Gove is launching his own MinTruth to rebut press stories about No Deal.
The same fucker who said it was Project Fear...
Perhaps he could explain how we have got into this ridiculous mess despite holding all the cards and being able to choose the path we want.
Because unbending opponents of Leaving thought there was an opportunity to overturn the referendum result
Overturning an electoral result is a perfectly legitimate aim in a free society.
Yes and the Lib Dems and SNP have been consistent in that.
Grieve et al and Labour were elected on pledges to respect the result though. They lied.
Didn't the ERG hard-core also lie on that basis?
The ERG voted against extending Article 50. If it were just up to ERG votes we'd be out by now.
As May explained at the time that was effectively a non-vote though. A50 had already been extended.
The ERG hard-core consistently voted against May's deal, which satisfied the Tory manifesto commitment: "We need to deliver a smooth and orderly departure from the European Union".
Labour voted against a deal which didn't satisfy their own manifesto commitment of "retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union" .
Who lied?
No, there was a vote in Parliament on whether to leave with No Deal prior to the extension being agreed. Had that won we'd have left already.
There was a vote on whether to request an extension prior to the extension being agreed. Had that lost we'd have left already.
ERG repeatedly voted to leave on schedule.
But against the only way that "leaving on schedule" could have happened, namely May's WA.
No. Leaving on schedule could have happened with No Deal. Just like it can on 31 October. That was an option.
On the basis of this Opinium poll the Tories would very narrowly pick up 7 seats from Labour. However, the MPs in 4 of those seats will enjoy first term incumbency and be well placed to hold on.
The Brexit 50p feels like a misjudgement - Leavers stamping their authority on the present as they crush and humiliate those on the losing side. Next they'll be proposing a national holiday on the anniversary of Boris's succession. Presumably this is all part of Cummings's plan to reshape society and its institutions in his own image.
If you think "Peace, prosperity and friendship with all nations" is a "crushing and humiliating" message then you have my sympathy suck it up, buttercup.
I say again, I don't believe you're as much of a moron as you pretend to be. No one could be.
You think wanting "peace, prosperity and friendship with all nations" is moronic?
Still having trouble with that basic English comprehension, eh?
What I said was that _you_ were _pretending_ to be moronic, when you portrayed people who objected to this commemorative coin as disagreeing with the sentiments expressed in the motto.
And then I said no one could really be that moronic. I rest my case!
I'm not pretending anything, anyone who objects to the words "peace, prosperity and friendship with all nations" being on a coin is pathetic. Say that you agree with the sentiment but dislike Brexit, that's reasonable. Acting all outraged and saying you're that angry you'll deface coins . . . that's just sad.
If one were a North Korean dissident one might object to the term Democratic People's Republic of North Korea without being against the wider principles of democracy, the people or republics. I think a lot of us would feel a peaceful, prosperous, friendly Brexit is a similarly rankling and absurdly, knowingly dishonest juxtaposition.
Yes, there's a lot of remainacs about - if they don't like the "juxtapose" they've still got time to fuck off to continental Europe. Hurry though, you're running out of time.
I've not paid that much attention to your posts, so I don't know whether that has a smiley face on the end. In any case I had a good chuckle to myself at your escalation. My route to an EU passport would be via an independent Scotland in Europe via grandparentage, and yet it's not even that/your purported country you are asking me to fuck off out of, with your 'running out of time' very easily readable as a Tommy Robinson and the boys type threat.
And then spend the next hours getting precious about comparatively Tom and Jerry stuff on the other side.
The Brexit 50p feels like a misjudgement - Leavers stamping their authority on the present as they crush and humiliate those on the losing side. Next they'll be proposing a national holiday on the anniversary of Boris's succession. Presumably this is all part of Cummings's plan to reshape society and its institutions in his own image.
If you think "Peace, prosperity and friendship with all nations" is a "crushing and humiliating" message then you have my sympathy suck it up, buttercup.
I say again, I don't believe you're as much of a moron as you pretend to be. No one could be.
You think wanting "peace, prosperity and friendship with all nations" is moronic?
Still having trouble with that basic English comprehension, eh?
What I said was that _you_ were _pretending_ to be moronic, when you portrayed people who objected to this commemorative coin as disagreeing with the sentiments expressed in the motto.
And then I said no one could really be that moronic. I rest my case!
I'm not pretending anything, anyone who objects to the words "peace, prosperity and friendship with all nations" being on a coin is pathetic. Say that you agree with the sentiment but dislike Brexit, that's reasonable. Acting all outraged and saying you're that angry you'll deface coins . . . that's just sad.
If one were a North Korean dissident one might object to the term Democratic People's Republic of North Korea without being against the wider principles of democracy, the people or republics. I think a lot of us would feel a peaceful, prosperous, friendly Brexit is a similarly rankling and absurdly, knowingly dishonest juxtaposition.
Yes, there's a lot of remainacs about - if they don't like the "juxtapose" they've still got time to fuck off to continental Europe. Hurry though, you're running out of time.
I've not paid that much attention to your posts, so I don't know whether that has a smiley face on the end. In any case I had a good chuckle to myself at your escalation. My route to an EU passport would be via an independent Scotland in Europe via grandparentage, and yet it's not even that/your purported country you are asking me to fuck off out of, with your 'running out of time' very easily readable as a Tommy Robinson and the boys type threat.
And then spend the next hours getting precious about comparatively Tom and Jerry stuff on the other side.
Gove is launching his own MinTruth to rebut press stories about No Deal.
The same fucker who said it was Project Fear...
Perhaps he could explain how we have got into this ridiculous mess despite holding all the cards and being able to choose the path we want.
Because unbending opponents of Leaving thought there was an opportunity to overturn the referendum result
Overturning an electoral result is a perfectly legitimate aim in a free society.
Yes and the Lib Dems and SNP have been consistent in that.
Grieve et al and Labour were elected on pledges to respect the result though. They lied.
Didn't the ERG hard-core also lie on that basis?
The ERG voted against extending Article 50. If it were just up to ERG votes we'd be out by now.
As May explained at the time that was effectively a non-vote though. A50 had already been extended.
The ERG hard-core consistently voted against May's deal, which satisfied the Tory manifesto commitment: "We need to deliver a smooth and orderly departure from the European Union".
Labour voted against a deal which didn't satisfy their own manifesto commitment of "retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union" .
Who lied?
No, there was a vote in Parliament on whether to leave with No Deal prior to the extension being agreed. Had that won we'd have left already.
There was a vote on whether to request an extension prior to the extension being agreed. Had that lost we'd have left already.
So you reckon a vote in Parliament can decide whether the PM requests an extension?
Things are looking up!
May proposed the votes and said she would do what Parliament voted for. Had all of Parliament voted like the ERG we'd be out by now.
Gove is launching his own MinTruth to rebut press stories about No Deal.
The same fucker who said it was Project Fear...
Perhaps he could explain how we have got into this ridiculous mess despite holding all the cards and being able to choose the path we want.
Because unbending opponents of Leaving thought there was an opportunity to overturn the referendum result
Overturning an electoral result is a perfectly legitimate aim in a free society.
Yes and the Lib Dems and SNP have been consistent in that.
Grieve et al and Labour were elected on pledges to respect the result though. They lied.
Didn't the ERG hard-core also lie on that basis?
The ERG voted against extending Article 50. If it were just up to ERG votes we'd be out by now.
If the ERG had voted for the WA we would be out by now. The fact we are not is down to them.
The WA losing wasn't the reason we are still in.
The reason we are still in is the subsequent two votes after MV2 - the vote that rejected No Deal (ERG voted in favour) and the vote that requested an extension (ERG voted against). Had either of those votes gone the ERGs way we'd be out already.
Labour voted against a deal which didn't satisfy their own manifesto commitment of "retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union" .
Labour voted against the deal, and thus for no-deal, because it would cause political damage to the Tories.
That it screwed the country with a crash exit apparently didn't matter.
Crash out No Deal Brexit will be Labour's fault?
Well, it's a view I guess.
Well you need to remember that Iraq was all down to the Tories.
As some of you know, I like having stuff on in the background whilst I work. My latest spoken-word lecturer is Stephen Kotkin. Here is his "Sphere of Influence" series on geopolitics.
If various parties work together and stand down in favour of each other, do they get ruled to be acting in common and get restricted on their election spending?
Is the opium vs yougov gulf due to likelihood to vote?
As I understand it, YouGov have said that they weight based on percentage vote self-reporting in the immediate aftermath of 2017 rather than self reporting based on current recollection. I'm not a psephologist so I can't comment on the validity of that as a method, but their blog post suggested that accounts for the difference.
I'm sorry, am I reading this right? I've been busy all day celebrating my 30th. UKIP have elected a man called Dick Braine to run their party. Well I guess it isn't his fault. Better than calling your party CUK at least.
They offered us a great deal. But no Deal was ever going to be acceptable to ERG, so No Deal it is.
Not everyone shares your view......
"Desperate to come back with something that could technically be labelled “Brexit”, the former PM signed up to every EU request. She accepted the EU’s sequencing, announcing that Britain would settle EU demands before any discussion of trade. She agreed to pay a £39 billion bill that no international tribunal would uphold. She accepted – no, she actively requested – a two-year period where Britain would be subject to every dot and comma of EU law, including new rules passed during that time, with no vote and no veto. These acts of homage and fealty were packaged together and offered to the EU at the Salzburg summit last September. Never has a sovereign country prostrated itself in such an undignified manner. Here was Britain asking the EU to set its technical standards, promising to contribute to the military security of the continent, swearing never to be more competitive than its neighbours. Yanis Varoufakis, the raffish former Greek finance minister, called it “a deal that a nation signs only after having been defeated at war,” though it reminded me more of the ultimatum issued by Austria-Hungary to Serbia in 1914 – a provocative demand to control the internal affairs of another state.
But it was not long before she made yet more concessions, offering to stay in the EU’s customs union and, in the end, even suggesting a second referendum. The flaw all the way through was that her officials were (as one of them privately admitted to me in 2017) unwilling to walk away.
It should have been game set and match to Brussels. Here was the fifth largest economy in the world, the second largest in Europe, offering to become a captive market for EU exporters, retaining the various barriers that keep out more efficient global rivals. Here was the country that had twice helped to liberate the continent volunteering for semicolonial status. All the EU had to do was to offer a standard break clause of the kind contained in almost every international treaty. But that would, for some Eurocrats, have undone the whole point of the withdrawal agreement, namely that it had to be seen to be punitive. So they dug in, precipitating the downfall of May and her replacement by a ministry that is serious about walking away."
Is the opium vs yougov gulf due to likelihood to vote?
As I understand it, YouGov have said that they weight based on percentage vote self-reporting in the immediate aftermath of 2017 rather than self reporting based on current recollection. I'm not a psephologist so I can't comment on the validity of that as a method, but their blog post suggested that accounts for the difference.
They offered us a great deal. But no Deal was ever going to be acceptable to ERG, so No Deal it is.
Not everyone shares your view......
"Desperate to come back with something that could technically be labelled “Brexit”, the former PM signed up to every EU request. She accepted the EU’s sequencing, announcing that Britain would settle EU demands before any discussion of trade. She agreed to pay a £39 billion bill that no international tribunal would uphold. She accepted – no, she actively requested – a two-year period where Britain would be subject to every dot and comma of EU law, including new rules passed during that time, with no vote and no veto. These acts of homage and fealty were packaged together and offered to the EU at the Salzburg summit last September. Never has a sovereign country prostrated itself in such an undignified manner. Here was Britain asking the EU to set its technical standards, promising to contribute to the military security of the continent, swearing never to be more competitive than its neighbours. Yanis Varoufakis, the raffish former Greek finance minister, called it “a deal that a nation signs only after having been defeated at war,” though it reminded me more of the ultimatum issued by Austria-Hungary to Serbia in 1914 – a provocative demand to control the internal affairs of another state.
But it was not long before she made yet more concessions, offering to stay in the EU’s customs union and, in the end, even suggesting a second referendum. The flaw all the way through was that her officials were (as one of them privately admitted to me in 2017) unwilling to walk away.
It should have been game set and match to Brussels. Here was the fifth largest economy in the world, the second largest in Europe, offering to become a captive market for EU exporters, retaining the various barriers that keep out more efficient global rivals. Here was the country that had twice helped to liberate the continent volunteering for semicolonial status. All the EU had to do was to offer a standard break clause of the kind contained in almost every international treaty. But that would, for some Eurocrats, have undone the whole point of the withdrawal agreement, namely that it had to be seen to be punitive. So they dug in, precipitating the downfall of May and her replacement by a ministry that is serious about walking away."
If you're quoting blocks of text from somebody else, it's regarded as polite to name and link to the source you are quoting from
Using a tool like Electoral Calculus to predict a HoC based on one poll is a ludicrous exercise.
Why do you bother?
As this is supposed to be a polling site in large part, not a diehard Remainer echo chamber
Hang on, we've got @Philip_Thompson, @JBriskinindyref2@ralphmalph, @felix, yourself and several others posting No Deal Brexit supporting posts this evening, with a similar number of Remain supporter posters.
How does that make PB "a diehard Remainer echo chamber"?
Add in pro single market and anti No Deal PB soft Brexiteers and there is a clear anti No Deal majority on PB but that is beside the point, the site is in large part meant to comment on and provide polling data whether you like the results or not
So just to be clear, when you mentioned 'diehard Remainer echochamber' in your earlier post you were including anyone who is anti-No Deal as a diehard Remainer. Got it.
Regarding commenting on polling data, I agree that is what the site is for. That's why I commented that using a tool like Electoral Calculus to predict a HoC based on one poll is a ludicrous exercise.
Why? In 2017 one pollster, Survation, was more accurate than the rest, in 2019 in the European elections 2 pollsters, YouGov and Mori, were more accurate than the rest
A GE election is a completely different beast. People tend to vote one thing in a GE but spray their support about in the less important stuff. Survation also tapped into the Remainer vote lending better than anyone in 2017, there was a big leap in the young vote for example, the sort of shift by unlikely to voters YouGov method is unlikely to pick up on. Conversely, if YouGov started saying older voters are changing intent I would listen.
If various parties work together and stand down in favour of each other, do they get ruled to be acting in common and get restricted on their election spending?
Election spending limits apply to candidates not parties - if a candidate represents more than one party this has no impact on the amount they are allowed to spend.
They offered us a great deal. But no Deal was ever going to be acceptable to ERG, so No Deal it is.
Not everyone shares your view......
"Desperate to come back with something that could technically be labelled “Brexit”, the former PM signed up to every EU request. She accepted the EU’s sequencing, announcing that Britain would settle EU demands before any discussion of trade. She agreed to pay a £39 billion bill that no international tribunal would uphold. She accepted – no, she actively requested – a two-year period where Britain would be subject to every dot and comma of EU law, including new rules passed during that time, with no vote and no veto. These acts of homage and fealty were packaged together and offered to the EU at the Salzburg summit last September. Never has a sovereign country prostrated itself in such an undignified manner. Here was Britain asking the EU to set its technical standards, promising to contribute to the military security of the continent, swearing never to be more competitive than its neighbours. Yanis Varoufakis, the raffish former Greek finance minister, called it “a deal that a nation signs only after having been defeated at war,” though it reminded me more of the ultimatum issued by Austria-Hungary to Serbia in 1914 – a provocative demand to control the internal affairs of another state.
But it was not long before she made yet more concessions, offering to stay in the EU’s customs union and, in the end, even suggesting a second referendum. The flaw all the way through was that her officials were (as one of them privately admitted to me in 2017) unwilling to walk away.
It should have been game set and match to Brussels. Here was the fifth largest economy in the world, the second largest in Europe, offering to become a captive market for EU exporters, retaining the various barriers that keep out more efficient global rivals. Here was the country that had twice helped to liberate the continent volunteering for semicolonial status. All the EU had to do was to offer a standard break clause of the kind contained in almost every international treaty. But that would, for some Eurocrats, have undone the whole point of the withdrawal agreement, namely that it had to be seen to be punitive. So they dug in, precipitating the downfall of May and her replacement by a ministry that is serious about walking away."
If you're quoting blocks of text from somebody else, it's regarded as polite to name and link to the source you are quoting from
I know, but I also know that doing here then results in the tribal reaction along the lines of "it's only the opinion of X, he/she always talks a load of c**p so we can safely ignore all that".
I'm sorry, am I reading this right? I've been busy all day celebrating my 30th. UKIP have elected a man called Dick Braine to run their party. Well I guess it isn't his fault. Better than calling your party CUK at least.
It kinda is though. Rick, Richard, Ricky, Rich, Richie were all available. He chose Dick. There's a word for that.
The Brexit 50p feels like a misjudgement - Leavers stamping their authority on the present as they crush and humiliate those on the losing side.
If you think "Peace, prosperity and friendship with all nations" is a "crushing and humiliating" message then you have my sympathy suck it up, buttercup.
I say again, I don't believe you're as much of a moron as you pretend to be. No one could be.
You think wanting "peace, prosperity and friendship with all nations" is moronic?
Still having trouble with that basic English comprehension, eh?
What I said was that _you_ were _pretending_ to be moronic, when you portrayed people who objected to this commemorative coin as disagreeing with the sentiments expressed in the motto.
And then I said no one could really be that moronic. I rest my case!
I'm not pretending anything, anyone who objects to the words "peace, prosperity and friendship with all nations" being on a coin is pathetic. Say that you agree with the sentiment but dislike Brexit, that's reasonable. Acting all outraged and saying you're that angry you'll deface coins . . . that's just sad.
If one were a North Korean dissident one might object to the term Democratic People's Republic of North Korea without being against the wider principles of democracy, the people or republics. I think a lot of us would feel a peaceful, prosperous, friendly Brexit is a similarly rankling and absurdly, knowingly dishonest juxtaposition.
Yes, there's a lot of remainacs about - if they don't like the "juxtapose" they've still got time to fuck off to continental Europe. Hurry though, you're running out of time.
I've not paid that much attention to your posts, so I don't know whether that has a smiley face on the end. In any case I had a good chuckle to myself at your escalation. My route to an EU passport would be via an independent Scotland in Europe via grandparentage, and yet it's not even that/your purported country you are asking me to fuck off out of, with your 'running out of time' very easily readable as a Tommy Robinson and the boys type threat.
And then spend the next hours getting precious about comparatively Tom and Jerry stuff on the other side.
I think that depends. I think she would VoNC the government if she thought it would lead to a Corbyn victory. (And I think she'd do it without hesitation.)
But if she thought it would lead to a LibDem victory (or there was a serious risk of the LibDems getting enough seats that they could force a second referendum), then I think she'd be much more reticent.
I do think it is more likely, in the second scenario, that she abstained. She's never voted with the Conservatives before, and I think it would be a difficult bridge to cross for her.
I think that depends. I think she would VoNC the government if she thought it would lead to a Corbyn victory. (And I think she'd do it without hesitation.)
But if she thought it would lead to a LibDem victory (or there was a serious risk of the LibDems getting enough seats that they could force a second referendum), then I think she'd be much more reticent.
I do think it is more likely, in the second scenario, that she abstained. She's never voted with the Conservatives before, and I think it would be a difficult bridge to cross for her.
Stop being silly. Kate has always been atypical Labour, has campaigned frequently with Farage and encouraged Banks/Farage in the pre-Referendum period. As soom as she announced she was standing down at the next election, I thought "she's going to vote with Boris". She's so far gone I'll be very surprised if she doesn't vote with him in a VoNC.
I know, but I also know that doing here then results in the tribal reaction along the lines of "it's only the opinion of X, he/she always talks a load of c**p so we can safely ignore all that".
If you leave the backstop aside for a moment, it is certainly true that the UK government made mistakes. I have emphasised throughout the failure (part rectified now) to roll over existing EU trade deals, and that was one. Likewise, I would agree scheduling was an error.
But it is simply incorrect to state that the EU has somehow wiped the floor with incompetent British negotiators. The deal that Theresa May struck - and I'm leaving the backstop aside for a second - was a good one. It safeguarded British access to the Single Market, it ended Freedom of Movement, it allowed Britain to diverge from EU standards and law, it took us out of the CAP and the CFP, and it allowed us to forge our own trade deals.
Now, there was alignment in sectors. But, it's a fiction to suppose that the UK would (for example) have its own standards for consumer electronics. Every piece of electronics sold in the UK post Brexit will be CE certified (and FCC and UL). That's inevitable. Signing us up to obey these rules may be a technical breach of sovereignty - but it's also worth remembering that it is no more of a breach than us being members of the International Telecoms Union, which sets a whole bunch of standards in the UK, which we're treaty bound to implement into law.
History, I suspect, will just Mrs May poorly, over the backstop, and over her sales skills. And I suspect that when we eventually sign an FTA with the EU, it will have more onerous enforcement mechanisms (and therefore more of a diminution of soverignty) than would have been the case.
I know, but I also know that doing here then results in the tribal reaction along the lines of "it's only the opinion of X, he/she always talks a load of c**p so we can safely ignore all that".
If you leave the backstop aside for a moment, it is certainly true that the UK government made mistakes. I have emphasised throughout the failure (part rectified now) to roll over existing EU trade deals, and that was one. Likewise, I would agree scheduling was an error.
But it is simply incorrect to state that the EU has somehow wiped the floor with incompetent British negotiators. The deal that Theresa May struck - and I'm leaving the backstop aside for a second - was a good one. It safeguarded British access to the Single Market, it ended Freedom of Movement, it allowed Britain to diverge from EU standards and law, it took us out of the CAP and the CFP, and it allowed us to forge our own trade deals.
Now, there was alignment in sectors. But, it's a fiction to suppose that the UK would (for example) have its own standards for consumer electronics. Every piece of electronics sold in the UK post Brexit will be CE certified (and FCC and UL). That's inevitable. Signing us up to obey these rules may be a technical breach of sovereignty - but it's also worth remembering that it is no more of a breach than us being members of the International Telecoms Union, which sets a whole bunch of standards in the UK, which we're treaty bound to implement into law.
History, I suspect, will just Mrs May poorly, over the backstop, and over her sales skills. And I suspect that when we eventually sign an FTA with the EU, it will have more onerous enforcement mechanisms (and therefore more of a diminution of soverignty) than would have been the case.
We should have signed up to the backstop as soon as we could get the lid off the biro. It was a stunningly good deal. As to the rest, it wasn't particularly difficult to negotiate a reasonable deal. The EU aren't our enemies and there are very few areas where our mutual interests don't coincide pretty closely. The failure is entirely down to our stupidity.
It would be hilarious if Grieve and Lee defect to trigger a VONC only to see Mann and Hoey cancel them out.
The key point we do not know is how many Tories find No Deal to be utterly unacceptable. We know about the handful who want to Remain at all costs. We know quite a few more are opposed to crashing out. What we don't know is how strongly they feel this. How far they will go to prevent it. We won't know till the very last minute.
Is the opium vs yougov gulf due to likelihood to vote?
As I understand it, YouGov have said that they weight based on percentage vote self-reporting in the immediate aftermath of 2017 rather than self reporting based on current recollection. I'm not a psephologist so I can't comment on the validity of that as a method, but their blog post suggested that accounts for the difference.
re "when it is hoped that the three parties will be able to work out which will stand in each of the 30 Welsh constituencies"
Ceredigion seems a huge sticking point in these discussions. Plaid's Ben Lake beat the (sitting) Liberal MP Mark Williams by just 104 votes in 2017, and Mark Williams was chosen in March to be the Liberal PPC for Ceredigion for the next election.
Its possible they might divi up the other 29 seats, but its hard to see either Ben Lake or Mark Williams standing aside for the other.
They both stand aside for a Green, keeping dry powder and goodwill for the next election, which won't be too far off anyway?
The Borisitas wont mention it because it disses their plaster god, the Swinton and May loyalists wont mention it because they already know they are crap, and the Corbynisas only insult people who are Jewish.
As this is supposed to be a polling site in large part, not a diehard Remainer echo chamber
Leaving aside the Remain angle, it's not a polling site, it's a *betting* site.
To do betting and not go broke you need an extra layer of analysis between polling and predictions.
If you don't have that you end up spending months on end totally sure it's going to be Biden vs Bernie, then suddenly dropping Bernie down the memory hole and being totally sure it's going to be Biden vs Warren.
Paywalled but per the first paragraphs it's about stuff she said way back when, so it doesn't really tell us much about what she'd do in the current situation - unless you can read something into the fact that it just got leaked.
I think that depends. I think she would VoNC the government if she thought it would lead to a Corbyn victory. (And I think she'd do it without hesitation.)
But if she thought it would lead to a LibDem victory (or there was a serious risk of the LibDems getting enough seats that they could force a second referendum), then I think she'd be much more reticent.
I do think it is more likely, in the second scenario, that she abstained. She's never voted with the Conservatives before, and I think it would be a difficult bridge to cross for her.
Stop being silly. Kate has always been atypical Labour, has campaigned frequently with Farage and encouraged Banks/Farage in the pre-Referendum period. As soom as she announced she was standing down at the next election, I thought "she's going to vote with Boris". She's so far gone I'll be very surprised if she doesn't vote with him in a VoNC.
Plenty I disagree with her on and I'm happy enough for her to be replaced when she stands down (which I think she said she is) but I agree with RCS, really can't see her supporting the Conservatives in a confidence vote. Even abstaining is quite unlikely, she really likes Brexit but she isn't someone who is willing to support the Tories.
Dripping with imperial arrogance, every single prediction is profoundly wrong, yet even through this fog Hannan's vision (and that of his paymasters) of the new UK economy peeps through: we will mcfrack away all environmental regulations, torpedo workers' rights, money launder like there's no tomorrow, and ease all our miseries with snake oil and homeopathy.
Who will let the Irish, Dutch and Danes know about their fabulous future?
Mann said on R5L a couple of days ago that if Lab tables a VONC he doesn't expect it to take place - because Boris will then immediately call a GE and vote on whether to have GE will take precedence.
Comments
And then spend the next hours getting precious about comparatively Tom and Jerry stuff on the other side.
The reason we are still in is the subsequent two votes after MV2 - the vote that rejected No Deal (ERG voted in favour) and the vote that requested an extension (ERG voted against). Had either of those votes gone the ERGs way we'd be out already.
Why are we no-deal brexiting?
Because the EU is refusing to negotiate with us.
A lot of people assumed, since there had never been an article 50 application before, that the EU would act in good faith.
We were wrong.
Stock up on canned goods - and be glad we are soon to be free from that undemocratic mess of an institution.
Looking forward to that thread header explaining how No Deal Brexit is all going to pan out once 'project fear' is shown to be an establishment myth.
Apocalyptic scaremongering is more entertaining despite being silly nonsense.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/10/dominic-cummings-owns-farm-got-eu-subsidy
Tribunes of the people my right tit.
Stephen Kotkin: Sphere of Influence I - The Gift of Geopolitics: How Worlds are Made, and Unmade
Stephen Kotkin: Sphere of Influence II - What, if anything, is the Difference between Fascism and Communism?
Stephen Kotkin: Sphere of Influence III - The Chip on the Shoulder
Enjoy.
Night all.
"Desperate to come back with something that could technically be labelled “Brexit”, the former PM signed up to every EU request. She accepted the EU’s sequencing, announcing that Britain would settle EU demands before any discussion of trade. She agreed to pay a £39 billion bill that no international tribunal would uphold. She accepted – no, she actively requested – a two-year period where Britain would be subject to every dot and comma of EU law, including new rules passed during that time, with no vote and no veto. These acts of homage and fealty were packaged together and offered to the EU at the Salzburg summit last September. Never has a sovereign country prostrated itself in such an undignified manner. Here was Britain asking the EU to set its technical standards, promising to contribute to the military security of the continent, swearing never to be more competitive than its neighbours. Yanis Varoufakis, the raffish former Greek finance minister, called it “a deal that a nation signs only after having been defeated at war,” though it reminded me more of the ultimatum issued by Austria-Hungary to Serbia in 1914 – a provocative demand to control the internal affairs of another state.
But it was not long before she made yet more concessions, offering to stay in the EU’s customs union and, in the end, even suggesting a second referendum. The flaw all the way through was that her officials were (as one of them privately admitted to me in 2017) unwilling to walk away.
It should have been game set and match to Brussels. Here was the fifth largest economy in the world, the second largest in Europe, offering to become a captive market for EU exporters, retaining the various barriers that keep out more efficient global rivals. Here was the country that had twice helped to liberate the continent volunteering for semicolonial status. All the EU had to do was to offer a standard break clause of the kind contained in almost every international treaty. But that would, for some Eurocrats, have undone the whole point of the withdrawal agreement, namely that it had to be seen to be punitive. So they dug in, precipitating the downfall of May and her replacement by a ministry that is serious about walking away."
Embarrassing from the guardian.
Absolutely. Prisons are only half filled so there is no problem with capacity.
https://reaction.life/britain-looks-like-brexit/
https://chillingham-castle.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmR3p3-LN94
But if she thought it would lead to a LibDem victory (or there was a serious risk of the LibDems getting enough seats that they could force a second referendum), then I think she'd be much more reticent.
I do think it is more likely, in the second scenario, that she abstained. She's never voted with the Conservatives before, and I think it would be a difficult bridge to cross for her.
But it is simply incorrect to state that the EU has somehow wiped the floor with incompetent British negotiators. The deal that Theresa May struck - and I'm leaving the backstop aside for a second - was a good one. It safeguarded British access to the Single Market, it ended Freedom of Movement, it allowed Britain to diverge from EU standards and law, it took us out of the CAP and the CFP, and it allowed us to forge our own trade deals.
Now, there was alignment in sectors. But, it's a fiction to suppose that the UK would (for example) have its own standards for consumer electronics. Every piece of electronics sold in the UK post Brexit will be CE certified (and FCC and UL). That's inevitable. Signing us up to obey these rules may be a technical breach of sovereignty - but it's also worth remembering that it is no more of a breach than us being members of the International Telecoms Union, which sets a whole bunch of standards in the UK, which we're treaty bound to implement into law.
History, I suspect, will just Mrs May poorly, over the backstop, and over her sales skills. And I suspect that when we eventually sign an FTA with the EU, it will have more onerous enforcement mechanisms (and therefore more of a diminution of soverignty) than would have been the case.
What we don't know is how strongly they feel this. How far they will go to prevent it.
We won't know till the very last minute.
Set aside from where?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/queen-our-politicians-cant-govern-twjmp657f
To do betting and not go broke you need an extra layer of analysis between polling and predictions.
If you don't have that you end up spending months on end totally sure it's going to be Biden vs Bernie, then suddenly dropping Bernie down the memory hole and being totally sure it's going to be Biden vs Warren.
It will just be cheap.
Dripping with imperial arrogance, every single prediction is profoundly wrong, yet even through this fog Hannan's vision (and that of his paymasters) of the new UK economy peeps through: we will mcfrack away all environmental regulations, torpedo workers' rights, money launder like there's no tomorrow, and ease all our miseries with snake oil and homeopathy.
Who will let the Irish, Dutch and Danes know about their fabulous future?