxy, excessive consumption of anything is bad for you.
I have some sympathy with a vegetarian perspective (although not technically required by it, Buddhism was the only religion I ever gave serious thought to adopting). The desire to control the behaviour of others or to hector those with the temerity to disagree is an unpleasant side of a vocal minority, though. And nothing persuades me less than a combination of emotional blackmail and authoritarian arrogance. The concept my diet should be determined by strangers high on their own holiness is not an impressive one.
Mr. Royale, I hope this wasn't your intention but that does read a little as an implied criticism of Mr. NorthWales, who is nothing if not civilised.
Dogmatic animal rights rants grate my goat.
I expect better of someone of Mr. NorthWales’s intelligence.
Excuse me. It is not a rant when we as a family object to the unnecesary maiming and killing of horses in the grand national. I have no problem with horse racing, just the killing
There haven't been any deaths in the Grand National for 7 years and the survival rate has been well over 98% over the last 20 years. The organisers are constantly assessing the right balance of safety and challenge in the race. Horses are graceful animals that jump as well as run - just as they do in the wild, without the veterinary care - and due to their bone structure that does carry some risk. As long as their welfare is taken care of and they enjoy the race there's nothing wrong with that.
Regarding my frustration: this is a betting website. I came on here to get tips from esteemed and experienced punters, and not have that insight derailed by a hyperbolic debate that's high on emotion and very low on facts re: animal rights. You did exactly the same last year.
I'd hope you'd show a bit more respect for those of us that love the horses and the sport and save it for another day.
I'd probably start watching football if the players had a 98% survival rate. Much more exciting!
For cricket a much lower percentage would surely be needed.
Dr. Foxy, excessive consumption of anything is bad for you.
I have some sympathy with a vegetarian perspective (although not technically required by it, Buddhism was the only religion I ever gave serious thought to adopting). The desire to control the behaviour of others or to hector those with the temerity to disagree is an unpleasant side of a vocal minority, though. And nothing persuades me less than a combination of emotional blackmail and authoritarian arrogance. The concept my diet should be determined by strangers high on their own holiness is not an impressive one.
Mr. Royale, I hope this wasn't your intention but that does read a little as an implied criticism of Mr. NorthWales, who is nothing if not civilised.
Dogmatic animal rights rants grate my goat.
I expect better of someone of Mr. NorthWales’s intelligence.
Excuse me. It is not a rant when we as a family object to the unnecesary maiming and killing of horses in the grand national. I have no problem with horse racing, just the killing
There haven't been any deaths in the Grand National for 7 years and the survival rate has been well over 98% over the last 20 years. The organisers are constantly assessing the right balance of safety and challenge in the race. Horses are graceful animals that jump as well as run - just as they do in the wild, without the veterinary care - and due to their bone structure that does carry some risk. As long as their welfare is taken care of and they enjoy the race there's nothing wrong with that.
Regarding my frustration: this is a betting website. I came on here to get tips from esteemed and experienced punters, and not have that insight derailed by a hyperbolic debate that's high on emotion and very low on facts re: animal rights. You did exactly the same last year.
I'd hope you'd show a bit more respect for those of us that love the horses and the sport and save it for another day.
I'd probably start watching football if the players had a 98% survival rate. Much more exciting!
Maybe if the refs had a beeping device that, one in fifty times, confirmed they were allowed to whip out a Luger and shoot a diving player. I suspect he wouldn't get a chance to use it.....
Dr. Foxy, excessive consumption of anything is bad for you.
I have some sympathy with a vegetarian perspective (although not technically required by it, Buddhism was the only religion I ever gave serious thought to adopting). The desire to control the behaviour of others or to hector those with the temerity to disagree is an unpleasant side of a vocal minority, though. And nothing persuades me less than a combination of emotional blackmail and authoritarian arrogance. The concept my diet should be determined by strangers high on their own holiness is not an impressive one.
Mr. Royale, I hope this wasn't your intention but that does read a little as an implied criticism of Mr. NorthWales, who is nothing if not civilised.
Dogmatic animal rights rants grate my goat.
I expect better of someone of Mr. NorthWales’s intelligence.
Excuse me. It is not a rant when we as a family object to the unnecesary maiming and killing of horses in the grand national. I have no problem with horse racing, just the killing
There haven't been any deaths in the Grand National for 7 years and the survival rate has been well over 98% over the last 20 years. The organisers are constantly assessing the right balance of safety and challenge in the race. Horses are graceful animals that jump as well as run - just as they do in the wild, without the veterinary care - and due to their bone structure that does carry some risk. As long as their welfare is taken care of and they enjoy the race there's nothing wrong with that.
Regarding my frustration: this is a betting website. I came on here to get tips from esteemed and experienced punters, and not have that insight derailed by a hyperbolic debate that's high on emotion and very low on facts re: animal rights. You did exactly the same last year.
I'd hope you'd show a bit more respect for those of us that love the horses and the sport and save it for another day.
I'd probably start watching football if the players had a 98% survival rate. Much more exciting!
For cricket a much lower percentage would surely be needed.
Cricketers have of course been killed in the recent past:
On the basis of your last sentence you should be a vegan then.
Racehorses are extremely well cared for and looked after. Welfare is taken extremely seriously. The National does not “kill or maim horses”, and such incidents remain a rare event.
A measure of that is or should be the number of those being pulled up as against those falling.
Jockeys, who are both superb horsemen and trained athletes, know when the horse has done its bit and it's time to call it a day. Ruby Walsh knew FAUGHEEN wasn't right on Thursday and pulled him out of the race. Even in the Foxhunters where the riders are amateur, a number called it a day before the last two.
Yet it is a sport with risk - it would be impossible to remove the risk without destroying the sport as we saw yesterday. I sincerely hope every horse in every race (not just the National) comes back safe and sound.
As an aside, if you want to buy a horse, racehorses that failed to make the grade are a good choice, as they're cheap, and very well socialised..
If only they had better feet.
They have these "hooves" things. They're horses.
[Ah, my coat... ]
The hoof is the hard exterior. The whole thing is a foot.
Weirdly, the hoof is the hard exterior of...the middle finger. Horses feet have mutated ove the aeons: the I, II, IV and V digits have been lost, and what we call the "hoof" is a keratinised outlayer of the end of the remaining middle finger.
Dr. Foxy, excessive consumption of anything is bad for you.
I have some sympathy with a vegetarian perspective (although not technically required by it, Buddhism was the only religion I ever gave serious thought to adopting). The desire to control the behaviour of others or to hector those with the temerity to disagree is an unpleasant side of a vocal minority, though. And nothing persuades me less than a combination of emotional blackmail and authoritarian arrogance. The concept my diet should be determined by strangers high on their own holiness is not an impressive one.
Mr. Royale, I hope this wasn't your intention but that does read a little as an implied criticism of Mr. NorthWales, who is nothing if not civilised.
Dogmatic animal rights rants grate my goat.
I expect better of someone of Mr. NorthWales’s intelligence.
Excuse me. It is not a rant when we as a family object to the unnecesary maiming and killing of horses in the grand national. I have no problem with horse racing, just the killing
There haven't been any deaths in the Grand National for 7 years and the survival rate has been well over 98% over the last 20 years. The organisers are constantly assessing the right balance of safety and challenge in the race. Horses are graceful animals that jump as well as run - just as they do in the wild, without the veterinary care - and due to their bone structure that does carry some risk. As long as their welfare is taken care of and they enjoy the race there's nothing wrong with that.
Regarding my frustration: this is a betting website. I came on here to get tips from esteemed and experienced punters, and not have that insight derailed by a hyperbolic debate that's high on emotion and very low on facts re: animal rights. You did exactly the same last year.
I'd hope you'd show a bit more respect for those of us that love the horses and the sport and save it for another day.
I'd probably start watching football if the players had a 98% survival rate. Much more exciting!
Maybe if the refs had a beeping device that, one in fifty times, confirmed they were allowed to whip out a Luger and shoot a diving player. I suspect he wouldn't get a chance to use it.....
A Luger isn't a good choice. It needs very strong hands and high power ammo to avoid a jam. .22LR S&W Model 617 would be fine.
Dr. Foxy, excessive consumption of anything is bad for you.
I have some sympathy with a vegetarian perspective (although not technically required by it, Buddhism was the only religion I ever gave serious thought to adopting). The desire to control the behaviour of others or to hector those with the temerity to disagree is an unpleasant side of a vocal minority, though. And nothing persuades me less than a combination of emotional blackmail and authoritarian arrogance. The concept my diet should be determined by strangers high on their own holiness is not an impressive one.
Mr. Royale, I hope this wasn't your intention but that does read a little as an implied criticism of Mr. NorthWales, who is nothing if not civilised.
Dogmatic animal rights rants grate my goat.
I expect better of someone of Mr. NorthWales’s intelligence.
Excuse me. It is not a rant when we as a family object to the unnecesary maiming and killing of horses in the grand national. I have no problem with horse racing, just the killing
There haven't been any deaths in the Grand National for 7 years and the survival rate has been well over 98% over the last 20 years. The organisers are constantly assessing the right balance of safety and challenge in the race. Horses are graceful animals that jump as well as run - just as they do in the wild, without the veterinary care - and due to their bone structure that does carry some risk. As long as their welfare is taken care of and they enjoy the race there's nothing wrong with that.
Regarding my frustration: this is a betting website. I came on here to get tips from esteemed and experienced punters, and not have that insight derailed by a hyperbolic debate that's high on emotion and very low on facts re: animal rights. You did exactly the same last year.
I'd hope you'd show a bit more respect for those of us that love the horses and the sport and save it for another day.
I'd probably start watching football if the players had a 98% survival rate. Much more exciting!
For cricket a much lower percentage would surely be needed.
Cricketers have of course been killed in the recent past:
On the basis of your last sentence you should be a vegan then.
Racehorses are extremely well cared for and looked after. Welfare is taken extremely seriously. The National does not “kill or maim horses”, and such incidents remain a rare event.
A measure of that is or should be the number of those being pulled up as against those falling.
Jockeys, who are both superb horsemen and trained athletes, know when the horse has done its bit and it's time to call it a day. Ruby Walsh knew FAUGHEEN wasn't right on Thursday and pulled him out of the race. Even in the Foxhunters where the riders are amateur, a number called it a day before the last two.
Yet it is a sport with risk - it would be impossible to remove the risk without destroying the sport as we saw yesterday. I sincerely hope every horse in every race (not just the National) comes back safe and sound.
As an aside, if you want to buy a horse, racehorses that failed to make the grade are a good choice, as they're cheap, and very well socialised..
If only they had better feet.
They have these "hooves" things. They're horses.
[Ah, my coat... ]
The hoof is the hard exterior. The whole thing is a foot.
Weirdly, the hoof is the hard exterior of...the middle finger. Horses feet have mutated ove the aeons: the I, II, IV and V digits have been lost, and what we call the "hoof" is a keratinised outlayer of the end of the remaining middle finger.
Dr. Foxy, excessive consumption of anything is bad for you.
I have some sympathy with a vegetarian perspective (although not technically required by it, Buddhism was the only religion I ever gave serious thought to adopting). The desire to control the behaviour of others or to hector those with the temerity to disagree is an unpleasant side of a vocal minority, though. And nothing persuades me less than a combination of emotional blackmail and authoritarian arrogance. The concept my diet should be determined by strangers high on their own holiness is not an impressive one.
Mr. Royale, I hope this wasn't your intention but that does read a little as an implied criticism of Mr. NorthWales, who is nothing if not civilised.
Dogmatic animal rights rants grate my goat.
I expect better of someone of Mr. NorthWales’s intelligence.
Excuse me. It is not a rant when we as a family object to the unnecesary maiming and killing of horses in the grand national. I have no problem with horse racing, just the killing
There haven't been any deaths in the Grand National for 7 years and the survival rate has been well over 98% over the last 20 years. The organisers are constantly assessing the right balance of safety and challenge in the race. Horses are graceful animals that jump as well as run - just as they do in the wild, without the veterinary care - and due to their bone structure that does carry some risk. As long as their welfare is taken care of and they enjoy the race there's nothing wrong with that.
Regarding my frustration: this is a betting website. I came on here to get tips from esteemed and experienced punters, and not have that insight derailed by a hyperbolic debate that's high on emotion and very low on facts re: animal rights. You did exactly the same last year.
I'd hope you'd show a bit more respect for those of us that love the horses and the sport and save it for another day.
I'd probably start watching football if the players had a 98% survival rate. Much more exciting!
For cricket a much lower percentage would surely be needed.
Indeed. Dull dull dull dull violent death dull dull boring dull dull somebody catches a ball dull dull lose will to live dull dull dull...
Dr. Foxy, excessive consumption of anything is bad for you.
I have some sympathy with a vegetarian perspective (although not technically required by it, Buddhism was the only religion I ever gave serious thought to adopting). The desire to control the behaviour of others or to hector those with the temerity to disagree is an unpleasant side of a vocal minority, though. And nothing persuades me less than a combination of emotional blackmail and authoritarian arrogance. The concept my diet should be determined by strangers high on their own holiness is not an impressive one.
Mr. Royale, I hope this wasn't your intention but that does read a little as an implied criticism of Mr. NorthWales, who is nothing if not civilised.
Dogmatic animal rights rants grate my goat.
I expect better of someone of Mr. NorthWales’s intelligence.
Excuse me. It is not a rant when we as a family object to the unnecesary maiming and killing of horses in the grand national. I have no problem with horse racing, just the killing
There haven't been any deaths in the Grand National for 7 years and the survival rate has been well over 98% over the last 20 years. The organisers are constantly assessing the right balance of safety and challenge in the race. Horses are graceful animals that jump as well as run - just as they do in the wild, without the veterinary care - and due to their bone structure that does carry some risk. As long as their welfare is taken care of and they enjoy the race there's nothing wrong with that.
Regarding my frustration: this is a betting website. I came on here to get tips from esteemed and experienced punters, and not have that insight derailed by a hyperbolic debate that's high on emotion and very low on facts re: animal rights. You did exactly the same last year.
I'd hope you'd show a bit more respect for those of us that love the horses and the sport and save it for another day.
I'd probably start watching football if the players had a 98% survival rate. Much more exciting!
Maybe if the refs had a beeping device that, one in fifty times, confirmed they were allowed to whip out a Luger and shoot a diving player. I suspect he wouldn't get a chance to use it.....
A Luger isn't a good choice. It needs very strong hands and high power ammo to avoid a jam. .22LR S&W Model 617 would be fine.
On the contrary; the possibility of a jam might add to the excitement. And provide a sporting chance of survival.
Dr. Foxy, excessive consumption of anything is bad for you.
I have some sympathy with a vegetarian perspective (although not technically required by it, Buddhism was the only religion I ever gave serious thought to adopting). The desire to control the behaviour of others or to hector those with the temerity to disagree is an unpleasant side of a vocal minority, though. And nothing persuades me less than a combination of emotional blackmail and authoritarian arrogance. The concept my diet should be determined by strangers high on their own holiness is not an impressive one.
Mr. Royale, I hope this wasn't your intention but that does read a little as an implied criticism of Mr. NorthWales, who is nothing if not civilised.
Dogmatic animal rights rants grate my goat.
I expect better of someone of Mr. NorthWales’s intelligence.
Excuse me. It is not a rant when we as a family object to the unnecesary maiming and killing of horses in the grand national. I have no problem with horse racing, just the killing
There haven't been any deaths in the Grand National for 7 years and the survival rate has been well over 98% over the last 20 years. The organisers are constantly assessing the right balance of safety and challenge in the race. Horses are graceful animals that jump as well as run - just as they do in the wild, without the veterinary care - and due to their bone structure that does carry some risk. As long as their welfare is taken care of and they enjoy the race there's nothing wrong with that.
Regarding my frustration: this is a betting website. I came on here to get tips from esteemed and experienced punters, and not have that insight derailed by a hyperbolic debate that's high on emotion and very low on facts re: animal rights. You did exactly the same last year.
I'd hope you'd show a bit more respect for those of us that love the horses and the sport and save it for another day.
I'd probably start watching football if the players had a 98% survival rate. Much more exciting!
Maybe if the refs had a beeping device that, one in fifty times, confirmed they were allowed to whip out a Luger and shoot a diving player. I suspect he wouldn't get a chance to use it.....
A Luger isn't a good choice. It needs very strong hands and high power ammo to avoid a jam. .22LR S&W Model 617 would be fine.
But I'm thinking the high power ammo would look good on hi-def TV.....
It does make me laugh when pro-Remain posters paste a link to a Guardian article about Brexit as an objective source.
It's like me linking to the Express.
It inspires a little titter from me when Brexiteers characterise what is essentially a list of quotes from world media as subjective Remain propaganda.
At least we've not reached the stage where linking to those quotes is considered traitorous. Probably.
Um, unless it's all the quotes on the subject, from all the world media, ever, then of course subjective is what it is. What do you think it is?
Feel free to post your own list of admiring articles on our dash for freedom...
Not sure why you'd expect me to spend my time trying to prove what would be obvious to a GCSE history student? A collection of quotes from a newspaper is clearly a subjective source of information. Nobody here would describe it anything else, and it's absurd that Union Divvy can't just admit he 'misspoke' or whatever he wants to call it.
I don’t expect anything from you. But if you engage in a debate, it’s not particularly convincing to expect your opponents to do all the work for you.
And your quibbling is pretty feeble. The basic point seems to be true - internationally the reaction to Brexit (Russia and Trump excepted) appears to be a mixture of puzzlement, dismay and mockery.
As I said, feel freee to prove us wrong.
And subjective doesn't mean biased, necessarily. They could easily be entirely representative.
Yes, they could be. The point was that Union Divvy said it wasn't subjective. Whereas, as you appear to concede, an article in a national newspaper is the definition of subjective. Discussion of these topics would be easier and more pleasant if people simply acknowledged when they made a mistake. Some people seem incapable of that, and it's a weakness.
On the basis of your last sentence you should be a vegan then.
Racehorses are extremely well cared for and looked after. Welfare is taken extremely seriously. The National does not “kill or maim horses”, and such incidents remain a rare event.
A measure of that is or should be the number of those being pulled up as against those falling.
Jockeys, who are both superb horsemen and trained athletes, know when the horse has done its bit and it's time to call it a day. Ruby Walsh knew FAUGHEEN wasn't right on Thursday and pulled him out of the race. Even in the Foxhunters where the riders are amateur, a number called it a day before the last two.
Yet it is a sport with risk - it would be impossible to remove the risk without destroying the sport as we saw yesterday. I sincerely hope every horse in every race (not just the National) comes back safe and sound.
As an aside, if you want to buy a horse, racehorses that failed to make the grade are a good choice, as they're cheap, and very well socialised..
If only they had better feet.
They have these "hooves" things. They're horses.
[Ah, my coat... ]
The hoof is the hard exterior. The whole thing is a foot.
Weirdly, the hoof is the hard exterior of...the middle finger. Horses feet have mutated ove the aeons: the I, II, IV and V digits have been lost, and what we call the "hoof" is a keratinised outlayer of the end of the remaining middle finger.
It does make me laugh when pro-Remain posters paste a link to a Guardian article about Brexit as an objective source.
It's like me linking to the Express.
It inspires a little titter from me when Brexiteers characterise what is essentially a list of quotes from world media as subjective Remain propaganda.
At least we've not reached the stage where linking to those quotes is considered traitorous. Probably.
Um, unless it's all the quotes on the subject, from all the world media, ever, then of course subjective is what it is. What do you think it is?
Feel free to post your own list of admiring articles on our dash for freedom...
Not sure why you'd expect me to spend my time trying to prove what would be obvious to a GCSE history student? A collection of quotes from a newspaper is clearly a subjective source of information. Nobody here would describe it anything else, and it's absurd that Union Divvy can't just admit he 'misspoke' or whatever he wants to call it.
I don’t expect anything from you. But if you engage in a debate, it’s not particularly convincing to expect your opponents to do all the work for you.
And your quibbling is pretty feeble. The basic point seems to be true - internationally the reaction to Brexit (Russia and Trump excepted) appears to be a mixture of puzzlement, dismay and mockery.
As I said, feel freee to prove us wrong.
And subjective doesn't mean biased, necessarily. They could easily be entirely representative.
Yes, they could be. The point was that Union Divvy said it wasn't subjective. Whereas, as you appear to concede, an article in a national newspaper is the definition of subjective. Discussion of these topics would be easier and more pleasant if people simply acknowledged when they made a mistake. Some people seem incapable of that, and it's a weakness.
Of course it was subjective,
Nevertheless the substantive point stands. The Conservatives with their Brexit obsession have reduced our once respected nation to the pity and ridicule of the world. They deserve to be out of office until everyone posting on this forum is dead and buried.
One of the things that will interest me about the next General Election is whether, should Mr Herdson transpire to be correct and Brexit ends up never happening, there is any significant decrease in turnout.
It's often said that, for many people, the referendum represented the first time in their lives that they believed that their vote actually counted for something. This is particularly thought to be the case for less well-off voters, particularly those in Northern constituencies with enormous Labour majorities, but actually I can identify with them as well. I'm a comfortably off voter in a southern English town where the local Conservative MP, and Conservative control of both the County and District Council (not that councils matter much anyway,) would all survive a nuclear holocaust. I had no strong feelings about the poll on the change of the voting system either, and therefore the EU referendum did genuinely feel like the first and only time I was ever consulted in a meaningful way about any political decision.
I voted to leave the EU and, if Mr Herdson is right (which he may well be) and Parliament is effectively given as much can-kicking time as it wants to wriggle out of the decision altogether, then we're not going to. Having previously been a civic duty voter who traipsed down to the polling station to wield the stubby pencil every year or two, I have now drawn the logical conclusion that voting at all - for anything related to the state, anyway - is a futile exercise and no longer worth the bother. Indeed, it never really was. I'm a trade union member and will keep participating in ballots that they organise, but as regards anything to do with the state, it's over. My polling card for next month's locals is already in the shredding pile, and if I end up getting one for the Europeans then it will follow.
At least with abstention one refuses both to endorse any of the (most likely vain and duplicitous) candidates on the ballot paper, and to indicate any confidence in the various bodies to which they are elected. It also saves a mile-long round walk to the primary school - time which could be used for more worthwhile activities, such as watering the houseplants or watching television.
It makes me wonder how many more people will have drawn similar conclusions? I'm given to understand that the by-election turnout on Thursday wasn't so bad, so perhaps I'm the only one? It's quite possible that, in a few years' time, everything will have gone back to how it was and all that has transpired between 2016 and now will be naught but an increasingly distant, half-remembered nightmare. Whatever. It's just a spectator sport, after all.
When I first visited the US in 2002 I was most amused that the visa waiver form asked me if I had been involved in terrorism or the Holocaust. It seemed a daft question as nobody would answer yes.
It wasn't until much later it dawned on me that if I did answer such a question wrongly that it would give them a pretext for my summary removal without court action should they find out, on the basis my paperwork was not in order.
These questions will almost certainly have a similar rationale.
On the basis of your last sentence you should be a vegan then.
Racehorses are extremely well cared for and looked after. Welfare is taken extremely seriously. The National does not “kill or maim horses”, and such incidents remain a rare event.
A measure of that is or should be the number of those being pulled up as against those falling.
Jockeys, who are both superb horsemen and trained athletes, know when the horse has done its bit and it's time to call it a day. Ruby Walsh knew FAUGHEEN wasn't right on Thursday and pulled him out of the race. Even in the Foxhunters where the riders are amateur, a number called it a day before the last two.
Yet it is a sport with risk - it would be impossible to remove the risk without destroying the sport as we saw yesterday. I sincerely hope every horse in every race (not just the National) comes back safe and sound.
As an aside, if you want to buy a horse, racehorses that failed to make the grade are a good choice, as they're cheap, and very well socialised..
If only they had better feet.
They have these "hooves" things. They're horses.
[Ah, my coat... ]
The hoof is the hard exterior. The whole thing is a foot.
Weirdly, the hoof is the hard exterior of...the middle finger. Horses feet have mutated ove the aeons: the I, II, IV and V digits have been lost, and what we call the "hoof" is a keratinised outlayer of the end of the remaining middle finger.
Nevertheless the substantive point stands. The Conservatives with their Brexit obsession have reduced our once respected nation to the pity and ridicule of the world. They deserve to be out of office until everyone posting on this forum is dead and buried.
I would tend to agree that Brexit has fared badly in the foreign media (not to mention the domestic media) and that it is probable that where the foreign public has an opinion one way or the other on it, it is more likely to be a negative one than a positive.
One of the things that will interest me about the next General Election is whether, should Mr Herdson transpire to be correct and Brexit ends up never happening, there is any significant decrease in turnout.
I voted to leave the EU and, if Mr Herdson is right (which he may well be) and Parliament is effectively given as much can-kicking time as it wants to wriggle out of the decision altogether, then we're not going to. Having previously been a civic duty voter who traipsed down to the polling station to wield the stubby pencil every year or two, I have now drawn the logical conclusion that voting at all - for anything related to the state, anyway - is a futile exercise and no longer worth the bother. Indeed, it never really was. I'm a trade union member and will keep participating in ballots that they organise, but as regards anything to do with the state, it's over. My polling card for next month's locals is already in the shredding pile, and if I end up getting one for the Europeans then it will follow.
At least with abstention one refuses both to endorse any of the (most likely vain and duplicitous) candidates on the ballot paper, and to indicate any confidence in the various bodies to which they are elected. It also saves a mile-long round walk to the primary school - time which could be used for more worthwhile activities, such as watering the houseplants or watching television.
It makes me wonder how many more people will have drawn similar conclusions? I'm given to understand that the by-election turnout on Thursday wasn't so bad, so perhaps I'm the only one? It's quite possible that, in a few years' time, everything will have gone back to how it was and all that has transpired between 2016 and now will be naught but an increasingly distant, half-remembered nightmare. Whatever. It's just a spectator sport, after all.
Second time I have cited my Mother today, but she has never missed a vote (every time for Labour), and voted Remain at the referendum. Yesterday she said she'd never bother voting again, as did my best friend (who then said "unless they have another referendum and I'll vote Leave again")
Is this a fucking joke? I just can't tell. My level of functional satire detection has been brexited down to zero.
It isn't quite a stupid as it looks. While it would only keep out the tiny minority of honest terrorrists, the question has a function.
If someone is later found out to have been a war criminal etc, they can be legally deprived of their passport on the grounds of making a false statement on the application.
Is it my imagination or am I correct in my sense that the Grand National is now run much later in the day than was formerly the case? I seem to remember the race taking place fairly early in the afternoon - circa 3pm - rather than 5.30.
My Grand National bet is on Blow By Blow boosted to 100/1.
Went e/w.
Not expecting to win.
I've backed Rathvinden, Walk In The Mill and Singlefarmpayment. So, that's three more that won't place, for those still yet to take a punt and looking for indications of which nags to avoid like the plague.
It is not often that Glasgow is considered part of the cosmopolitan, metropolitan elite!! Through the elections and over the last few years Glasgow has remained a hub of remain. Not quite at the level of Edinburgh but still solidly 2/3 or more wishing to stay in the EU.
It is very hard now to envisage a scenario where Scotland will not stay close to the EU. In the case of a hard Brexit then a rapid move to independence and re-joining is the most likely route. Following the WA route and the election of someone like Boris to replace Maybot and implement the new agreement with Europe may well have the same impact.
Without Scotland, England will become more geared towards Brexit and divergence on Europe may become wider reducing the likelihood of Scotland fully integrating with England again. The next few weeks are really the last chance to save the Union in my opinion. I hope May understands this fully.
Is it my imagination or am I correct in my sense that the Grand National is now run much later in the day than was formerly the case? I seem to remember the race taking place fairly early in the afternoon - circa 3pm - rather than 5.30.
It used to be 3.30. In fact, I didn't know it had changed.
Is it my imagination or am I correct in my sense that the Grand National is now run much later in the day than was formerly the case? I seem to remember the race taking place fairly early in the afternoon - circa 3pm - rather than 5.30.
The later the race, the more lager and prosecco they can shift before the off.
Is it my imagination or am I correct in my sense that the Grand National is now run much later in the day than was formerly the case? I seem to remember the race taking place fairly early in the afternoon - circa 3pm - rather than 5.30.
Correct, it has been getting later. In 1991 for example it was run at 3.20 or so and in 2010 at 4.15.
One of the things that will interest me about the next General Election is whether, should Mr Herdson transpire to be correct and Brexit ends up never happening, there is any significant decrease in turnout.
I voted to leave the EU and, if Mr Herdson is right (which he may well be) and Parliament is effectively given as much can-kicking time as it wants to wriggle out of the decision altogether, then we're not going to. Having previously been a civic duty voter who traipsed down to the polling station to wield the stubby pencil every year or two, I have now drawn the logical conclusion that voting at all - for anything related to the state, anyway - is a futile exercise and no longer worth the bother. Indeed, it never really was. I'm a trade union member and will keep participating in ballots that they organise, but as regards anything to do with the state, it's over. My polling card for next month's locals is already in the shredding pile, and if I end up getting one for the Europeans then it will follow.
At least with abstention one refuses both to endorse any of the (most likely vain and duplicitous) candidates on the ballot paper, and to indicate any confidence in the various bodies to which they are elected. It also saves a mile-long round walk to the primary school - time which could be used for more worthwhile activities, such as watering the houseplants or watching television.
It makes me wonder how many more people will have drawn similar conclusions? I'm given to understand that the by-election turnout on Thursday wasn't so bad, so perhaps I'm the only one? It's quite possible that, in a few years' time, everything will have gone back to how it was and all that has transpired between 2016 and now will be naught but an increasingly distant, half-remembered nightmare. Whatever. It's just a spectator sport, after all.
Second time I have cited my Mother today, but she has never missed a vote (every time for Labour), and voted Remain at the referendum. Yesterday she said she'd never bother voting again, as did my best friend (who then said "unless they have another referendum and I'll vote Leave again")
People said they would not vote after MPs expenses - IIRC turnout was higher in 2010 than it was in 2005!
Comments
Its our politicians who don't want it.
Probably Brexit will happen in the next few weeks, or it never will. Thus the question: is there a common appetite between May and Corbyn to manipulate the HoC into choosing something?
As for someone's suggestion of the Son of Wotan SeanT, hes disqualified by being a pasty munching peninsular boy. Wrong arse end of the island
Con voters are both more reliable at turning out and also less willing to vote tactically. Brexit will be damaging for the Tories but not an extinction event.
They should have opposed May from 2016 onwards if they wanted their 100% Hard Brexit rather than May's 80% Hard Brexit.
But, of course, back in 2016 they would have been cheering May's Deal to the rafters.
Kind of depends on what you mean by extinction level event; I doubt the Tories are going to be in LD territory any time soon, but they may not ever be a party of government again.
I thought the most amusing section in the Guardian list was from the Russian commentator.
'Beyond Britain’s former empire, reactions have been just as forthright. After the 2016 Brexit referendum, Russia’s most recognisable television host, Dmitry Kiselyov, enthusiastically hailed a result delivered by “the bold British”.
Now even the veteran propagandist is looking a bit bored, barely needing to twist the facts to achieve his main goal: making the UK appear a complete basket case. “Our ideas of a certain civilised way of doing business in the west are once again being challenged,” he said last month.'
This lad seems to agree with the Guardian's world media digest.
https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status/1113807605355483136
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newport_West_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
How did it "pander to her nutters"?
You only have to think back to May's comments about "red, white and blue Brexit" and "Brexit means Brexit" to see that she was going to negotiate flexibly and arrive at a compromise agreement.
Personally I'm a little surprised that May's Deal is actually so far to the Hard end of the spectrum.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/britain-will-run-fish-chips-no-deal-brexit-180348350.html
Possible future alignment on some widget regulations in a few years for a few years.
Instead you would prefer Liam Fox attempting to conduct trade deals.
That's brilliant.
Everything that has happened since however has trashed trust in politicians and only hardened attitudes.
https://www.grandnational.org.uk/grand-national-deaths-safety-welfare.php
There haven't been any deaths in the Grand National for 7 years and the survival rate has been well over 98% over the last 20 years. The organisers are constantly assessing the right balance of safety and challenge in the race. Horses are graceful animals that jump as well as run - just as they do in the wild, without the veterinary care - and due to their bone structure that does carry some risk. As long as their welfare is taken care of and they enjoy the race there's nothing wrong with that.
Regarding my frustration: this is a betting website. I came on here to get tips from esteemed and experienced punters, and not have that insight derailed by a hyperbolic debate that's high on emotion and very low on facts re: animal rights. You did exactly the same last year.
I'd hope you'd show a bit more respect for those of us that love the horses and the sport and save it for another day.
It can look Hard or Soft depending on how it catches the light and on who is doing the looking. It is Hard because the language in the Political Declaration speaks of leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union. But it is Soft because the legally binding Irish Backstop in the Withdrawal Agreement steers to the UK remaining in the Customs Union for the foreseeable future.
This could have been clever since it allows both sides to see what they want. By the same token it is not so clever in that it allows both sides to see what they do NOT want and unfortunately (for the Absolute Girl) it has gone that way. It looks Soft to the Hard Nuts and Hard to the Softies. Or even if it doesn't it allows them to argue that way for their own partisan purposes.
Still, it is not dead. As a package it probably is but not the Withdrawal Agreement. That remains very much alive and kicking unless and until we either leave the EU without a deal or revoke article 50 and stay.
Its difficult to 'reach out' to people like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYGggnF0WAc
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2016/06/26/i-cannot-stress-too-much-that-britain-is-part-of-europe--and-alw/
And this is one of the mistakes of the ERG mindset - having a crash out No Deal doesn't guarantee the UK being out of the EU forever but rather increases the risks of rejoining quickly if things go wrong.
What May's Deal does is allow an orderly exit and creates a starting point towards the Hard level of Brexit.
And your quibbling is pretty feeble.
The basic point seems to be true - internationally the reaction to Brexit (Russia and Trump excepted) appears to be a mixture of puzzlement, dismay and mockery.
As I said, feel freee to prove us wrong.
Two horses were killed at Aintree yesterday.
Went e/w.
Not expecting to win.
Otherwise its Kwik-fit turned into a sport
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/brexit/news/87184/hard-brexit-threatens-strawberry-shortage-wimbledon-vince
There was of course a time when an F1 driver had only a 33% chance of surviving a career in the sport.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Hughes
...oh. Oh. I see what you did there. I just got that...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_by-elections_(1950–79)#47th_Parliament_(October_1974–1979)
"Galway Farmer" by "Show of Hands"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mua_PDkqcrs
https://twitter.com/kriekstina/status/1114211350153179136
Nevertheless the substantive point stands. The Conservatives with their Brexit obsession have reduced our once respected nation to the pity and ridicule of the world. They deserve to be out of office until everyone posting on this forum is dead and buried.
It's often said that, for many people, the referendum represented the first time in their lives that they believed that their vote actually counted for something. This is particularly thought to be the case for less well-off voters, particularly those in Northern constituencies with enormous Labour majorities, but actually I can identify with them as well. I'm a comfortably off voter in a southern English town where the local Conservative MP, and Conservative control of both the County and District Council (not that councils matter much anyway,) would all survive a nuclear holocaust. I had no strong feelings about the poll on the change of the voting system either, and therefore the EU referendum did genuinely feel like the first and only time I was ever consulted in a meaningful way about any political decision.
I voted to leave the EU and, if Mr Herdson is right (which he may well be) and Parliament is effectively given as much can-kicking time as it wants to wriggle out of the decision altogether, then we're not going to. Having previously been a civic duty voter who traipsed down to the polling station to wield the stubby pencil every year or two, I have now drawn the logical conclusion that voting at all - for anything related to the state, anyway - is a futile exercise and no longer worth the bother. Indeed, it never really was. I'm a trade union member and will keep participating in ballots that they organise, but as regards anything to do with the state, it's over. My polling card for next month's locals is already in the shredding pile, and if I end up getting one for the Europeans then it will follow.
At least with abstention one refuses both to endorse any of the (most likely vain and duplicitous) candidates on the ballot paper, and to indicate any confidence in the various bodies to which they are elected. It also saves a mile-long round walk to the primary school - time which could be used for more worthwhile activities, such as watering the houseplants or watching television.
It makes me wonder how many more people will have drawn similar conclusions? I'm given to understand that the by-election turnout on Thursday wasn't so bad, so perhaps I'm the only one? It's quite possible that, in a few years' time, everything will have gone back to how it was and all that has transpired between 2016 and now will be naught but an increasingly distant, half-remembered nightmare. Whatever. It's just a spectator sport, after all.
It wasn't until much later it dawned on me that if I did answer such a question wrongly that it would give them a pretext for my summary removal without court action should they find out, on the basis my paperwork was not in order.
These questions will almost certainly have a similar rationale.
Honorable mention to Elbow -The Fix Is In.
But for racing songs, NOTHING compares to The Pogues - Bottle of Smoke.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_giKJLdfqk
If someone is later found out to have been a war criminal etc, they can be legally deprived of their passport on the grounds of making a false statement on the application.
It is very hard now to envisage a scenario where Scotland will not stay close to the EU. In the case of a hard Brexit then a rapid move to independence and re-joining is the most likely route. Following the WA route and the election of someone like Boris to replace Maybot and implement the new agreement with Europe may well have the same impact.
Without Scotland, England will become more geared towards Brexit and divergence on Europe may become wider reducing the likelihood of Scotland fully integrating with England again.
The next few weeks are really the last chance to save the Union in my opinion. I hope May understands this fully.